I!

IIII

lII11lI,

/!j

IIJi

r

;!!

l!

I,~

;

'iiii)

1J,i'I

~

t.,iIi~1

i1

-1,~

"!ij

I~~

iI~

DGOf

: ;~.~~

CORRIGENDA

Y. Yadin: The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands

p.48 (fig.) read "to fight" instead of " to light".pp. 79 and 206 (bottom) read "1307-1275" instead of " 1310-1280" .p. 126 read "Ein Gedi" instead of "Ei Gedi".

read "see page 125" instead of "see page 124".pp. 130, 136, 150, 173 read "Telloh" instead of" Lagash" .p. 154 read "Tehutihorep" instead of "Tehutitcp".

" (cf 169)" to be omitted.p. 159 read "{zoth century B.C.)" instead of "(c. 1900 B.C.)".p. 168 read " left" instead of " above" and "above" instead of "left" .

Same correction in index, p. 473, No . 168.p. 174 read "at Ginossar" instead of " of Ginossar".

read "above and left" instead of "above".read "spear head" instead of 'javelin head".

p. 180 read "The Palestine Archaeological Museum" instead of " The RockefellerMuseum".Same correction in index, p. 474, No. 180.

p. 187 read "The Ugaritic hunt ing charioteer (above)" instead of " The Canaanitehunting charioteer" .

p. 191 read "1'69 ms." instead of " 1'47 ms."p. 195 read "from a tomb at Thebes" instead of "from a tomb ofIamanezeh, Sheikh Abd

el-Gurnah".p. 197 (bottom) read" 14th century" instead of" 17th century" .p. 224 read "The city ofHattussas" instead of"The city ofBoghazkoy",p. 229 read "on page 347" instead of " in the opposite illustration".p. 237 read "pages 103 ff." instead of " following page I07" .p. 354, the words "National Museum, Athens" refer to the Warriors' Vase.p. 397, Nos. 13 and 14 read: "xiii" instead of"viii".p. 473, No. 168 read "The Palestine Archaeological Museum" instead of " Dept. of

Antiquities, Archaeological Museum, Jerusalem."p. 473, No. 172 read "Virolleaud" instead of " Viroelleaud".

Where Rockefeller Museum is mentioned read Palestine Archaeological Museum.

l.'::'

~

i, 1

'I':"1'I

j

CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 1

The Art of Wa1are 1 Fort~fied Cities ill Attack and

Mobility 4 Defense 16

The Chariot 4 Attack and Penetration r6

Cavalry 5 FortUlcatiolls and Defense 18

Firepower: Personal Weapons 6 The Cit)' Walls 19

The Bow 6 The Gate 21

The Composite Bow 7 'The Inlier Citadel 23The Arrow 8 r..Vater Suppl» dllrin,!? Siexe 24The Qllillt'r 9 Archaeological Sources 25The Slin<!? 9 Ilutstrated Monuments 25The[aveiin and the Spear 10

Finds at ExcavationsThe Sword

2610

The Mace and the Axe IIWritten Documents 26

Security: Personal Protection 13 Chronology and Terminology 27

The Shield 13 Relative Chrollolog)' 27Armor 15 Absolute Chronology 28The Helmet 15 Archaeological Terms and Periods 29

III. THE PERIOD BEFORE ABRAHAM (400o-2IOOB.C.)

c":II. THE FORTIFICATIONS OF JERICHO-

The Most Ancient Fortifications in the World (7000 B.C.)

Plate

II

.,j Mobility 37The Chariot 37

Weapons: Short-range and Hand-to-Hand Fighting 40

The Mace 40The A xe 41

Egypt 43The Sword 44The Spear and the[aveliu 45

\ Weapons: Long-range 46The Bow 46

,~:,}

Personal ProtectionThe ShieldArmorThe Helmet

Methods of Wariarc

Battle in Open TerrainBattle 0/1 FortUled Cities

Conclusions

Plates

32

IT5

36

48

48

4949

494950

57u6

IV. THE PERIOD OF THE PATRIARCHS (2100-1570 B.C.) 58 I Gideon and the Three Hundred 256 Dauid and Solomon 267

Weapons: Short- aud Medium-range 59 Methods of Wiltjare 69 IAbimclech and the Tower of The Conquest ofJeri/salem 267

The Axe 59 Battle 011 Fortified Cities 69Sheehan 260 The Battles '~f David 27°

The Sword 60 Battle in Gpen Terrain: The Concubine ill Gibeah and the The Army of David and SOIOIllOIl 275

The Spear and thejm'din 61 The Duel 71 .~Oroauiration ofthe TribalArmy 262 The Chariotand the Cavalrv 284

vVeapons: LOllg-rallge 62 Standard Combat 73 ~ Saul the Warrior-Killg 263 The Fortifications 287

The BOl/! 62 Communications and ltltelligmce 73~ Dapid and Goliath 265 Plates 331

The S!illg 64 The Chariot 74 fPersonal Protection 64 plates I

VII. THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH (920-586 B.C.) 291152

The Shield 64 The Troops and their Weapons 293 Fortified Cities in Attack andDciense 313

Fortificatiolls 65 Iltjalltry 294 The Breach-the Batteriuo-Ratn 314The Archers 295 Other Devices 316

V. THE PERIOD OF THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT, THE EXODUS, The Slingmell 296 Sealillg the Walls 316MOSES, AND JOSHUA (1570-1200 B.C.) 76 The Cavalry 297 Penetration beneath the vValls 317

vVeapoflS: Short- ami Mcdinm-ranoe 77 Attack and Defense 96 '" The Chariot Corps 297 Siege, Ruse, and Psychological~.

The Axe 77 Stratagems 99 Battle in Open Terrain 302 Warfare 318

The Sword 78 Battle in Open Terrain 100 The Battle of Samaria 3°4 Water and Food Supply 32°The Spear 80 The Battle of Megiddo 100 The Battle of the Wilderness ,tj The Walls 322

T¥eapoflS: Lony-ranye 80 The Battle of Kadesh 103 Tekoa 310 The Gate 323

The Bow 80 The March 1°3 , josiah and the Battle of Dejensive Warfare 325

Personal Protection 83The Surprise Attack 1°4 Meoiddo 311 Plates 375The Countcrattacl: 105

IThe Shield 83 Tactics 108 ABBREVIATIONS OF PERIODICALS 465Arlllor 84 Illtelligence IIOThe Helmet 85 Ambush and Night Fightitlg IIO BIBLIOGRAPHY 466

M,)bility 86 Standard Formations III !The Chariot 86 Army Oroaniratioi: II2

I

SOURCES FOR ILLUSTRATIONS 470

Methods of Assault 011 Fortified Cities 90 Chariot Units 113 SUBJECT INDEX OF PLATES1'vlilitary Administration

483The Fort!ficatiolls 90 II3

Water SlIpply under Siege 95 Plates 182

!n

VI. THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES AND THE UNITEDMONARCHY (1200-920 B.C.) 247

The Philistines: Land and Napal Wars ill the Bible dllring the PeriodBattles 248 of thejudges 253

The Land Battle 249 The Conquest of Bethel 253The Naval Battle 251 The Exploits of Eliud 254The Egyptiall Army 253 Deborah and Siscra 255

PREFACE

This book-which is a first attempt to discuss all the facets of the art of warfa re.its impl ements. techniques and strategy in all Biblical lands-requires a fewexplanatory word s as to its structure and meth od of presentation to the reader.Altho ugh the book discusses a variety of subjects, each of which is in a senseindependent , it is the interweaving of the various themes that makes the

harmonious wh ole at which I have aimed,The boo k covets all lands of the Bible-from Anarolia to Egypt and from

Palestine to Mesopotamia- a part of the world conta ining nations and countriesthat had been fighting each other over long periods of history . O nly a completeanalysis from both the military and archaeological point of view will enable US

to comprehend the development ofwarfare in all its aspects: weapons, fortifications.

army organization. and tactics.The book is. in fact. compos ed of three parts: the text accompanied by line

drawings. the color plates. and explanatory captions. T his arrangement isnecessitated by the fact that the princip al sources for the subj ect are pictorial incharacter, consisting of thousands of carved and painted monuments. togetherwith other rem ains of an archaeological character, which must first be set in theirproper historical and geographi cal settin g through archaeological and chrono­logical analysis before it is possible for one to draw military conclusions.

T he objec t of the text is to defme the historical and archaeological background.to describe the various elements in the art of war and weave them into a singlepattern which wi ll make evident their mu tual relationship and their connexionwi th the different warring nations. Th e accompanyin g line draw ings should atthis point assist the reader to visualize the subject withou t undue reference to thecolor plates. T he subjects are discussed here within their archaeological period.and in each period the individual aspects are dealt with separately. This seemed tome preferable to discussing any one element (e.g., the bow ) from its verybegum ing to the end of the period discussed in the book. The latter may perhapsbe a suitable method for a book whi ch aims merely at presenti ng a body of datafor reference purp oses. but . in my opinion, it is unsuitable for a book whose aimit is to emphasize the inter-relationship amon g the many elements which composethe art of warfa re. this being the only satisfactory way to grasp the development

of this art o r science.The plates are put at the end of each part . according to the archaeological

periods. In this kind of book, which is based to a large extent on archaeologicalfmds. it is imperative. I believe. to present visually to the reader the many sourcesin as clear and faithfu l a manner as possible. The choice of suitable subjects out ofthousands of documents, the collection of colored and other pictures. and the

PREF A CE

arrangement of this abun dant material on plates. by their geographical provenance.their archaeological periods. and their relation to the various clements of war, hasnecessitated considerable effo rts. which often surpassed anything I had anticipatedwhen I first started the book. Neverth eless. I believe this to have been wo rth whilesince the pictur es will not on ly aid the reader to understand many things that areImpossible to describe in mere words. but will enable him to read critically andcome to his own conclusions, Moreover. much of the material publi shed here isscattered in scores of museums and hundreds of publ ications (some of them quiterare). I have made a special point of presenting mate rial from these sources (suchas the rare publications of Layard. Botta, and Flandin ) and at the same time tr yingto show them in conjunction wi th their places of discovery. I have made it a ruleto present . wheneve r possible, the pictures of the obj ects themselves. togetherwith the monuments describing them. I have sometimes preferred a certainmonument to others. not because of its absolute impo rtance, but on the basis ofits relative artistic value or its rarity . As fot rhe written documents-Egypti'an.Arcadian, etc.-whICh I have incorp orated in to the text. I have of course usedtranslations and . unless otherwise indicated, I have mostly followed those inPritchard' s book (see bibliography). Th ese translations do not pre tend to be literal;their purp ose is. in gcneral. to give a clear unders tan ding of the cont ents of thedocuments.

As for the .explanatory captions. I thought it best not to include too manydescriptive details of the monuments and finds in the text prope r. lesr it distractthe reader from the main poin ts and hinder him from seeing the wood for thetrees. On the other hand . it is frequently these fine differences in details whichmake it possible to follow clearly the essential interrelationship between thevanous aspects of warfare and the development of the science as a whole . Tha t iswhy I have paid particular attention to the captions of the more complexmonuments which embody several subj ects simultaneously.

Th e reader who wishes to explore mor e thoroughly the whole subject. orthato f a particular chapter, has but to turn to the last pages for the very extensivebibliography ou every fmd and monument depicted in the book. I have no tspared det ails there. since I wished to provide the reader wi th ample op port uni tyfor studymg and comparmg varrous opinions in regard to the obj ects.

