terrell dg, short notes on ancient warfare

8/7/2019 Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/terrell-dg-short-notes-on-ancient-warfare 1/12

1Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

Short Notes on Ancient WarfareDavid G. Terrell

January - February 2009

"What exactly is warfare?"

Before I started reading Hamblin, I must admit that my first thought involved an image from aBugs Bunny cartoon (thus dating myself). Our hero, Bugs, is flying bodily through the air after

being booted in the rear by his arch-nemesis, Elmer Fudd. While flying through the air, withstars streaming from his injured posterior, he announces with aplomb, "Of course you realize,this means war!"

• (For those interested, there are videos of similar scenes on YouTube.)

I suppose I can use this cartoon image as an archetypical metaphor of my view of war. Simply,there must be co-belligerents. It takes two to tango, so to speak. Until then, I see it as brigandage,violent extortion or genocide. When I thought about “war” by non -state actors, I wondered if mysimple definition — organized conflict between groups, purposefully directed at one another — would suffice me.

When I delved into Hamblin, I found the introduction strikingly erudite. Methinks I'm going tolike this book. His paraphrase of Clauswitz was enlightening — to the ancient world, "war is thecontinuation of divine policy by other means" —and produced in me an “a'ha” moment. When Ireached his discussion of the "military threshold", I felt that Hamblin would appreciate my BugsBunny/co-belligerents metaphor; especially after I read his assertion that warfare becomes

possible when it “... has essentially become endemic in a region…”.

Endemic... Isn’t it interesting that he uses epidemiological language here? He almost implies thatwarfare is a disease — and that i t’s contagious.

Consider Clausewitz's first two maxims:

• War is politics by other means• War is an act of force to compel our adversary to do our will.

War is a duel on a larger scale. We personify groups in the names of the leaders. Their namessignify the organization.

• UBL and Zawahiri for al-Qaeda• Qaddafi for Libya• Saddam




• Hitler• Bush• Ho Chi Minh• Kim (it doesn't matter which one)

The dueling image, to me, contributes to the idea of an arms race.

• They get a shepatovka. we get a bazooka• Mark VI Panzer -- Pershing• SS-20 -- Pershing SRBM

We have to keep things equal.. and uncivilized. Civilized folks would keep discussing possiblesolutions short of war.

Clausewitz -- "War and peace are ideas which fundamentally can have no graduations."

Then along comes the Jesus of Nazareth--who raises the bar for everybody.

I've been drawn several times into Toynbee's "challenge and response" paradigm. Civilizationsget faced with a challenge. The people respond. If the response is satisfactory, the challenge ismitigated. If not, the challenge will return, perhaps morphed by a partially successful response.

Is the continuation of warfare evidence that it is not a satisfactory response to the initiatingchallenge?

Arms Race...

I’ve been doing some research, looking for images mentioned in Hamblin. I’ve had somesuccess, between Google Images, the ebrary and my own bookcases. From what I’ve seen andfrom Hamblin’s descriptions, it looks like Mesopotamian and Egyptian warfare consisted ofvariations on the following:

• The king as commander-in- chief, smiting foreigners. It’s never too clear if this is aoffensive or defensive action — only a winning one.

• The siege and capture of walled cities. Tactically offensive but it could be the end of adefensively inspired campaign.

• Binding and executing prisoners. As always, it sucks to be them.• Offering spoils to the gods.

The “gods thing” interests me. I personally believe that it is unnatural for an animal to killanother member of its own species. I’m caused to ponder if the ritualized religious structures we




see associated with militant gods are a mechanism for overcoming the natural inclination tocease competition upon the early submission of another---and the willingness of the subdued toaccept defeat.

Back to the physical manifestation of Mesopotamian and Egyptian military forces… I see acontinual arms race — new technologies being widely adopted soon after their successfulintroduction onto the battlefield. (I wonder how intensively they pursued espiona ge). I’ve onlyscanned Spalinger over this and, the book has much to offer concerning the Egyptian end ofthings. My predilection is to assume that what they did not develop, they copied andarcheological dating will be useful in trying to determine who invented what (like Canaanitechariots).

