Ḫattuà ¡ili II (Hittite: "[man] from Hattusa") was a possible Hittite great king during the 15th or 14th century BC, perhaps reigning c. 1440âÂÂc. 1425 BC.
The existence of a king named Ḫattuà ¡ili in this period of Hittite history is disputed among scholars, and considered unlikely by many. Identification of such a king relies primarily on the historical introduction to the treaty between the Hittite great king Murà ¡ili II and his nephew Talmi-à  arruma, the king of Aleppo. Following references to the Hittite kings Ḫattuà ¡ili I defeating, and Murà ¡ili I and Tudḫaliya destroying Aleppo, and preceding a reference to the intervention of the Hittite king à  uppiluliuma I, the relevant passage reads:
Additionally, Onofrio Carruba and Jacques Freu consider a Middle Hittite text fragment (KUB XXXVI 109), to be attributable to this Ḫattuà ¡ili with certainty and believe it to relate the appointment of Ḫattuà ¡ili as heir apparent (tuḫkanti). It reads, in part:
Michael Astour, who devised an extreme compression of the generations of Hittite monarchs, dismissed Ḫattuà ¡ili II as "the most phantomatic" "of all the dubious Hittite kings." Astour provides a useful overview of the various attempts at placing Ḫattuà ¡ili II within the chronological and genealogical sequence of Hittite kings up to 1989, concluding that he "is an extraordinarily elusive character" and should be discarded. While many of AstourâÂÂs conclusions are not accepted, this, and his identification of Tudḫaliya I and Tudḫaliya II as a single king, have remained very influential in historiography.
Reading the historical introduction to the treaty between Murà ¡ili II and Talmi-à  arruma at face value, it would confirm the existence of a Ḫattuà ¡ili II, reigning sometime between Tudḫaliya I and à  uppiluliuma I. However, it has been argued that the reference to the interactions between this Ḫattuà ¡ili and Aleppo in the text is in a non-chronological position, and functions as a flashback to Ḫattuà ¡ili I, who defeated Aleppo in the early 16th century BC. The demonstration that there are references to Ḫanigalbat, Aà ¡tata, and Nuḫḫaà ¡i sufficiently early to allow the geopolitical context described in the treaty to date to the time of Ḫattuà ¡ili I, is offset by the apparent natural flow of the narrative and the incompatibility between the roles of the ostensibly two Ḫattuà ¡ilis in it.
Possibly extraneous concerns have also influenced the acceptance or rejection of Ḫattuà ¡ili II: his least problematic placement separates Tudḫaliya I from Tudḫaliya II, whom many scholars identify with each other, or, assuming a single Tudḫaliya I/II, it is difficult to find place for a Ḫattuà ¡ili II after him, given the apparently immediate and uninterrupted succession of subsequent kings. The placement of Ḫattuà ¡ili II, if he existed, has also been bedeviled by the debate of whether he should be identified as a great-grandfather (father of à  uppiluliuma I) or more distant ancestor in the genealogy of Ḫattuà ¡ili III, or not at all. Astour cited the discovery of seal impressions naming à  uppiluliuma I as the son of Tudḫaliya III as final proof of the non-existence of Ḫattuà ¡ili II, but this would only preclude the insertion of Ḫattuà ¡ili II at this specific point in the chronological and genealogical sequence of monarchs. Moreover, recent studies indicate that à  uppiluliuma was actually the son-in-law and perhaps adopted son of Tudḫaliya III, although that does not necessarily have any bearing on the existence and placement of Ḫattuà ¡ili II.
The seeming absence of Ḫattuà ¡ili II from the surviving lists of offerings to Hittite royals, has been addressed by Carruba and Freu, who not only note the jumbled and non-comprehensive nature of the lists, but also the possibility that Ḫattuà ¡ili II might appear in them under a Hurrian name, PU-à  arruma, as the son of a Tudḫaliya. The Middle Hittite character of the text apparently relating the appointment of a Ḫattuà ¡ili as heir to the throne, is likewise considered suggestive for the existence of Ḫattuà ¡ili II.
Assuming and defending the existence of Ḫattuà ¡ili II, Freu places him as the son of Tudḫaliya I and father of Tudḫaliya II. Given the scarcity of evidence and the reference to Tudḫaliya II succeeding to his fatherâÂÂs throne at an early age, Freu posits a short reign, which he defines approximately as 1440âÂÂ1425 BC. This reign corresponded to a recession in the Egyptian involvement in northern Syria, allowing for Ḫattuà ¡ili IIâÂÂs intervention in the affairs of Aleppo, Aà ¡tata, and Nuḫḫaà ¡i, and possibly amicable relations with Egypt.
In terms of family relations, Freu suggests that Ḫattuà ¡ili II was the son of Tudḫaliya I by possibly Katteà ¡á¸«api, the husband of a queen named Aà ¡mu-Ḫeba, and the father of Tudḫaliya II and his sister Ziplantawiya.