At its peak, the Hittite empire extended from the Aegean to the Upper Tigris, and from the Black Sea to Lebanon. It therefore constituted one of vastest empires that had ruled in the Near East until then, only to be overcome later on by the Egyptian empire. The nature and systems of cohesion used by the Hittite empire require some consideration. The Hittite empire did not belong to the old type of commercial empire, typical of the third and second millennium bc (such as in the case of the Old Assyrian commercial network, or even some aspects of Egyptian presence in the Syro-Levantine area). In fact, despite considering the commercial aspect important, Hatti never placed it at the heart of its hegemonic system. Moreover, the solid system of control over conquered territories used by later empires (the Neo-Assyrian one in particular) was not yet developed in the Late Bronze Age. Therefore, while the centre was a politically unified area, the conquered territories, whose subjugation and dependence was fundamental for the empire’s survival, continued in their efforts towards independence. Nonetheless, the administrative and political organisation of Anatolia greatly improved during the Hittite empire (from Suppiluliuma I onwards). By now, then, the empire ruled over a large portion of Central and eastern Anatolia and was as large as Kassite Babylonia or Assyria.
The key element holding the empire together was of a legal and personal nature. It was centred on a series of subordinate personal relations expressed following a specific legal protocol. It is likely that the kingdoms of Mitanni, Kizzuwatna and Arzawa used a similar system. However, Hatti provides us with the largest amount of evidence for this system and the justified impression that it was more broadly and systematically applied there. These personal ties were formalised through an ‘oath’ (lingai). The latter included a series of detailed clauses, developed in order to leave nothing to chance, and to leave out those who did not swear the oath or the events not included in the oath. This was in marked contrast with the Egyptian system, where oaths of dependence were kept deliberately vague, allowing the Egyptian king to interpret it whichever way he wanted. Moreover, Egyptian treaties were verbal agreements, and less related to the person swearing the oath, and more to his function in connection to the Egyptian king.
Hittite oaths are attested in a series of documents that scholars tend to divide according to type. However, the Hittites probably conceived these texts as part of a unitary system. The ‘instructions’ regulated the system of dependencies within the Hittite state, while the ‘treaties’ regulated external relations. Instruction texts, which were mainly developed before Suppiluliuma’s reign, were in use throughout the empire. They were mainly concerned with important aspects of the state and military administration. They focus in particular on the upper strata of Hittite society. This elite is divided between the ‘great ones’, the sons of the most influential families in the Hittite elite, and the ‘king’s sons’, the relatives (biological or not) of the king. The latter mainly held offices within the Hittite court, in the administration of the empire’s periphery, and in the army.
Each member of this elite group had to swear a loyalty oath to the king. These oaths included general principles, such as the loyalty to the king and his chosen heir, and more detailed principles on the correct fulfilment of their office (Text 18.2). This wide network of oaths developed an equally wide system of reciprocal ties. After all, the king could only rule through the support and loyalty of his functionaries, and the latter were kept in their places through the support and loyalty of the king towards them. This network of loyalties was closely linked to the network of kinship relations of the Hittite court. The latter network is clearly expressed by the group called the ‘king’s sons’. The Hittite royal family always had a strong interest in inter-dynastic marriages, giving and taking wives from the Anatolian elite. This process eventually made kinship ties extremely ideological. However, despite being useful in forging a strong political cohesion internally, these kinship ties also promoted competition. This was due to the large number of individuals who could theoretically claim the throne, or at least other important positions within the Hittite court.
World History