Onl y seldom have I touched on actual batt les. the reason bcing that here., more than on any other topic. the sources are very scant aud are subject tospeculations and interpretations so extremely divergent that it is imp ossible topresent the pro blem satisfactorily from a scientific viewpoint. 'Moreover. thedetails of the battles depend mainly on our knowledgc of the topographic alfactors which determ ined the tactical and strategical moves. In most of thefamo us battles this element is com pletely lacking, and often scholars canno t evenIdentifY with certainty the places named. Any change in iden tification of a site­a matter which is of prim ary importance to our understauding of a particularh.ltlle-alters. in fact. our grasp of the who le situation . Schematic maps. so oftenbra.ught forth to explain the battles in Biblical lands. may be useful to exp lain awar as a wh ole and the lines of the " grand strategy" . but 110t mo re than that. and

PREFA CE

arc therefore liable to mislead the reader who is no t familiar with the top o­graphical problems. N evert heless, w e have enough details abou t some battl es,and the most important of those are discussed here. Even this, however, is notdone JUSt for their own sake, but in o rder to illustrate the pr inciples, techn iques,and im plemenrs of warfare wh ich are the subjec t of this book . In a few instancesI have described Biblical battles, bnt on ly where I thought the data were sufficientto clarify their main problems and , perhaps, to stim ulate other scholar s to give the

matter more thought.I have no illusions that I have succeeded in exhausting the subject. This may

be possible in the future, when prim ary and basic work on the subjects discussedwill have been don e separat ely for each perio d and each cowu ry . I hope I maysucceed in rousing scholars in vari ous fields to devot e the ir abi lities and energiesto fur ther research , and thus prepare the way for still other scholars to completethe job. My debt to pr evious research on every subject mentioned in this boo kcan be realized fro m the long bibliograph y at the end. which can also serve as aguide to readers w ho may wish to delve mor e deeply into the subjec t.

It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge m y gratitude to all those who helpedme to bring th is bo ok into being. First and forem ost I want to thank Mr. Y. Makavi,the general mana ger of the Internati onal Publishing Co mpany. who urged me anumber of years ago to put into writing some of the data I had been collectin g.and has spared no effort in help ing me to acquire phot ographs and publis h the bookin its present elaborate format. I am deep ly indebted to his daring and able

execution .I am particularly thankful to the many museums and their dire ctors who have

permitted me to check their collections and som etimes em ploy special photo­.graphers for my purposes. Amongst them I would like to thank ProfessorA. Parrot and the Lou vre; Dr. D. R. Barnett and the British Museum; Dr . W . C.Hayes and the Metropolitan Museum of Art; Professor P. D elougaz and D r. W .Boy d of the Orienta l Insti tu te, University of Ch icago (especially for permission touse the magnificent colored drawings from Medinet Habu); to the museums ofFlorence and Bologna; to the University Museu m, University of Pennsylvania(and particularly to M r. A. R. Schulman who kind ly allow ed me to study hismanuscri pt on the organiza tion of the Egyptian army) ; to the Hittite M useum inAnkara; to the Arch aeological Museum in Istanbul; to Miss W. Needler and theRoyal O ntario Museum; the Prin ce of Wales Museum in Bombay; to theAshm olean Museum, O xford ; to the Archaeologica l Institu te, London U niversity.and particularly to Dr. K. Kenyon ; and also to the Museum of the De partment ofAntiquities. gove rnment of Israel. and the M useum of the Hebrew U niversity .

Jerusalem.May I also record my thanks to Miss A. Pesin of the edit or ial staff of Horizon~

who allowed me to use a colo r tr anspar ency of the Tutankhamun chest ; to Mr.J. Perrot for a ph otograph of a gate at Bogh azko y and Yazilikaya; to Mr. E.Erick son for permissi on to reproduce an ivory panel from his collection; toD r. E. Boro wsk y for permis sion to reproduce a sickle sword of his; to Mr. A.Sorrell and D r. R. D . Barne tt for permission to reproduce the drawing of the

"1\

PREFACE

reconstruction of the Lachish siege; to Miss T. Kish for her color recons tru ctionof several d rawings; to Mr. P. Bar-Aden for the ph otograph of an axe from theJudean Desert; to Mr. B. Roth enberg for a ph ot ograph of Ein Q adi>. and toMessrs. S. Smila n, D. Ussishkin , \V. Marmot , Co lonel M. Michael . Lieutenant ­Colonel A. Perr y, and Major A. Aran, for their help in procuring colored photo­graphs during thei r travels. I also thank the O riental Photographic Company forprepa ring several colored photo graphs from various sources, and copies of all thephotographs for the purpose of the layo ut.

I am deeply ind ebted to Lord M arks. wh o kindl y put at m y disposal thephotographic labo ratori es of Marks and Spencers and the services of its chief,Mr. Bayn ton , who, together with his assistant s, w ork ed tirel essly to photographmany objects from the British Mu seum . To my good friend Mr. L. Shalit I amgrateful for help , as usual, in more ways than one. Mr . Zim and Mr. Bengumkindl y helped in man y phases of the wo rk of prepar ing the layour .

I shou ld also like to express my deep appreciation to Cliches Schwitte r AG.Z lirich, who wi th mu ch patience prepar ed the illustrations, as well as to J arrold &Sons. N orwich . England. for their high standard of pr inting.

I thank most heartily my friend Mr. Pearlman for his painstakin g translat ionof the manuscript fro m the Hebrew .

I am gra teful to Mr. H . Ravi v of the scient ific staff of the Views of the BiblicalWorld for his help in selecting the pictu res and preparing the index of sour ces,and to Mrs . I. Pomerantz for mu ch help in edit ing the bibliography and index ofsources.

I wish to thank McGr aw-Hill editori al staff for m uch help , and particularlyMr . D. SCOtt.

Lastly. I wish to thank my wi fe. wh o not on ly took upon herself the exten sivecorrespondence with museums and indiv iduals, but also gave me the benefit ofher advice throughout.

Yigael YadinJerusalem

I

INTRODUCTION

THE ART OF WARFARE

War is the attempt by one nation to impose its will on another by force. Thisbreakdown in hum an association has been a recurring feature in the history of mansince the very beginning . Human conflict finds expression in the first pages of theBible. Hardly has man begun life on earth when, as the Biblical narrative recordswi th unadorned simp licity , "Cain rose up against his broth er Abel and killed him."The chain reaction to this event has continued right up to the zoth century. A studyof human history canno t therefore be complete without a study of the militaryevents of the past and of the means conceived by nations to secure their ownmilitary aims and thwart those of their enemies. Moreover, in ancient times, astoday, men devoted IDtlch of their technical genius to perfecting weapons anddevices for destruction and defense; W eapons of war thus serve as an enlightening .index of the standards of technical development reached by nations duringdifferent periods in history.

Since war always involves at least two sides, the development of the art ofwarfare of one nation can only be fully evaluated in the light of the art of warfareconducted by its enemy, in attack and defense.

As an object of military study, a single land or nation is too limiting andconfming-and can be misleading. The smallest unit of such a study is a region ora group of peoples who battled each other at some period or another in theirhistory . One must examine the.reciprocal effects ofsuch encounters, which enabledeach side to gain knowledge of the weapons and fortifi cations of the other, to copythem and improve upon them. And these effects are often evident in the relics laidbare by the spade of the archaeologist. But-and here is an example of how alimited study can mislead- these ancient weapons may be and have often beenfound far from their land of origin, carried there as war booty by a victor or leftbehind by a powerful nation waging war beyond its own frontiers. Such warmaterial, found in archaeological excavations, sheds much light on the art of war­f;l rc' of a parti cular period and in a particular region , but not necessarily of the

: ~~~

I

2

THE ART O F WARFARE

nat ion in whose land it was discovered. Th e study of warfare must clearly cover

both rivals.There is a reciprocal impact on nations who com e into conflict with each

oth er. Th ere are similar reciprocal influences, inevitable and consistent, which thedifferent weapons, fortifications, tactics, and military organizations make upon eachother. The progressive developments in each branch and instrument of war duringsuccessive periods in history become clear only when examined in the context ofenemy opposition at the time. New tactics int roduced by one side prompted newcounter- tactics by the other. Th esein tum produced furth er tactical innovations bythe first. W eapons development followed the same process. T he appearance of thecomposite bow, for example, with its increased power of penetration, led to theinventio n of the coat of mail for defense. Thi s ill turn provided a further challengefor a weapon to defeat armor. And so the process conti nued, leading to advancesin both offensive and defensive battle devices. Similarly, the various types of cityfortifications can be understood only in the light of standard patt erns of attack oncities prevalent dur ing the different periods, and in particular of the use of the

battering-ram.The study of military development .is in large measure the study of the

unending process of reaction of each element in warfare to its counterpart. Butall elements must be considered as an integrated whole, and the relationship ofeach to the other properly examined. The development of weapons must bestudied against the background of the development of tactics, army structure, andthe systems of fortifications. To study each element in isolation would be super­ficial and sterile, and as unreward ing as the study of military developments of asingle nation without reference to those of its neighbors. Bur account must also betaken of a hum an feature which has affected the rate of military developmentamong different peoples-inertia, or conservatism. There are countless examplesthrough out history, right up to the present time, in which military innovations,pro ved in batt le, have been spum ed by other armies who have pre~erred to adhereto traditional patterns, and have been finally int roduced only alter long delay.There is often a considerable time-lag between the appearance of an improved

weapon in one country and its adoption by another..Moreover, even when some technical imp rovement gradually becomes

accepted in the military scheme of things, it suffers for a time by being consideredin the obsolete terms of patterns prevalent before its int rodu ction. These complexfactors must alwavs be borne in mind when we com e to study the monuments leftbehind by the na~ions' of antiquity. Th ese monuments relate mostly to warfare,since war was a regular part of the lives of these people.

Military action may be classified in several ways. But none is compl etelysatisfactory . Th e most general classification, for exam ple, is by the character of theoperations, either offensive or defensive. Bur in every operation there is usuallya concern both with offense and defense. Even an army initiating an assault mustbe organized to defend itself against surpr ise or count erattack. This is also true ofthe individual soldier, who must be armed with bo th offensive and defensive

weapons.

I N T R O D U CTI ON

Military action may be classified according to forms of warfare-battle inopen terrain and battle on a fortified ciry. Bur here, too, each side must be armedand organized in a manner suited to both types of warfare. For ir may have tomove from the city to the plain, or from the plain to the city . durin g the course'of the fighting. An army mau led in an open battlefield may seek to retreat behinda fortified base- as did the Canaanites when beaten by Thutmose III in thecelebrated battle near Megiddo. And an army that may be expected to sit behindrhe defensive walls of its city may break out and attack the enemy in the openplain- as happened with the counterattack of the King of Samaria on the armiesof Aram who sough t to besiege him.

And there is yer a further classification. A military action can be analyzed inthe light of strategy and tactics. Basically, strategy is the art of war. Tactics is theart of battle, concerned with the mov ement and operation of fighting units onthe battlefield.

But however military action may be classified and defined, in the finalanalysis the art ofwarfare is to seek to achieve supremacy over the enemy in threefields: mobiliry, firepow er, security. To put it anoth er way, it is the ability to movetroops to engage and inju re the enemy without serious inju ry to oneself.

