The logistics of launching a naval invasion even in modern times is staggering. I can only imagine how difficult it would've been for a Bronze Age state like Hatti.
Except for the Greeks apparently, who IMO invaded Greek itself from the sea (originally based in Montenegro, Mala Gruda facies of Vucedol culture), what explains how they were present as far as Spain already by c. 1550 BCE (phase B of El Argar, with very clear Mycenaean influences). Well, I must correct myself, not only the Greeks were able to do that, their western neighbors across the sea, the Ausones of southern Italy, apparently pirated Mycenaean Greece quite systematically, the Sherden (Nuraghic Sardianians) very clearly were able to trade from Spain (tin) to Egypt (copper) and very clearly tried to invade or loot Egypt more than once (but also became some sort of "Varangian guard" for the pharaohs), even in the final collapse of Mycenaean Greece there's almost certainly some sort of naval invasion (which IMO fits with the Atlantis narration by Plato) when Pylos tablets declare that they are watching the sea for the arrival or some sort of foe and soon afterwards all Mycenaean Greece (save Athens) was basically razed to the ground (simultaneously the Berbers or Meswesh conquered Lower Egypt). So those things happened often enough (also let's not forget the Trojan War, a naval invasion as well), it just did not befit the nature of the Eastern powers, even for the somewhat more mariner Egyptians those were the "peoples from the sea... conspiring in their islands", exotic and hard to reach, even if the pharaohs sometimes claim to have ravaged their lands (it's unclear if that means anything other than chest beating).
@@LuisAldamiz -- the Trojan War isn't really confirmable to actually have happened (sure: there will have been conflicts throughout the Aegean, no doubt), but thank you for the other mentions.
@@LuisAldamiz I have not seen any real evidence anywhere that the Proto-Greeks arrived in Greece proper from the sea, rather than coming down by land from the north, especially considering they came from the Black Sea steppe and not Anatolia*. Do you have any good reading on this?
@@Laotzu.Goldbug Titans, Olympians and natives of greece is very similar to Norse myth with Jotun native hunters, Vanir steppe peoples and Aesir agricultural seafarers.
I imagine the great powers Mycenae, Hittite and Egypt engaged in proxy war jockeying for control of Arzawa, Cyprus and Canaan instead of direct confrontation
As always, great video! Near the village of bernstorf in Southern Germany archeological evidence of a bronze age fortified village under mycenaean influence was found like amber stones with linear b inscriptions and mycenaean symbols as well as mycenaean style gold artefacts were found. It is astounding that the mycenaean culture had connections reaching even to middle Europe.
Very costly indeed, and perhaps not even worth the effort. Sometimes is better not to conquer your foe, but to make alliances, because trade was also of highly importance.
Hallo from Denmark. Great video. The real reason why hitttties did not attack mycenaean grecce directly is simple. First: Grecce was to far away from them attack. The hitttties was land power, not a naval power. Secondly: The greek mycenaean citystates domimated the sea(like britannia later ruled the waves) . If the hitttties had started a naval invasion of Grecce. . The greeks would have destroyed them in a sea battle ... So the hitttties did have not the ressources and taking on the greeks in war on the ocean was not worth it. Since the hitttties would be defeated and their navy destroyed...
"My father behold, the enemy's ships came; my citieswere burned, and they did evil things in my country. Does not my father know that all my troops and chariots are in the Land of Hatti, and *all my ships are in the Land of Lukka* ...Thus, the country is abandoned to itself. May my father know it: the seven ships of the enemy that came here inflicted much damage upon us". (last letter of Ammurapi, lord of Ugarit, vassal of the Hittites). They may have actually tried it to some extent but were evidently smashed by the superior Greek (and allied) navy. This is when Cyprus became Greek, when the most famous "sea peoples" invasion happened c. 1178 BCE, when the Hittite Empire collapsed in flames.
The Hittites did not have the mentality that the Achaeans had ,they desired the vassalage of the neighboring populations. The Achaeans were explorers ,rulers of the sea, they saw the sea as a way of communication, spread and trade. This is how the Achaeans colonized the coasts of Anatolia.
I like to think if the Hittites tried to invade Mycenaean Greece, it would have been a Bloodier and Gorier version of our own history's Greco-Persian Wars. Those Hittites would find themselves walking into a trap that thousands will not get out of.
Another great documentary. It does make me wonder that such a long conflict wasn't a bleeding ulcer for both powers and the drain on resources contributed to their eventual collapse about the same time as each other?
