Even in the Imperial period, propagandistic expressions of kingship (that is, through celebratory monuments and inscriptions), typical of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian ideology of kingship, were far more modest. This avoidance of excessive propaganda was due to the Hittite kings’ lack of interest in addressing their people, and the inability of the latter in having any impact on the former. Propaganda was exclusively addressed to the court, the royal family and the state administrators. Therefore, the Hittite ruling class saw the king as a hero, who respected the core values of the legal and personal network of relations constituting the Hittite state. These values could all be synthesised into one simple idea, namely, ‘justice’ (para handandatar), which required the respect of ethical, religious and legal principles.
Compared to their vassals and enemies, the Hittite kings display a bona fide obsession in trying to demonstrate that their decisions were right. Since there would always have been disagreements on who was right in any given situation, the kings tried to regulate each social or political interaction through a sworn agreement. Therefore, he who followed the oath by the letter would have been right, while the one who breached it would have been wrong. If everyone respected the oath, there would have been no social, political or military dispute. Since these treaties were all in favour of the Hittite ruler, it is clear that the observance of the treaties would have implied a passive acceptance of the superior role of the Hittite ruler and of Hatti as a whole.
When agreements were stipulated without writing them down, the criteria used were the most common ones. These were centred on the idea of analogy (in the sense of proportionality). On the one hand, there was a ‘horizontal’ analogy, namely, the idea of reciprocity, according to which something was right in one direction, if it was right in the opposite direction. Therefore, if one sacked the other’s land, he could not complain about the latter sacking his land in return. Similarly, if one state held the other’s fugitives, it was fair that the other state did the same. However, there was also a ‘vertical’ analogy, which was more diachronic. According to this concept, something was right if it had been done in the past, especially in a distant and mythical past, which acted as a model for current behaviour. Therefore, despite the lack of treaties, reciprocity and tradition should have been enough to provide the right criteria to solve controversies.
If controversies were too difficult to solve, there was always war. War was seen as a conflict by ordeal (a common idea in the Late Bronze Age), namely, as a way to see who was ultimately right. In our view, the winner is right in the sense that he imposes his reasons, forcing them on the potential reasons provided by the losing side. The Hittite idea, however, was completely different: he who was right would have won because he was supported by the gods, and would have demonstrated that his argument was right through his victory. This vision of military victories as some sort of ordeal made war extremely ritual in nature. There was a ritual to declare war, which had both operational and religious consequences. War officially began with a notification sent to the enemy recounting the offences suffered, the goodwill of the sender bestowed in vain, and the inevitability of war. Similarly, a notification of war was also sent to the enemy’s gods, in the form of legal texts. In these notifications, the sender explained the enemy’s offences and invited the gods to abandon the land, to side with the fair king, facilitating the victory of the Hittite king and his gods.
Battles were also conceived as ordeals, since they were fought over long periods of time and in well-known areas, with the two armies facing each other, without betrayals or deceptions. This was, at least, the ideal battle. However, it did not come as a surprise if the ‘unfair’ enemy was equally unfair on the battlefield. Therefore, by continuing to behave incorrectly even when justice was being ascertained, the enemy confirmed his lack of moral values and made the outcome of the battle even more evident. The battle was therefore resolved quickly, since divine support made it a pure formality, forcing the unfair and godless enemy to die or flee.
Although the outcome of a battle was taken for granted and seen as relatively easy a posteriori, it required extreme caution beforehand (Text 18.5). This caution was propitiatory and reinforced by specific rituals. These were developed to prefigure the future victory by making the Hittite warriors, clad in bronze, symbolically fight the enemy, armed with reeds. Alternatively, there were magic rituals, meant to transform the enemy’s soldiers into harmless women. Above all, there was an ascertaining caution, made of mantic rituals, which were of Mesopotamian (mainly hepatoscopy) and Anatolian origins (ornithomancy and the so-called KIN-oracle, where lots were placed on a diagram covered with symbols). Long texts predicted entire military campaigns on the basis of oracular verifications before the wars were even begun. Each movement, attack and strategy was tested through oracles and, if the outcome was negative, an alternative was tested, until the right prediction was in place.
World History