The principles of warfare discussed in the following chap ters, as they emergefrom the military record of ancient peoples, reflect the attempt of each warringfaction to achieve this triple supremacy over the enemy , or the action taken afterits successfulachievement. Th ese principles, often regard ed as the basis of strategyand tactics, may be broken down into surprise; mainten ance ofaim, economy. andconcent ration of force; coordination of arms; securi ty, mobility, and the offensivespirit.

Incidentally, surprise is generally accepted as the most impo rtant of thesefactors. Surpri se is, in fact, the ability to move one's forces to engage the enemyat a time, place, and under conditions which he does not expect, for which he isunprepared, and to which he canno t, therefore, react by the most etfectiveapplication of his own forces and weapons.

These principles are illustrated in cameo form at any boxing match, in whichthe conten ders arc even unarmed. The constant movement of the body has a singlepu rpose: to put the boxer in the most advantageous position from which he canboth arrack and at the same time evade the blows of his opponent . Th e predomi­nant role of one fist is to attack-firepowe r; of the other , to parry-securiry. Togain this advantageous position, the boxer has to know where his opp onent is-oris likely to be at a given moment-and to seck out his weak spots. In this he isserved by his senses-sight, sound, and touch. His eyes, ears, and hands provi dehim with the intelligence which, in battle, is provided by reconnaissance units onpatrol or at forward observation posts. Th e action of his fists and other parts ofhisbody is directed by his brain, through the medium of nerves and muscles. T heircounterpart in warfa re is the military comm ander and his staff, as the brain; theirIlcrves-the communications network; their muscles-trained and disciplinedtroops.

Mobility, firepower, and security , as the three basic elements in the art of 3

T HE ART OF W ARFAR E

warfare, are appropriate headings under which the na ture of ancient warfare andthe weapollS used in antiquity may be examined. The three groups we shall be

conside rin g are therefore :

1. Means w hose purpose was to ofier mobility , such as cha riot s, cavalry. and the

capacity of the foot soldier to m ove far and fast.2 . Means of firepowe r , namely weapons whose pur po se was ro hit the enemy at

various ranges .3. Means of securi ty, namely prot ectiv e devices such as the helmet, shield , and

arm or , whose purpose was to parry or blunt the effectiveness of the enemy's

we apons.

4

The Chariot

Porri ficarions are a subje ct in themsel ves. For , though they may be classed asa security device against the designs of an enemy , their struc tu re must be such as

to offer their own troops mo bili ty and freedo m of actio n in add itio n to secu rity

both for soldiers and civi lians.Before proceeding to a descripti on and analysis of these m eans of warfare, it

is perh aps wo rt h und erl ining that in th e final resort it is not weapo ns alone wh ich

determine the issue in hattie, but oft en , particularly where both sides are evenl ymatched, the spirit of the commander in the direction of his for ces and the spirito f th e troops in the handling of th eir weapons . These have been the decisive factors

in fateful wars throughout history .

MOBILITY

The chariot in battle is basically a mobile firing platform. It is not, primarily,a means of tr ansport from a distant base to the battl efield. Its principal purpose isto serve as a movabl e platform within th e battlefield, from which relatively lim itedfirepower can be rush ed to and brought to bear on decisive spots in the midst ofth e fi ghting. A secondary and by no means negligibl e purpose is its shock valu e as

it charges into the enemy ranks :To fultil its major function, the chari ot mu st o ffer speed and m aneuverabiliry

as well as stabiliry for the firing of weapons. These needs are contradictory. Forspeed and maneuverability are best pr ovided by a small and light chariot . But astable firing platform demands a heavier vehi cle, capable of supporting andproviding operational space for at least one weapon-carrying soldie r in additionto the dri ver. The riva l claims of these two considerations exercised the minds ofm ilitary planner s throug ho ut the generations. Different soluti ons we re devised atdiffer ent times. And these arc reflected in the va riety of ancient ba ttle cha riots. Attim es speed was sacrificed to stab ility . At other rim es stabili ty gave wa y to speed.Event ually the chari o t becam e a finely balanced war instrumen t, serving bothneeds equally effectively . In its com plete form, it w as a co mplex vehicle, compris­

ing the followin g carefull y design ed parts ; body , whe els, axle, chariot pol e, yoke,

and fittin gs for wea pollS such as qui vers, bo w cases, and sheaths and stands for

axes and spears.

T o give it strength and ligh tness, the chariot was bu ilt largel y of wood­special kind s for each par t-str ips of leather , and various metals. It was not aninstrum ent com mo n to th e equip ment of all armies. It could be fashioned only by

nations comm anding rich resources and advanced techniques. T echniq ue w asimpo rtant . For, as we shall see later, the turning-point in the devel opment of the

chariot came with the lighter body, the introduction of the light, spoked wheel,and the techni cal knowledge which enabled the axle to be set farth er to the rear .For only with the rear axle co uld the chariot becomp letel y m aneuve rable even onsharp turns. But this requi red lightness. For a rea r axle on a heav y chariot, madeheavier by the weight of the military team , would have been 100 grcat a strain on

th e draft anim als. It was the co m bina tion of the rear axle plus the design of a lightbod y and light wheels, as well as po werful and swift dr aft anim als, whic h broughtabout the perfect chariot : stab le, fast, and highly man euverable.

Like the chariot, the prim ary purpose of the cavalry hor se was also to serve asa mobile firing platform, though here. too , the panic and confusion induced in theenemy by a cavalry charge wa s not without impor tance. T he advan tage of thehorse over the chario t was its ability to m ov e ove r almost any ground, whereas

a wheeled vehicle was lim ited to compa ratively level and unbrok en terrain .Against this , the horse o ffered a poor and unstable fir ing platform. In a chario t,

th ere was the driver, con cern ed solely with cont rollin g th e hors es, and a fightingsoldier , free for operarional acrion. In th e cavalry , rider and soldi er were one. If

his weapon were the bow, requiring two hands to operate, his contro l of the horsein action was co rrespond in gly reduc ed. E ven if arm ed with a spear . which neededonly one hand and left the o ther free for the reins , he lacked a third to hold a shield.T he eflcctivencss of the mounted ho rse in battl e in earliest times wa s th us limi ted.O nly with the very late introduction of im prov ed saddles. stirr ups, and spurs,making it possible to control the horse with thigh, knee, and ankle, w as the cavalry­manfree to fight with both hands. Small wonder tha t th e cav alry made its serio us

appearance on the battlefield only some 1,500 year s after the chari ot .

An Egyptian chariot <if the XV/11th

"Dynasty

Cavalry

5

A simple Jo"hle-rollvcx boll'

of a Semite, X 1Jth DyuaslY

Tire BOll!

Slrullg ImJ 'msmmg

Tatar composite llow

THE ART OF WARFARE

FIREP OWER Personal Weapolls

Every fighting comma nder since the beginning of time has dreamed ofpossessin g a weapon which could out-range anything in the armory of the enemy.W ith such a weapon he could not only surprise his foe, but could do so withoutharm to himself and his men, for they could remain out of reach of enemy missiles.

But long-r ange weapons do not obviate the need for medium- and short­range instruments of war. Their key importance is at the start of hostilities. But asthe battle progresses, medium-range weapons must be brought to bear on theenemy, giving way fmally to the weapons used in hand combat.

It was clearly impossible for the individual soldier to carry at all times theweapons for all ranges required at progressive St2ges of battle. And so even themost ancient armies were organized in units linked to specific rypes of weapons:the long-range-weapon troops were used at the start of the battle; the follow-upunits were armed with medium-range weapons; and the hand-to-hand fightersengaged in the final phase of battle.

Range, as a basic factor in the usc and development of weapons, can serve asa convenient criterion in weapons classification. Th e major weapons in use inancient times were the bow and the sling for long range; the javelin and the spearfor medium range; and the sword, the axe, and the mace for short range.

Th e bow is one of the earliest known weapons of war. It was in use in pre­historic times and was, because of its range, the most convenient weapon also ofthe hunt er. The bow may well have been the first composite implement devisedby man, and definitely the first method of concentrating energy.

Since we shall be discussing its developm ent in some detail, let us first recordits component parts and action. It consistsof two basic elements: the body, whichis of wood, and the string. The surface of the wood farthest from the string iscalled the back; the inner surface is called the belly. The point on the wood atwhich the bow is held, near its center, is called the grip. Th e parts of the wood oneither side of the grip are called arms, or limbs. The string is attached to theextreme ends of the arms. The bow is operated by placing the base of the arrowagainst the string, putring the string under maximum tension by pulling it as faras possible from the woo d, and suddenly releasing it. Th e act of drawing the stringbrings the ends of the body closer together and puts the wood under tension. Th ewood . which shou ld be both pliable and tough, springs back to its former positionthe mom ent tension on the string is released, and this brings back the string witha snap, propelling the arrow sharply forward as it does so. The bowman holds thewood with his left hand-the bow arm-at the grip, and draws back the stringwith his right , by which he also holds the base, or hook, of the arrow. To protecthis left arm from the blow of the string as it snaps back on release, the bowmanoften wore an armguard on the inside of the bow arm.

Th e range of a bow depends on one or all of the following factors-its size,shape, and the pliabiliry and tough ness of the wood. Th e bigger the bow, thegrearer its pliability and consequently its range. But a large bow was moreunwieldy to operate and it also hampered mobility.

INTR O DU CTION

Th e shape of the wood in the early simple bow was a single convex arc, sothat the distance betw een string and body was widest at their respective centers.Maximum tension was reached when the hand on the string was pulled as far awayas possible from the hand on the grip. But ir was found that this did not exploitthe maximum pliabiliry from the wood to produce thc deserved tension. This, itwas found, could be achieved by reducing the distance between both fists in thestart position , that is, between the grip au the body and the center of the string.Thi s led to the invention of the double-convex or double-span bow-like theshape of a Cu pid upper-lip-which brought the grip closer to the spring, and,when fired, increased the distance between the string and the peaks of both arcs.The archer was thereby able to bring his weapon under greater tension and giveit greater range.

The emergence of the bow as a battle weapon of first importance came withthe introduction of the composite bow. Th is weapon proved decisive in numerouscampaigns in ancient days.

There was no single natural element which could give a bow wood therequired toughness and elasticity. But gradually the idea was developed of com­bining several available natural materials which, together, could meet all needs.Thus was born the composite bow. It was made offoue materials-wood, sectionsof animal horn, animal tendons and sinews, and glue. Even the wood-theskeleton of the bow- was sometimes not made from a single block but comprisedpieces of wood from different trees with varying pliabiliry suited to the differenttension demand s at different parts of the limbs and the grip. Th e back of the bowwas covered with strips and bands of sinews. Th e belly was reinforced with twosections of animal horn , one on either side, the inner curve of the horn facingthe belly.

AU these materials were stuck or bound together to form a single integratedbody. And they were so bound that before the string was attached, the arms ofthe body tended to bend the other way. To pull them round for the attachmentof the string, or the bracing, so that the wood assumed the shape of a bow,required great strength. Th is, of course, put it under great tension even in itsposition of rest, and, when operated, greatly increased its propu lsive power. ThecomposIte structure made possible for the first time the production of a bowwhich, though compa ratively small, and therefore light and mobile. neverthelesshad considerable power. It was well described by an Arab author of the r j th

cemury A.D. He wro te: "The structure of the composite bow is not unlike that ofman. Th e human bod y is made up of fonr basic clements-i-bones, flesh, arteries,and blood. Th e composite bow has the same four cowlterpart elements: wood- itsskeleton; horns- its flesh; tendons-its arteries; glue- its blood. Man has back andbelly. So has the bow. And juscas man can bend forward but is likely to damagehimself bv bendmg too far backward, so with the operation of rhe bow.". The heighr of perfection of the comp osite bow was reached when, to endowIt with greater power, it was given a double-convex form.