As I consider what I know from previous reading and pondering, the arms race included:

• manufacturing technologies: metallurgy, casting, grinding, pattern-making (molds for

casting objects), woodwork, wheels, stone masonry, excavation, pottery, food storage• tactical employment: light (swords) and heavy (spears) infantry, indirect fire (archers),

scouting cavalry, courier communications, chariot & cart based shock forces.Standardized panoply (at least head coverings or capes) facilitating identification and

possibly esprit d’corps. Probably some form of manual at arms and close order drill.• organization. Probably derived from multiples of hunting bands. I’ve seen several

artifacts showing 40 Egyptian infantry troops in 4 files of 10. Platoons have been aroundfor quite a spell.

Not much seems available revealing the strategic arts of the countries but I will keep looking. If

someone finds something, I’ll be interested to hear of it.

Composite bow

Archery was my college sport, so I claim some little practical knowledge. The idea of a"composite" bow, made of multiple pieces laminated or otherwise fastened together so as to

build a stiffer structure by adding metal or horn to wood, differs from the idea of a "recurved" bow, whose shape allows the bow to bend backwards while keeping the tips nearer "normal" (inthe geometric sense) to the string, which can then take more strain without the string slippingfrom the ends of the bow.

The sensitive technology for composite bows is an adhesive. I've seen simple composite bowsmade of multiple pieces of wood wrapped with sinew. They did not work well and may be thereason the technology did not spread quickly. Perhaps the Akkadians had an adhesive that otherswere unable to reproduce... which might also explain their scarcity.




Recurve bows are also "narrower" (the distance between the center of the bow and the string, atrest) meaning there is more time for the thrust to be applied to the arrow. This is similar to theeffect of a longer barrel on a pistol.

Composite bows can be made smaller than a "self" one piece bow of the same size, makingmounted or cart archers a possibility.

A bow can be both composite and recurved.

A stiffer bow means a faster arrow, flatter trajectory, less time in the air--and therefore is moreaffective against armor at short ranges and more effective against any targets at longer ranges.

In responding to an advancing foe, longer range means more attrition (and demoralization?) ofyour enemy before the attack is joined.

Attacking a stationary foe, perhaps formed in square against cavalry, from beyond their effective

range gives you a bloodless victory--or entices them into an attack, opening them up to flankingcavalry.

So, yes, having a composite or heavy recurve bow makes a difference in tactics.

Composite bow 2

The bow on Hamblin 87 is the closest to a recurve. It is also, conceptually a laminate/composite bow... but wood can be steamed and shaped while hot and then let dry to hold such a shape. The

only consideration there is that a steamed bow of that shape wouldn't have much pull weight(throwing capacity). Layers of bovine horn and wood could be used... HERE (see the FALCON)is a link to some "traditional Turkish bows"

Note the before and after stringing shape of the bow.

http://www.recurvebowshop.com/Laminated+recurve+bow+TRH+turkish+Traditional+hunting+recurve+bow.htm






A more pronounced "U" shape would produce the stringed shape shown held by Naram-sin.




stiffer materials than wood (i.e. horn) and experimentation with lashings, adhesives and form-making that would produce a bow with a smaller size and greater throw weight than any usableself bow.

This would have also led to needs for quality control and inspection techniques...

Now that I consider it... developing the compound bow could spawn many pre-industrialtechnologies.

And I thought I was getting away from my engineering background.

Nubian Campaigns

I was fascinated to read the sections of Senwosret III in Hamblin. His grasp of the importance of

Lines of Communications (LOC), evidenced by his enlarging the canal bypassing the FirstCataract, impressed me. His diplomatic assertion, that he “attacks when attacked, and is quietwhen it is quiet” (403) also fascinated me. It seems to be out of character for other Egyptianrulers. I wonder how it jibes with his pushing the border with Nubia further south. As the textseems to indicate, the Nubians probably could not keep their hands to themselves. Were morearable lands available to the north?

Senruset III

About this "God" thing, do we really know if the the word we use is an accurate translation ofthe English-Judeo-Christian word "God"?