The west from Hatti was a fringe of the known world. there was no glory or riches to be won on those unknown battlegrounds. The center of the world was the Levant, so they concentrated their effort there. Only we see the mycenean greeks as an important actor, in retrospect.
Very well explained. TY. I just miss the last letter of Ammurapi of Ugarit, vassal of the Hittites, which translates something like this: "My father behold, the enemy's ships came; my cities were burned, and they did evil things in my country. Does not my father know that all my troops and chariots are in the Land of Hatti, and all my ships are in the Land of Lukka? Thus, the country is abandoned to itself. May my father know it: the seven ships of the enemy that came here inflicted much damage upon us". Nobody expects the Sea Peoples (i.e. the Greeks and some allies).
Great stuff! Thank you! Great quality. However, would you mind posting your sources? I get it you are probably not a scholar, but that makes it all the more important to establish your credibility in other ways. Otherwise anyone can say whatever and we cannot trust you as much as we’d like. Peace
I very much appreciate the scholarship as base for this post, which contains valuable information. However, the narration delivered in a sing song cadence and without emphasis is distracting, competes against the relevance.
You present a lot of info I've not encountered before, but you do not post your sources. Can you post your sources so we can verify some of this ourselves? Without that, I can only take your content with a hefty grain of salt.
Polat Kaya: This citation states that: “The Hattic "Hattus" now became Hittite "Hattusa", and the king took the name of Hattusili I, the "one from Hattusa". I must note that, if the Hittite name HATTUSILI means “one from HATTUSA”, it means so because this word is a pure TURKISH word! This we see from the suffix “LI” at the end of the name HATTUSILI. The Turkish suffix “LI” means “from; of”. The name HATTUSİLİ is like present Turkish sayings such as ANKARALI, SİVASLI, KAYSERİLİ, etc. All of these mean “one from Ankara, one from Sivas, and one from Kayseri respectively. Please note that this does not mean that these people were different tribes with different languages. Thus, this HATTI word of some 4000 years ago is unquestionable evidence that the Hattians were Turkish speaking Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples - contrary to all kinds of mythological terms given in the Bible or anywhere else! Additionally, the name HITTITE, voiced as “HITTAYT”, is a modern concoction that is fabricated from a Turkish expression intended to replace the old Turanian word HATTI (KHATTI). In other words, the term HITTITEis an Aryanized form of the name HATTI. Actually, when we decipher the name HITTAYT (HITTITE) by rearranging its letters as “HATTI-TY”, we find that the term HITTITE is really the altered, restructured and alienated form of the Turkish name “HATTİ’Dİ” (HATTI İDİ) meaning “it was Hatti”. This alone indicates that the modern name HITTITE was concocted from the name HATTI into HITTITE. In other words, the original was Turanian AKHATETE (which has been “interpreted” as KHATTI) but the “scholars” who supposedly read these ancient KHATTIAN texts simply changed the name into HITTITE and claimed it as “Indo-European”! Thus, the so-called name HITTITE is another Aryan term fabricated from Turkish. The meaning of this is that the Hatti empire continued on as a HATTI empire but modern scholars changed the name HATTI to HITTITE and labelled the whole thing as an “Indo-European Empire” to suit their purposes (i.e., painting the ancient Turanian world as an Aryan and Jewish world). Such modern labelling, some 4000 years after the event, changes the history of ancient Anatolia artificially into an “Aryan” or “Indo-European” dominated land rather than a land that was populated by the native Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples. Since what they did has not been questioned all this time, what they throw in - stayed in - thus giving the impression that what they say was true some 4000 years ago. Continuous propaganda of their concocted falsehood - conditions the unquestioning public into concluding that there was an “Indo-European” Empire in the heart of Turanian Anatolia. The truth is that there was no “Indo-European” languages until the wanderer Aryan priests artificially fabricated them from the much older Turkish language. One example of this is the wanderer Semite priests fabricating “Accadian and Assyrian” languages from the much older Turko-Sumerian language. Recently we have another example of such falsehood stating that “All Indo-European languages originated from Anatolia”. The intensive media propaganda presentation of this so-called “linguistic research of the Indo-European languages” by means of some computer manipulations is well implanted in the minds of the public - as if what was said was the truth. Actually, they would have been speaking the truth if they had labelled their paper as “All Indo-European languages originated from the ancient Turanian language of Turkish”. Finally, I point the reader to Isaiah 65:17 where the sovereign lord Jehova (YHWA) has said: ‘FOR HERE I AM CREATING NEW HEAVENS AND A NEW EARTH; AND THE FORMER THINGS WILL NOT BE CALLED TO MIND, NEITHER WILL THEY COME UP INTO THE HEART.’ Translated into simple terms, this means “I AM ERASING FROM HISTORY THE ANCIENT TURANIAN WORLD AND INSTALLING IN ITS PLACE A SEMITIC WORLD”. But the later Aryans also took the same concept and ran with it - with the so-called Christianity! Polat Kaya 2013-07-05
@@KonTheo78 It's not propaganda. It's the truth and a add up to the story. The Oğuz Turks from Kanturah ruled all nations on earth. It is even mentioned on the thora. We Oğuz Turks are blessed above all families on earth. Not jews or semites? All the religions, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammed are Turks. The civilization on earth is brought by Turks. Also the foundation of the writing system and many more. Read this book, there are also many other who confirm each other. So you can't share propaganda anymore, but just the truth! - Gene D. Matlock - What Strange Mystery Unites the Turkish Nations, India, Catholicism, and Mexico?
