(1/2)

##Foreign Relations between the Egyptians and Hittites

In a previous Saturday post, I discussed the sources for Hittite history. Today I'm going to focus on one aspect of Hittite history, the interaction between Egypt and Ḫatti.

It is difficult to determine precisely when the Egyptians first encountered the Hittites. The Egyptians first became heavily involved in Near Eastern affairs during the Old Kingdom, when they developed strong relations with Byblos. Egyptian interest in the Levant intensified during the Middle Kingdom, but the Egyptians primarily restricted themselves to trade and occasional raids abroad. It was the expulsion of the Hyksos under the Egyptian king Ahmose I that fueled the Egyptian imperialism of the New Kingdom. Driving the Hyksos out of the Delta and beyond their stronghold of Sharuhen, the Egyptian army of the early Eighteenth Dynasty pushed into the Levant. The reasons behind this remain unclear, but it seems likely that the prospect of firm control over timber and other valuable resources coupled with the desire for a buffer region were strong incentives for an Egyptian empire in the Levant. Although Thutmose I pushed as far north as the Euphrates, erecting a stela on its bank, it was Thutmose III who solidified the Egyptian empire. Thutmose III implemented a policy of seizing the sons of defeated kings in order to raise them in Egypt; these Egyptianized Syrians eventually returned to their home cities to become loyal vassal rulers. Thutmose III also utilized marriage as a means of cementing his control of the Levant; the tomb of three of his foreign wives indicates that he had several Syrian wives. Amenhotep III inherited a strong Egyptian empire, and under his rule Egypt was unquestionably the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the Near East.

The kingdom of Mitanni, however, posed a threat to the Egyptian control of the Levant. During the reign of the Hittite king Ḫattusili I, the Hittites defeated the kingdom of Yamḫad, centered at Aleppo. This victory entitled the Hittite king to adopt the title of “Great King,” much as the defeat of Mitanni would later enable the Assyrian king to adopt the title. The disintegration of the kingdom of Yamḫad created a power vacuum in Syria that resulted in the rise of Mitanni, a (mostly) Hurrian kingdom. Although the Hittites may have been able to check the nascent threat of Mitanni had they been unified under a strong authority, the Hittite government was in considerable chaos after the assassination of Mursili I, and a series of coups marked the succeeding generations. Mitanni therefore coalesced into an empire of considerable power and authority, competing with Egypt for control of the Levantine coast. Although Egypt and Mitanni were at odds throughout much of the 15th and early 14th centuries, the two came to a peaceful agreement during the reign of Thutmose IV. A treaty was drawn up between the two powers, and Thutmose IV married the daughter of the Mitannian king.

Although Mitanni was the Near Eastern power of primary concern to Egypt during the 15th and 14th centuries BCE, evidence exists that suggests Egypt was already maintaining ties with the Hittites. Although ancient historians initially believed the Egyptians adopted cuneiform from their Levantine vassals, an analysis of the cuneiform signs used at Amarna indicates that the Egyptian scribes were trained by Hittite scribes; different regions of the ancient Near East had differing forms of cuneiform signs. Moreover, the plague prayer of Mursili II contains a reference to the "Kuruštama treaty" between Šuppiluliuma I and an unknown Egyptian king, perhaps Amenhotep III.

The second tablet dealt with the town of Kuruštamma: how the Storm God of Ḫatti carried the men of Kuruštamma to Egyptian territory and how the Storm God of Ḫatti made a treaty between them and the men of Ḫatti, so they were put under oath by the Storm God of Ḫatti. Since the men of Ḫatti and the men of Egypt were bound by the oath of the Storm God of Ḫatti, and the men of Ḫatti proceeded to get the upper hand, the men of Ḫatti transgressed the oath of the gods. My father sent infantry and chariotry, and they attacked the borderland of Egypt, the land of Amqa. And again he sent, and again they attacked.

The plague that devastated the Hittite empire during the reign of Muršili II and killed his father and brother was, according to Hittite oracular inquiry, caused by Šuppiluliuma’s breaking of this treaty. Several tablets in the Amarna letters were addressed to the Hittites, though far fewer than to Mitanni or the Levantine vassal states. Interestingly, two Amarna letters concern Arzawa, a kingdom in western Anatolia. Amenhotep III seems to have been remarkably well-informed about the political situation in Anatolia, as he notes that “the land of Hatti has become frozen,” undoubtedly referring to the very near destruction of the Hittite empire due to the the Kaška peoples and Arzawa during the reign of Tutḫaliya III, the father of Šuppiluliuma I. Clearly assuming that Arzawa would become the primary power in Anatolia, Amenhotep III sent a diplomatic overture, offerings gifts and the desire for a diplomatic marriage. The Hittites regained control, however, and the Egyptian-Arzawan correspondence ceased.

