Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

[Hanny]

That is an enticing source, I will take a look at it. Hopefully soon.

Enjoy, its a long read and covers a lot of your post 57 content.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

What would be the incentive to conquer a city so far away? I mean, there are plenty of historians that speculate that bringing back Helene was just an excuse to gain controle over the trade route going trough the Dardanelles.

If that wasn't the case, then what was it?

I recently read an amazing book by Prof. Robert Drews titled "The end of the Bronze Age", in which he posits that all the great cities that were destroyed in Greece, Anatolia, Cyprus and the Levant followed a military revolution, which saw chariot-based armies be outclassed by ascending infantry based armies, which enabled less civilized peoples and tribes on the periphery of the great kingdoms (i.e. Egypt, the Hettites, Assyria and the Mycenaeans), some of whom had for decades or centuries provided mercenary skirmishers in support of the chariot armies, to form raiding "hordes" that sacked the wealthy cities of their neighbors. Egypt survived by the skin of her teeth by adapting its military, especially under Ramses III, but her power was broken, because it could no longer dominate Palestine and/or Syria, as it once had. Assyria went through all the upheaval practically unscathed, because it already had a strong tradition of militia forces and better infantry than the rest.

Regarding the Aegean sites, he believes that it was northwestern Greek raiders that sacked Iolkos, Thebes, Mycenae, Pylos etc and Troy. So in Drews' very well articulated explanation, Troy was just sacked because it was wealthy and because it was possible at last to overcome its defenders, as happened with any other city that was destroyed around this time. At any rate, archaeologically speaking, there are no traces of the Mycenaeans or whoever destroyed Troy to establish a permanent afterwards.


Btw, Drews argues that Homer stands at the end of centuries long oral tradition that originated with these "barbaric" norther Greeks on the aftermath of the Mycenaean collapse, not the "civilized" southern Greeks of the Mycenaean palaces, even though he sings about the war from the latter's perspective, which is, among other things, why he has no clue about chariot warfare and imagines the chariots as prestigious "battle taxis" for the royal elite, which was a practice common to the early Dark Age. I haven't yet read the older book of his, where he explains this theory in detail, so there's probably a lot more in support of the unorthodoxy of his view.

EDIT: Damn, I did not realize I was necroposting too!

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

How much amber and gold was discovered in Troy?
Its geographical position, controlling the entrance of the Straits of Dardanelles makes a lot of sense because of its proximity to the Caucasus sealanes and the Amber Route, with Amber coming south from the Baltics through the Vistula/Daugava/Neman rivers and ending up in the black sea in ways of Danube, Dnieper and their tributaries.

I'm not sure if they discovered amber or gold at Troy. But I honestly have no idea.
Troy being a major trade route along the Black Sea and for European trade has been suggested before. The amber trade is one that is put out there, but also the possibility that they were importing tin and copper from Europe as well. None of this has ever been confirmed and are largely theoretical. I am not up to date with any recent finds that might support these theories.

What I do know that supports that Troy was at least somewhat important.

For one there was a city the size of Troy in that region. If the Troad had nothing in it or was irrelevant, as one might think due to it being on the edge of civilization, then they wouldn't have built a city there, it would have been a smaller town or territory ruled by tribes.

There were also ports and large towns along the coast of the Black Sea in Anatolia, which predate the Kaskan incursions in the 1300's BC. They were probably trading with other people on the Black Sea. The Troad seems like an obvious place to make a trade port but who could they have been trading with other than the Greeks and the Anatolians? Greece was not a particularly rich territory, and the Greeks frequently raided Western Anatolia. Did Troy become rich because they supplied the Greeks with Anatolian and Levantine goods? Wouldn't Crete and other Anatolian states be more obvious though?

Homer and Greek myths claim that Troy was a very rich city. This is often repeated by the Greeks. What might support this claim is that in the Hittite texts the Ahhiyawan raiders (presumably the Greeks) are frequently mentioned to attack Western Anatolia. Specifically the Ahhiyawans attempt to conquer Milawanda and Wilusa. The Wilusan king goes to great lengths to form an alliance with the Hittites. What it notable is that the Ahhiyawans were interested in those areas. Even if the Ahhiyawans are not the Mycenaean Greeks it still shows that raiders were interested in attacking those areas. However Hittite texts seem to imply that their enemies were not mere raiders and were actually state actors fighting over territory. That and the fact that the Hittites bothered to sign the treaty and fight on Alaksandu's behalf. Had Wilusa been a worthless backwater then I doubt the Hittites would have bothered with a treaty when they could have just invaded. The Ahhiyawans would not have bothered either. But Wilusa actually provided a contingent for the Hittites at Kadesh. Meaning that Wilusa actually had something to offer.

[Morifea]

But Wilusa actually provided a contingent for the Hittites at Kadesh. Meaning that Wilusa actually had something to offer.

That Part about Kadesh is new to me, can you direct me to the sources?

Another important Point to consider about the stratetic position of Wilusa is the Skamandros. In Ancient times, the shoreline was much different, the Sediments of the Skamandros filled up a nice little bay northwest of Wilusa that could have served as natural Harbour.

Kinda useful if you want to let your Crew rest up before you brave the tricky currents of the Bosporus. Those Crews need supplies, those ships do trade, alas, the Lord of Wilusa gets income.

[Cyclops]

IIRC Schliemann found some treasure at Troy, mostly gold silver and copper, but no amber AFAIK. It was of unclear date but he confidently displayed it as the "jewels of Helen", I think there was a strong feeling he found some sort of hoard and altered it freely to suit his PR needs. The historical value may therefore be low, and its been scattered by his depredations (a quick Google shows some of Schliemann's putative treasure ended up in Soviet and post-Soviet Russian hands).

There's not a lot of Hittite sources for the battle Kadesh, from memory there are only scanty oblique references-the main source is the heavily spun Egyptian versions where Ramses wins, but then withdraws from the region while the Hittites expand.

There are Hittite references to entities that sound an awful lot like Illium/Ilion/Troy and Dardania mentioned as allies of the Hittites in other contexts.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

That Part about Kadesh is new to me, can you direct me to the sources?

Another important Point to consider about the stratetic position of Wilusa is the Skamandros. In Ancient times, the shoreline was much different, the Sediments of the Skamandros filled up a nice little bay northwest of Wilusa that could have served as natural Harbour.

Kinda useful if you want to let your Crew rest up before you brave the tricky currents of the Bosporus. Those Crews need supplies, those ships do trade, alas, the Lord of Wilusa gets income.

In his inscriptions Ramesses mentions the "Drdny" among the Hittite contingent. This is usually assumed by scholars to mean "Dardania", so Wilusa by some. Whether Alaksandu was still the Wilusan king I don't know, he isn't mentioned at Kadesh. Since the king in the Hittite-Wilusan treaty is mentioned as "Alaksandu". It wouldn't surprise me if the Hittites really did have Wilusan support at Kadesh since the treaty has mutual military support as one of the clauses. Basically the Hittites could call on Wilusa to support them at any time. Ramesses also mentions Seha River Land and Arzawa, it is possible that this contingent was together with the Wilusan contingent. Arzawa is also frequently used to refer to an entire area which includes Arzawa proper, Mira, and Seha River Land, possibly even Wilusa.