The composite bow could have had an effective range of some 300 to 400

The Composite Boll'

Parts lilaTurkish composite bow.

From Itj; TO n:lfht: } rst and second,

pieces ojthin ivoodjonncd the core of

[heboll', and lire piecesglued

togl'{ha-~'111aCl: view. Thirdfro",

It:fi: thepiecesgll/eJ togNhcr-siJe

view. Fourth: the strip ~r sill cl/1 that

IVel! J/llcd to the(ore, and which

[ormed theback l{ till' /;1.1/11 when

stnmg. F~/lh : sections lif horn, ",/'; eh

j;"' neJ 1/' (' bell)'

f

7

9

The QJli"er

.\let/lOds (~r release as depicted Or!

EgyptianandAssyria" IIfO tlllIllClIls .

Top[our drawi/lgs depict E.~ypliaH.

lwtoHl tltrCl'.1.ssyriall

Since the bow was reqnired to fire numerous arrows during the course ofbottle, the archer had to have some means of carrying a reasonable complementvi arrows in a handy manner which would put them within easy reach and facili­tate speedy reloading, In this he was served by the quiver. The quiver had to becapable of holding between twenty and thir ty arrows and to be made of light­weight material. It was carried either on the back oi the bow man or over hisshoulder so that both hands were free to fire the bow .

Of the bow , as of the chariot, it can be said that no other weapon in ancientdays required so high a technical capacity to produ ce and such skill to operate.Th ese two qualities in combination were decisive on more than one occasion indetermin ing the course of histor y.

Special technical difficulty was experienced in the attachmen t of arrow headto body . If the base of the head was inserted into the body, the arrow head wasknown ·as a tang. If the body was fitted into the base of the head, it was known asa socket. The effectiveness of the arrow to pierce armor was determined by theshape and structure of its head. Arrowheads may be classified as leaf-shaped, ortriangular, etc.•and as flat or with a central spine or rib. Th e form was not the fruitofcaprice but was dictated by the nature of the defense and armor of the enemy.

Th e sling, devised by ancient shepherds to scare predatory animals irom The Sliugattacking their flocks, gradually made its appearance on the battlefield as a weaponof war. For it enabled a missile to be thrown a considerable distance-considerablefor those days-in any terrain, hilly as well as flat. Its capacity to fire up a slope,mdeed, gave it some importance in assaults on fortified cities.FOlf/IS of arrowheads

THE ART O F WARFARE

yards, though its absolute range was about two times that distance. For the firsttime in history, it was possible with this weapon to surprise the enemy and attackhim from beyond his range of retaliation, of hearing, and, on occasion, of vision.Its powe r also had a revolutionary impact on the art of warfare, and was directlyresponsible for the introduction of the coar of mail for personal protection .

Somewhere between the simple and the composite bow came the compoundbow . This was stronger than the first but lesscom plex and of course less powerfulthan the second. and was in wide use among armies who had no t reached thetechnical standards demanded by the manufacture of the composite bow . Thebody of the compound bow was made of two or more strips of wood partiallyoverlapping, glued together or bound with tendons and cord.

Much of our knowledge of bows used by early warriors in Biblical landscomes from ancient drawings and bas-reliefs. The simple, reinforced, and compo­site bows are depicted in the works ofancient artists, both in their single-span anddouble-convex form s. The composite bow is always easy to pick out. For, as wehave observed earlier, in this bow, there was a tendency for the ends of the armsto recurve and bend outwards before, and often even after, they were bound to thestring . This feature is usually evident in the artistic representation of this type ofbow, giving it almost a double-concave rather than convex appearance. Moreover,the form of attachment of the horns beneath the arms gave the composite bow,with the string as base, a triangular form . W e are indebted to the ancient artists,who paid meticulous attention to detail, for the certainty with which we canrecognize the different bows used in antiquity .

None of the improve ments to give the bow greater range wo uld have beenof any value without compar able advances in the developm ent of the arrow,which is. afler all, the offensive element of this weapon. The arrow is made up ofthree parts, each of a different material to suit its special function. The arrowhead,which is the destructive part, had to be of the hardest possible material-flint.bone, or metal. T he body of the arrow, whose function is to direct the energytransmitted from the string on release. had to be long , thin, hard . straight , andlight. and was made of wood or reed. The rail. designed to keep the arrow on itscourse in smooth and straight flight, was made of feathers. The feathers of aneagle, vulture, kite. or sea fowl were found to be the most effective. The tail,without which the arrow could not reach its target. was so important that itsfeathers were aptly described by the Persians as " messengers of death."

8

Types oj ntaceheads: apple-shal't'd.

ptllr-shOJpt·.i, .1Ild saucer-shaped. The

",m,lled tl lact' is onr depicted on

Egypti<1t1 lIkmWnfJIlS

The Mace and the A xeThe common factors in the mace and the axe are that both were designed forhand-to-hand fighting and both consisted of a relatively short wooden handle, oneend of which was fitted with the operative lethal part which was either metal orstone. The weapons were swung by the handle, and the head brought smartlydown on the enemy. The key problem in the manufac ture of both was the firtingof head to handle in such a way that it would not fly off when swung nor break011'when struck,

The difference between the two weapons was the difference in function. Thepurpose of the mace was to beat and smash. The purpose of the axe was to pierceand cut. This differcnce determined the different shapes of their respective heads.The head of the mace was heavy and blunt . Th e blade of the axe was light andsharp. To prevent the weapon from leaving the soldier's hand when swung, inboth mace and axe the handle was widest at the point of grip, rapering toward thehead, or it was curved. Sometimes the handle was both curved and tapered.

The head of the mace, which was usually of stone but occasionally of metal,W 35 shaped like a pear, an apple, or a saucer, or it could be oval. Each shape had itsadvantages and drawbacks. The saucer-shaped head, for example. turned the macealso into a cutting instrument, bur weakened its striking power. Th e head of thisweapon was always of the socket type, into which the handle was fitted.

The effectiveness of the mace as an instrument of war declined sharply whenit was met by enemy troops clad in armor, and particularly when they werehelmeted. With the development of armored devices for defense, the macevirtually disappeared from the battlefield.

The problems involved in the manufacture of the axe were more complex

I N TRODUCTION

thickest part of the blade was not along the center but along the opposite or bluntedge. This type of sword could also be curved, the sharp edge being the convex,or outer edge. Sometimes the curve was slight, sometimes so considerable as togive it the appearanc~ of a sickle. It is, indeed, often referred to as the sickle sword.But this may be misleading, for in a sickle the inner or concave edge is sharp,whereas in the sword it was the outer edge.

The curved sword underwent changes during the different periods in history,notably in the relationship between hilt and blade. At times, the hilt was long andthe blade short ; at other times the short hilt and long blade were preferred. Thesechanges reflected the exertions of the armorers to f.\Shion a sword light enough tobe brandished easily, but without shortening considerably the blade.

It may seem strange, but the sword was never a decisive weapon in ancientcampaigns-exeept on a few isolated occasions- and became import ant only incomparatively later periods in history. Unlike the arrow, javelin, and spear, wherethc metal portion was compara tively small, thc sword required a long metal bladero give it effective range. Bur before man had learned the secret of producingperfect hard metals, the long sword was doomed to failure when put ro the test.Alternatives ro the sword were therefore sought for close-contact battle, weaponswhich required relatively small metal parts, or which could use a substitute formetal. These alternatives were the mace and the axe.

T he sling had the supreme advantage of simplicity of structure, which madeit easy to produce, and its ammunition, slingstones, was provided by nature.

Its principal disadvantage was that considerable training and experience wererequired to operare it with effective accuracy.

The early sling looked rather like a large eye-patch. It consistedofa smallpieceof leather or cloth with twO cords attached to opposite edges. The stone missilewas placed on the material and the cords pulled taut so that the material becamea kind of bag containing the stone:The bag was held by the left hand and the endsof the two cords held together by the right . The bag was then swung round andround several rimes above the head until it gained the required momentum, atwhich point one of the cords would be released, thereby releasing the missilewhich would be flung forward.

The function of the sling was often complementary to that of the bow.Wh enever they were used in battle, the slingmen always served close to thearchery units.

The swor d has always been the principal weapon for hand-to-hand combat.There were two main types of sword, each serving a specific function : the swordfor stabbing and the sword for striking. Both consisted of two main parts, a handle .or hilt and a metal blade. The stabbing sword had a long straight blade taperingtoward the point. T o give it strength, the blade was thickest along its center andtapered toward the edges. This straight sword , sharp at the edges and at the point,served equally to cut as to stab.

The striking sword, on the other hand, had only one sharp.edge, and the

These two weapons are similar in appearance but differ in size and in the waythey arc operated. The javelin was like a large arrow and served as a medium-rangeweapon. It was hurled by hand, and the soldier would be armed with severaljavelins which would be carried, like arrows, in a quiver. To increase its range ofthrow , a cord with a loop on the end would on occasion be added, giving theweapon the appearance of a weaver's leash rod. The cord would be wound roundthejavelin and the loop retained by the fingers of the warrior, so that as the javelinwas hurled , the swift unwinding of the cord would give it a spin and thereforea steadier flight.

Like the arrow, the javelin consisted of a body, made of wood or reed, anda head of meral, either provided with a socket or tang, and its shape was suited rothe nature of the enemy' s armor. Often, to enable the javelin to be stuck in theground during a rest period, its base would be fitted with a metal point . Theweight and form of this metal tip were such that not only did it not interfere withthe propulsion of the weapon, but contributed to the speed and balance of itstlight.

The 'pear, a replica of the javelin in shape, was much bigger and heavier, andpierced by thrust. As a thrusting weapon it was thus nor unlike a very longstabbing sword. It consisted of a stout staff and a metal head, with either tang orsocket, and was sometimes tipped at the base with a metal point.

THE ART OF WA RFARE

Th e Sword

(14th W1tllrY s.c.)

Th e Ja velin and the Spear

•

A slingerfrom a paiming in Beni-hasan

10

--~" ~ " " j

Three typesof shields. From top 10

bottom: a round"Sea Peoples"shield;

l\l/Ig E.~ypti(Jn shield; andjigure-8

HifCilt'shidJ.

13

The Shield

SECURITY Personal Protection

a crossbar, by which it was fitted better to the handle. This projection and barand the shape of the blade gave it the outline of an anchor, and it is thereforecalled the anchor axe.

The socket type also had its variations. There was the axe with two largeholes in the blade, known as the eye axe; the duck-bill axe, with the longer bladeand two smaller holes; axes with blades whose rear part was decorated with thelikeness ofanimal heads, the fingers of a hand, a horse's mane.

The variety of axes reflected the attempts of armorers at successive periods romeet the new technical and tactical demands of the times. Each will be studied indetail in rhe context of its appropriate period.

Of the three basic elements in the art of warfare-mobility, firepower,security-the third is the most passive. But without it, the other two cannot befully exercised, and at times not at all. A weapon cannot be fired if its wielder isput out of action, through lack of secure defense, before he begins. Security isa factor of warfare not only at the strategic and tactical levels but also at the levelof the individual soldier.