The most famous interaction between the Egyptians and Hittites during the Amarna period is the “Egyptian widow” incident. This incident was recorded during the reign of Muršili II, who wrote a history of his deeds as well as the deeds of his father Šuppiluliuma. According to Muršili, his father Šuppiluliuma received a letter from the queen of Egypt, Dahumunzu. The Hittite scribe apparently took this as a personal name, but it is a garbled form of the Egyptian title tA Hmt nsw, literally “the wife of the king.” The name of the dowager queen therefore remains unknown, but a reference to the name of her deceased husband is helpful for speculation. The Hittites referred to him as Nebhuriya, almost certainly a reference to Nb-xprw-Re (Nebkheperure), a name of Tutankhamun; the names of Amenhotep III (Neferkheperure) and Smenkhkare (Ankhkheperure) do not seem to match the Hittite name. In any case, the widowed queen wrote to Šuppiluliuma in order to request one of his sons in marriage. Her husband has died and he left no sons, and she refuses to marry one of her servants.

He who was my husband is dead. I have no son! Never shall I take a servant of mine and make him my husband! I have written to no other country. Only to you I have written. They say you have many sons. Give me one of your sons. To me he will be husband, and in Egypt he will be king!

Šuppiluliuma was suitably cautious and sent a messenger to Egypt to investigate the queen's claims. When his representative reported that the queen spoke the truth, Šuppiluliuma dispatched his youngest son Zannanza to Egypt. The unfortunate Zannanza never made it to Egypt and died en route. Šuppiluliuma blamed Egyptian treachery, and historians have painted a lurid picture of a scheming Ay plotting the dastardly deed to assume control of Egypt, but the prince may well have been waylaid by ordinary bandits, an ever present danger during the Late Bronze Age, or been a victim of disease or a road accident. Enraged, Šuppiluliuma mustered his troops and marched down to Egypt, defeating its forces and taking hundreds of prisoners. The king's victory was ultimately his undoing, however, as the Egyptian prisoners-of-war brought plague back to Ḫatti. This plague killed Šuppiluliuma and his oldest son and heir, leaving the throne to fall to the relatively young Muršili II. Fortunately for the Hittites, Muršili II proved exceptionally capable despite his young age.

The Hittite empire had expanded greatly during the reign of Šuppiluliuma I, and Muršili II strengthened Hittite control over its newly won territory. His son Muwatalli II therefore inherited a strong Hittite empire, with much of the Levantine coast down to Kadesh firmly under Hittite control. In Egypt, however, however, the Egyptians were developing a renewed sense of military vigor under the leadership of Seti I of the 19th Dynasty. Egyptian troops seized control of much of the southern Levant, and Seti I placed a victory stela in Kadesh. These victories were not to last, however, and the captured areas quickly reverted to Hittite control upon the triumphal return to Egypt.

Week 34 – or the week you remember to do a backup of your stuff

 

On June 12^th – absent its veteran President, Giuseppe Marcora, due to a minor illness; but present a delegation of the Belgian Government, met with a round of applause by the whole assembly – the Italian Chamber resumed session for the last time before taking its very long summer hiatus, that would last until October.

Meanwhile the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in a state of advanced political decay, plagued with strikes, shortages and close to see the level of disarray transition from social life to the military ranks, was planning its last large offensive on the Italian front. This time, unlike what had happened in Caporetto eight months before, the Germans, busy in the last stages of the Kaiserschlacht could give the Austrians very little assistance. The Austrian High Command had planned a pincer maneuver – to begin on the 15^th . On one end the Army Group Boroevic was expected to advance south of Treviso, along the coast of the Venetian Lagoon, forcing the Italians to retreat from the city; on the other the Army Group Conrad was supposed to move south along the Astico River valley, onto the other major city of Vicenza. Eventually the two prongs were to converge on Padua, the new seat of the Italian High Command.

The Italians, who had spent the last six months holding carefully their defensive line, under the cautious if lackluster strategy of new Chief of Staff Armando Diaz – and who had by now constant adjournments on the Austrian movements thanks to the large influx of deserters – could await the expected summer offensive with a certain degree of confidence.

The operations opened on the 13^th with a diversion push on the Tonale Pass, on the extreme northwest of the front line, brought by two divisions of Conrad's Group.

 

Opening the Parliament works fell instead to Prime Minister Orlando, who announced a few replacements in key ministerial positions that had taken place since the last session of April 18^th to 26^th – the solution of a “silent” crisis that had run its course during the parliament closure. Soon after the replacement of Vittorio Alfieri with Vittorio Zupelli as Ministry of War, Alfredo Dallolio, the Secretary for Arms and Ammunition, and Riccardo Bianchi, the Minister of Transports had resigned, to be replaced by Zupelli himself ad interim and Giovanni Villa respectively. The Undersecretary for Arms and Ammunition Paolo Bignami had resigned as well. A new Ministry for supplies and consumption had been created, entrusted to Silvio Crespi, while Salvatore Orlando (not a relative of V.E. Orlando) had taken the place of Undersecretary for Transports.