That is a good point about the Bosporus. The question really is why anyone would want to sail into the Black Sea during this time? There are port towns along the Pontus region, so I assume those towns traded with the Aegean. But unless there was a better reason to trade with someone in the Black Sea it seems like a lot of effort. So aside from the towns in the Pontus region there are also some less developed states and tribes in the area of Georgia, and nothing of note other than that. Which really begs the question of if or why they would trade in the Black Sea.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

There are Hittite references to entities that sound an awful lot like Illium/Ilion/Troy and Dardania mentioned as allies of the Hittites in other contexts.

Most agree that there is a linguistic connection between "Wilusa" and "Ilios". There are also mentions of a place called "Truwisa" and some have taken this to mean Troy. The only explanation I can come up with is that Taruisa is the region of the Troad and Wilusa was one of the cities in that region. From the very little we know it appears that the city of Wilusa came to dominate in the Troad might not always have been in control of the Troad. There were probably other towns or tribes in that region and Wilusa managed to gain control over that small area.

As far as I know the Hittites don't mention Wilusa until the early 1200's BC, maybe the 1300's BC at the earliest. We can infer from the correspondence between the Hittite king and Alaksandu of Wilusa, that Alaksandu was not the son of the previous king. The treaty was signed around the 1280's BC, maybe 1290's BC, and it involved other geopolitical concerns such as other neighboring Luwian states that wanted to rebel against the Hittites, as well as a conflict between the Hittites and "Ahhiyawa" over some islands in the Aegean (which probably is tied in some way to Piyamaradu, who raided the Aegean, attacked Lazpa/Lesbos and received Ahhiyawan support). We could infer that the Ahhyawans were supporting the Luwian rebels in western Anatolia and also attacking Wilusa. Since Alaksandu was in power at Wilusa and he signed the alliance with the Hittites then we can assume that the Hittite King, Muwatallis II's claim that he defeated the Ahhiyawans, to be correct. Well also because he managed to put down the revolt by the Luwian states in Arzawa.

Meaning that Wilusa and its politics was known to the Hittites at the very least since the 1300's BC. Although neither of his two predecessors Mursili II and Suppiluliumas, mentions Wilusa in those texts which we have. However in the treaty with Alaksandu of Wilusa, it states that Wilusa had unwavering loyalty to the Kings of Hatti for four hundred years and lists all of the times in which Wilusa demonstrated their good faith by not siding with the Arzawans (the reigns of Tudhaliya I, Suppiluliumas I, Mursili II, Muwatallis II), this is used as the pretext for the treaty. If this is true then Wilusa made it a policy to get support from the Hittites, rather than opposing them as others did.

Going back 400 years that would put us in the time of the so called "Labarna" (or Hattusili I, they might be the same), the Hittite founder. Later in the century, the Hittite king Tudhaliya IV (after 1240 BC) mentions that he wishes to restore a man called Walmu to the throne of Wilusa. So this Walmu was overthrown in Wilusa but the circumstances of this are not stated. We know for a fact that the Ahhiyawans attacked Millawanda (Miletus) and took that city, which the Hittite King Hattusili III ceded to them in a treaty in the 1250's BC or 1240's BC.

[Cyclops]

Most agree that there is a linguistic connection between "Wilusa" and "Ilios". ...

Yes its quite convincing, with Priam and Alexander (and IIRC his alternate name Paris is also attested) in the mix. There's nuggets of memory in Homer for sure.

I think the Illiad is a garbled recollection of Achaean raids into Asia Minor. Probably a Mykenaean chief (possibly even called Agamemnon or something similar) plundered a Hittite ally called something like Troy or Illium, which was ruled by some guys with names like Priam and Alexander or Paris.

I think the rest of the story sticks to this base narrative in the same way new heroes and older stories adhere to a "mainstay myth" like the Arthurian cycle, where half-remembered history (eg Ambrosius Aurelianus), older tribal myths (Cei, Gawain and Tristan), new material and parallel myths (Lancelot, Percival and the grail etc) combine to form a juggernaut.

So local heroes like Achilles, Protesilaus and so on get pulled into the mix. Then stock figures like the Wise Councillor (Ulysses) and the Cuckold King (Menelaus) get their spinoff series and so on. Bolt on a prequel about golden apples and nude goddesses. Make sure the heroes fit into existing genealogies (divine, Heraclid etc). Why wasn't Herakles there? Better alter his mythos to explain that.

[Morifea]

In his inscriptions Ramesses mentions the "Drdny" among the Hittite contingent. This is usually assumed by scholars to mean "Dardania", so Wilusa by some.

Thank you very much. While I´m aware of the Alaksandu- treaty, the whole Kadesh thing was new to me. Have some rep.

Any tipps for good Books about the Hittites? My knowledge about those Guys is rather thin...


@Cyclops: Don`t forget Good Guy Hector!

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I can't think of any one book which has all of the information or is far better than the rest.

I'll just say try books by Trevor Bryce.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Any tipps for good Books about the Hittites? My knowledge about those Guys is rather thin...


@Cyclops: Don`t forget Good Guy Hector!

It's not dedicated to the Hittites, but I am currently reading "The Coming of the Greeks" by Prof. Robert Drews, which in spite of its title is not dedicated solely or even primarily to the Bronze Age Greeks either, and I think it is excellent on a peripheral topic, the advent of chariot warfare, which according to his theory was the driving force behind the establishment of Old Hittite Kingdom (as well as the Great Hyksos taking over the whole of Egypt, Aryan or Hurrian speakers conquering cities in the Levant, Aryan speakers coming to Greece and invading India all around the same time). He has another book (that I know of) touching on the Hittites, "The End of the Bronze Age", where he posits that a military revolution in infantry tactics and equipment overwhelmed the chariot armies of the great kingdoms that had been estabilshed in the meantime, which led to the collapse of the Hittites along many others.

I think the Illiad is a garbled recollection of Achaean raids into Asia Minor. Probably a Mykenaean chief (possibly even called Agamemnon or something similar) plundered a Hittite ally called something like Troy or Illium, which was ruled by some guys with names like Priam and Alexander or Paris.

Yet the Mycenaeans did not fight in massed infantry formations, as they are portrayed in the Iliad, until perhaps the very eve of their own destruction, when they started importing Naue Type II swords like crazy and trying to manufacture it them themselves. Some Greeks must have, though, as the Ekwesh (Achaean) mercenaries of the Libyan king Meryre, who invaded Egypt in 1208BC and was defeated by Merneptah, and the Denye (Danaan) mercenaries accompanying the Sea People, who invaded Egypt in 1179BC and were crushed by Ramesses III, all had swords (apparently the Egyptians had the habit of chopping off the penises of dead enemies to count them and the tallies match the figures of swords they collected from the slain almost perfectly). Drews believes that these were North Greek speakers, living to the north of Boetia, and its basically these guys that sacked Troy, along with the main centers of the South Greek speakers, such as Orchomenos, Thebes, Mycenae, Tiryns, Pylos, Knossos etc.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Ask sumskilz but I don't think that the Hyksos were Aryan or Hurrian. I have seen theories that they were Hurrian or had a Hurrian element to them. But I am pretty sure that the Hyksos were Levantines. Maybe they acquired their early designs through some transmission from the Aryans. The Hyksos chariots would be considered primitive when compared to the ones used by the Egyptian New Kingdom or the Hittite Empire (centuries later of course).