One of the most absorbing chapters in the story of warfare is the searchthrough the ages for devices which would offer personal security to the soldier onthe battlefield without limiting his mobility or firepower. There was a constantsrrcggle for priority among the three. A large and heavy shield could give excel­lent security-but at the expense of mobility, Protective devices for ears and eyeswould hamper both mobility and the efficiency to direct fire. A shield whichrequired to be held by one hand left only the other free to operate a weapon. Anda coat of mail which freed both hands was unwieldy and slowed movement. Indetermining which of the three factors should be emphasized in rhe planning ofa protective instrument, account was taken of the character of one's own offensiveweapons, those of the enemy, and of the forms of mobility available to both­chariots, cavalry, or infantry. The appropriate solution was sought by the appro­priate adaptation of the shape of the protective device and rhe materia] fromwhich it was to be made.

Instruments for personal defense fall into two categories-shields andarmor.

The shield is simply a device to serve as a barrier between the body of asoldier and the weapon of his enemy. For reasons we have already considered, noshield could be completely satisfactory. If it was large enough ro give completeprotection, it was too heavy to permit free movement. If it was small enough togive easy mobility, it was inadeqnate to after the body full cover.

Types of axes:far l~fi, epsilon; uext

left. tor eye; andbelow it, dllck-bill.

The nt'xt pair are tallg and socket

axes, andfar r~~'It: lugged »xcheads

than with the mace. And the varied attempts to find solutions led to the variety ofshapes devised for the blade during the different periods in history.

Since the axe was conceived, as the sword, for hand-to-hand fighting itsdevelopment was guided by the same alternate purposes of the sword-to pierce(paralleling the sword's function of stabbing) and to cut. The priority of onepurpose over the other during a specific period was determined by the quality ofthe enemy's armor at the time. This, too, influenced the form of the axeblade.The cutting axe was effective against an unarmored enemy. Against armor, thepiercing axe was required, with deep power of penetration, Axes may thereforebe broadly classified according to shape, which also coincides with their respectivefunctions: the axe with a long blade ending in a short sharp edge, for piercing; andthe axe with a short blade and a wide edge, for cutting. There were also variationswithin each type.

A problem facing its manufacture, which often influenced the form anddevelopment of the axe, was again the problem of fitting blade to handle in sucha manner that it would not fly off in action. This, ofcourse, is a danger in all suchinstruments, even the axe used by the laborer. And the Bible draws attention to itin Deuteronomy 19:5: "And when a man goerh into the wood with his neighborto hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree,and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbor, that hedie...."

The axe may therefore be further classified according to the way its blade isjoined to the handle: the socket type, in which the handle is fitted into a socket inthe blade; and the tang type, in which the rear of the blade is fitted into the handle.In the latter type, the join was strengthened by binding or intertwining with cord.In some tang-type cutting axes, with rhe short blade and wide edge, the rear ofthe blade had three projections or tangs by which it was fitted to the handle, givingit the appearance of the figure 3, or-it depends how you look at it-of the Greekletter epsilon. This axe is therefore known as the epsilon axe. Another Made of thesame type had a somewhat longer central tang projection from its rear fitted with

L-ppa two drall'itl.~s, s,l,kctcd axe

with malic-like !Jack, Below, socketed

axes lI'ilh fillgcr~like backs

c::

.~

strength and lighmess, were made of wood or leather and stiffened with met alplates and studs. All these variants are fully depicted in several illustr ated monu­ments.

Th e tw in advanta ges of personal armo r were that it cove red the body of the A r/Horfighter and left his hands free to op er. te his weapon. Its drawbacks were that itwas difficult and expensive to manufacture and its w eight hampered movement .The simplest solution was. uniform mad e of leather or some tough fiber . Thiswould not give perfect protection , bur it co uld give som e, was simple to manu-f. crure, and was light to wear. It cou ld, in a W'y, serve as a substitute for the longshield, and only a short shield would be required for protection ofthe face, thoughthis would not help th e bowmen or cavalry wh o needed tw o free hand s. T hesimple solution was not therefore the ideal solution .

The big advance toward perfection came with the coat of mail. This consistedof hundreds of small pieces of metal, like fish-scales, wh ich joined together andattached to the surface of . cloth o r leather cloak . Whete3S armor made of platesof metal was excessively heavy to wear and interfered with movement, the coatof mail was relativel y light and afford ed easier movement. It was certainly thebest protective device conceived at the time. Bur even the coat of mail had itsdisadvantages . Its manufacture dema nded high techn ical skills and W3S verycostly. It also had its points of weakness at the join of the sleeves and betweenthe scales.

" I NTR O D U CTI ON

Th e most vulnerable p. rt of the soldier in battle was his head. And so the The He/11Iftsearch for protection by means of som e fo rm of helmer goes back to early times.Interestingly eno ugh, because of the climate in the land s of the Middle East inBiblical tim es, the devel opment of the helmet never reached the stage achievedin Europe, wh ere it also coveted the face. T he only improvements in the Easternhelmet were the armored neckband, which protected the gap bet ween the origi nalhelmet and the coat of mail, a collar made of scales. Neith er of these hamperedmovement or vision.

Different armies during different perio ds favor ed special shapes for theirhelmet. In some cases, such as the round- or cone-shaped helm et, the considerationwas functional: to deflect the arro w and make difficu lt its penetr ation. In mostcases, the reason was quite different. O ne was to facilitate ident ification betweenfriend and foe in the midst of the anar chy of battle . Th e head of the soldier standso~t more than my other part ofhis bod y, and so each >rmy would equip its troopsWith. specially shaped or specially decorated helmet. Some went furrher, andequipped different units of the same . rmy with different helmets so that thecommander in the field co uld quickly iden tify the position of each at all tim es.And there were also instances in which the shape of the helmet and its decorationhad their origin in som e tribal or other t radition and served no military purp ose.Some of these types of helmets have provided us with a safe clue in de terminingthe periods of ancient illustrated monuments, such as the monuments of theAssyrian period. .111 .1s.'yrio1ll hdmt'l

Types of sltie1Js: all ~4$Syrjau except

thatcarried by warrior in cer rer.

whois Egypl;au

Types ofarm"r scales allJ mflhoJ of

fUS fttling a"J14dllg-from Cypress

The ancient armorers sought compromise soluti ons to these conflicting con­siderati on s, experimenting with different shapes, or different materials, or both.Their effor ts are reflected in the num erous shapes of shields whi ch have been "found- long , short, rectangul ar, circular, triangul ar, shields shaped like a figur e 8, flatshields, and convex shields. E.ch pro vides its own clue to the reasoning behind itsdesign . Th e long shield served the soldier who fought wi thout arm or and neededmaximum body protection. The short, usually round, shield was for the armoredfigh ter wh o required protection for his face alone . The figure -S shield was simplyan economy form ofthe long shield , with superfluous parts cut out to save materialand weight. The convex shield gave slightly more protection to the sides of thebody, and was also designed to deflect arrows,

These we re all personal shields, car ried by the figh ter him self. But also in usein ancient times was the very large shield. This w as carried by a special shield­bearer w ho was con stantly at the side of the fight er he was protecting.

Ancient designers were as concern ed with the cho ice of material as they werewi th shape in the search for the ideal shield. The ideal was of co urse materi alwhich was both light and tough, and easily availabl e. Most early shields were ofwood, leather, plaited twigs or reeds, or of metal. The metal shields were veryheavy, but they gave better protection. Some shields, as a compromise between

W010 ~

W"

: 0o

14

16

Attack and Penetration

T HE ART O F WAR FARE

FORTIFIED C ITIES IN ATT ACK AND DE FENS E

The art of warfare knows no mor e illuminatin g example, on so large a scale,of the characteristic " chain reaction" feature of mili tary developments than thehistory of the fortified city in defense and attack. The battl e on such a city producedspecial and conflicting problems for the atta cker and the defend er . And the actionsof on e were a direct response to the actions of the other. Th e study of the systemsof defense and the method s of attack , the problems of each and the various solu­tions conceived during rhe different period s, is therefore of great interest to thestudent of milit ary history. Such study also sheds much light on the history ofman , for hu man bein gs, from earliest times, sought shelter from their enemies,bo th man and beast, and devised some system of fortifica tions. The develop mentof such systems and the inn ovations int rod uced at different tim es are indices ofbo th the technica l advances registered by one perio d over its predecessor and alsoof new means and meth ods of assault which they were devised to counter.

Fortifications arc basically an artificial barrier. whether or no t they are builtaround naturally defensive terrain, whose purpose is.to deny the enemy the twoimpo rt ant advantages in assault , mobility and firepower, and to provide a founda­tion of security for the defender. This dual purpose cannot, as may be supposed , beachieved by the erecti on of a simple barrier, but by designing it in such a way asto afford freedom of movement and firepower to the defend ers behind it.

To follo w the recip rocal develop ments in the meth ods of attack and defense,

let us first consider the various ways of conq uering a fortified city .

There were five possible ways ofconquering a fortified city . Sometimes onewas enough. At other times a combinatio n of two or more was necessary. The fivemethods we re: penetration by force from above the fortifications , penetrationthrough the barri er , penetration from belo w , siege, penetration by ruse.

T he first three methods demanded sufficient resour ces at the d isposal of theattackers to enable them, at specific stages of the battle , to cover their penetrationun its, so that they could work withou t in terference, by mainta ining steady fire on

the defenders and preven tin g them from using their weapons.Penetration from above the fortifications was achieved by scaling the walls,

mostl y with the aid of ladders.Direc t penetration thr ough the for tifications could be gained in several ways.

It co uld be effected by breaching the wall, either by prim itive methods usinghamm ers. axes, spears, and swords, o r by a special instrument called the battering­ram . It could also be done by demolishing the doors of the gate or settin g them

on fire.Th e batt ering-r am is an interesting object of study, for it was, in fact, a special

inven tion, techn ically co mplicated to manufacture, and requiring , for its opera­tion , both engineering skill and the capacity to give effective and sustained cove r

to its operato rs.In its elemental form , the battering-ram was a long beam with a sharp metal

head. It would be thrus t with force against the wall to be breached so that its head

was lod ged deepl y betw een the ston es or bricks. Ir wo uld then be levered right and "left, thereby dislodging the stones or bricks and causing part ofthe w all to collapse.The beam and its sharp head represent th e firing power of the bartering-ram . "

In action , the penetration unit handling the batte rin g-ra m had to reach thewall, brin gin g them close to the defenders above-and to their missiles. T o prorectrhern, an early improvement was int roduced. Th e battering beam was carriedbeneath a long wooden box-like structure, similar to the top half of a coveredwagon, its surface strengthened wi th leather or shields, its forward part open toallow the beam to be swun g.

But onl y in the more primitive battering-ram was tills structure used solelyfor protection. In later periods. wi th more advanced engineerin g skills, it wasadapted to serve also the techni cal purpose of easing the movement of the beamand giving it a more powerful thru st. T he merhod mo st com monly used was rodrop a rope from the "ceiling" of the stru cture and tie it to the beam at an appro­priate Spot, so that it became a kind of pendu lum. It could then be swung backwardand forward, gathering moment um, so that , when released, it wo uld fly forwardwith greater force and wedge itself mo re firml y in the wall. T he special shape ofthe structure stems from this secon d function. Its forward po rtion was higher thanthe rest of its bod y, rather like a tower , and it was within this tower that the rop ehung from the top and was tied to the beam.

