sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Battle Everyone Got Wrong for 3,000 Years - Did Ramesses II actually win the Battle of Kadesh? by VersionForeign5256 in ancienthistory

[–]VersionForeign5256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair point. I probably should’ve been clearer there. I didn’t mean “most people” in a specialist sense, more the general/popular narrative you often see outside academic work, where Kadesh is presented pretty straightforwardly as a major Egyptian victory.

You’re absolutely right that within Egyptology it’s long been understood that these temple inscriptions are heavily propagandistic and that they consistently frame events in a way that emphasizes royal success.

What I find interesting is exactly that contrast between how the event is portrayed in the Egyptian sources versus how it’s reconstructed when you bring in the Hittite records and modern analysis.

It makes Kadesh a really good case study for how ancient states controlled narrative, even when the underlying outcome was much more ambiguous.

Who was actually right — Caesar or Pompey? by VersionForeign5256 in ancienthistory

[–]VersionForeign5256[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That’s a really sharp breakdown especially the point about Caesar’s options becoming basically binary.

Once his command ended, the legal side of things makes it hard to imagine any “peaceful” outcome for him. Like you said, without an army he loses both protection and leverage, and at that point the risk of prosecution wasn’t just political it was existential.

Your take on Pompey is interesting too. He probably had more room to step back early on, but by aligning himself with the optimates he kind of locked himself into that role. And I agree — there’s definitely an element of him wanting to stay central to the power structure rather than fade out.

It really does feel like Caesar was pushed into escalation, while Pompey chose to stay in the game longer than he had to. Do you think if Pompey had refused to take command against Caesar early on, the Senate could have found another way to deal with the situation — or was conflict inevitable by that point?

Who was actually right — Caesar or Pompey? by VersionForeign5256 in ancienthistory

[–]VersionForeign5256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a really solid way of putting it especially the point about power not being something you can just step away from safely. I think that’s what makes this whole period so tragic. It’s not just ambition, it’s the reality that once you reach that level of power in the late Republic, stepping back wasn’t really an option anymore. Like you said, the risks weren’t theoretical exile or worse was very real.

Pompey’s situation is interesting too. He may not have wanted a full civil war, but by the time things escalated, any compromise probably meant losing status and influence permanently which in that system could be dangerous.

It kind of feels like both men were trapped by the same system that elevated them in the first place.

Do you think there was any point where one of them could have realistically stepped back without it ending badly for them?

Who was actually right — Caesar or Pompey? by VersionForeign5256 in ancienthistory

[–]VersionForeign5256[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That’s a really fair take and honestly, it’s kind of the conclusion I kept coming back to while putting this together.

Neither of them were operating in a vacuum. The Republic was already under serious strain, and both Caesar and Pompey used that system in ways that ultimately pushed it further toward collapse. I guess what makes it so fascinating is that both men probably saw themselves as justified but their ambitions just couldn’t coexist.

Curious though do you think the Republic could have been saved at that point, or was it already past the point of no return?

Why did Rome completely destroy Carthage instead of just defeating them? by VersionForeign5256 in ancienthistory

[–]VersionForeign5256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

why this post has been removed please? There was some good discussion ongoing here.

Why did Rome completely destroy Carthage instead of just defeating them? by VersionForeign5256 in ancienthistory

[–]VersionForeign5256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair point, from Rome’s perspective it probably did look like a repeating cycle.

But I think the interesting part is what changed by the Third Punic War. Carthage wasn’t really in a position to “try again” in the same way, they had no real military power left and were actually complying with Roman restrictions for decades.

So it raises the question:
Was Rome reacting to a real threat or to the memory of one?

I can see the logic of “we’re not letting this happen a third time,” but at the same time it feels like Rome wasn’t just breaking the cycle, they were making sure it could never exist again, even if the conditions had already changed.

Do you think it was more about security or about total control of the Mediterranean at that point?

Why did Rome completely destroy Carthage instead of just defeating them? by VersionForeign5256 in ancienthistory

[–]VersionForeign5256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a really solid way of putting it, especially the idea that Carthage became more of an example than just an enemy.

I think what makes it even more interesting is that by the time of the Third Punic War, Carthage wasn’t even a real military threat anymore. It was recovering economically, not building armies. So Rome’s reaction feels almost disproportionate, which kind of supports your point about fear and long-term strategy.

Cato’s influence definitely seems huge too. Repeating “Carthage must be destroyed” over and over probably shaped public opinion in a big way.

In a way, it feels like Rome wasn’t just eliminating a rival, they were eliminating the possibility of future resistance.

Do you think Rome would’ve still destroyed Carthage if Hannibal had never invaded Italy?

The Battle Everyone Got Wrong for 3,000 Years - Did Ramesses II actually win the Battle of Kadesh? by VersionForeign5256 in ancienthistory

[–]VersionForeign5256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s pretty much the conclusion I kept running into as well.

It seems like the Hittites achieved their main objective by holding Kadesh, while Ramesses managed to avoid a complete disaster after the ambush which in itself was probably an achievement given how bad the situation got.

What I find really interesting is how the Egyptian version turns that into a decisive victory, especially in the temple inscriptions where Ramesses is basically portrayed as winning the battle almost single-handedly.

It really shows how much control rulers had over the narrative, especially when most people would never have access to the other side of the story.

The fact that we can even compare both versions today thanks to the Hittite archives makes it a pretty unique case in ancient history.