preview

The Pros And Cons Of The Hittite-Egyptian Treaty

Satisfactory Essays

In 1258 BCE, Egyptian Pharaoh, Ramses II, and Hittite king, Hattusilli III, drew up a formal agreement known as: The Hittite-Egyptian Treaty. The Hittite-Egyptian Treaty was an accord that encompassed several provisions. These provisions include: a non-aggression pact, mutual defense alliance, and an extradition agreement for the return of fugitives. Based on our understandings of Ancient Mesopotamian history and the relationship between the two states, we will attempt to answer several questions. These questions are: Does the treaty indicate that the two kings who conducted it were equally powerful? Is the treaty truly a treaty between two countries and peoples, or a more personal treaty between two kings? And finally, what type of event may have prompted the two kings to conduct this treaty? To begin, The Hittite-Egyptian Treaty was structured to be a bilateral agreement between two ancient Mesopotamian superpowers. Under the agreement, both sides would be responsible to support and uphold the clauses in the treaty. The equivalence of these clauses as well as the symmetry in wording offers the strongest evidence of Ramses and Hattusili being equally powerful. For example, should an “external enemy” invade either Hatti or Egypt, both of its rulers will send their ally the same message of “Come to my aid against him” . At the same time, both rulers are expected to provide that aid in the form of “his army and chariotry” . The same structure can be found when dealing with groups of criminals who flee from either Egypt or Hatti and go to Hattusili or Ramses, respectively. While the two rulers are required to bring back these fleeing people to the other’s territory, the treaty demands that in both cases “The fugitives will not be punished for their offenses. Their tongues or eyes will not be torn out, and their ears or feet will not be chopped off, and their houses will not be destroyed together with their wives and together with their sons.” With this in mind, the document was structured to be almost symmetrical, treating both sides equally and requiring each side to undertake and uphold mutual obligations. In other words, any condition that applies to one king would also apply to the other; this

Get Access