Not sure if the Hittite Old Kingdom was established through the use of chariots. From what I know the unfortunate Hattian civilization was comprised of multiple Anatolian city states, and some slightly larger kingdoms. At some point just prior to 1600 BC there was an influx of Aryan peoples. In Anatolia they were comprised of about two groups: Luwians and Hittites. The Luwians moved into Anatolia first or about the same time as the Hittites. The Hittites were taken on as mercenaries by the Hattians until eventually the Hittites rebelled against them and gradually overthrew the various Hattian states. Presumably there were multiple revolts in various states which resulted in various Hittite states. Eventually the Hittites conglomerated and created a single state under the Labarna or Hattusili I around 1600 BC (although some scholars assume that they are the same, Labarna is considered a title by some). It isn't known whether the Hittites originally were known for their use of chariots. The assumption is that as Aryan speakers from the Eurasian steppe, that they would have used chariots. However by the time of the Old Kingdom and their expansion into Syria and Mesopotamia, that they would have used chariots. Hattusili conquered the Anatolian interior and campaigned as far as Aleppo. His grandson and designated heir Mursili I took Aleppo, and then crossed the Euphrates and sacked Mari and Babylon in the 1500's BC. The Hittites probably only became prominent in their use of chariots during the New Kingdom/Empire period. There is the Kikkuli text in which a Mitannian horse trainer records how to train horses for warfare. The text is dated to about the 1300's BC. Mitanni mercenaries and charioteers are mentioned serving various states in Syria during the 1300's as well (maybe even like the German settlement in Tsarist Russia). It is possible that the Hittites used Hurrian experts to establish their chariot forces. But what I do know for sure is that the Hittites interacted many times with the Hurrians. Hurrian culture influenced the Hittites, many of the elite used the Hurrian language and Hurrian religious ceremonies, even syncretizing Anatolian deities with Hurrian deities. They also fought some of the neighboring Hurrian states in Eastern Anatolia and Upper Mesopotamia, even prior to the establishment of the Mitanni Empire.

The Mitanni Empire was established at some point after 1600 BC. Although Hurrian settlements in Upper Mesopotamia had existed since about the time of Hammurabi. By the 1600's BC the Hurrians had established multiple states in Upper Mesopotamia and then somehow they merged into the Mitanni Empire, under the rule of Kirta. During this time the Hurrians were heavily influenced by Mesopotamian and Amorite culture. What it is interesting is that the Mitanni Empire, despite the assumption that they were Hurrians, actually refer to Aryan deities in their correspondences with foreign kings. All of the Hittite kings also have Aryan names (Shuttarna, Parshatatar, Shaushtatar, Artatama, Tushratta etc). So we can probably conclude that although the upper classes of the Mitanni Empire are Hurrian, the actual ruling elites are Indo-Aryan. It should also be noted that the Empire would have contained many Amorite people, both in Mesopotamia and their vassal states in Syria. Therefore it is interesting to note that Kirta seems to be associated with Semitic deities. One text refers to Kirta as "the son of El" and states that Kirta was conceived miraculously by the god El. It isn't clear if the Mitanni kings are all part of one dynasty or if they can be divided into three separate dynasties (Kirta & Shuttarna I, Parshatatar to Tushratta & Shattiwaza, the usurpers Artatama II & Shuttarna II). We have very limited texts which even mention Kirta, I am unsure if Kirta is an Indo-Aryan name. Shuttarna I claims to be the son of Kirta, Parshatatar claims to be son of Shuttarna I, and Shaushtatar claims to be the son of Parshatatar. While this can be true we could also hypothesize that this is propaganda, or that "son" is used as a general term for successor. The Mitanni were also known for the chariots, but given the Aryan element in their society, it is possible that the Mitanni Empire was created by an Aryan ruling class and that the chariots they use were borrowed from these Aryans. But the Hurrians/Mitanni were generally acknowledged as the leading charioteers and horse trainers in the period of the 1400's and 1300's BC. The texts don't make any distinction between Aryans and Hurrians when referring to them, or their charioteers. Mitanni was considered a formidable empire until they were conquered by the Hittite king Suppiluliumas I around 1325 BC.

[sumskilz]

Ask sumskilz but I don't think that the Hyksos were Aryan or Hurrian. I have seen theories that they were Hurrian or had a Hurrian element to them. But I am pretty sure that the Hyksos were Levantines. Maybe they acquired their early designs through some transmission from the Aryans. The Hyksos chariots would be considered primitive when compared to the ones used by the Egyptian New Kingdom or the Hittite Empire (centuries later of course).

Yeah, here is the thread I started on that: Hyksos Origins & Culture

We also got into a Sea Peoples discussion there that went on for a couple pages.

[Cyclops]

Just a final note on the attractive but silly idea of "finding Troy in your own backyard", the Iliad is such an attractive idea that its hard not to find it superimposed on familiar events. I have a relative in an Australian rock band called Hunters & Collectors. The lead singer is a vainglorious twit who likes to run for exercise: "Haha" I wittily observed "he's just like Achilles the mighty runner" and it turned out he had a hairy mate who was a med student, both attributes of Patroclus...The smart widely travelled bass players said "oh who am I then?" "Well Odysseus obviously" (he is faithful and always returns to his wife after tours unlike some hemhem oh and his name is Archer). There was a big strong trumpeter called Jack, obviously Telamonian Ajax, a redhead, they all seemed to fit the mould somehow.

Just a brief glance showed how easy it is to project iconic stories onto familiar situations. Its even easier if you are drunk.

[Roma_Victrix]

Just a brief glance showed how easy it is to project iconic stories onto familiar situations. Its even easier if you are drunk.

This is all just good drunken fun, but you'd have to be high on seriously strong stuff like mescaline to think Troy was located in the Baltic Sea instead of the Aegean.

Yeah, here is the thread I started on that: Hyksos Origins & Culture

We also got into a Sea Peoples discussion there that went on for a couple pages.

I'm just proud that I'm the first guy to reply to you in your thread. Oda dominates it per usual with his archival level knowledge of the time period. I'm convinced that Oda is a professor somewhere of Bronze Age civilization, but then again Oda also knows just about everything when it comes to other subjects, for instance, the minute details of weaponry and tactics used by 17th century gunpowder empires of Eurasia. In fact, what is it exactly that Oda doesn't know? I'm surprised I've never asked him for a winning lottery ticket.

Therefore it is interesting to note that Kirta seems to be associated with Semitic deities. One text refers to Kirta as "the son of El"

*SUPERMAN INTENSIFIES* Kirta definitely did not kneel before Zod.

This is truly fascinating, how various Indo-European migrants and conquerors just kind of grafted themselves onto preexisting groups and power structures, perhaps to lend themselves legitimacy to the suspicious natives? The Hittites did this with the Northwest-Caucasian-speaking Hatti as you've described and Indo-Aryan Mitanni rulers did this for the Hurro-Urartian speaking peoples they lorded over. I guess it's no big stretch to imagine the Hyksos being largely Semitic but with an Indo-Aryan ruling component given their use of chariot warfare, but the lack of solid evidence perhaps makes that hypothetical idea not really worth discussing at length.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I don't know how to write proper sentences and paragraphs. Where do I put the comma and where does the semi-colon go?

