* E. de Rouge and the Egyptologists who followed him thought at first that the troops designated in the Egyptian texts as Lycians, Mysians, Dardanians, were the national armies of these nations, each one commanded by its king, who had hastened from Asia Minor to succour their ally the King of the Khati.  I now think that those were bands of adventurers, consisting of soldiers belonging to these nations, who came to put themselves at the service of civilized monarchs, as the Oarians, Ionians, and the Greeks of various cities did later on:  the individuals whom the texts mention as their princes were not the kings of these nations, but the warrior chiefs to which each band gave obedience.

** It is not certain that Harmhabi was the Pharaoh with whom Sapalulu entered into treaty, and it might be insisted with some reason that Ramses I. was the party to it on the side of Egypt; but this hypothesis is rendered less probable by the fact of the extremely short reign of the latter Pharaoh.  I am inclined to think, as W. Max Miiller has supposed, that the passage in the Treaty of Ramses II. with the Prince of the Khati, which speaks of a treaty concluded with Sapalulu, looks back to the time of Ramses II.’s predecessor, Harmhabi.

*** This follows from the situation of the two empires, as indicated in the account of the campaign of Seti I. in his first year.  The king, after having defeated the nomads of the Arabian desert, passed on without further fighting into the country of the Amurru and the regions of the Lebanon, which fact seems to imply the submission of Kharu.  W. Max Miiller was the first to* discern clearly this part of the history of Egyptian conquest; he appears, however, to have circumscribed somewhat too strictly the dominion of Harmhabi in assigning Carmel as its limit.  The list of the nations of the north who yielded, or are alleged to have yielded, submission to Harmhabi, were traced on the first pylon of this monarch at Karnak, and on its adjoining walls.  Among others, the names of the Khati and of Arvad are to be read there.

This could have been but a provisional arrangement:  if Thebes had not altogether renounced the hope of repossessing some day the lost conquests of Thutmosis III., the Khati, drawn by the same instinct which had urged them to cross their frontiers towards the south, were not likely to be content with less than the expulsion of the Egyptians from Syria, and the absorption of the whole country into the Hittite dominion.  Peace was maintained during Harmhabi’s lifetime.  We know nothing of Egyptian affairs during the last years of his reign.  His rule may have come to an end owing to some court intrigue, or he may have had no male heir to follow him.* Ramses, who succeeded him, did not belong to the royal line, or was only remotely connected with it.**