WI Šuppiluliuma's Son Makes it to Egypt

Before I joined Alternate History Discussion I stumbled upon the thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/hittite-egyptian-unified-kingdom.125338/ and I was considering making a timeline in which Suppiluliuma I's son Zannanza makes it to Egypt instead of dying on the way. Therefore, he either becomes Pharaoh of Egypt and the Hittites conquer and annex Egypt. I'd like to know if a Hittite Pharaoh could be possible, but also the following in the event I would make a timeline.

  1. Did the Hittites practice incest in the royal family like the Egyptians in any way?
  2. What would a Hittite controlled Egypt have on events like the Hittite-Egyptian alliance against the Assyrians and the Bronze Age Collapse?
 
I don't think it is realistically possible for the Hittites to project power into Egypt. A better idea would be to have them 'steal' the Egyptian Levant.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The Hittites annexing Egypt would be very difficult. Defeating Egypt in a masterful campaign... sure. Even conquering it... I can see that. But holding on to it, that's the trouble. It will simply break away at the earliest opportunity. Considering the logistics of the time, the core of Egypt is just too far outside the direct sphere of influence of the Hittites. An alternative is to basically become a foreign dynasty/elite, while not holding the original Hittite heartland. Best case scenario: a highly succesful invasion/conquest is followed by a Hittite overlord setting up shop in Egypt, essentially becoming the new pharaoh... while also being more-or-less independent from the Hittite state. A relative of the Hittite ruler, in charge of an Egypt that is (at the outset) a Hittite vassal... and later might become more independent.

Although the two timeframes are vastly different, one might compare this to the later Ptolemaic dynasty. This goes very much into your first question: the Ptolemids found out very quickly that they'd either have to adopt a lot of Egyptian cultural practices, or they'd never be accepted. So they just 'went with it', and in the event, that included adopting the Egyptian practice of incestuous marriages in the royal family. The Hittite usurpers, however, will probably adopt certain other practices instead, sincxe they are likely to vehemently object to this one. Hittite laws on sexuality explicitly forbade incest, and demanded it be punished by death. (The Hittites are truly fascinating in their views on what was ethical: they had amazingly strict laws on various kinds of sexual behaviour, often punishing transgressions with death, while certain types of murder were merely fined rather mildly... or even permitted. For anyone studying ethics, the Hittites never cease to amaze.)

Regarding the second question: that depends entirely on the relation between the Hittite state and "vassal state" Egypt. If the Hittite rulers og Egypt want to be more independent, that will cause friction, and perhaps war between them. But it is also possible that they remain staunch allies. It's very hard to predict.
 

Deleted member 97083

The Hittites annexing Egypt would be very difficult. Defeating Egypt in a masterful campaign... sure. Even conquering it... I can see that. But holding on to it, that's the trouble. It will simply break away at the earliest opportunity. Considering the logistics of the time, the core of Egypt is just too far outside the direct sphere of influence of the Hittites. An alternative is to basically become a foreign dynasty/elite, while not holding the original Hittite heartland. Best case scenario: a highly succesful invasion/conquest is followed by a Hittite overlord setting up shop in Egypt, essentially becoming the new pharaoh... while also being more-or-less independent from the Hittite state. A relative of the Hittite ruler, in charge of an Egypt that is (at the outset) a Hittite vassal... and later might become more independent.

Although the two timeframes are vastly different, one might compare this to the later Ptolemaic dynasty. This goes very much into your first question: the Ptolemids found out very quickly that they'd either have to adopt a lot of Egyptian cultural practices, or they'd never be accepted. So they just 'went with it', and in the event, that included adopting the Egyptian practice of incestuous marriages in the royal family. The Hittite usurpers, however, will probably adopt certain other practices instead, sincxe they are likely to vehemently object to this one. Hittite laws on sexuality explicitly forbade incest, and demanded it be punished by death. (The Hittites are truly fascinating in their views on what was ethical: they had amazingly strict laws on various kinds of sexual behaviour, often punishing transgressions with death, while certain types of murder were merely fined rather mildly... or even permitted. For anyone studying ethics, the Hittites never cease to amaze.)

Regarding the second question: that depends entirely on the relation between the Hittite state and "vassal state" Egypt. If the Hittite rulers og Egypt want to be more independent, that will cause friction, and perhaps war between them. But it is also possible that they remain staunch allies. It's very hard to predict.
Egypt is logistically possible to rule, look at the multitude of empires that held both Anatolia and Egypt. The hard part is conquering a fully independent realm which has never been a periphery zone of an empire before. (Same problem the later Assyrian empire had with their conquests, being the first real empire in Mesopotamia since the Bronze Age Collapse.)

Perhaps the Hittites conquer Egypt, lose it to a rebellious viceroy, and a Hittite/Neshite/Luwian dynasty rules Egypt independently for a century. Meanwhile the original Hittite empire continues to exist.