The logistics of launching a naval invasion even in modern times is staggering. I can only imagine how difficult it would've been for a Bronze Age state like Hatti.
Except for the Greeks apparently, who IMO invaded Greek itself from the sea (originally based in Montenegro, Mala Gruda facies of Vucedol culture), what explains how they were present as far as Spain already by c. 1550 BCE (phase B of El Argar, with very clear Mycenaean influences).
Well, I must correct myself, not only the Greeks were able to do that, their western neighbors across the sea, the Ausones of southern Italy, apparently pirated Mycenaean Greece quite systematically, the Sherden (Nuraghic Sardianians) very clearly were able to trade from Spain (tin) to Egypt (copper) and very clearly tried to invade or loot Egypt more than once (but also became some sort of "Varangian guard" for the pharaohs), even in the final collapse of Mycenaean Greece there's almost certainly some sort of naval invasion (which IMO fits with the Atlantis narration by Plato) when Pylos tablets declare that they are watching the sea for the arrival or some sort of foe and soon afterwards all Mycenaean Greece (save Athens) was basically razed to the ground (simultaneously the Berbers or Meswesh conquered Lower Egypt).
So those things happened often enough (also let's not forget the Trojan War, a naval invasion as well), it just did not befit the nature of the Eastern powers, even for the somewhat more mariner Egyptians those were the "peoples from the sea... conspiring in their islands", exotic and hard to reach, even if the pharaohs sometimes claim to have ravaged their lands (it's unclear if that means anything other than chest beating).
@@LuisAldamiz -- the Trojan War isn't really confirmable to actually have happened (sure: there will have been conflicts throughout the Aegean, no doubt), but thank you for the other mentions.
@@LuisAldamiz I have not seen any real evidence anywhere that the Proto-Greeks arrived in Greece proper from the sea, rather than coming down by land from the north, especially considering they came from the Black Sea steppe and not Anatolia*. Do you have any good reading on this?
@@Laotzu.Goldbug Titans, Olympians and natives of greece is very similar to Norse myth with Jotun native hunters, Vanir steppe peoples and Aesir agricultural seafarers.
@@LuisAldamiz History records other "Sea Peoples" who were exceptionally adept at launching invasions by sea and derailing chariots.
I imagine the great powers Mycenae, Hittite and Egypt engaged in proxy war jockeying for control of Arzawa, Cyprus and Canaan instead of direct confrontation
As always, great video!
Near the village of bernstorf in Southern Germany archeological evidence of a bronze age fortified village under mycenaean influence was found like amber stones with linear b inscriptions and mycenaean symbols as well as mycenaean style gold artefacts were found. It is astounding that the mycenaean culture had connections reaching even to middle Europe.
Without roads, the terrain of the Morea and Peloponnese would have been incredibly difficult for the Hittites and the chariots of their army.
Plus they wouldn't be able to afford the astronomical toll taxes in Peloponnese :D
@@vassilopoula Εγραψες !! χα χα
But Morea (Morias) and Peloponnese is the same place.
Very costly indeed, and perhaps not even worth the effort. Sometimes is better not to conquer your foe, but to make alliances, because trade was also of highly importance.
