The Dark Lords of Hattusha/Hittite Empire 1595 BC


Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
I thought it was. But I can email it to you. It's in one our databases; I can email it to myself and forward it on to you. Send me a pm with your email address and I'll forward it on to you. :)


Forum Staff
Jun 2009
land of Califia
I thought it was. But I can email it to you. It's in one our databases; I can email it to myself and forward it on to you. Send me a pm with your email address and I'll forward it on to you. :)
That would be awesome Clemmie, thanks. I really enjoy Gabriels' work and would like to take a look at it. I will PM you my email address and whenever you get around to it would be cool.:)
Feb 2011
Kadesh was a draw no clear side won the Hittites drew Ramases II into believing he would win a battle without the reinforcements, that were much further behind. The hittites were winning the battle if you could call it that, as it was much more of an ambush, until the reinforcements showed up just at the right moment to turn the tide of the battle, though no side clearly won the battle

Edit corrected it just a bit tired tonight sorry
Last edited:


Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
The Great Indoors
Kadesh was a draw no clear side won the Hittites drew Ramases II into believing he would win a battle without the reinforcement that much further behind and the hittites were winning the battle if you call it that was more an ambush easily until the reinforcements showed up just at right moment to turn tide of the battle but no side clearly won it

Dude, punctuation!
Mar 2009
Hofheim, Germany
Howdy Folks, long time no see!

I took a module on the Hittites in my last year at uni. Absolutely fascinating. If I ever do a Masters, I want to focus on them. I watched the documentary posted here back then and I found it very useful (as I rely on visual aid to remember things). I think a lot of what I am about to write comes from the documentary :D

Unfortunately what we know (or believe to know) about the Hittites is limited. Despite a huge find of clay tablets at Hattusha, many of which are still being studied, the information is usually restricted to laws or vague diplomatic correspondence. Moreover, we are left in the dark or have to guess (sometimes quite wildly), as to which people are being referred to in these documents. The most infamous case would of course be wether or not Wilusa is Troy.

What we can sort of safely say about the Hittites is that they led a life dominated by strict rules. The law codes that have been discovered give us some examples of the crimes and their respective punishments. Some of them are really quite bizarre and lead us to believe that if they are so detailed about their crimes, then there could well have been quite a widespread legal system.

There was a system of government, with the king at the top, who also acted as the high priest. The queen, known as Tawannana, the name of one of the very first queens, was the high priestess and was also involved in governing and diplomatic relations.

Militarily the Hittites were quite active, but I feel they wished to manage more. While their city was an impenetrable fortress, the Hittite lands were still vulnerable when the army was on campaign. The Kaska tribes in the north conducted regular raids into Hittite territory and the kings absence also led to political unrest within the walls of Hattusha. Moreover, the Hittites did not possess the logistical skills to campaign for extended periods of time, as evident from the Hittites reaching and looting, but not occupying, of Babylon. In combat they were quite efficient however. Kadesh has been mentioned, and this is a good example. The outcome of the battle is debatable. Inscriptions at Abu Simbel, which were until recently the only source of this battle, tell us of an Egyptian victory. The clay tablets of Hattusha give us the other side of the story, however. An Egpytian victory has very much been put into doubt now, and if it was not a Hittite victory, then at least a stalemate, which could actually be counted as a Hittite moral victory. The Hittites implemented an ancient "super weapon", namely a modified chariot, which were superior to their traditional Egyptian counterparts. The wheels were placed in the centre of the chariot, rather than the rear. While this restricted speed, it increased stability, thus allowing an additional soldier to ride along. Thus, there was a rider, an archer and a soldier with a shield to protect them. With this, and the relevant tactics, the Hittites could overwhelme their opponents. If Ramesses II not been engaged with the Hittites with just one third of his army, then the outcome might have been very different, but that just shows that Ramesses was either over confident, unpatient or clueless.

The Hittites were very religious and supersticious. They had massive temple complexes in Hattusha, where the individual gods "lived". There have been many links made between Hittite and Greek religion, as well as Babylonian. I cannot go into detail here, however.

Aside from the massive religious structures, the Hittites engineered fortifications unlike any other in the ancient world. The whole city was surrounded by high and wide walls. There was not a single gap in the wall in this mountainous terrain. While many civilisations would have just used the natural obstacles as part of their defensive system, the Hittites constructed their walls over every crevice, nook and jagged edge. Every ten meters or so the wall had a high tower, built out of wood. If any enemy managed even to get to the walls (Hattusha was built on top of a large, rocky hill - the terrain is quite rough and unfriendly to any invading armies), then they would be faced with an enemy with a considerable advantage. Not only did the towers give the defenders 360° vision around the city, there were many traps and ambush points. In most ancient fortification systems, the gates were the weakest points, but in the case of the Hittites, this was the exact opposite. The gates were extremely well fortified and defended. As if all this was not enough, the Hittites possessed a sophisticated tunnel system, through which they could sneak behind any attackers.

All this seems to be the work of an overprotective and/or paranoid people. They had great aims and were for a while counted as one of the great kingdoms, alongside Egypt, Babylon and Mycenae. I believe that if they were more politically stable and diplomatically careful, they could have been truly great. Anatolia was too divided and the Hittites never were able to consolidate the region. Maybe if they had cleaned up their borders, such as the pesky Kaska in the north, they would have been able to create a larger sphere of influence.
  • Like
Reactions: specul8

Sargon of Akkad

Ad Honorem
Jun 2009
Glorious England
They sound like the stuff of nightmares. They come out of the ground in a great hill fortress and show everyone who's boss with an incredibly disciplined army. They may as well have called their capital Mordor.


Ad Honoris
Jul 2009
Why does it call Hittites dark lord, they weren't evil comparativelly to others.