The Neshite/Luwian dynasty establishes means of control in Egypt, a precedent for foreign rule, as well as linking up with Mycenaean traders. After decades of Neshite/Luwian rule, a series of destructive wars--a native Egyptian revolt as well as multiple foreign invasions, perhaps Nubian, or Aramaean, or Hittite--weakens Egypt to the point that it cannot project its own power anymore. A similar state to OTL Egypt before it was conquered by the Persian empire about a thousand years later.

Finally the Hittite Empire launches a new, successful invasion against the weakened Egypt to incorporate it. This conquest could well be "permanent", since the non-sovereignty of Egypt has already been the norm for at least a lifetime.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skallagrim

Banned
Egypt is logistically possible to rule, look at the multitude of empires that held both Anatolia and Egypt. The hard part is conquering a fully independent realm which has never been a periphery zone of an empire before. (Same problem the later Assyrian empire had with their conquests, being the first real empire in Mesopotamia since the Bronze Age Collapse.)

My point is not that Egypt cannot ever be ruled by a foreign power for long; that would be absurd nonsense, considering history. My point is that I doubt whether the Hittites could have achieved that kind of lasting hegemony over Egypt. The notable empires to achieve it came later, and enjoyed a far broader logistical reserve to draw upon. Perhaps I am underestimating the Hittites here, but I don't think their chances are good if hegemony over Egypt, projected from Anatolia, is their aim.

That said, I like your scenario:

Perhaps the Hittites conquer Egypt, lose it to a rebellious viceroy, and a Hittite/Neshite/Luwian dynasty rules Egypt independently for a century. Meanwhile the original Hittite empire continues to exist.

The Neshite/Luwian dynasty establishes means of control in Egypt, a precedent for foreign rule, as well as linking up with Mycenaean traders. After decades of Neshite/Luwian rule, a series of destructive wars--a native Egyptian revolt as well as multiple foreign invasions, perhaps Nubian, or Aramaean, or Hittite--weakens Egypt to the point that it cannot project its own power anymore. A similar state to OTL Egypt before it was conquered by the Persian empire about a thousand years later.

Finally the Hittite Empire launches a new, successful invasion against the weakened Egypt to incorporate it. This conquest could well be "permanent", since the non-sovereignty of Egypt has already been the norm for at least a lifetime.

...my key observation here would be that the Hittites need more reserves, if they want an empire that can hold Egypt. Perhaps we can combine with the above the simple fact that while the rebellious dynasty holds Egypt, the Hittites keep the entire Levant, and during the century in question, further expand and consolidate their empire (into Syria etc.), thus ensuring that by the end of the century, they have an empire that already borders directly on Egypt proper, and which presumably has quite a lot more resources available than the Hittites ever did in OTL.

It's a bit of a wank, but given those conditions, I think your scenario could work out very well.
 
The Hittites annexing Egypt would be very difficult. Defeating Egypt in a masterful campaign... sure. Even conquering it... I can see that. But holding on to it, that's the trouble. It will simply break away at the earliest opportunity. Considering the logistics of the time, the core of Egypt is just too far outside the direct sphere of influence of the Hittites. An alternative is to basically become a foreign dynasty/elite, while not holding the original Hittite heartland. Best case scenario: a highly succesful invasion/conquest is followed by a Hittite overlord setting up shop in Egypt, essentially becoming the new pharaoh... while also being more-or-less independent from the Hittite state. A relative of the Hittite ruler, in charge of an Egypt that is (at the outset) a Hittite vassal... and later might become more independent.

Although the two timeframes are vastly different, one might compare this to the later Ptolemaic dynasty. This goes very much into your first question: the Ptolemids found out very quickly that they'd either have to adopt a lot of Egyptian cultural practices, or they'd never be accepted. So they just 'went with it', and in the event, that included adopting the Egyptian practice of incestuous marriages in the royal family. The Hittite usurpers, however, will probably adopt certain other practices instead, sincxe they are likely to vehemently object to this one. Hittite laws on sexuality explicitly forbade incest, and demanded it be punished by death. (The Hittites are truly fascinating in their views on what was ethical: they had amazingly strict laws on various kinds of sexual behaviour, often punishing transgressions with death, while certain types of murder were merely fined rather mildly... or even permitted. For anyone studying ethics, the Hittites never cease to amaze.)

Regarding the second question: that depends entirely on the relation between the Hittite state and "vassal state" Egypt. If the Hittite rulers og Egypt want to be more independent, that will cause friction, and perhaps war between them. But it is also possible that they remain staunch allies. It's very hard to predict.

Thanks, man. This will very useful if I decide to make a TL.
 
Egypt is logistically possible to rule, look at the multitude of empires that held both Anatolia and Egypt. The hard part is conquering a fully independent realm which has never been a periphery zone of an empire before. (Same problem the later Assyrian empire had with their conquests, being the first real empire in Mesopotamia since the Bronze Age Collapse.)

