Referencing this article that came out last May. In the article, a geoarchaeologist named Eberhard Zangger is proposing that there were multiple nation states who were allied together to form a pact instead of a vassal state. Around 1200 BCE, there was a rapid collapse of several nations in the Mediterranean which could be attributed to a multi-region conflict by various allied nation states. He suggests the Luwians who I took to be Mycenaeans and other sea-faring peoples waged a war where they eventually emerged victorious.
What present evidence exists to support this idea if any and is this a fringe idea?
Interesting analysis. However, I do not believe the world needs to re number the world wars for several reasons.
Firstly, the world wars truly were unique multi-continental affairs raging across the world that also clearly were still but one war. World War I and II had a clear beginning and end.
Multi regional "barbarian" invasions by contrast only appeared planned and singular to the civilization being attacked, but were most likely simply opportunistic invasions by separate raiding tribes. Hostilities generally took place over a decade or longer, which in my opinion seems less like a war and more like a series of short conflicts that gradually wore down the targeted state.
Also, this regional Sea People's event is no more worthy of the title World War than the Gothic invasions of the Roman Empire during the Third Century Crisis, the later and even more renowned Gothic invasion of 376, or the equally large scale invasions of Chinese and Indian subcontinents by various nomadic tribes.
None of these facts are new. Yet there is very little evidence in favour of this theory and much against. I haven't read his book, but I read nothing new in the summary.
The fact that many of these nations in Turkey spoke Luwian or a variant thereof means nothing. The vast majority of European nations speak an Indo-European language but no one is suggesting there was ever an European Empire. Of course neighbouring nations will speak languages that are similar, this proves nothing. Furthermore, a language that is widely understood like Luwian, or for example Aramaic, will automatically become used far and wide as a trade and diplomatic language, making it harder to determine who were the 'native' speakers.
The Hittite records clearly indicate they ruled a major part of Turkey most of the time for hundreds of years, and wars were led against smaller parts of Turkey like 'Seha river land'. No mention in their records is made of smaller nations ganging up on them in some sort of Rebel Alliance. That said, there is much guesswork about location, size, or even identity of some of these states. Also Ahhiya, who were likely Mycean invaders/colonists, might have worked together with some western Turkey nations against the Hittites. The Hittite records also do not seem to indicate the western minor nations were very dangerous, while conflicts with Mittani, Babylon, Assyria and Egypt are clearly major events (with the notable exception of the Kaska who lived to their north and clearly were very dangerous).
There is no evidence I know of that Myceans are 'Luwians' or spoke Luwian. If anything, they are Ahhiya. Also, the Myceans themselves were completely destroyed at about the same time as the 'Sea peoples' rampage.
This idea of WW0 keeps coming up because it is a cool theory. However, that does not make it true. Nevertheless there is very little we really know so it is not impossible. For example, an alliance of minor powers like the Medes, Babylon, etc brought down the mighty Assyrian 'evil' empire.
I am an amateur so feel free to correct me.
Ref : The Kingdom of the Hittites, Life and Society in the Hittite world, both by Bryce. Ancient Turkey by Lloyd, Ancient Turkey by Sagona & Zimansky, The Hittites by Lehmann.