Or, are we talking about the lower-case "god" used in the polytheistic sense (i.e. a homosuperior?)

Obviously, the deified living king had power over life and death--as long as his followers woulddo his bidding; or he had the strength and skill to win a contest of arms.

I suppose there's no way of knowing the mindset of the ancient subject of such a sovereign.

Did the appellation 'god' mean more than "a really important, noble-born, person to whom I givefealty, obedience and obeisance; acknowledge as occupying a divinely ordained position of

power; and whom commands the obedience of other followers willing to cut my throat if Idon't... shall we say... Cooperate."

Inquiring minds want to know.

It rates right up there with "How many licks does it take, to get to the center of a Tootse Roll?"




Forts

The way Hamblin writes (p402 and 443), the eight forts were in the vicinity of Semma.

The 1911 Britannica says this:

Ancient Monuments south of Haifa. — Ruins of pyramids, temples, churches and othermonuments are found along both banks of the Nile almost as far south as the FourthCataract, and again in the "Island of Mcroe." In the following list the ruins are named asmet with on the journey south from Wadi Haifa. Opposite that town on the cast bank arcthe remains of Bohon, where was found the stele, now at Florence, commemorating theconquest of the region by Scnwosri (Uscrtescn) I. of Egypt (c. 2750 B.C.). Forty-three

miles farther south arc the ruins of the twin fortresses of Kumma and Semna. Herethe Nile narrows and passes the Semna cataract, and graven on the rocks are ancientrecords of "high Nile."(emphasis added)

So, he set up his forts at another cataract--a place invaders would have to portage their vessels toget a large fast moving force father down river.

If the forts were spread in a line, and mutually supporting, then an invading force would reallyhave to be substantial. The forts at the flanks could launch attacks at the rear of any attackingforce in line abreast. I wonder how far apart they were... off to Google Earth...

The site is somewhat spoiled by the Lake Nasser, behind Aswan. The attached wiki tag says:

It was here, at this strategic location, that the 12th Dynasty pharaohs built a cluster offour mud-brick fortresses: Semna, Kumma, Semna South and Uronarti (all covered by thewaters of Lake Nasser since the completion of the Aswan High Dam in 1971). Therectangular Kumma fortress, the L-shaped Semna fortress (on the opposite bank) and thesmaller square fortress of Semna South were each investigated by the Americanarchaeologist George Reisner in 1924 and 1928.(emphasis added)

Uronati to Semna-sud is about 4 miles. The lake is about 0.6 miles across at the points ID'd as

Kumma and Semna. They were close enough together to be mutually supporting. Here's thecoordinates (21°29'59.37"N, 30°58'1.34"E)

The other mentioned location about 2.2 miles downstream, Uronarti, has a tag that says:

It is documented that Senusret III conducted four military campaigns into Kush andestablished a line of forts within signaling distance of one another; Buhen being thenorthernmost and the others along the banks of the Nile were Mirgissa, Shalfak,




Uronarti, Askut, Dabenarti, Semna, and Kumma . The Kushites captured Buhenduring the 13th dynasty, and held it until Ahmose I recaptured it at the beginning of the18th dynasty. It was stormed and recaptured by indigenous forces at the end of Egypt's20th dynasty. The triangular shaped fortress located on an island took advantage of the

narrow passage of the Nile between the walls of a canyon. ... the site has not beensubmerged by Lake Nasser... (Emphasis added)

The fort is easily visible at (21°31'33.46"N, 30°59'25.07"E)

So, he built a defense in depth. Too freakin ’ cool!

Forts 2

It is a good thing to realize... I, too, once equated ancient with ignorant.

I had a marvelous opportunity to become friends with a tribal leader overseas who, though

uneducated, was very wise. From the lore he taught me, I learned that high IQs do not require amodern education to exist.

People in ancient times, once the bottom steps of Maslow's hierarchy were being satisfied, hadtime to build, think, experiment and develop--technologies and sciences that were different, butno less astonishing.

It is a valuable concept in this self-assured, supremely-confident modern world--to realize thatwe may not be quite so much smarter.

