WI: The Hittites win decisevely at Qadesh in 1274 BCE?

So what would happen if the Hittites manage to kill Ramses II during the fight and completely crush the Egyptian army and reinforcements? Would they be able to evict the Egyptians out of the Levant entirely? I imagine they would also be in a better position to help the Mitanni vassals against Assyrian expansion, maybe Assyrian would also feel less emboldened with such an ascending western neighbor.
In any case what would happen if the Bronze age collapse still happens similarly to IOTL? Would the Syro-Anatolian states be in a stronger position against their southern and eastern neighbours?
 
I also wonder what the effect would be on Babylonia and Elam, I imagine a weaker Assyria would prevent the Assyrian take over in the late 13th century and maybe even any Elamite takeover, but what would the implication of that be in the iron age?
 
The Assyrian hegemony over Karduniash will occur unless the Great King in Hatti actively attempts to stop it. In otl, Adad-Nirari I (1295-1264 BCE) defeated and subjugated the Karduniash kingdom in 1282 BCE, slaying Nazi-Marrutash (1308-1281 BCE), the king of Karduniash and appointing Kadashman-Turgu (1281-1264 BCE) into the position of king. Adad-Nirari I is said to have held Kadahsman-Turgu as his and then pardoned him of his sins. Karduniash would not attack Assyria for some time thus, and would remain at worst a rebellious tributary until the reign of Kashtaliash IV (1232-1225 BCE) who would openly declare conflict with Assyria. Earlier, Assyria displayed ability to defeat Karduniash in battle with even less resources, during the reign of Ashur-Uballit I (1353-1318 BCE) for instance comes as an examples.

Regarding the time of the Hittite battle with Egypt, Assyria and Hatti seem to have been allies. Assyrian officials and strategy seemed to revolve around fickle choices of allies for different occasions. Originally, Assyrian officials allied the Egyptian Thutmosids against a perceived ascendant Hatti. Ashur-Uballit I was able to align both Karduniash, Egypt and himself against Hatti, shattering the momentum of the Hatti state significantly. However, after some setbacks, mainly during the reign of Enlil-Nirari (1318-1308 BCE) and Arik-den-ilie (1308-1295 BCE) the Assyrians changed tune and began to act in a friendly manner to Hatti. Seemingly both parties supported each other, especially the Hatti actively requested the Assyrians to protect their northeastern frontier.

So, if in 1274 BCE, the Hatti manage what should have been a total victory, slaying Ramses II in the process, the Assyrian response may be to ally the Egyptians. However, if Ramses II is dead, I am not sure Egypt will be in any position to assist. We can imagine that Assyria will take a more cautious approach though toward Mitanni while maintaining its control over Karduniash and Assyria proper.

But, one thing must be stressed, Hatti should not have been harmed by a stalemate at Kadesh. Egypt and Hatti reached a detente with each other and a peaceful period emerged of cross Egyptian-Hatti trde and friendship. This should have been the time in which Hatti pushes the eastern frontier and destroys Assyria. Instead however, Hatti permits Assyria to consistently insult it increasingly. Assyrian envoys begin to claim that Hatti is its vassal during the waning years of Adad-Nirari I and the reign of Shalmaneser I, wherein Assyrian delegates claim that the Hatti king is simply their governor in Hattusha. Despite these insults and the Assyrian capture of Washukanni, the Hatti only responded in 1230 BCE and were crushed in battle. Considering that Muwattali (1295-1272 BCE) and his supporter and successor, Mursili III (1272-1267 BCE) both requested Assyria to assist it in defense of their country, implies to me a possible fear that Hatti held of Assyria, especially with the Egyptian threat looming and of the more dangerous hillcountry folk.

My assumption is, that Hatti will be known as an even greater threat due to its victory at Kadesh and a renewed triple-alliance will form against Hatti, one that Assyria will exploit for maximum territorial gains. Likewise, Assyria has nullified according to most opinions on the topic, the military advantages that Hatti holds and Assyria may have innovated past the Hatti in that Assyrian warriors may have already been carrying iron weaponry. By the military nullification, I refer to the fact that the majority of the Mitanni war masters, the instructors of the so-called Maryannu were adopted by the Assyrians; later so-called Maryannu elites within the region even changed their names to Akkadian ones, exemplifying where the Mitanni military elite flowed towards as opposed to Hatti.

-----------------------------

If your premise is that due to Kadesh, the Hatti do not permit the loss of Mitanni and instead perhaps invade and subjugate Assyria? Then the matter changes. Hatti if it defeats Assyria, it will not incur the Bronze Age Collapse. There may be some territory temporarily lost in the south, from the so-called Sea Peoples, but the main issue is the invasion of the Kaska, Mushki, Phrygians, etc... They are the primary threat to Hatti and the reason that most of the Neo-Hittite states came under Assyrian hegemony, as these states sought protection against these predatory elements to the north. Assyrian campaigns undertook the goal of subduing these groups and managed to do so by the reign of Tiglath-Pileser I (1116-1076 BCE).

So in a scenario wherein Hatti manages to hold its border for the moment, we may see the Hatti manage to more thoroughly bring the region into heel and thus vassalize large portions. Assyria is the most important to do so with, secondly would be Karduniash. The two of which can be used as shields against Elam, while Hatti focuses upon solidifying its frontier and making sure the threat which destroyed the Mycenae kingdom does not spread to their realm. However, my instinct is that there was some sort of growing issue in the Hatti kingdom, which made them willing to allow such Assyrian offenses to them and also in the same breath request Assyria to protect some of their key cities in the north and east. All very odd.
 
Last edited:
If your premise is that due to Kadesh, the Hatti do not permit the loss of Mitanni and instead perhaps invade and subjugate Assyria? Then the matter changes. Hatti if it defeats Assyria, it will not incur the Bronze Age Collapse. There may be some territory temporarily lost in the south, from the so-called Sea Peoples, but the main issue is the invasion of the Kaska, Mushki, Phrygians, etc... They are the primary threat to Hatti and the reason that most of the Neo-Hittite states came under Assyrian hegemony, as these states sought protection against these predatory elements to the north. Assyrian campaigns undertook the goal of subduing these groups and managed to do so by the reign of Tiglath-Pileser I (1116-1076 BCE).

So in a scenario wherein Hatti manages to hold its border for the moment, we may see the Hatti manage to more thoroughly bring the region into heel and thus vassalize large portions. Assyria is the most important to do so with, secondly would be Karduniash. The two of which can be used as shields against Elam, while Hatti focuses upon solidifying its frontier and making sure the threat which destroyed the Mycenae kingdom does not spread to their realm. However, my instinct is that there was some sort of growing issue in the Hatti kingdom, which made them willing to allow such Assyrian offenses to them and also in the same breath request Assyria to protect some of their key cities in the north and east. All very odd.
It seems to me that the Hittites were particularly weak in Anatolia during their later period even if they were able to mount a large coalition in Kadesh, I wonder if they could relocate to Carcemish or some other southern city if they can't deal wit the Kaska or other Anatolian groups.
If the Hittite evict the Egyptians from the Southern Levant and secure all of the Mitanni territory under them they would certainly feel more secure in the south and given the example, albeit failed, of Tarhuntassa it's not unprecedented for the Hittite to attempt to change capital, plus the fact the capital was abandoned during their collapse also shows that it's not like they were necessarily going to die with Hattusa.
 
Top