They won because of DUMB LUCK. The battle of Qadesh was an enormous upset.
True, one of Ramses' armies came into play at the right moment, and this was lucky. However, the lack of professionalism of the Hittite charioteers lost them what should have been a great victory.
Do remember that the Egyptian Empire was also the first recorded user of mercenaries, for the very reason that Egypt was never quite good at anything but the occasional raid on desert nomads. They had the very rugged mountains, impassable deserts, river cataracts and treacherous Nile delta to protect them from all but the most determined of invaders. It is no small wonder that Egypt ended self rule when the iron bearing and veteran cultures of Asia Minor and Greece came into play.
This is nonsense. Egypt ruled a colonial empire for
centuries. History shows you are wrong.
Alexander the Great actually defeated chariots by letting them through his infantry at the Battle of Gaugamela; the phalangites simply impaling the poor horses as they passed through a gauntlet of very pointy sarissa afterwards. Chariots did not fufill the same role as Macedonian heavy and light cavalry, they simply could not do anything save for serve as skirmishers and the occasional weapon of terror.
Chariots were the elite of
every major power during the time of Ramses. By the time of Alexander, they were an anachronism. Just as calvary were an anachronism by WWI.
Chariots were terrible fighting platforms at any level though. They were originally transports for self armed warriors before the creation of the marginally effective wheel mounted scythe (which, if I recall correctly, the Egyptians did not have). An archer on a chariot could not consistently hope to hit something unless loosing arrows in volley with his squadron, and most of those would not hit something anyway (whereas a horse mounted archer can fire between the parts when the horse's hooves touch the ground to retain some semblance of accuracy).
Also not true. On the History Channel, they showed how one can shoot accurately from a reproduction of an Egyptian chariot. History Channel aside, the simple fact that chariots were used by all the major military powers demonstrates their usefulness.
Not withstanding, the Hittites were excellent charioteers, and had a long tradition of horsemanship that the Egyptians did not have.
Now you are contradicting yourself. The Hittites were "excellent" at using a useless miltary device???
The Egyptians were in fact second generation charioteers.
True enough. That means little, however.
That did not stop Ramses from attempting to publish propaganda about the draw at Qadesh; which nearly ended in total disaster.
Of course he published propaganda.. he was a God and always won great victories. Fortunately, we have both Egyptian and Hittite accounts, including the treaty they both agreed to to end their dispute. Neither side would have signed such an agreement, unless they believed it was to their benefit. Thus, the Hittites were much more impressed with the Egyptians than you are. I will go with their appraisal.
Furthermore, ancient chariots were poor at turning and were prone to cataclysmic crashes. Their tendency to wreck was precisely the reason why Greeks and Romans loved watching them race, and they enjoyed watching the other teams' riders fall to their certain death at tight corners or in collision with other chariots.
Once again, the fact that chariots were valued so highly in warfare shows you are wrong.
Setting the Bible aside, as AV1611VET, stipulated, the Exodus didn't happen.
