Wilusa occupied a strategic position in the northwestern Anatolian landscape, controlling access routes between the Aegean and the inland regions of Anatolia. Its political alignment shifted over time, with evidence indicating its early independence, later integration into the Hittite vassal system, and recurring disputes over its rulership. The city is notable for its role in Hittite–Ahhiyawa diplomacy and for its hypothesized identification with the archaeological site of Hisarlık, conventionally associated with Homeric Troy.

circa

Wilusa first appears in the historical record around 1400 BCE as one of the twenty-two states of the Assuwa Confederation, which formed in an unsuccessful attempt to resist the Hittite Empire. This is recorded in several Hittite documents, including the Annals of Tudhaliya I/II, which detail the defeat of Assuwa and its aftermath. In this account, the city’s name is rendered as Wilusiya and is listed separately from Taruisa. Circumstantial evidence raises the possibility of Ahhiyawan support for the rebellion; a Mycenaean-style sword found at Hattusa bears an inscription indicating that it was taken from an Assuwan soldier and dedicated to the Hittite storm god.

By the late 14th century BCE, Wilusa was politically aligned with the Hittite Empire. Under King Kukkunni, the kingdom maintained peaceful relations with Suppiluliuma I despite uprisings in nearby Arzawa. By the early 13th century BCE, Wilusa had become a Hittite vassal state. Such arrangements typically required the local ruler to support Hittite political and military interests in exchange for recognition and military backing. The Alaksandu Treaty (circa 1280 BCE) between King Alaksandu of Wilusa and Muwatalli II is one such example, listing the god Apaliunas (Apollo) among the treaty’s divine guarantors. Alaksandu was obliged to provide intelligence on anti-Hittite activity and to supply troops for military expeditions—possibly including the Hittite army at the Battle of Kadesh.

At some point during Muwatalli’s reign (circa 1295 to 1282 BCE), a Hittite army was dispatched to reassert control over Wilusa, as noted in the fragmentary Manapa-Tarhunta letter. One hypothesis suggests that Wilusa’s ruler was deposed by the warlord Piyamaradu, possibly with Ahhiyawan backing, but this remains unproven. The later Tawagalawa letter alludes to a past dispute between the Hittites and the Ahhiyawa over Wilusa, though without confirming direct hostilities. Some scholars caution that the Manapa-Tarhunta letter may treat the Wilusa incident and Piyamaradu’s activities as separate events.

The final historical reference to Wilusa appears in the Milawata letter (circa 1240 BCE) of Tudhaliya IV, addressed to a western Anatolian vassal, likely the king of Mira. The letter requests the return of Walmu, the deposed pro-Hittite king of Wilusa, so he could be reinstated. The circumstances of Walmu’s removal are not specified, but the text (circa 1220 BCE) makes clear that the Ahhiyawa were no longer a major power in the region.

While some popular interpretations link these records to a historical basis for the Trojan War, the Hittite documents do not describe a Greek–Ahhiyawan attack on Wilusa. As Hittitologist Trevor Bryce notes, the limited nature of the evidence allows for multiple interpretations, and current data do not confirm the historicity of a Trojan War.

circa

The identification of Wilusa with ancient Troy, particularly the archaeological site at Hisarlık, has been a subject of scholarly debate since the mid-20th century. The phonetic correspondence between Hittite Wilusa and the Greek (W)Ilion (Ilios), an alternative name for Troy in Homeric epic, is a principal argument in favor of the connection. Likewise, Taruisa, mentioned alongside Wilusa in early Hittite records, is often compared to Troia (Troy).

Geographical correlations strengthen this hypothesis. Hittite records place Wilusa in northwestern Anatolia, consistent with the location of Hisarlık near the Dardanelles strait's opening with the Aegean Sea. Its role in Hittite–Ahhiyawa diplomacy also aligns with the site’s strategic position controlling access between the Aegean and Black Sea. Archaeological evidence from Hisarlık shows a fortified Late Bronze Age settlement (Troy VI and Troy VII) with material culture reflecting both Anatolian and Aegean influences, a profile compatible with Wilusa’s documented interactions with the Hittite Empire and possible Ahhiyawan contacts.

However, the identification is not universally accepted. Some scholars note the absence of unequivocal textual evidence explicitly equating Wilusa with Troy and caution against conflating linguistic and geographic parallels with historical identity. The debate remains active, with the prevailing scholarly position leaning toward, but not conclusively proving, the equation of Wilusa and Late Bronze Age Troy.