Roxana Cooper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally I am somewhat cynical about the
> supposed correspondance between an
> Eygptian queen and the Hittite king, which I
> understand is known only from records
> about a generation after the fact.

I've read "The Deeds Of Supp." which go into fair amount of detail about the "marriage proposal". It's clear that Supp was as astonished as we are about the proposal. So much so that iirc he sent back a letter asking for more proof. The outraged response of the "queen" is proof enough for me.
While I do not
> doubt that Supp. tried to take
> advantage of the succession crisis in Egypt, his
> complaint about the death of
> Zananza proves as much, I wonder if he really
> required an invitation to do so.

As far as I'm concerned this is proof that contrary to the supposed pacifism of Akehnaten, he actually had a powerful military force in the area and wouldn't hesitate to use it if threatened. Again this can be inferred from the Deeds where Supp summons the various treaties and finds that the Hittites and Egypt have been a peace. So he moves forward and sends Zannanza.
Or
> that Ankhesenamun would be fool enough to chose
> the son of a barbarian monarch

LOL. When did high position EVER confer wisdom on a person. A fool is a fool whether they're wearing a crown or a dunce cap.
>
over what must have been a plethora of Egyptian
> possibilities.

From what I can see we don't what the Egyptian possiblilities were.
>
> Egyptian precedent, Sobekneferu for example,
> justified female succession in the
> absence of male heirs. Possibly Ankhes chose to
> ally herself with her probable
> grandfather, (and great uncle) as co-regent. He
> was probably the most powerful man
> at the Egyptian court, the one she trusted most
> and had the further advantage
> of being much older and so likely to leave her to
> enjoy an independent reign
> once she was more secure and experienced. However
> as it happened she died too -
> or so we must assume - leaving Ay sole pharaoh.
>

Uhmmm. you're leaving out that other wannabe monarch Horemhab who was also a likely contender for Ankhs. hand

> This reconstruction may be contradicted by
> Tut's funerary reliefs which show
> Pharaoh Ay presiding over his rites with no trace
> of a co-regent, suggesting that
> he directly succeeded his great-nephew (?).

I agree no co-regency at all.
>
> Personally I rather like the idea of
> Merytaten/Neferneferuaten as the queen of
> the Hittite letters but that doesn't seem very
> likely.

Nope.

More likely the letters
> were a propaganda invention after the fact.

History argues that the letters were genuine. After all there is a fragmentary letter attributed to Ay, where he scoffs at Zannanza's assassination. When you read the deeds you can see a distinct change in Supps. strategy. Before the letters and the assasination of Zannanza he is rouotinely conquering cities and absorbing them. After the letters and the assassination he goes berserk conquering and razing the cities that he conquers. In addition to that he invades Egypt iirc gets his butt whipped and is sent home with a case of the plague or some disease. If that's propaganda that's about the dumbest thing that was ever written.

The
> Hittite kings would have had
> excellent reason for wanting to cast doubt on the
> legitimacy of the Ramesside

Again you're forgetting Horemhab's rather lengthy rule after the death of Ay. What purpose would be served by casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Ramessides? Horemhab was childless he appointed one of his generals as his successor to insure continuity in power and then the 18th dynasty ended and the 19th began.
> dynasty.
>
>