The Logic Off Topic list

> Regarding Hatshepshut -- what Bob Brier had to say is still regarded as
> unsettled and is still being debated by Egyptologists. Therefore, and in
> order to keep an already long post shorter, I decided to omit discussion
of
> her 'true' role.
>

Totally fair although from what I'm seeing on the web more and more
Egyptologists are now embracing this, so I tend to think it's "becoming
fact" (so to speak).

> But ... the central issue here is not so much about who won, but about
> whether or not it really was a 'battle'. This boils down to what one
> considers a 'battle', in the strict military sense, to be.
>

Again a fair point.  Yup.  But to your point below, I tend  to think Kadesh
"deserves" the monicker "battle" because at least one side attempted to
orchestrate it.  It wasn't just a bunch of guys running at each other.  Now
of course we all know orchestration must have been attempted earlier, but at
least in this instance it survived into the history books and was a credible
effort.  But you have a fair point about military historians.  For what it's
worth when I did read any military history (which was coincidental to
playing board tactical/strategy games when I was a kid in the '70s and into
the '80s) I heard of Kadesh as the first but yeah, I think your point is
probably more valid upon reflection.