Cyclops, this is how legends are made. You are correct, we could ascribe the Trojan War to any time period. I remember when I was a kid there was this shows called Hercules: The Legendary Journeys starring Kevin Sorbo, and its spin off Xena Warrior Princess. The whole point of the show was to have Hercules as a modern super hero, the entire show had references to pop culture and full of 90's cliches. They must have distorted every myth and bastardized every history. They even had an extremely sub-par Trojan War episode with none of the heroes except Paris and Helen, and Xena shows up and helps them escape. Anyway what I am trying to get across is that I don't think the Trojan War was real per se. For example I don't think Achilles or Odysseus or even Priam existed. There is also tonnes of tie in material like Hercules where he is mentioned having taken Troy and making Priam king in the first place. So what we have is less history and more of a Marvel Cinematic universe. Except that it is also historical fiction.

My position is that the Iliad is based on multiple events involving the Mycenaean Greeks (actually I hate the term "Mycenaean", so I will call them "Bronze Age Greeks" from now on). There are multiple mentions of "Ahhiyawan" raids in the Aegean and West Anatolia. The first one is Attarsiya who invaded and raided West Anatolia and Cyprus. Some have argued that Attarsiya is the basis for Atreus the King of Mycenae (the one who supplanted Eurystheus and the Perseids, he was also the father of Agamemnon), interestingly Atreus' grandfather Tantalus was said to have been Anatolian. The unnamed Great King of Ahhiyawa who was a contemporary of Muwatallis II and Ramesses II, mentions in one of his letters to the Hittite king that his own grandfather "Kagamunash" made an alliance with an Anatolian ruler (or Kagamush was the Anatolian ruler, and the Ahhiyawan ancestor is unnamed). Therefore the Great King of Ahhiyawa claims suzerainty over some islands in the Aegean which were given to Ahhiyawa by his Anatolia ancestor. This appears to coincide with the raids of Piyama Radu and his taking control of Lesbos. Presumably the islands disputed between the Hittites and the Ahhiyawans, around 1290 BC, were those islands around Lesbos. Piyama Radu is mentioned as having fled to the Ahhiyawans when the Hittites chased him out of Anatolia. This involves Wilusa because at the same time Alaksandu of Wilusa makes a treaty with the Hittites. Simultaneously the Hittite vassal king of Arzawa formed an anti-Hittite coalition and received support from the Ahhiyawans. Although Wilusa is an important piece, what I found more interesting is that Miletus (Millawanda) is attacked twice by the Hittites (in the reign of Mursili II and in the reign of his other son Hattusili II). Also interesting to note that Millawanda is claimed by the Ahhiyawans and its ruler Atpa pledges allegiance to Ahhiyawa.

The Arzawan ruler who rebelled against Muwatallis was also one of the architects of the revolt against his father Mursili II. Possibly also with some Ahhiyawan support in that time as well (about the 1310's?). Although the Ahhiyawans appear to have gone all in in the 1290's because not only are they mentioned directly fighting the Hittites, but the conflict involved Wilusa, Arzawa and all the lands in West Anatolia, presumably also fighting in the Aegean islands. Muwatallis II boasts that he defeated the Ahhiyawans, at the very least he defeated the Arzawan coalition and subjugated them. The Iliad mentions the powerful Memnon of Asia as being the key supporter of the Trojans. I can't help but think that Memnon is cultural memory of the Hittite Empire (although it seems to also be a reference to Ramesses II). The Iliad also mentions the conflicts against other Anatolian states, albeit mostly in passing, some of these states were allied to the Greeks. The only issue is that Wilusa is not mentioned as having been destroyed and peace is concluded some 30 years later when Hattusili II takes the throne of Hatti. In the treaty Millawanda is ceded to the Ahhiyawans and their king is recognized as "Great King", at least by the Hittites. Although their King is never mentioned in person, instead the king's brother Tawagalawa goes to Millawanda and negotiates the treaty. Tawagalawa seems to have been in charge of Ahhiyawan affairs in Anatolia. The Great King doesn't go to negotiate the treaty himself and the implication is that Ahhiyawa is too far away, so the only assumption is that it is all the way in Greece.

Only issues I am seeing... there is no mention of the destruction of Troy and the destruction of TroyVIIb isn't dated until the early 1100's BC. While a lot of statements made by Homer are corroborated (such as the Trojans worshiping Apollo, which the Wilusans did worship Appaliunas), the actual details of the Iliad are not supported. There is no mention of an Achilles or Odysseus, or even Menelaos or Agamenon. Alaksandu of Wilusa could be a reference to Paris (Alexander of Troy). But a battle hardened and self made king like Alaksandu hardly matches the description of the cowardly Paris. There is also no reference to a King Priam, closest match might be the notorious pirate from Lesbos (I hesitate to say Lesbian) Piyama Radu, but he is mentioned as having fled to Ahhiyawa when the Hittites defeated him. Some of the details are eerily similar though, the "Great King" of Ahhiyawa strikes me as too similar to Agamemnon's attempt to become a High King over the Greeks. Although the brother Tawagalawa is nothing like Menelaos of Sparta. I think the most egregious problem is that the Ahhiyawans do not appear to win this war. What is more it seems that, although Wilusa was important, the war centered around control of Millawanda, and the Ahhiyawans supporting the Arzawan coalition. Where as the Iliad makes it appear that this is primarily a war of the Greeks, and the Anatolians are just there to give support.

So presumably Ahhiyawa is not in Anatolia, seeing as that place has never been identified and according to their correspondence the Great King is unable to meet the Hittites in person. That means that Ahhiyawa has to be somewhere in the Aegean Sea, which is unlikely because none of these islands could support an actual empire... the only other candidate has to Mycenae. Although Mycenae did not actually rule all of Bronze Age Greece (hence why I say that the term Mycenaean Greece is misleading). It does appear that Mycenae had hegemony over the Peloponnese, maybe stretching as far as Attica, and they quite likely had control over the Aegean islands. The main reason that scholars tie Ahhiyawa to Bronze Age Greece, is because of the large quantities of Mycenaean wares discovered at Millawanda. That city being what we call Miletus and which is specifically mentioned by the Hittites as the place which the Ahhiyawans control. The Ahhiyawans cannot be the Miletans themselves, because Miletus was ruled by a governor or puppet king called Atpa. It is clear that Millawanda was part of an Ahhiyawan empire, an assertion which is supported by the fact that the Hittites were willing to cede Millawanda and recognize the Ahhiyawan ruler as a Great King. Surely the Ahhiyawans must have been somewhat formidable if they are not only recognized as a great power, but also that they were willing to fight the Hittites (by supporting the Luwians).

However early campaigns by Atarsiya look as though they were direct invasions of the Luwian states, and have much more emphasis on raiding. The Hittites did not have much control over West Anatolia in the 1400's BC. Once they chased out Atarsiya, they used these attacks as a pretext to establish their control and bring states over to their side. The text mentions a lot of double dealing between the Luwians and Atarsiya (for instance Madduwatta who flees to the Hittites, they give him a new kingdom, and then Madduwatta rebels against the Hittites with the help of Atarsiya who chased him out). Atarsiya's attempt was likely an earlier expedition to establish some kind of foothold in Anatolia. Although it is not clear if Atarsiya was a king in Ahhiyawa (as the text only refers to him as a man of Ahhiyawa) so we can't know if he was doing this of his own accord (as a sort of viking) or if he went on behalf of the Ahhiyawan authority. At the very least we can be sure that Ahhiyawan raids were a frequent occurrence, as were Anatolian raids. Such that it is not surprising if there existed sufficient material with which to string together a narrative in the form of a great epic. Since the Iliad contains anachronisms (names of peoples, place names, weaponry which appears to be from earlier in the Bronze Age) I think that it makes sense to conclude that the Iliad contains multiple events and that are woven together into a single story, an exaggerated story most likely. Now did the Greeks come back in the 1100's BC to burn down Troy? Possibly, although the state of affairs in Greece was likely one of civil war, so I am unsure how the Greeks were able to invade Anatolia again. Perhaps Troy VIIb was sacked by the Sea People (mostly Anatolian Luwians).

