Changes

Ramesses was rescued by Moses in the movie, but in the historical Battle of Kadesh it was a contingent of Egypt’s Canaanite allies who saved him. The film does not really show the outcome, but it is generally considered to have been a stalemate with the Hittites and Egyptians later entering into a permanent peace treaty. <ref> Kuhrt, Amélie. <i>The Ancient Near East: c. 3000-330 BC.</i> London: Routledge, 2010), p. 207</ref>

In contrast to the restrained, logical, and empathetic Moses, Ramesses was depicted as an egomaniacal ruler obsessed with his legacy, which he preserved through the erection of countless monuments. Although it is nearly impossible to gauge a person’s personality, especially someone who lived as long ago as Ramesses II, there is plenty of evidence to support this idea. Ramesses II built more mortuary temples – temples where the deceased and sometimes living king was worshipped – then any other Egyptian king. Ramesses II was even responsible for building entirely new cities in the Delta region during his rule, which included Per-Ramesses and Per-Atum – the cities of “Ramesses” and “Pithom” in Exodus respectively. <ref> Haeny, Gerhard. “New Kingdom ‘Mortuary Temples’ and ‘Mansions of Millions of Years.’” In <i>Temples of Ancient Egypt.</i> Edited by Byron E. Shaffer. (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1997), pgs. 115-119</ref> Some modern scholars believe these building projects were a bit excessive and others point to the number of “usurpations” he did of previous king’s monuments. A monument usurpation was when a king would “erase” the previous king’s name on a monument and replace it with his own. Although Ramesses II did in fact usurp plenty of his predecessors’ monuments, <ref> Shaw, Ian, and Paul Nicholson. <i>The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt.</i> (London: Harry N. Abrams, 1995), p. 240 </ref> it was actually a common practice and that fact that Ramesses lived so long should be considered when one discusses the amount of monuments he built and usurped. Sure, Ramesses II may have had an ego, but it was probably not any bigger than that of any other king during the period.

Of course, this all seems quite incredible, but there are logical explanations that the film attempted to employ. In the film, it all began with a swarm of crocodiles attacking river travelers, which caused the Nile to fill with blood ultimately creating the other catastrophes. During the 1950s, biblical scholar Greta Hort examined each plague separately, assigning logical explanations to each based on history, anthropology, geography, and biology. More recently, Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen updated Hort’s work. The Hort/Kitchen theory asserts that the blood was caused by oxygen fluctuations in the Nile River, not a crocodile infestation, which killed much of the fish. The frogs then left the river, dying and bringing forth the lice. The excessive water brought more insects that in turn infected the livestock with anthrax. The locusts then arrived from the southeast, as they often did. The darkness was the result of seasonal winds in March or April. The children would have been the most susceptible, but the perfect storm of environmental problems would have left people of all ages dead in its wake. All of it began in July or August during the annual inundation of the Nile River and ended about nine months later. <ref> Kitchen, Kenneth A. <i>On the Reliability of the Old Testament.</i> (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2003), p. 251</ref>