Hallo from Denmark. Great video. The real reason why hitttties did not attack mycenaean grecce directly is simple. First: Grecce was to far away from them attack. The hitttties was land power, not a naval power. Secondly: The greek mycenaean citystates domimated the sea(like britannia later ruled the waves) . If the hitttties had started a naval invasion of Grecce. . The greeks would have destroyed them in a sea battle ... So the hitttties did have not the ressources and taking on the greeks in war on the ocean was not worth it. Since the hitttties would be defeated and their navy destroyed...
"My father behold, the enemy's ships came; my citieswere burned, and they did evil things in my country. Does not my father know that all my troops and chariots are in the Land of Hatti, and *all my ships are in the Land of Lukka* ...Thus, the country is abandoned to itself. May my father know it: the seven ships of the enemy that came here inflicted much damage upon us". (last letter of Ammurapi, lord of Ugarit, vassal of the Hittites).
They may have actually tried it to some extent but were evidently smashed by the superior Greek (and allied) navy. This is when Cyprus became Greek, when the most famous "sea peoples" invasion happened c. 1178 BCE, when the Hittite Empire collapsed in flames.
Agreed. Thanks for the comment! 👊🏻
@@WanaxTV You are welcome man .
Good stuff.. I always wondered about their interactions, along with the Phoenicians too.
I didn't know we had that much info about those times...
Apart from a few major and occasional battles, both parties seemed perfectly content with keeping a good amount of distance between them.
Yes 🇹🇷🤝🇬🇷
@@islammehmeov2334 turks are not related to the hittites
@@wankawanka3053 GEY greek have nothing to do with maycenaeans too LoL
@@islammehmeov2334what do turks have to do with Hittites lmao
@@jgb7480 much more than GEY europeans
Great video, never enough of the Bronze Age ❣
Thank you! Appreciate it. There will be more content coming soon! Your videos are awesome as well!
Very well done , thank you
The Hittites did not have the mentality that the Achaeans had ,they desired the vassalage of the neighboring populations.
The Achaeans were explorers ,rulers of the sea, they saw the sea as a way of communication, spread and trade. This is how the Achaeans colonized the coasts of Anatolia.
Thanks so much for these videos. This time period never ceases to be fascinating.
I like to think if the Hittites tried to invade Mycenaean Greece, it would have been a Bloodier and Gorier version of our own history's Greco-Persian Wars. Those Hittites would find themselves walking into a trap that thousands will not get out of.
Another great documentary. It does make me wonder that such a long conflict wasn't a bleeding ulcer for both powers and the drain on resources contributed to their eventual collapse about the same time as each other?
Very interesting times to live , a great time for many myths and legends. 👍
The west from Hatti was a fringe of the known world. there was no glory or riches to be won on those unknown battlegrounds. The center of the world was the Levant, so they concentrated their effort there. Only we see the mycenean greeks as an important actor, in retrospect.
Very well explained. TY.
I just miss the last letter of Ammurapi of Ugarit, vassal of the Hittites, which translates something like this:
"My father behold, the enemy's ships came; my cities were burned, and they did evil things in my country. Does not my father know that all my troops and chariots are in the Land of Hatti, and all my ships are in the Land of Lukka? Thus, the country is abandoned to itself. May my father know it: the seven ships of the enemy that came here inflicted much damage upon us".
Nobody expects the Sea Peoples (i.e. the Greeks and some allies).
I figured to save that for another video, which would concern Sea Peoples & the Greek settlement of Cyprus. Thanks!
What books did you read to create this video?
Added to the video description.
@@WanaxTV thank you 🙏
👍
Great stuff! Thank you! Great quality.
However, would you mind posting your sources?
I get it you are probably not a scholar, but that makes it all the more important to establish your credibility in other ways.
Otherwise anyone can say whatever and we cannot trust you as much as we’d like.
Peace
I've added the sources & further read section in the video description. 👊
@@WanaxTV wow nice man! You're a star
I very much appreciate the scholarship as base for this post, which contains valuable information. However, the narration delivered in a sing song cadence and without emphasis is distracting, competes against the relevance.
You present a lot of info I've not encountered before, but you do not post your sources.
Can you post your sources so we can verify some of this ourselves? Without that, I can only take your content with a hefty grain of salt.
I've added the sources in the video description.