Orlando's short statement was followed by socialist G. E. Modigliani's critical take on the Government's behavior. Tying back to the criticism on the lack of a complete parliamentary discussion on the situation of the transport and supplies matters back in Aprils, as well as observing that the Parliament would now be busy with the approval of the provisional budget, Modigliani noted how the Chamber had been made into a passive bystander, a witness to the government crisis and to its solution.

The turnaround in the executive, that Orlando would pass off as an adjustment, was instead the result of growing tensions (also personal – see for instance L. Albertini's memoirs and letters) between the competing administrative structures that had developed during the conflict. At the same time, Orlando was certainly not willing to face a complete parliamentary discussion over a necessary “rationalization”, that would have required something akin to a true government crisis.

Modigliani preemptively refused the idea that the argument of the conduct and planning of the war effort could not be subject to the parliament discussion. “One should not say” – he noted – “that such an argument should be avoided due to the various dangers it entails, because the necessary result of such a statement would be that no discussion could be held, anywhere, by anyone, as long as the war lasts: because if the first place of discussion within the country were to systematically forbid itself the exercise of debate due to its difficulties, than it would better declare itself incapable of accomplishing its mandate.”

More than Orlando, the target of Modigliani's criticism was Foreign Minister Sidney Sonnino; highlighted as a symbol for the Italian obstinate refusal to even entertain thoughts of peace, as well as for the obscure personalism [in Modigliani's words, “in matters of foreign policy, absolute reserve as far as providing explanation of his action, pushed at times to a spiteful refusal to answer any question, is the only one true criterion of the Italian Ministry”] that inspired his latest political actions – such as the official interpretation of the results of the Conference of San Giovanni di Moriana as an allied reassurance about the Italian territorial demands; something that was far from a clear cut statement in fact. And there was the more urgent matter of how to reconcile the official position of the Italian Foreign Office, that the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was neither desirable nor probable, with the various openings of the Government towards the demands of the oppressed nationalities – and more, how was such a reconciliation to be achieved if the Parliament had not chance to express its point of view over the political choices of the Government?

But the position of the socialist parliamentary group was problematic as well: the idea that the Central Empires were by June 1918 roughly in the same shape they had found themselves during the previous summer (which is entirely extraneous to any thought of surrender and in fact boosting a renewed confidence in victory after the Russian revolution) was far from accurate and we know that the Austrians especially were in fact close to their breaking point. The chance for a negotiated peace might have been by then actually more distant than that of the centrals capitulation.

Modigliani concluded with the renewed exhortation to introduce the instrument of permanent parliamentary committees – those work groups, composed according to the proportion of the representatives in the Chamber, are a typical feature of many modern parliaments and in fact had been championed by various political forces, as a way to make the activity of the Chamber more incisive and effective; a first reform in such direction would in fact take place in 1919.

Orlando – who had been invited by Modigliani to abstain from taking advantage of his speaking art in order to avoid a straight forward answer to the issue of the Government's lack of communications to the Chamber – explained that, if he had not addressed certain issues, and despite accepting the right of any member of the Chamber to demand clarification, he could not be brought to address them at the moment either; “If the truth is artful” - he replied - “what can I do?”. There was, he added, nothing of exceptional novelty that warranted putting an address to the Chamber ahead of the debate over the provisional budget in the order of business. The very matters discussed by Modigliani were connected to previous events, that the Chamber had already had a chance to hear about from the Government. And as for the right of discussion, it wasn't the Government's job to dictate the order of business preemptively [a motion to open the session with the discussion over the matter of ammunition and supplies had been presented by Hon. Girardini, with the support of various members of the Fascio but Orlando – as he would do in fact soon after – had announced his intention to ask for the matter to be postponed to make room for the budget discussion]. And with that, the Chamber moved to the order of business.

The Chamber held a brief memorial speech for those current and previous members who had passed away. Also, on June 10^th , the librettist and composer Arrigo Boito had died. Probably best known for his collaboration with Giuseppe Verdi in the great composer's last years, Boito had earned the Chamber's salute for his artistic and cultural merits. A similar salute went to the “victims of Castellazzo” – as the Chamber transcriptions summarized the fifty-nine “obscure victims of duty”, killed in an explosion in an ammunition factory, located in Castellazzo di Bollate (a fraction of a small town near Milan – the fact happening on the 7^th ). Most of the employees were women (as were fifty-two of the victims) and the event has gained its place as one of the worst industrial accidents in Italian history, as well as for the participation of a later famous rescuer, Ernst Hemingway. The factory, owned by Sutter & Thévenot, was famous enough to warrant pictures being taken (the year before, in1917) there; some of those you can see here and also here. The Catholic Adamo Degli Occhi [not the author of a monograph on the Nuremberg Trial dated 1947] expressed his hope that “no effort and attention would be spared to ensure for those called to work for the war the safety of their lives”. In Italy, he said, “death could hit one even in factory work”.