The battering-r am , complete wi th struc tu re, was heavy . It had to be broughtfrom great distances to the proximity of the city und er assault, and then righ t up tothe walls. Th e more adva nced types we re therefor e eq uipped wi th wheels, andthis indeed gave it the appe arance of a com plete cov ered wagon and not just thetop half

From the rear base to the battl efield, it wo uld often be dra wn by dr aftanimals. But in the final phase. it woul d have to be moved to the city wall by thesoldiers themselves. This was a tough task, for the gro und was usually rou gh,roc ky, and steep, T o make it easier, the assaulting force wo uld try to lay animprovised tr ack , oft en of earth occasionally strengthened wi th w ooden planks ,to serve as a smooth ramp of gentl e gr adient along whi ch the bartering-ram couldbe moved from the foot of the slopes to the city wall. When it had been broughrwithin appropriate range for the battering operation, it would be braked at thespot to prevent its rolling back,

Often, to give the penetrati on unit addition al prot ection , the cove ring firefro m the regul ar infantr y was stren gthened by fire from special troops who wouldaccompany the batt erin g-ram , walki ng at its sides or even inside the structure. Ara later period, such troops wer e moved in high, mob ile, wooden towers fromwhich they could fire ar the defend ers upon the walls.

Penetration from beneath the fortificarious was perha ps less dangero us for theassault group, but technically more difficult . Th e tunneling coul d be start ed o utsidethe range of the defenders' weapons, and could be don e in darkness. But it wasa lengthy process, Moreover, if at some stage the ope ration should beco me knownto the defend ers, they could offer a warm welcom e to the attackers as they emergedfrom the oth er end of the tunnel. However, with the discovery of destru ctive

>.-

A primitive battering-fdm operated by

threesoldiers[tornbt'hitlJ rover.

Bm;-hasDIJ, 10th crt/tury B.C . Set

pllge J59

17

; '". .... :: .~

All Assyrianllactering-ram

Forl!ficatiotlS aud Dclense

18

devices which could be placed beneath the foundations of the wall, this penetrationfrom beneath the fo rtifications became in a much later period extre mely dangerous

for the defenders.The siege, as a method of conquering a fortified city, was by its very nature

themost protracted of all, and the least dangerous to the attacker, Its aim was toencircle the city and so prevent suppl it:5 from reaching the defenders within. Butit demanded of the besieging army special measures for its own defense. For itbecame, in great measur e, a passive force , and one which was exposed to attackat any point by allies ofthe besieged city wh o ' might com e at them from an!direction. It mig ht also be attacked by the defenders th em selves wh o, when theirplight became desperate. might venture fonh from their beleaguered positions andattempt to break thr ough the ring. T o meet these possible threats, a besieging armywould establish fortified camps. This also enabled them to prevent outside armedassistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. .

The lengthy process of siege was resorted to by a hostile arm y when time wason its side and it could afford to wait, or when it lacked the means of penetrationby force. or when the fortifications of the city were too powerful to overcome.

Some sieges lasted several years .Penetration by ruse had as its aim the conquest of a city with om the dangers

of the first three methods and with out the delay of the fou rth. Men of a hostilearmy would seek to infiltr ate into the city by cunning , using some trick to gain theconfidence of the defenders. O nce inside, they would overpower the guards and

open the city gates to the waiting attackers.

T he fortifications of an ancient city and the prin ciples gowming its defensewer e determined primaril y by its topographical position, and its shape and size.And, apart from certain subsidiary considerations , the nature and siting of most ofthe cities of Palestine, Syria, and Anatolia, and of many orher parts of Biblicallands, were them selves determined by two basic factor s: str ategic and tactical onthe one hand, and the source. of water on the other.

Most cities were established only at sites whose natur al conditions met thesetwo basic needs. But in many parts of the Middl e East, both needs could be metonly by diam etr ically op posite conditions. For tactical considerations usuallydemanded the siting ofa city on the top of a hill or mountain, whereas the sourcesof water-springs, stream s, or rivers-were most often to be found in the valley.To resolve this obj ective contradiction of natu re, fortifi cations had to be plannedso as to encompass at least part of the sources of water; or else some suitable systemhad to be devised for ensuring that water flowed into the city .

Additional security considerations, parti cularly in lands ruled by powerfulcentral authority, dictated the establishment of cities at sites which were of country­wide or even regional strategic imp ortance, in order to protect main lines ofcommunications. highways, routes to supply bases, or distant sources of wate r.

The nearest approach to comp lementary natural condirions to satisfy bothsecuri ry and economic needs was to be found only at specific p laces. Since theirtopo graphy rem ained virt ually unchanged thr oughout the pen ods under review,

I N T R ODU C TI O N

it is not strange for us to find a general continuiry of settlemen t at each site, witha new city built on the ruins of the old.

This process, which led to the creation of the celebrated " tell," or mound, ofthe Middle East, created in tim e irs own special problems of defense. At first, itgave the new city an advantage. For its new constructio n raised it abo ve the levelofits predecessor, and gave it a com manding defense position over the surroundingcountry. But later, as the tell got higher and higher, after hundreds or thousandsof years of settlement , it produced two great disadvantages. The high er the tell,the softer its slopes. For now they were not of rock but simp ly the sides of a hug eheap made up of the crumbled ruins of dead cities. They were easier now topenetrate by anyon e seeking to undermine the foundations of the wall at the top.T his probl em was to exercise the minds of planners of forti fications in the laterperiods. Moreover , the higher the tell, the smaller the area of the city built on itscrown. This in tum led to a more reduced population , wi th a corr espondingreduction in the number of fighters to defend it. In time, these tw o defensedisadvantages often pro mpted the inhab itant s to make one of two far-reachingdecisions; either to build an "extension" of the city at a lower level, or to abandonthe site altogether. W here it was decided to build an extension, it meant the virtualconstruction of a new lower ciry on level ground. Th is required an artificial systemof defense in place of the natu ral topograp hical defense advantages enj oyed by theoriginal city on the tell. T hese arc the major premises in any analysis of the defenseproblems of fortified cities. T hey made their impac t on the character of the ciry.More important, they determined its size in most of the Biblical lands. In theearliest periods, the average area of most cities in Palestine, Syria, Anatolia, andMesopota mia ranged from 5 to 10 acres. Th ere were also, of course, a number ofprincipal cities covering an area of hundreds of acres. O n the reasonabl e assump­tion that there were roughly 240 inhabitants to an urban acre, the populationfigures of most of the cities of the ancient Middle East ranged from 1,000 to 3,000,

with some cities boasting a population of between 5,000 and 10 ,0 0 0 . There were 'a few exceptions where the population reached scores of thousands. T he propor­tion offighters among the inhabitants averaged 25 per cent . So that the small citieshad about 300 fighting men, the medium-sized cities about 1.000 to 2. 000, and thelarge cities several thousand.

In the organization of the defense of these ancient cities, there was a concen­tration of three major elements : the walls and subsidiary fortifications; the innercitadel; and the suppl y of water.

The primary purpose of the city walls was to prevent the enemy from T he City Wallsbreaking int o the city, to deny him, that is, his advantag e of mobility. BUla passivebarrier cou ld only hold him up temporarily. For, as we have observed, the wallscould be scaled or breached. T hey had therefore to be so built as to enable thedefenders to ti re their weapons fro m the top, and so frustra te the enemy design.

Th e wall and its torrificanons comprised three principal components: the wallitself-e-rhe barrier ; its upper structur es, ro enable the defenders to fire their weaponsand to give them prot ection while doing so-the firing plarform and defensive 19

..itl Egypliall representation of all

Asiatic city (Illp) allJ a reconsuvaion

of crenelation and balcony

20

T HE Au r OF \V A l~ F A l t E

cover; forward obstacles and traps, set up in front of the wall to keep the enemyarchers as far away as possible and to prevent battering-rams from being broughtinto action. The city gate posed a special problem. For by its narure it was theweakest point in the system of fortifications.

To make scaling difficult, rhe wall had to be high. To prevent breaching, ithad to be thick. And to withstand undermining or tunneling below it, its founda- .tions needed to be deep and broadly based. A wall which is both high and thick,whether built of stone or brick, or a combination of the two (bricks upon a baseof stones), requires additional strengthening by a series of regularly spacedbuttresses of considerable thickness.

The defenders on the ramparts had to be free to fire on the enemy in threedirections: forw ard, to direct frontal fire on the approaching attackers; right andleft, to bring flanking fire to bear on the enemy: downward against troopsattempting to bring up ladders and battering-rams. The top of the walls hadtherefore to be wide enough to give sufficient freedom of movement to thedefenders, and to be so designed as to offer them fields of fire in the requireddirections while at the same time giving them protection from enemy arrows.

The architectural solution to meet these needs was the battlement. This wasa crenelated parapet built along the top of the walls facing the enemy. It lookedfrom a distance like a row ofteeth with gaps between them. The teeth are knownas caps or merlons. The gaps are called embrasures or crenels. The defendingsoldier would fire his weapon through the embrasure and find protection fromenemy missiles by dodging behind the merion. Special towers or bastions built asan integral part of the wall at regular intervals, and protruding from its outer face,enabled rhe defenders to direct flanking fire on enemy troops. The distancebetween the towers was never more than double the range of the defender' bows,and often less. In this way, fire from any two towers could cover the groundbetween them. An inferior alternative was to give a stepped line to the wall itself,but this was not as effective as the tower or bastion. The shape of the tower wassquare or semicircular. The latter was technically more difficult to build, but it hadthe advantage of comm anding a wider field of fire and eliminating "dead" areas.

To enable the defenders to deal with troops who had managed to reach thewall, the towers were built with balconies which had holes or slots in the floorthrough which vertical fire could be directed down upon the heads of the enemy.Sometimes the fortifications were so built that the dead ground at the foot of thevertical wall was wiped out completely. This was done by filling it in with anembankment. This is called a glacis, a bank sloping down from a certain point inthe wall and broadening its base. It exposed the attackers to the defenders' fire andmade it difficult for them to breach the lower part of the wall by battering-ram.

The security of the wall itself was effected in one or both of two ways. One .was the construction of an Outer or advance wall. This was particularly necessarywhere the main wall was at the top of a high hill or cell. The outer wall was thenlower than the main wall but within range of its weapons. so that, when attacked,it could be covered by the fire of the main defending units. An alternative to theouter wall was an obstacle of the reverse kind-the digging-of a wide and deep

.t',

I N TH O D U CTI O N

moat running round the base of the main wall. This had the advantage, especiallywhen filled with water, of denying to the enemy the use of his battering-ramunless he was powerful and skilled enough to bridge the moat or fill it up atcertain points-all under fire. The ideal securiry for the main wall was a combina­tion of glacis, moat, and outer wall.

The gate was inevitably the weakest point in the system of forrificarions. Itwas, indeed, a gap in the wall, deliberately left in order to allow entrance into thecity of inhabitants and friends. It was natural that the attacker should also seek togain entrance through this gap. And so the gate was always the focus of action inbattle, receiving the concentrated attention of both attackers and defenders.

It was also the central problem engaging the minds of those who planned thefortifications. And the most imaginative ingenuity and the finest engineeringtalent were mobilized over a long period COdesign a city gate which would givemaximum trouble to an attacking army and maximum help to its defenders. Theresult was a series of devices, each serving a limited purpose but together providinga form idable defense complex.