One last thing to note: the Iliad and the stories about Hercules, also the Odyssey and the story of the Argonauts, shows somewhat decentralized organizations going on expeditions and raids. In the Iliad Achilles is not a king of any particular place, but he is mentioned as the leader of the Myrmidons, some kind of warlord or basically a Viking raider, or some organization like Peshmerga. This is very similar to the Vikings of Scandinavia, but what I am getting at is that these "warrior societies" led by people who generally were not kings (maybe we could call them adventurers or warlords) were probably what snowballed into the collapse of the Bronze Age Greek civilization. Some of these did support a state authority but probably not for long. If myths are to be believed then the descendants of Herakles and their followers invaded the Peloponnese and overthrew all of the kings there, especially major cities like Corinth, Mycenae and Tiryns. What we do know is that Mycenae and Tiryns were destroyed and supplanted by Argos (Tiryns actually existed as a lame horse until the Archaic period). While it is possible that Pelasgian or Doric invaders caused the collapse I have yet to see any evidence for this. It is also quite possible that the collapse was the result of wars between city states and civil wars or revolutions within the cities as well. One thing that I couldn't help but notice from the later Greek texts is that they mention there being kings that ruled in antiquity, however by the time of the Classical period and Hellenistic period many of the Greek states lack kings in the true sense. Many of the Bronze Age sites show large scale destruction of Bronze Age palace complexes, and cities to some extent. But given the destruction of palaces and such, I do think that these were actually revolutions against these monarchies. Don't believe me? Well the terms for rulers in Classical Antiquity were usually "Basileios", "Tyrranos", "Archagetai". None of these terms imply an actual kingship. In the Bronze Age the term "Basileios" referred to a general or official. In fact the actual term for a king was "Wanaka" (Anax) and this term is not actually used again after the Bronze Age. In fact when Homer refers to Agamemnon in the Iliad, he does so by calling him "Anax". Zeus is also referred to as Anax. This does not just imply a shift in terminology in my opinion, but an actual ideological shift from the collapse of Bronze Age Greece. But just imagine having all of these warrior bands who have nothing better to do, there are bound to be wars between these warrior societies and actual city states, even revolutions and regicide. Perhaps the Pelasgians and Dorians fit into this somewhere... they took advantage of the internal conflicts to invade Achaea? Why the new rulers didn't just style themselves as "Anax" as well I really don't know. Maybe it was because they derived their power from their supporters, rather than an actual institution of kingship?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

*SUPERMAN INTENSIFIES* Kirta definitely did not kneel before Zod.

This is truly fascinating, how various Indo-European migrants and conquerors just kind of grafted themselves onto preexisting groups and power structures, perhaps to lend themselves legitimacy to the suspicious natives? The Hittites did this with the Northwest-Caucasian-speaking Hatti as you've described and Indo-Aryan Mitanni rulers did this for the Hurro-Urartian speaking peoples they lorded over. I guess it's no big stretch to imagine the Hyksos being largely Semitic but with an Indo-Aryan ruling component given their use of chariot warfare, but the lack of solid evidence perhaps makes that hypothetical idea not really worth discussing at length.

Kirta only kneels before God... who is also his father, or so he claims.

That is a brilliant observation on your part about Aryans inserting themselves into existing civilizations. The Aryans did the same thing in Greece which led to the beginning of the Late Helladic period (starting in the 1600's BC) and "Mycenaean" Civilization. Although Bronze was already known to the Cretans and mainlanders prior to this (actually Crete, the isles, and the Greek mainland was settled by peoples who crossed from Anatolia sometime around 2000 BC), it does appear that Indo-European speaking peoples took over Greece and became an upper class. Presumably this is also the introduction of the chariot to the Greeks. Since prior to the Mycenaean period the inhabitants were probably not Indo-European speaking. Genetically they were more similar to the Cretans and Cypriotes, however an invasion of sorts by Indo-European peoples changed this. Apparently the 1600's BC was the year of Aryan invasions. This is when the Luwians and Hittites took over Anatolia, when the Mitanni Empire was created in Upper Mesopotamia, also very close to the start of the Vedic Age in north western India (they may have even destroyed the Indus Valley Civilization). The Cretan Civilization which dominated the Aegean, and presumably also much of mainland Greece, is conquered by the Greeks in the 1400's BC. Perhaps in some way this relates to the Hyksos as they invaded and conquered Egypt around the same time (maybe displaced, or influenced by Aryans, or maybe it was a coincidence).

It is very possible that the Pelasgians or Dorians mentioned as having conquered Mycenaean civilization, were actually some of the more barbarous Aryan tribes in the north, which were not technically considered part of Mycenaean Greek civilization. Also interesting to note that Mycenean Civilization and the Luwians were very similar culturally and the two had a lot of interactions. It could be that Mycenaean crossed over from Anatolia, and that they were originally Luwians. The other theory is that they came down directly from the Eurasian Steppe, crossed the Danube and conquered Greece. For all we know it could have been both migrations. What is also likely is that the Greeks in this time might have considered themselves separate ethnic groups (Achaeans, Dorians etc). Although they might have also had some common ground as well, there may have been a conception of Greece (if Homer is any indication) but not as total as later on. If the Ahhiyawans are the Achaeans then it is interesting that their ruler calls himself "Great King of Ahhiyawa" instead of "Great King of Greece" or something of that sort. Even the mythical Agamemnon did not have influence in the northern reaches of Greece, in places like Thebes. Also interesting that the Greeks were so fixated on Anatolia. It could indicate that the Bronze Age Greeks regarded Anatolia as the mainland across the Aegean, or the homeland or what have you, which does support the possibility that the Mycenaean Greeks were originally Indo-European speaking Luwians that crossed the sea and conquered the peoples in the islands and in mainland Greece. I mean even if they aren't descended from Luwians, they are at the very least related by virtue of both being Indo-European peoples.

Hide your kids, hide your wife, cause these Aryans killing everybody.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Seeing as a I wrote a bunch of stuff about the Sea People and the Ahhiyawans in that Hyksos thread, I might as well quote some of it here.

The Tawagalawa Letter 1300 - 1250 BC

This letter is correspondence from Muwatallis or Hattusili III to the "Great King" of Ahhiyawa. The so called Tawagalawa Letter. Tawagalawa being the brother of the Great King and is mentioned in the letter. Here is the third tablet, the only part of the letter which was found mostly intact (except lines 18 to 40). The letter is directed to an envoy because apparently the Great King of Ahhiyawa was not in Anatolia.

" Next he went (there) and destroyed the town Attarimma, and burned it down including the fortification wall of the royal acropolis. As the men of Lukka notified Tawagalawa, so that he came into these lands. they likewise notified me, so that I (too) came down into these lands. When I reached the town Šallapa, he (i.e., Piyama-radu)
sent a man to meet me, (saying) :
“Take me as (your) vassal. Send the crown prince to me, that he may escort me to Your Majesty.”