@@WanaxTV most excellent, sir. Thank you very much :)
@@WanaxTV Would be nice to display them on-screen when they are used... check out how "Adam ruins everything" did it
You sound ignorant because you can verify this yourself using Google
Because they didn't feel like it
Up
Polat Kaya: This citation states that: “The Hattic "Hattus" now became Hittite "Hattusa", and the king took the name of Hattusili I, the "one from Hattusa". I must note that, if the Hittite name HATTUSILI means “one from HATTUSA”, it means so because this word is a pure TURKISH word! This we see from the suffix “LI” at the end of the name HATTUSILI. The Turkish suffix “LI” means “from; of”. The name HATTUSİLİ is like present Turkish sayings such as ANKARALI, SİVASLI, KAYSERİLİ, etc. All of these mean “one from Ankara, one from Sivas, and one from Kayseri respectively. Please note that this does not mean that these people were different tribes with different languages. Thus, this HATTI word of some 4000 years ago is unquestionable evidence that the Hattians were Turkish speaking Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples - contrary to all kinds of mythological terms given in the Bible or anywhere else!
Additionally, the name HITTITE, voiced as “HITTAYT”, is a modern concoction that is fabricated from a Turkish expression intended to replace the old Turanian word HATTI (KHATTI). In other words, the term HITTITEis an Aryanized form of the name HATTI.
Actually, when we decipher the name HITTAYT (HITTITE) by rearranging its letters as “HATTI-TY”, we find that the term HITTITE is really the altered, restructured and alienated form of the Turkish name “HATTİ’Dİ” (HATTI İDİ) meaning “it was Hatti”. This alone indicates that the modern name HITTITE was concocted from the name HATTI into HITTITE. In other words, the original was Turanian AKHATETE (which has been “interpreted” as KHATTI) but the “scholars” who supposedly read these ancient KHATTIAN texts simply changed the name into HITTITE and claimed it as “Indo-European”! Thus, the so-called name HITTITE is another Aryan term fabricated from Turkish.
The meaning of this is that the Hatti empire continued on as a HATTI empire but modern scholars changed the name HATTI to HITTITE and labelled the whole thing as an “Indo-European Empire” to suit their purposes (i.e., painting the ancient Turanian world as an Aryan and Jewish world). Such modern labelling, some 4000 years after the event, changes the history of ancient Anatolia artificially into an “Aryan” or “Indo-European” dominated land rather than a land that was populated by the native Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples. Since what they did has not been questioned all this time, what they throw in - stayed in - thus giving the impression that what they say was true some 4000 years ago. Continuous propaganda of their concocted falsehood - conditions the unquestioning public into concluding that there was an “Indo-European” Empire in the heart of Turanian Anatolia. The truth is that there was no “Indo-European” languages until the wanderer Aryan priests artificially fabricated them from the much older Turkish language. One example of this is the wanderer Semite priests fabricating “Accadian and Assyrian” languages from the much older Turko-Sumerian language. Recently we have another example of such falsehood stating that “All Indo-European languages originated from Anatolia”. The intensive media propaganda presentation of this so-called “linguistic research of the Indo-European languages” by means of some computer manipulations is well implanted in the minds of the public - as if what was said was the truth. Actually, they would have been speaking the truth if they had labelled their paper as “All Indo-European languages originated from the ancient Turanian language of Turkish”.
Finally, I point the reader to Isaiah 65:17 where the sovereign lord Jehova (YHWA) has said: ‘FOR HERE I AM CREATING NEW HEAVENS AND A NEW EARTH; AND THE FORMER THINGS WILL NOT BE CALLED TO MIND, NEITHER WILL THEY COME UP INTO THE HEART.’
Translated into simple terms, this means “I AM ERASING FROM HISTORY THE ANCIENT TURANIAN WORLD AND INSTALLING IN ITS PLACE A SEMITIC WORLD”. But the later Aryans also took the same concept and ran with it - with the so-called Christianity!
Polat Kaya
2013-07-05
Its a history channel, stop propaganda
@@KonTheo78 It's not propaganda. It's the truth and a add up to the story. The Oğuz Turks from Kanturah ruled all nations on earth. It is even mentioned on the thora. We Oğuz Turks are blessed above all families on earth. Not jews or semites?
All the religions, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammed are Turks. The civilization on earth is brought by Turks. Also the foundation of the writing system and many more.
Read this book, there are also many other who confirm each other. So you can't share propaganda anymore, but just the truth!
- Gene D. Matlock - What Strange Mystery Unites the Turkish Nations, India, Catholicism, and Mexico?
The battle of Kadesh was in 1274 BCE not 1275
Thank you for this. I would enjoy it more if you stopped "up talking".
Man great work,but please change the fake accent