Primary attention was given to the planning of the approach path to the gate.The gate, like the wall of which it was a parr, was usually situated high up on a hillor tell. To reach it from the bottom, a path had to be laid in gentle gradients,climbing the slope obliquely either from the right or left. For a direct road wouldbe far too steep even for the defenders themselves, whether in chariots or wagonsor on foot. W herever possible the approach road was planned so as to reach thegate from the right-from the point of view of those facing the gate from theoutside, or left from the point of view of the defenders. Th is prod uced the firstdifficulty for the attacker. For it meant his having to move up the incline with theright side of his body nearest ro the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand,he was exposed to the fire of the defenders without cover.

This principle in planning was followed with even greater cflecnveness wherethe fortification system included a lower outer wall. Th is wall, too, would havea gate. And it was sited to the right of the gate in the main wall (from the point ofview of one facing the main wall). The tw o gares were usually linked by a broadwall. So, again, if the attacker succeeded in gaining ent rance through rhe gate ofthe outer wall, he would have to approach the main gate with the right side of hisbody exposed to the defenders' weapons.

The second and principal barrier to an attacking force were the doors of the

D.:J~·l1J((j 4 aj;m (lpcrmiugf roJl1I

f,d,i" .l.ltl' m..'II r1"",J parotpet. 1111,(/,,1/11

/IQ!.-,,"id . BOli-hasan, c. 1900 B.C.

S,',- pil \!,·.. 158-159

The Gate

21

T HE ART OF WARFA R E I NTROD UCTI O N

23

The II/I/er Citadel

gateway wh ich cramped their freedom of action, while the defende rs coul doperate under no such disability. But this type of gateway became fairly obsoletewith the emerg ence of the chariot. For the cnrran ccway had then to be wideenough to take the vehicl es of the inh abitants in peacetim e. In som e cases, the typ~

W J S retained bu r the en trance and turn ings were made wid er,

The main weakness of the perimeter fortifications, even though they werefor midable, was the magnitude of their circumference. Even a city of average sizehad a perimeter of som e 700 me ters, and in the big cities it was oft en severalkilome tccs. Feint ing or diversion ary attacks by the enem y compelled the defendersto man every meter of the wall , whi le the assaulting army coul d concent rate itsmain striking force against one point alone. And once the wa ll at th is point wasbreached, the rest o f the wall served no furt her defense purpose, even though itmight be intact and its guards unh armed. T o meet this weakness of the outerfunifications, several add itional defense systems were devised. Th e most commonwas the division of the city into several section s, each capable of independentdefense, by the consrr uction of an additi onal wall, an inner citadel , or both.

T he citadel usually include d the palace of the governor or the king and thedwelling-h ouses of his ministers, and sometimes also the temple. It w as built 011 the

A r<'o.llt.' fr :m hlll t1,( ,!,e inner dfy I1" J

(i{ud, 1 ( ~l Zj,~irli

J

gate. T hese were made of wood and usually plated with metal to prevent theirbeing set on fire by enemy torch es. Since the entrance had to be wide eno ugh toallow the passage of chariots, dou ble doo rs were req uired. This meant, however,tha t the barrier was weakest at its center, along rhc line where the two doors met.T o strcngthen it against an attempted cnemy breakthroug h, it was tined with hugebo lts. T hese usually took the form of a heavy beam which ran right across the backof the double doo rs, and was held in position by sockets in both doo rposts. On e ofthese sockets was a vcry deep recess into which the beam wo uld be moved CO

allow the doo rs to be opened. The other socke t was just deep eno ugh to hold theothe r end of the beam after the doors were closed.

Th e third element in the defense complex of the gate was devised to meeta situatio n in which the enemy had succeeded in penetra ting the outer defenses andhad come near enough to try and smash the doo rs and their hin ges wi th his axesand firebr ands. T his coiled for some means-as wi th the wall itself-to enable thedefende rs to enga ge the enemy from above, bot h directly above and from mesides. It was met by build ing tw o towers, one on either side of the gate,which protruded from the outer surface of the W211 and which enabled fire tobe directed at the attac kers from the sides. Direct fire from above was madepossible by the con struction of a roof above the gate, complete wit h cren elationsand balcony. Th ese auxiliary structures virtually turned the gate co mplexinto an almost independent fortress, with its battl ements and often two or moresto ries.

The additional buildings also determined the form ofconst ructi on of the gateitself The roof abo ve the gate and the additional stories req uired strong supportsin and around rhe entranceway. These were pro vided by pilasters, rectangularcolumns engaged in the walls on either side of the en trance , Th e number ofpilasters depended on the dep th of the gate. Some had one pair of pilasters, sometw o, and some three . Th ey naturally narrowed the entrance at me points wherethey we re erected. Where there w as more than on e pair of pilasters, me spacesbetween them on each side were either left open , so as to give the defenders moreroo m co engage the enemy who would be crowded in the narrower part of theentra nce between the first two pilasters, or they were closed in to serve as guard ­rooms for the senrries. T he part of the gate giving our on to the inside of the citywas of co urse much broader, allowing the defenders greater maneuverability inengaging the enemy emerging through the narro wed entranceway.

T his type of gate structure was characteristic of fortified cities bui lt on the topof a tell, and w here the approach route followed an oblique incline up the slopecompelling rhe assault troops to leave their right sides exposed. But in the veryearliest cities, built on sites with no previous ruins to form a tell, neither wall norgate was very much higher than the surro undin g land . Th e probl em here, o fdictating the direction of the enem y approach to put him at a disadvantage, waspartly solved by design ing an angular gateway w hich could be traversed only bypassing thr ough a tu rning . T he entrance of the gatewa y was so position ed mat theapproaching troops had to expose their righ t sides, and even when they succeededin moving thro ugh the fim opening , they found themselves in a turnin g of the

, ;

:1t . .. . _

Type' of City Go",.A ltOl-'(' : AfiJ ,lJe Brtl1lu gat.:slrotTl

SyrioJ and Palestine

Bd oll': Late Brollz t' aM

Iron Age gatc; f rom

AJ,JlOliJ. Svria, I1nJ Mesopotamia

2 2

=E3 ..~~l=i ii

THE ART O F WARFARE

highest part of the city to give it addi tional natural protection . It was constructedas a self-contained defensive unit, even though, on occasion, one or more of itssides was based on and contiguous to the city wal l. The citadel was a replica of thefortified ciry, having its main wall, gateway, outer w all, and sometimes even amoat. It was small in area, and was usually the scene of the city 's last stand , withthe govern or and the surviving inhabitants w ho had taken refuge therein fightingto the end . In the fight on the citadel, the defend ers had an advantage in that theassault tt oopS, to reach the fort, had to batter their way through the built-up areaof the city, with its tortuous alleyways convenient for ambush. In the large cities,where the original ciry on the heights had been extended by the building of afor tified lower city at its foot , the original ciry became a kind of do uble innercitadel, serving as the inner citadel of the entire co mbined-cities area, and havingits own inner fort w hich housed the govemor.

Water Supply Jurirlg Siege The various systems of fortifica tions had as their purpose the prevention ofthe enemy from breaking into the ciry. But the plann ing of the fortifications hadalso to take accoun t of the need to keep both troop s and civilians supplied withw ater even during a siege. It W3S comparatively eosy to store food . But this wasnot tr ue of water. A partial solution was the cistern . An d this served for longperiods as the sale solution. But it could not be the decisive answ er, par ticularly intime of drought. It has already been observed that the siting of . ciry was largelyde termined by its proximiry to sources of water. If the source was. stream , theciry might be built on one of its banks , and th is afforded easy access to the watersuppl y in time of siege. The stream could also serve as p.rt of the city 's defensesystem . But the pro blem arose where the ciry w as bu ilt on a hill or tell and wasdependent for its water suppl y on a spring whi ch , naturally. would be foundnearer to the foot of the hill, and outs ide the ciry wal l. The solution here was tobloc k its mouth and camo uflage it from the enemy, while safeguarding access toits source by the inhab itants of the ciry.

Th is could be, and was, don e in one of tw o w'ys, and sometim es both : eitherby cutting a tunnel at a gt3di ent from the spring or well through to a cistern insidethe ciry in to which the water wou ld flow by graviry, and which wo uld be reachedby. pit equipped with a staircase; or by digging a pit inside the ciry, and, at itsbottom, tunneling a passageway throu gh to the o utside near rhe spring, whi chco uld then be reached without detection by the besieger s. Th ese were tunnel ingprojects ofconsiderable com plexity . But, as we shall see later , we have eviden ce ofextraordinarily advan ced engineering knowledge and skills displayed by thepeople of ant iquity in the construction of such tun nels. And, indeed, if it wer e notfor such engineering feats, these cities would not have been able to hold out againstlengthy siege.

Yet despite powerful fortifications and high ly developed system s of defense,we know that many fortified citiesw ere vanq uished. This underlinesthe point that,in the final anal ysis.what co unts isnot the strength of the defenses nor the po wer ofthe assault WC3pOns but the spirit of the man behind the wall and the man behind

24 the batt ering-ram.

i

I1~

'"~

~. ;)3; ~

~s»

j

11I"

c.,':;'..,<;1

':<,':~

,.;,.::

:~,

~~I~

INTR O D UCTI O N

AR CHAE OL O GICAL SO U RC ES

Th e sole evidence in our possession w hich can help us to trace the patt ern oflife in ancient days arc the material rema ins left behind by ancient peop les. Theirthoughts, feelings, mood s, and aspirations arc lost to us forever unless they fo undexpression in tangible relics, and we can only seek to reC3ptun;. them by analogyand inference from the remains whic h have been brought to ligh t. Archaeo logicaldiscoveries arc thus o ur main sources for an investigation of the art and method s" f war fare in Biblical lands in ancient times.

Thanks to the revolution ary development of archaeological research in theBiblical lands in the last hundred years, and par ticularl y in the last few decades, wenow have a wealth of finds which shed light on mo st of the subj ects dealt wi th inthis book . Moreover, since, as we have observe d, warfare played no less formidablea role in the lives of ancient peop les than it does in those of the nations of today,many of the material legacies b id bare by archaeol ogical expeditions relate to war.For convenient study, this archaeolo gical evidence will be discussed under threeheadings: illustra ted mon uments, both sculptured and d raw n; ruins of fortificationsand actual weapo ns found by excavation; written documents,

This group of relics is, in some ways , the most important for a study of ancient Illustrated Monumentswarfare. For on many of these monuments ore graphic representa tions of militaryevents which cannot be reconstructed by an examination of other relics nor givensuch tangibl e expression by literary descrip tion alon e. They are of im mense helpto an understanding of several branches of warfare- tactics, weapons, andfortifica tions.

o f special value arc the drawings and reliefs of military articles and weaponswhich were made of perishable materials, such as wood , leath er, or textiles. Suchmaterials defy preservation, excep t und er special cond itions, and rarely have theyfigured among the finds of the archa eolog ist. Our knowl edge of them would beincom plete w ithout the designs on ancient monuments. And even if, for example,a reasonably preserved part of a chariot is discovered , it will tell US nothing ofhow the horses we re harn essed or how the chari ot was used in battle. But thedrawing on a monument may. T he same is true of instruments fashione d fromharder material whic h preserves longer. A few metal scales will tell us somethingabout the coat of mail. But only th rough monument s do we know what thegarment looke d like and how it was worn. We wou ld know alm ost nothing ofthe development of the bow through the different perio ds and in the differentcountries if it were not for its repr od uction on mo numents. Th e batte ring- ram',nude of Illany parts, mos t of them perishable, would be a mystery to us toda y ifwe had no ancient picture showi ng the complete imp lemen t in action. And thesame. of cou rse, is true of fort ifications. Most of the fortified walls we re eitherdestro yed or fell into ruin already in ancient tim es, with almost nothing left abovetheir foundations. Yet it was precisely the ir uppe r port ions, the towers, battlemen ts,ramparts. and balconies, which we re the vita l functional features of the defense

' y" cm . O nly by their visual represen tation on monuments are we able to restore 25

32

II

THE FORTIFICATIONSOF JERICHO

7000 B.C .

The Most A ncient Fortljications ill the World

Had this book been wri tten in the year 1951, or even in 1955, it would have begunwith a descriprion of the artifacts and monuments belonging to the second half ofthe fourth millennium , 3500 to 3000 B.C . This would correspond to the end of thePre-D ynastic period in Egyp t, the beginning of the Pro to-Literate period inMesopotamia, and the end of the Chalcolithic period in Palestine and Syria.