So I sent to him the crown prince, (saying) :
“Go stand him alongside yourself on the chariot, and escort him here.”
But he (i.e., Piyama-radu) snubbed the crown prince, and said “no.”
Yet is not the crown prince the equivalent of the king? (The crown prince) held him by the
hand, but he said “no” to him and demeaned him in the presence of the lands. And (as if that were not enough,) he said this in addition: “Give me kingship here on the spot. If you don’t, I will not come (to Ḫatti).”

When I reached the town Waliwanda, I sent (to Piyamaradu) the following message:
“If you are seeking my suzerainty, since I am coming to the town Iyalanda, let me not find a single man of yours in the town Iyalanda. You must not let anyone go back in, nor attach yourself to? (territory under) my command. I personally look after my subjects.”
But when I reached Iyalanda, the enemy (i.e., Piyama-radu) offered battle to me in three places. Because the three places were rugged (terrain), I made the ascent on foot and defeated the enemy there. And the populace … there. But his brother Laḫurzi was setting an ambush ahead of me. My brother, just ask if it was not so. Was not Laḫurzi (himself) a participant in the battle? Did I not find him in the midst of the land Iyalanda? From that … in the whole matter Iyalanda:
“I will not… go to the city Iyalanda.”

I, the Great King, have (hereby) sworn, that these things about which I have written to you happened this way. Let the Storm God hear, and let the (other) gods hear (and bear witness) how these things really were.

But when I had ravaged the land Iyalanda—since (after all) I had ravaged the entire land, I left there the city Atriya, a single fortress?, for the sake of the city… I came up again to the city While I was in the land of Iyalanda, and I had destroyed… the entire land, [I did not go] after the civilian captives. And when the water supply was gone, ……, and my troops were few. So I did not go after …. Instead I came up … If …, … not … him ……. in the town A-ba? …, … in Millawanda:
“Come here to me.”
Again? to my brother …… the border I sent a message;
“I have (sought to) seize him on this account, because Piyama-radu is continually attacking this land of mine. Does my brother know it or not?”

But when the messenger of my brother met me, he did not bring me any …, nor did he offer to me any gift. But
he spoke thus:
“(The King of Aḫḫiyawa) has sent a message to Atpā: ‘Hand over Piyamaradu to the Hittite king.’”
… So I proceeded to the city Millawanda. But I went there for the sake of … word:
“Let my brother’s subjects hear what I have to say to Piyama-radu.”
Piyama-radu escaped by ship. And Atpā was listening, and Awayana too—they were (both) listening to

the charges which I had directed against him. But why—just because he (Piyama-radu?) is their (Atpā’s and Awayana’s) fatherin-law— are they concealing the word? I put them under oath to report the entire matter to you. Is it not so, that I sent over there the crown prince, (saying to him: )
“Go, drive over there, take (Piyama-radu) by the hand, have him mount the chariot alongside you, and conduct him to me?”
But (Piyama-radu) said “no”!
When Tawagalawa himself (representing?) the Great King (of Aḫḫiyawa) crossed into the city Millawanda, my nephew Kurunt(iy)a was here, and the Great King (of Ḫatti) drove here to meet you, (Piyama-radu). Yet he (i.e., Kurunt(iy)a?) was not a mighty king! And he (Kuruntiya?)… not … safe conduct …. Why did he not come to meet? me? If (Piyama-radu) says:
“I feared a plot to murder me,”
did I not send to him my own son, the crown prince? Did I not give (my son) these instructions:
“Go, assure him with an oath, take his hand, and conduct him to me”?
And concerning the supposed plot to kill him because of which he was afraid, is murder a thing permitted in the land of Ḫatti? It most certainly is not.

But when the envoy of my brother said to me:
“Take that person (Piyama-radu?): don’t … him,” I said: “If my … had spoken to me, or my brother—if his …
word I had heard,. . . .
But now my brother, a Great King, my equal, has written to me. And should I not hear the word of an equal? I myself went there to … If … had …, my brother would have said again:
“He didn’t hear what I said, nor has he complied with my request—…!”
Then would I not have asked my brother this?:
“Have you (or: Has he) … complied…?”
Now I have set out. And when I arrived there, I said to Atpā:
“Because … has sent you?…, ‘Proceed to conduct him thence to the king of Ḫatti,’ therefore bring him here! And as he previously trampled? on my word, he will trample? on the … word. And if Piyama-radu says this: ‘I am afraid,’ I will send one lord …, or I will send a brother. And let him remain in his place.”
But (Piyamaradu) still kept saying:
“I can’t get rid of my fears,” Atpā spoke thus to me:
“Your Majesty should give the ‘hand’ to a ‘son’.”
… he gave … to that one, and that also … If … had done much, I would have left him …. I made Atpā? swear, and I gave to him the ‘hand’.
… “I will put you on the road?, and … it to you … a word …..

So once again in consideration for my brother I have taken no action at all. Now if perhaps he protests? to my brother, saying:
“I will go to the king of Ḫatti. Let him put me on the road,”
I have just sent out Dabala-Tarḫunta, the charioteer. And (this) Dabala-Tarḫunta is not some man of low rank: from (my) youth as charioteer he has been mounting the chariot beside me. He used to mount the chariot alongside your brother Tawagalawa too. Have I not
offered safe conduct to Piyamaradu? Now safe conduct (works) this way in Ḫatti: If they send … to someone, they may not harm him. But with regard to the safe conduct I transported this (message: )
“Come, make your case before me! Then I will put you on the road. And I will write to my brother, how I will put you on the road. If you are satisfied (with my proposals), let it be (so). But if you are not satisfied, then my man will escort you back into the land of Aḫḫiyawa in the same manner as he came (here with you). Otherwise, let this charioteer remain in his (i.e., Piyama-radu’s) place, while he (Piyama-radu) is coming and while he comes back there.”
Who is this charioteer? Because he has (a wife) of the Queen’s family, (since) in Ḫatti the Queen’s family is very highly regarded, is he not much more to me than just an in-law? But he shall remain in his (Piyama-radu’s) place while (the escort) comes (to me) and comes back (there to Millawanda). And you, my brother, take good care of him. Let one of your men conduct him. Furthermore, my brother, convey to him my guarantee of safe conduct in the following manner:
“If? … , and? you don’t sin against His Majesty in any way, I will let you back into your land again,”
… … I want my brother to know how I shall put him on the road.

But if he doesn’t trust? even these (arrangements), then, my brother, make … of this … Many civilian captives … have escaped to my land. My brother … to me 7,000 civilian captives. My man will come. You, my brother, must put the leaders (lit. lords) on trial?. Because (Piyama-radu) has forcibly abducted …. And My brother …. Let my (own) man also be present. And if … says:
“I crossed? over? as a fugitive,” let him stay there.
But if he says:
“He forced me,” then let him come back to me. If … … …

… It belongs to x-xx-ili also. The son of Šaḫurunuwa… Let fugitives come … back to my brother: whether he be a lord or a slave. It is allowed. Did the Great King, my equal, willingly …? that to that one? When my fugitives crossed over to him, Šaḫurunuwa … to his son, and he arose and went to that one. And that one let him back out. Will my brother too … him for that matter? When one of my subjects takes flight, … you? are? running behind ….

