While not that much is known about the relations between the Hittites and Myceneans, or Ahhiyawa, as the Hittites called them, how plausible is it that the Hittites establish a presence in Greece? The Hittites themselves, took an increased interest in maritime matters, after wars with the Kingdom of Alashiya in Cyprus, and raids by people who would later form the Sea Peoples. The central authority in Hattusa probably has far more important matters to deal with, but could either a Hittite prince, fleeing the ravages of the Bronze Age collapse, or one of their vassals, establish a presence in Greece, either near Attica or the Hellespont? What would be the effect of this? How would it affect the post-Mycenaean landscape, and would word filter back to Anatolia? Would it result in Hittite culture surviving longer? How would Mycenaean rulership customs and conceptions of society alter them?
WI: Hittites in Greece?
- Thread starter SunKing105
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hittites
They already had difficulty subduing the Arzawa, I don't think this is likely, it seems to overextend the resources of the Hittites.
A way to do this would be maybe to have the Hittites be extreemly dominant in the middle east, subduing the Levant up to the Sinai, Cyprus, the Mushki and the Arzawan and make the Mycenean Greeks some sort of client state through diplomacy, trade agreements and maybe military ties over the control of Western Anatolia.
A way to do this would be maybe to have the Hittites be extreemly dominant in the middle east, subduing the Levant up to the Sinai, Cyprus, the Mushki and the Arzawan and make the Mycenean Greeks some sort of client state through diplomacy, trade agreements and maybe military ties over the control of Western Anatolia.
Sapa Inka Wiraqucha
Banned
Three problems:
1. There's a lot of people in the way. People who can put up a nasty fight.
2. The Hittites had much bigger problems to their east (the Assyrians). Basically their entire foreign policy was dedicated to curbing the Assyrians before they became unstoppable.
3. The Mycenaeans themselves were no pushovers, and were skilled seafarers. Remember, Greece lies across the Aegean, so the Hittites would have to build up a naval presence there, because their bases in Kizzuwatna and Alashiya were too far away. This would require that they a.) subdue western Turkey, b.) build it up so it can sustain a naval base, and c.) somehow avoid a civil war once whatever governor sent to oversee the west gets a little too uppity.
However, if the Hittites were take over Mycenae and it didn't break off, there's still one problem: the marauding bandits who destroyed Mycenae and destroyed the Hittites came from the Balkans and the eastern Mediterranean. They were spurred on by drought and disease in inland Europe and Asia, and they gained new members with every territory they razed. The entire network of trade routes that everyone in the area depended on to be able to run their advanced economies came crashing down.
Worse, the marauders didn't leave. After every state in the area got wrecked, the entire Middle East was awash with barbarians.
Having the Hittites survive that is unlikely, and would require that you remove the Bronze Age Collapse entirely.
1. There's a lot of people in the way. People who can put up a nasty fight.
2. The Hittites had much bigger problems to their east (the Assyrians). Basically their entire foreign policy was dedicated to curbing the Assyrians before they became unstoppable.
3. The Mycenaeans themselves were no pushovers, and were skilled seafarers. Remember, Greece lies across the Aegean, so the Hittites would have to build up a naval presence there, because their bases in Kizzuwatna and Alashiya were too far away. This would require that they a.) subdue western Turkey, b.) build it up so it can sustain a naval base, and c.) somehow avoid a civil war once whatever governor sent to oversee the west gets a little too uppity.
However, if the Hittites were take over Mycenae and it didn't break off, there's still one problem: the marauding bandits who destroyed Mycenae and destroyed the Hittites came from the Balkans and the eastern Mediterranean. They were spurred on by drought and disease in inland Europe and Asia, and they gained new members with every territory they razed. The entire network of trade routes that everyone in the area depended on to be able to run their advanced economies came crashing down.
Worse, the marauders didn't leave. After every state in the area got wrecked, the entire Middle East was awash with barbarians.
Having the Hittites survive that is unlikely, and would require that you remove the Bronze Age Collapse entirely.
Sapa Inka Wiraqucha
Banned
If this is pre-BAC, then the locals wouldn't take kindly to a hairy barbarian from Hattusa barging in and putting on airs. To put them down would require a major military campaign, one a renegade prince simply can't fund.
If this is during BAC, then the local cities have all been overrun by barbarians and the locals are either fighting for their lives or have all been reduced to cutthroat banditry to survive. In fact, it's quite likely most of them have joined the horde for a.) protection, b.) chances to loot, and c.) the chance to go someplace where there's some food.
You made the same exact arguments as me, plus they literally controlled all those territories OTL outside the Southern Levant, so the main difference is that they consolidate their control a bit earlier and thus are then able to exercise diplomatic and economic influence on Greece without having to invade or intervene directly oversea.
From what I remember a Hittite princess was in exile at some point in Mycenae?
While this is different from a prince and a warband, it says quite a lot that the mixing of the peoples and status being generally accepted between them was a thing. Not to mention of course, the whole Eastern Aegean coast, the Mycenaean colonies, the trade between them.
While this is different from a prince and a warband, it says quite a lot that the mixing of the peoples and status being generally accepted between them was a thing. Not to mention of course, the whole Eastern Aegean coast, the Mycenaean colonies, the trade between them.
Sapa Inka Wiraqucha
Banned
What I said was that they were too overstretched to manage an empire much bigger than their historical maximum extent. Adding in all of Canaan and western Anatolia is not possible (unless you would have it that a Hittite version of Alexander or Bayinnaung took over all of this and his successor lost it).
To be clear: the Hittites didn't control Arzawa or Mushki (ie. western Anatolia). The Arzawan lands were undeveloped compared to Hattusa and Kizzuwatna, and hard to hold down whenever the Hittites did get them to submit. They frequently rebelled and never stayed subjects for very long. You'd have to both subdue them, integrate them enough that building Hittite infrastructure on the Aegean coast is possible/safe, and then somehow get profit from that. Highly unlikely in my opinion.
Last edited:
The custom among Hittite elites was to be clean-shaven, actually.
Hairiness aside, the most important points have been made. Western Anatolia was very difficult to control, and Mycenaean domination of the Aegean was very difficult to challenge. Canaanite seafarers would give the Greeks a run for their money, but getting their fleets in Hittite hands requires going head-to-head with Egypt, whom they fought to a standstill in OTL. And at the end of the day, what do the Hittites get from subduing mainland Greece that they can't get from their Syrian and Cypriot vassals?
That said, @Daeres started a great TL on this topic a while back. Though it focuses more on the aftermath of the Hittite conquest than how it all unfolded.