Perhaps the Hittites conquer Egypt, lose it to a rebellious viceroy, and a Hittite/Neshite/Luwian dynasty rules Egypt independently for a century. Meanwhile the original Hittite empire continues to exist.

The Neshite/Luwian dynasty establishes means of control in Egypt, a precedent for foreign rule, as well as linking up with Mycenaean traders. After decades of Neshite/Luwian rule, a series of destructive wars--a native Egyptian revolt as well as multiple foreign invasions, perhaps Nubian, or Aramaean, or Hittite--weakens Egypt to the point that it cannot project its own power anymore. A similar state to OTL Egypt before it was conquered by the Persian empire about a thousand years later.

Finally the Hittite Empire launches a new, successful invasion against the weakened Egypt to incorporate it. This conquest could well be "permanent", since the non-sovereignty of Egypt has already been the norm for at least a lifetime.


Great idea, I'll keep this scenario in mind.
 
Although the two timeframes are vastly different, one might compare this to the later Ptolemaic dynasty. This goes very much into your first question: the Ptolemids found out very quickly that they'd either have to adopt a lot of Egyptian cultural practices, or they'd never be accepted. So they just 'went with it', and in the event, that included adopting the Egyptian practice of incestuous marriages in the royal family. The Hittite usurpers, however, will probably adopt certain other practices instead, sincxe they are likely to vehemently object to this one. Hittite laws on sexuality explicitly forbade incest, and demanded it be punished by death. (The Hittites are truly fascinating in their views on what was ethical: they had amazingly strict laws on various kinds of sexual behaviour, often punishing transgressions with death, while certain types of murder were merely fined rather mildly... or even permitted. For anyone studying ethics, the Hittites never cease to amaze.)

Do you have any sources I could look into on this? It sounds fascinating.
 
Its funny! I was, literally, just reading about this last night.

Now, for my two cents: I don't think that the Hittites had any desire to conquer Egypt during this time, and the dynastic absorption of another major realm wasn't except normal for the Bronze Age. Its important to realize that the candidate for marriage was Suppiluliuma's fourth son; the only one who didn't have a major role to play in their father's administration. In other words: he was a spare.

Now, even if the marriage goes off without a hitch, it would be very difficult for a single ruler to inherit both realms. One could try to push it through conquest, but Egypt didn't really have the ability to project power much further than they did in OTL, and the same seems to go for the Hittites. Furthermore, any Hittite ruler in Egypt is going to have a difficult time becoming accepted by Egypt's nobility and priesthood. They are going to have their hands full for some time.

So, what I think it most likely to happen is that you basically get a Hittite dynasty ruling over Egypt and the main branch ruling over the Hittite kingdom. Assuming that the Egyptian branch is able to secure itself, you could well see a strong alliance forming between the two realms that could last for a generation or two. As part of the 'gifting' between realms, I could see the Hittites being given some border territories in the Levant to help secure the peace and relations, but I don't think either Kingdoms have the capability or the desire to truly occupy and absorb the other.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Do you have any sources I could look into on this? It sounds fascinating.

The book on my shelf is Harry Hoffner's The Laws of the Hittites, which is basically a translation of the surviving clauses that were inscribed in cuneiform tablets, with an impressive amount of context, background, explanation etc. Just to give you an idea, a quick search led me to these excerpts of the material (although these are from a different translation). If you really want to get into it, I wholeheartedly recommend Hoffner. (Because it's not just a translation, but a masterful analysis with lots of awesome background info.)
 
The book on my shelf is Harry Hoffner's The Laws of the Hittites, which is basically a translation of the surviving clauses that were inscribed in cuneiform tablets, with an impressive amount of context, background, explanation etc. Just to give you an idea, a quick search led me to these excerpts of the material (although these are from a different translation). If you really want to get into it, I wholeheartedly recommend Hoffner. (Because it's not just a translation, but a masterful analysis with lots of awesome background info.)

the phrases "this one" and "he shall let them go to his home" are a bit confusing here, but thanks for the recommendation!
 
It is true that Suppiluliuma I sent one of his younger sons to marry the Egyptian queen, so at best this is just starting a new dynasty with atypical blood ties to their strong neighbors. That said, this would be a very intersting time for Egypt to find itself with a "Hittite" Pharoh -- Neferiti, the widow of Akhenaten, is still alive, and Tut had only just started pushing back against the Atenist Reformation before dying young, so it's entirely possible that she (and other high ranking Atenists) still held out hopes for continuing the work of her husband. In fact, and this is my very amateur impression, but it might just be possible that it's this religious context that made the unheard of Zannanza match possible to begin with. (@NikoZnate would know more on this than I.)

Also, just an interesting side note -- the Zannanza Affair is not the only example of an attempted marriage alliance in the 14th Century BCE that went awry, leading to war and a shift in the Late Bronze Age balance of power. Just a few years earlier, the King of Assyria invaded Kassite Babylonia when one of his grandsons (by way of a daughter) was murdered.
 
Top