Organization

Well, the administrative records of the Middle Kingdom (Hamblin 418-422) seem prettyremarkable and well thought out--a sort of National Guard system with regiments pullingdeployments with the national forces (418).

I smiled at the philological possibilities of imy (overseer, commander) ... It could sound a lot likethe Spanish Jefe [hef-ee] (Chief or "Boss man"). Coincidence?

Organization 2

To better respond to this, I've been digging into the Old Kingdom and MK information inHamblin to see if I can find out why the OK and NK were seen as stronger.

As to the OK being stronger than the MK, I don't see it; given the following:




• There's evidence that there was probably no professional officer class in the OK. [355]The MK seemed to have titles indicative of a professional cadre. [421]

• the OK army was composed of regional units, called up as needed for imperial duty[355], as were the MK. [418] MK units were also more tactically specialized. [423]

• OK weapons were mace, bow and dagger [356] with a more incomplete transition to bronze weapons than in the MK. whereas the Mk saw evidence of the axe, sling and

parrying stick. [357, 424-5]• OK use of archery was of limited effectiveness on armored targets. [359] In the MK,

evidence for formal practice and technical improvements in bows and arrows. [423-4]• OK & MK fortifications were common. [360, 440] MK fortifications at the second

cataract are described as the "best Bronze Age fortifications anywhere in the world".[441]

I'll ponder the MK versus NK next...

Mari archive

I saw the reference of the Mari archive and thought "Cool! Might there be a thesis in there forme, down the road?"

I think it will be as reliable as cough any other body of bureaucratic reporting...

Everything said will have to be looked at with a clear hold of context. Was the author of anychosen tablet or fragment truthful? Is there no exaggeration, graft, unknown encryption, orincipient self-interest that makes the message read one way to the obvious eye but somethingelse to the knowing? And since we aren't anywhere close to having a true knowing... everythingwill have to be scrutinized and questioned.

It makes my brains leak...

Law code

I'm getting enlightened by considering the laws in terms of... this law is meant to control a

behavior that was common enough to trouble the king's sleep.

There were a bunch of runaway slaves, much thievery and burglary, judicial corruption, POWissues (nice to see the troops were cared for), and agricultural and property issues--just in thefirst 100 statutes.

Hmmmm. Compare 132 and 2. Sorta like the medieval test for a witch--if the accused floats (orcan swim?), they are innocent.




The system

The system of city states is logical to me, given the lack of any reliable, near real-time

communications that would standardize language, weights, measures, and politics. The Code ofHammurabi stones are an interesting and innovative way to impose a cultural and legal normacross a larger area. I could also see how they might represent a mode of identification--likegang markings--to mark out territorial claims.

Just like gang territories, the markings establish both an assertion "this is our turf" and animplied threat to invaders or those with rival claims. The "standing armies" don’t have to belarge. They have to have a intelligence gathering mechanism to know of the incursions of a rivalgang... and a mobile force capable of establishing local superiority over rival gang patrols.

So I would expect to see light infantry capable of roving patrols, a'la the use of cavalry in theearly west--supplemented by heaver forces intended not to defend from attack but to carryrevenge attacks against anyone dissing the king by operating in our zone of control.

Chariots

I like Spalinger's explanation (15) of chariot-borne archers providing a fast-moving, longer-ranged, crew-served weapon system with a larger magazine capacity and greater rate of fire thanmost infantry-borne weapons (see slings and arrows, below).

Chariot mounted archers, could dash within arrow-shot and inflict casualties from beyond therange of infantry weapons--everything but slings and arrows... which may be the reason foradopting slings... To give infantry a long range weapon which had readily available (andCHEAP) ammunition to offset its lack of accuracy in unskilled hands. Fling enough rocks andsomeone, or their horse, was going to get hurt.

David G TerrellHerndon, Virginia

Hamblin, William J. Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC: Holy Warriors at the Dawnof History. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Spalinger, Anthony J. War in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.




© David G. Terrell, 2009-2011, except where otherwise noted, content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License . For permission to reprint under terms outside the license, [email protected] .

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/




mailto:[email protected]





terrell dg, short notes on ancient warfare

Documents