Talk:Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC)

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

I have two printed works that say 1479, but twice as many online references say 1469 (tho many are WP-derived), and there are a few websites that use both 1469 and 1479 on the same page(!). Which should it be? Stan 04:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page to Battle of Megiddo (15th century BCE), a. to reflect the uncertainty as to the precise dating of the event (though noting that by far the best accepted date amongst Egyptologists is currently 1457 BCE); b. to remove the BC and make it BCE "before Christian era" - far more acceptable overall Pjamescowie 18:08, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should siege of Megiddo be merged into this? I don't think there is really enough information to warrant to separate articles, and they are part of the same event. Adam Bishop 20:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unstubbed

I've done my duty. Finding this a stub, I researched what I had. I found the German Wikipedia version pretty complete. I merged that with what little this article started with, added bits from my sources. Others can take it from here.

This also covers the Siege of Megiddo, what little there is. I don't think there will ever be enough for a separate article on that. I will redirect Siege of Megiddo to here.

Chronologically, this is the first ancient battle article; only about 1500 more to go. --A D Monroe III 22:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You did an excellent job. But according to Hittite tablets, found in the last century, the battle might have actually have been a stalemate. The expansion of Egyptian territory might have come more from diplomacy than from battle. The accounts taken in this article are from the Egyptian side only. The truth is, the archaeological and historical evidence is too scant to determine if this was truly an Egyptian victory on the battle field, I think that should be mentioned. --User: Diggerjohn111 17:52, 13 Apr 2007 (UTC)

Are there Hittitie accounts of this battle? Might you be confusing it with the Battle of Kadesh? PatGallacher (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptrivia

Dupuy's Evo says Egyptian scribes (under Thutmose III) were the first to do body counts after battles ended. --Trekphiler 23:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed copyvio by Egyptos

I've reverted his edits as they were basically copyvios from http://touregypt.net/battleofmegiddo.htm and http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/megiddo.htm -- as are many of his edits on other articles.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy problems

There appears to be some very dubious original research going on with this article. This is the first I have heard of this, that Judges chapter 4 is a reference to the Battle of Megiddo fought by Thutmose III, and having a quick look over this chapter I see nothing which would support this view, or any mention of Egyptians. Do we have clear Hittite references to this battle either? PatGallacher (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything by Rktect anywhere should be deleted, he is/was notorious for original research here and elsewhere. I thought most of his stuff had been cleaned up but this may have been missed. I've cleaned the Judges/Sisera stuff out, it was fairly recent, now it needs improving. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

I propose we move this article to "Battle of Megiddo" as this is clearly the best known battle fought there. This will mean moving the existing Battle of Megiddo article to "Battle of Megiddo (disambiguation)". PatGallacher (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Megiddo (1918) is the most notable to many people here in Britain, which had a large army in that battle. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be an anglocentric view. PatGallacher (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would prove that a dab page should sit there. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment amongst Christians, Jews and Muslims, wouldn't Battle of Megiddo (609 BC) be more familiar? 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best known use of this name may well be Armageddon (forthcoming). Make the simple name a dab page to avoid errror. since we now have four plausible candidates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date issues

Given the disputes which exist, I'm a bit cautious about any chronology claiming to give the exact year as far back as that. Even more surprising is the claim to an exact date. Is our knowledge of the ancient Egyptian calendar that precise that we can do this? Also, with any date prior to (I think) 1st March 101 BC you have to say if this is the proleptic Gregorian calendar or the proleptic Julian calendar. PatGallacher (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any date prior to the invention of the Gregorian calendar may be presumed Julian (unless it deals with the unreformed Roman calendar, meaningless here). Inserting Julian is probably harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we presume that? I am not disputing that normally applies to dates from when the Julian calendar was normally in use, but what about before then? Proleptic Gregorian calendar says that this tends to be used for historic dates for cultures which did not use the Julian calendar. At this time there would be an 11-day gap between the Julian and Gregorian dates, which in some places might be significant in terms of hours of daylight, weather etc., and the Gregorian date corresponds to the calendar we now use. I don't think we can just let this stand without clarification from the relevant source. PatGallacher (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that, at least about the Mediterranean. Switching Greek or Egyptian history from Gregorian to Julian (as dates must be for Augustus's time) to Gregorian again makes no sense. It may be true (I do not know) for Mayan or Chinese dates, but not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That last comment strikes me as confused, and I am genuinely confused about what it means. Actually, during Augustus's time Julian and Gregorian dates would be identical, what we are dealing with here is dates well before his time. PatGallacher (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source gives the date of the battle as "Year 23, first month of the third season, on the twenty-first day, the day of the feast of the new moon, corresponding to the royal coronation". PatGallacher (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]