Hittite King Mursili I invaded Yamhad in Northern Syria to avenge his grandfather Hattusili I's defeat and defeat it's hands. He captured it's capital Aleppo ending it. Next he invaded Mesopotamia and marched on Babylon sacking it which ended the Old Babylonian Empire of Hammurabi's dynasty. But these conquests were lost because he was assassinated in a conspiracy led by his brother-in-law Hantili I for his throne. The power vaccum created by this was fill by the Mittani migrants. His death started a period of court intrigue and civil war leading to decline of Royal power along with territorial loss. That only ended more than half a century later with ascension of Telipinu who turned it into a constitutional Monarchy. So what if Mursili I found out about the conspiracy and eliminated the conspirators retaining Syria and Mesopotamia
Hittite Mursili I retains Mesopotamia and Syria
- Thread starter Ohfshkssgb
- Start date
I hath been summoned.
A big motivating factor for Mursili's campaigns and those of his father Hattusili was actually the capture of scribes and other educated personal from Mesopotamia and Syria, which they brought back to Hattussa to kickstart the progression of Nesite (Hittite) literary culture.
It's important to understand the nature of early Hittite military campaigns. The empire was not yet the sophisticated machinery it would become centuries later. There was no literary or administrative culture to speak of. Hence, Hittite military campaigns in this period were more like large-scale raiding expeditions than actual attempts to take and hold ground. Even had they wanted to, it would have been virtually impossible for the nascent empire to actually control these vast territories.
A big motivating factor for Mursili's campaigns and those of his father Hattusili was actually the capture of scribes and other educated personal from Mesopotamia and Syria, which they brought back to Hattussa to kickstart the progression of Nesite (Hittite) literary culture.
Telipinu did not actually end that period of instability though, and I personally find it a bit overblown to speak of a constitutional monarchy after his edict. The first people who actually stabilized the empire, and basically turned it into a proper empire as opposed to a tribal kingdom, were Tudhaliya III and his successor Suppiluliuma I. But this was largely possible because the Hittites had now developed traditions, customs and methods conductive to ruling a vast empire, which they had not posessed in the days of Mursili.
Not a problem. Mursili can vassalize the cities of Syria and Mesopotamia while adopting their local bureaucracy just like many conquerors without bureaucracy
Yes he did and because of his reforms the Empire remained stable for centuries to come
What ? It fits the definition
Last edited:
Well, T. Bryce, Warriors of Anatolia. A concise history of the Hittites (London 2019). disagrees with that assessment. Telepinu did not actually stop the cycles of destructive internal conflict that so plagued the empire. Historians thought so for some time, because the Edict of Telepinu is one of the only good sources on the early history of the empire, but the Edict actually changed very little. It does mark the transition from Early to Middle Hittite periods, but the realm continued to spiral into internal conflict in this period. In fact, after Telepinu, the empire would be limited to Anatolia until the times of Suppiluliuma I, and the Kaskas even managed to sack Hattusa once.
No it doesn't. The only thing the Edict really established was a process for finding the new Great King (i.e. primogeniture). This was an innovation, to be certain, but by that logic, most every monarchy above the level of a tribal kingdom held together by brute force would be considered constitutional.
The Hittites were generally incapable of defending their Anatolian territories against Hurrian incursions (in no small part because they also had to contend with Arzawa and Kaska in Anatolia itself). Holding outlying regions against them was not really possible.
And while it may seem strange to speak to the character of a man dead three-and-a-half millennia, Mursili does not appear to have viewed his campaigns as anything but a big looting expedition meant to enrich himself personally, and beautify his capital city.