Further, … (Piyamaradu) is saying this:
“I will go over into the land of Maša (or) the land of Karkiya, but the civilian captives, my! wife, children and the household I will leave here.”
So what does this mean? During the time when he leaves behind his wife, children and household in my brother’s land, your land is affording him protection. But he is continually raiding my land! And whenever I have prevented him in that, he comes back into your territory. Are you now, my brother, favorably disposed to this conduct?

(If not,) now, my brother, write him at least this one thing:
“If not, then either, arise and go forth into the land of Ḫatti, (since) your lord has settled his account with you, (or) if not, (then) come into the land of Aḫḫiyawa, and in whatever place I settle you, you must remain there. … Arise … and settle down in another place! So long as you are at enmity with the king of Ḫatti, be at enmity from (some) other country! Don’t be at enmity from my country! If your heart is in the land of Karkiya (or) the land of Maša, then go there! The king of Ḫatti and I—in that matter of Wiluša over which we were at enmity, he has converted me in that matter, and we have made peace; … a war would not be right for us,”
So send that to him! But if you were to leave Millawanda alone, my servants will willingly? flee/run to that (one), and, my brother, I have …-ed… to the land of Millawanda

… Piyama-radu … And to me, my brother, in the matter … . Send it to me! Over what matter concerning Wiluša we were hostile, because we have made peace, then what more is there? If one partner confesses his error/sin to the other, then because he confesses his error/sin to the partner, he will not reject him. Because therefore I have confessed my error/sin to my brother, let there be no more hostility between me and my brother.

… But my brother once wrote to me as follows:
… You have acted aggressively towards me.”
But at that time, my brother, I was young; if at that time I wrote anything insulting, it was not done deliberately …. If likewise to me… Such a remark may very well fall from the lips … a man (of?) the army will be wanton/reckless … foolish, … Let such a word be judged? before the Sun God. If that word … to me … I sent force. But now what message/matter of my brother has come orally, it came … to the Great King. Then let us put that case down in front of ourselves. And, my brother, send some servant of yours. …… let them cut off his head! And if your man has altered my message to you, let them cut off his head likewise! And the head that they cut off, let them crush it and grind it to powder. And where will that blood flow? … your servant spoke. And if that word did not come from your mouth, then the servant … it, … Did he not determine it for you? If the Great King, my peer, had spoken it, the servant would have … it. That word once… "

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

It is interesting that some scholars believe "Tawagalawa" to be an Anatolian form of "Eteocles". Relevant is that this first letter was translated by an envoy, which supports the idea that the Ahhiyawans did not have much contact with the Hittites and that the envoy rendered names and words in a Hittite equivalent. There is also the Manapa-Tarhunta Letter which could help to put things into an Anatolian context.

So the Anatolian coalitions against the Hittites, mentioned in the Manapa-Tarhunta Letter, but also this Ahhiyawan letter can demonstrate that there were diplomatic issues beforehand. The later Tawagalawa Letter states clearly that they did come to blows over conflicts in Wilusa. In the aftermath of that conflict the Hittites waged war on Piyama-Radu and his allies, which the Great King of Ahhiyawa chose to support and provide asylum. To make it more clear the Ahhiyawans disputed with the Hittites over possession of some islands. The wording of the letter "the storm god made them my subjects" suggests that this is in fact Muwatallis, but that he did so through force of arms. Around the same time Piyama-Radu was raiding Lesbos and western Anatolia, with support from Anatolians such as Atpa of Millawanda, possibly with Ahhiyawan support as well. A conflict erupted when the western Anatolians formed a coalition against the Hittites early in the reign of Muwatallis. At almost the same time the Ahhiyawans fight a conflict with the Hittites, both conflicts appear to be over Wilusa which neatly explains Alaksandu of Wilusa's treaty with Muwatallis.

Muwatallis is able to defeat both the western Anatolians and the Ahhiyawans and takes control over Wilusa. However Piyama-Radu is still at large carrying out raids with his local allies. When the Hittites, either in the reign of Muwatallis or his brother Hattusili III, decide to take him out, he runs off to Ahhiyawa, along with other fugitives, out through Millawanda which appears to be under Ahhiyawan suzerainty. The Tawagalawa Letter, probably written by Hattusili III, is therefore an attempt to get the Ahhiyawans to abide by the previous treaty and to give Piyama-Radu over to the Hittites, and to keep the activities of Atpa of Millawanda in check. There is more to this however as their father Mursili II had campaigned against a similar Anatolian coalition orchestrated by the same Manapa-Tarhunta. Mursili II also attacked the city of Millawanda and either sacked it or forced Atpa and his family to swear fealty.

In the earlier letter which a so called "Great King" (presumably the same one as in the other letter) sent to Muwatallis he mentions that he inherited Anatolian lands from his grandfather (a marriage alliance), as his great grandfather Kagamunas had made a treaty with some of these kings. In this case, the letter was translated by an envoy which to me is an indicator that the exact meaning is more an approximation on the behalf of the envoy. So Kagamunas could be an Anatolian rendering of something that sounds eerily similar to "Agamemnon". Though it is curious that in the Tawagalawa Letter, Tawagalawa is mentioned as an acquaintance of the King of Hatti's chariot driver. Some might assume that Tawagalawa was similar to Menelaos of Sparta but Tawagalawa is not mentioned as being a king. But he does appear to be in a capacity of viceroy or governor in Anatolia, at the very least an important official overseas. Piyama-Radu and Tawagalawa seem to have a greater presence in Anatolia than the Great King of Ahhiyawa.

But even if this was true, the "Great King" states that Kagamunas was his great grandfather, but in the Tawagalawa Letter the war over Wilusa was a more recent event. Where the center of this Ahhiyawan kingdom could be is never mentioned. The fact that the Ahhiyawans cannot translate their letters into Hittite suggest that they either could not read or did not have scribes, or scribes which understood Hittite. The Hittites are required to send an envoy which suggests that the King of Hatti cannot go in person or that Ahhiyawa is not in Anatolia. It is not until the Tawagalawa Letter that the Ahhiyawans appear to have their own envoys and scribes capable of writing and translating Hittite cuneiform. Moreover the letters from the Ahhiyawans and the Tawagalawa Letter refer to both kings as equals. The fact that the King of Hatti is unable to meet his counterpart in person suggests a specific power dynamic, unlike a lesser king who might be forced to present themselves to the Hittite King. Such a powerful kingdom is not recorded in Anatolia.

Now as I have made explicitly clear multiple times, there is no agreement as to what or where Ahhiyawa is. Scholars still don't agree if it is a kingdom in Anatolia or if it means the Achaeans. There is no direct evidence that this is actually the Mycenaean civilization. One scholar in particular made a connection between "Tawagalawa", as it sounds like an Anatolian rendering of Eteokles, from the ancient tale Seven Against Thebes. The sons of Oedipus fight over the succession of Thebes, they are Polynikes and Eteokles. The Argives and supporters destroy Thebe's power, both brothers die and their uncle Kreon is made king. Eteokles was also said to have lived a generation prior to the Trojan War. As such he suggested that the Achaeans at the time were dominated by a Theban Hegemony. Although this is problematic for several reasons. Naturally there is no evidence that the Mycenaeans were ever unified by direct rule or hegemony, much less that Thebes was the one to do it. Mycenae was considered an alternative and Homer implies that this was the case, but there is simply no evidence. A third option was considered; that Ahhiyawa refers to a powerful island hegemony in the Aegean, perhaps in Rhodes, Lesbos or Crete. Still this is unsupported and honestly sounds rather unfeasible for an island to accomplish. I could shed some more light later, on the Mycenaean situation and why Thebes doesn't really fit into the role of a Greek hegemony nor as an overseas empire.

Well whatever the case here is the letter from the Ahhiyawans to Muwatallis (or at least the fragments which have been preserved):
"Thus speaks PN, Great King, King of the land of Aḫḫiyawa: Say to PN, Great King, King of the land of Ḫatti, my brother:

… hostility has broken out. … has occurred. And the … of the dead …

My brother, you wrote to me in the … year (as follows):
“I did not take from you any of your islands. Your islands which you call (your) inheritance from the King of Aššuwa, the Storm God gave them to me as subjects.”
Now the King of Aššuwa was on good terms with the King of Aḫḫiyawa, so that my great grandfather, Kagamuna, … and had previously married his daughter. Tudḫaliya, your great grandfather, defeated the King of Aššuwa, and made him a subject. The islands? previously belonged to the King of Aḫḫiyawa. So I wrote to my brother about that matter. And … and of the king of Aḫḫiyawa … Previously … the king of Aššuwa … … in the land of … opposite … this/these … to …

Then … And my servant ……… back/again … the border … evil … my … from Millawanda … person, people … in my territory …

But I … him/it. My brother, see … Then … my brother, the servants … "

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

While Ahhiyawa could mean the Achaeans it is possible that in this case it refers to a specific entity. In 1929 B. Hrozny argued that it was Rhodes. D. Page, E. Vermeuel, C. Gates, M. Benzi and S. Sherratt supported this. Sp. Iakovidis argued in 1973 that Rhodes was not sufficiently populated or powerful enough to carry out such campaigns of hegemony in Anatolia.

B. Sergent suggested in 1994 that the territory between Phocis, Megara and Attica had been divided into two hegemonies, those of Orchomenos and Thebes. Translations of Linear B tablets discovered in Thebes done by Aravantinos, Godart and Sacconi support at least the notion that Orchomenos and Thebes exercised much power in Central Greece. Where as T. Palaima disputes this and says that the identification of place names in both Greece and abroad are tenuous, and that Thebes struggled to exercise control over the local cities so that it could not really be considered a stable hegemon or a great power.
Moreover foreign goods and treasures excavated at Mycenae far exceed those discovered in Thebes. Pottery from Mycenae has been uncovered overseas, unlike pottery from Thebes. Thebes simply was not a maritime power but it did have some trade with the outside world and was a notable city within Greece.

F. Starke, J. Latacz, L. Godart and A. Sacconi proposed the association between the Kagamunash of the Ahhiyawan letter (likely a king from the 1500's or 1400's BC) and Kadmos the founder of Thebes. However experts in Hittite, Luwian and Mycenaean languages reject this linguistic connection. C. Melchert says that the grammatical structure of the text suggests that Kagamunash was actually the king of Assuwa rather than the king of Ahhiyawa (both mentioned in the Ahhiyawan letter as being the great grandfathers of the Great King of Ahhiyawa).

All things considered, if Ahhiyawa really was a reference to the Achaeans then it makes more sense to associate it with Mycenae. Ultimately there is only indirect evidence which supports, but cannot prove, the notion that the Great King in question was from Mycenae. Kagamunash cannot be Kadmos founder of Thebes, and Tawagalawa is likely not the mythical Eteokles of Thebes. If I may be permitted to scrutinize the mythology of the Seven Against Thebes epic then I suggest that the fall of Thebes would have occurred after the 1200's BC. The collapse of Theban hegemony over Central Greece appears to have occurred in the late 1200's BC or in the 1100's BC.

If we take these myths at face value then Oedipous first takes Thebes from his father, then his sons Eteokles and Polynikes fight over the succession (the War of the Seven) but their uncle Kreon is made king, and then afterwards there is the third installment in the Theban Cycle in which a new generation fights for control of Thebes (the War of the Epigonoi). The War of the Seven was said to have taken place a generation prior to the Trojan War (the war over Wilusa around 1300 BC-1250 BC could be the actual event... otherwise it could be the actual destruction of Troy VII in 1200 BC-1100 BC). Homer does not mention Thebes as having a major role in the Illiad and the conflicts of the Seven and the Epigonoi are the reasons why, which could imply the fall of the Theban hegemony as being concurrent with the Trojan War and the beginnings of the Bronze Age collapse.

Though as I demonstrated there are too many problems with relying on mythology to establish events. For example Herakles was said to have lived prior to the War of the Seven and the Illiad, but in some stories after fleeing Tyrins his father Amphitryon took up service with Kreon of Thebes. But isn't Kreon supposed to have become king after the War of the Seven, which is only a generation prior to the Trojan War and Herakles was supposed to be long before that. Moreover in the War of the Seven the rival is mentioned as being the powerful Argos, and the Argolis was dominated by Mycenae during the Bronze Age. Argos did not emerge as a power until the Archaic period and the early Classical period. Also important is the fact that the Herakles myths put emphasis on Tiryns which implies that Herakles is meant to predate Mycenae. It is possible that later writers used Argos interchangeably with Mycenae and Tiryns. King Kreon and the city of Thebes in the Herakles myths could be a later insertion however it was generally accepted in the Classical and Hellenistic era that Thebes was the city of Herakles. If Pausanius' writings are accepted then Herakles was the general who freed Thebes from the control of Orchomenos. Placing Herakles into the historical events is difficult if not impossible. But wars of hegemony between Orchomenos and Thebes undoubtedly happened during the Bronze Age.

Herakles' adventures across the Aegean are reminiscent of similar adventures by Jason and Odysseus. Similar in nature to the Hittite texts which mention pirates and adventurers such as Piyama-Radu, Tawagalawa and the much earlier Attarsiya. That last name is also curious because Attarsiya, the man of Ahhiya from the 1400's BC Hittite texts, is reminiscent to the mythical Atreus. Atreus was said to be the son of Thyestes of Olympia, who along with his brother was exiled. He later finds himself in Mycenae and eventually becomes the successor of Eurystheus (here again Mycenae and Tiryns are used interchangeably; Eurystheus was the rival and cousin of Herakles) and goes on various adventures. The dynasty of Atreus in Mycenae was said by some to have origins in west Anatolia; his ancestor Tantalus was from Lydia. Important to understanding the mythology, global perception and the Trojan War, Atreus is the father of Agamemnon and Menelaos. It is therefore curious that the Attarsiya in the Hittite texts spends much of his career fighting and plundering in Anatolia and the later Ahhiyawan letter does mention marriage agreements between the Anatolians and the Ahhiyawans.

Perhaps these myths really do provide clues with regards to the Bronze Age. But the inherent issues with this mythology is that if based on real events, have been distorted across the centuries. Many contain anachronisms in particular the Illiad. Most likely early or later events are attributed to a specific hero or event. For instance, "Seven Against Thebes" could be a reference to the fall of Theban power in the Bronze Age but as the opponents are mentioned as being Argos then it could also be a story about the rise of Argos in the Archaic period. We could assume that Argos is being used interchangeably with Mycenae and Tiryns which were all dominant cities in the Argolis at different times. But honestly there is no way to know and due to the nature of these stories they are likely a combination of events, mythical and factual. The tales of Herakles and his sons as well as that of Atreus have an inherent Viking quality, comparable to the myths of Ragnar and the somewhat mythical sons of Ragnar.