But now , thanks to the amazing archaeological discoveries in Jericho in thelast ten years, we can start with the earliest known forti fications in the world,dating back to about 7000 B.C. , the beginning of the Neolithic period.

Th e discovery of these groups of ancient fortifications, whose standards ofplanning and construction almost match many of the powerful fortifications oflater periods, despite the 4,000-year gap, also had the effcct of changing all ourpreviously held concepts about the beginnings of the urban settlement.

Before these discoveries, the term " the walls of Jericho" was automaticallyassociated with the walls of the city, which, we are told in the Bible, fell mys­teriously before the hosts ofJoshua some time between 1300 and 1200 B.C . Now,however, certainly for archaeologists, the walls ofJericho are intimately bound upwith the Neolithic fort ifications built some 6,000 years before the lime of Joshua.Unfortunately we cannot go into asmuch detail aswe should like on these Neolithicstructures, since this book is primarily concerned with relics from the later periods.But a brief account will be helpful to our understanding oflater forti tications.

Th e tell ofJe richo- Tell es-Sultan-lies in theJordan Valley j ust north of theDead Sea, close to a running spring which is popularly known as the Spring ofElisha. W hatever the reason for Jericho 's ancient exis tence-s-ir is the oldest knowncity in the world-one thing is clear. It was the spring which drew the earliestsettlers and pro mpted them to build their city near by.

.,j

-J' :

7 0 0 0 B .C .

The Neolithic culture in Jericho prevailed for a long time and covered thetransition from the Pre-Pottery culture to that of Pottery. It was thus possible rodivide the Neolithic strata ofJericho into Pre-Potter y (which is the true Neolit hic)and Pottery Neolithic (which might be called Ceramolithic). Moreover , themeticulous excavations by Kathleen Kenyon, who directed the expedition, enabledher to make accurate subdivisions of each of these two periods. which she called,provisionally, Pre-Pott ery A, Pre-Pott ery D, and Pottery A and Pott ery D.

Th e first shock waves reached the scientific wo rld with the preliminarydiscovery of Neolithic city fortifications dating back to the Pre-Pott ery B period.The absolute date of this wall was determined by the carbon- r.i test as 5859 B.C.

(plus or minus 100 years), making it about 8,000 years old. Before this discovery,the earliest known forti fied city, or indeed, any city, belonged to the period some3,000 years later.

When it was laid bare, the Jericho wall still stood some 2!meters high andwas built of large slabs of undressed stone. Its lower part also served to butt ressstructures inside the ciry. The full height of its external face, as seen by the enemy,is estimated to have been at least 5 meters.

Th e span of settlement during Pre-Potter y B was long . The archaeologicalexcavations revealed twenty-six strata of building in some places during thisperiod alone, strata, that is, which showed the raised floor built on the debris ofearlier ruins. Th e wall itself was built some time corresponding to the thirteenthto fourteenth level of settlement, We still do not know enough about the characterof the fortifications. But the very fact of their construction is evidence of anorganized society, capable, either from desire or compulsion , of carrying throughan impressive collective engineering project. And the need to build this forti fiedwall also indicates the presence of an organized neighboring society capable oflaunching a powerful assault.

The next shock wave to the world of archaeology was even more stunning.This came in 1954 when it was found that the previously discovered wall wasneither the oldest nor thc finest in the histor y ofJericho. Beneath it, at a consider­ably lower depth, a series of fortifications were discovered which were staggeringin their power and the ingenu ity of their planning.

The core of this fortifications system was the wall. Part of it, on the westernedge of the tell was still standing, to a height of 7 meters! Moreover, it waspossible to establish that this wall encompassed the entire city, which at that periodextended over some 10 acres. Irs population thus numbered between about 2,400to 2,600 inhabitants, ofwhich some 500 to 600 were fightin g men. This means thatit was possible ro station about one soldier to every meter of fortifications.

Thi s wall, too, was built of undressed stone, though the slabs were smallerthan those in the later wall.

Even more surprising was the second discovery. Th e excavations revealed alarge moat scooped out of the rock at the to ot of the wall, 9 meters wide and3 meters deep. How the inhabitants of ancient Jericho managed to cut this ditchout of the rock when the only tools they had were of flint is still a mystery.Equally mystifying is their need for a moat. Wha t kind of powerful assault did 33

34

T HE FORTI FI CATI ON S OF JE RICHO

they dread from their neighbors that could demand the contin uous application ofa large labor fo rce for a proj ect that must have taken thousands. perhaps tens ofthousands, of wo rkdays!

T he third surprise was the discovery ofa build ing which shows the very highstandards of plann ing and constructional engin eering achieved by the inhabitantsof Ne olithic Jeri cho (lI S). This is a huge stone circular tow er, 10 meters high,seemingly attached to the inner or city side of the western part of the wall. It is13 meters in diame ter at its base and 10 meters at its crown. Inside it was a hollowshaft con taining twenty- two steps of dressed stone. each 75 centimeters wide. T hebottom of the staircase led to a passage which ended in an opening at the foot of thetow er. T he steps gave access to the top of the tower. \Vas it to give the inhabitants adefensive position from which they could engage the enem y! T his could not havebeen the towe r's main purp ose. Unlike the towers ofla ter periods, this one did notabut against the outer side of the wall which would have enabled the defenders toharry the flanks of an attacking enemy. Instead, the entire building was inside thecity . even though apparent ly attached to the wall . Co uld it have served as anobservation pom Or was it built to defend some near-by installation for securin gwater or structur e of special importance inside the ciryr One can only speculate,but there can be no definite answer without further excavati ons of the surrounding

area.T he shaft inside the tower cont ained human skeletons, apparently flung there

in a heap at some time, one on top of the other. Th ese could not have beenskeletons of city defenders who had made a last stand. for they Were found on topof the debr is by which the shaft was blocked and which filled it to a height some60 centime ters from the top of the tower. T hey must certainly have been brou ghtthere long after the shaft had fallen into disuse. T he pur pose of the tower remainsa riddle.

But there is no mystery abou t its chronology . T he excavations established thatthere were at least three technical phases in the construction of the complex towerand for tifications. First came the tower. Then came a stone wall around the tower.And last came the outside wall. Also built during the first phase was an earlycompact wall slightly nearer to the cent er of the city than the later wall.

After the comp letion of the third phase, namely the constr uction of the out­side wall, several buildings were constructed inside the city and partly buttressedby the wall. The excavations revealed that the structures built during this thirdphase were destroyed by fire. Th e ashes were subjected to the carbon- ra test andthe result was start ling. It put the date of the fire at 6 770 B.C.• plus or min us200 years. Since the main fortifications, as we have indicated, were built a consider­able time before the fire, the date of their construc tion can reasonably be presumedto have been abou t 7000 B.C.

Even with the necessary reservations with which the carbon- r, test must beaccepted, it is clear in the light of both absolute and relative chro nology that herewere the earliest known attempts on the part of man to build a city and to for tifyit with wall, tower. and moat.

Th e inhab itant s of this city had certainly advanced beyond the stage where

7 0 0 0 B . C .

men Jnst plucked their food from nature. They had started to work for their dailybread by some form of farming and by other means. Flint arrowheads found onthe site show that they also used the bow. And the fon ifications themselves.particula rly the rower and the moat. indicate that the bow was the decisive weaponin warfare. out-ranging the j avelin and the spear. Bu t the character and pattem ofattack and defense in this period was still beyond the scope of our knowledge. Nordo we have the answer to the enigm a of what took place during the fant asticgap-a gap of 4,000 years- betwee n these and the next most ancient systems offortifications know n to us.

W e can only proceed. wi thout lingering ove r this batHing hiatus, to a con­sideration of the art of warfare from the beginning of the historic periods, asrevealed by illustrated monuments and archaeological remains.

35

If I

THE PERIOD BEFOREABRAHAM

4000-2 1 00 B. C.

During the second half of the four th millennium , and more markedly during theth ird, the foundations wer e laid for the princip les of wa rfare and the basic types ofweapon s and forrifi carions which prevailed during the succeeding 3,000 years­indeed, righ t up to the discovery of gunp owd er in the 15th century A.D. This isclearly shown in the monum ents and archaeologi cal discove ries from the fourthand third millenn ia.

Apart from cavalry units, which appeared on the battl efield only at the endof the second and beginning of the first mil lenni um, the means of mob ility, attack,securi ty, and defense all have their origin in the earlier period . Natu rally many ofthem were developed and considerably im pro ved iu later ages. But they were allbased on pro to types whi ch had been introd uced earlier. In som e cases there wasa markin g-ti me, and even a retr ogression, wit h the original standards remainingunma tched by the later armies wh o operated in the lands of the Bible.

Not that these lands can be lumped together in a generalization about militaryprogress, especially during this period . Indeed, one of the strange features of thisepoc h is the vast difference in the standards of wea pons and metho ds of warfarebetween the different lands of the Bible. At this time. for examp le. the forms ofwarfare among the Sum crians we re highly adva nced. w hereas in Egy pr they we revety primitive. Th e most striking instance of this d ifference is the use of thechariot. Ch ariot units were being widel y used in battl e in Mesopotamia alreadyin the first half of the third millennium. Not unti l 1,200 years later do we find thebott le chario t first being used in Egyp t.

It may be appropriate, therefo re, to start o ur review of th is period with thechariot. Its invention and development were without doubt the most significantcont ributions to the art of warfare in the third millenniu m, thanks , as we haveobserved , to che inhabit ants of Mesopo tamia at that time.

400 0 - 21 0 0 B . C .

MOBILI TY

Th e first half of the thi rd millennium in Mesopotami a, which saw the in tro­du ction of the battle chariot, is also known as rhe Early D ynastic period. T hemilitary impac t of the chariot was revolutionary. Its appearance cann ot be asso­ciated wit h any special city or kin g. It was in general usc, as a basic inst rument ofwar, thr oughout Mesopotamia at this time.

Before describ ing its for m and the illustrations which appear on ancientmon uments, it is wo rth no ting that in one of the co mpara tive dictionaries ofthe Sumerian and Accadian langua ges. there is a comp rehensive list of termsrd ating to the chariot which almost certainly we re in lise in this period . In thisdictionary, abo ut a hundred terms are preserved which are conce rned with typ esof chariots, materials of which they were made, chariot parts , whips, and so on.T here are terms for cha rio ts made of reeds, for those strengthened wi th metal.and for the leather covering . Chariot parts listed in the dicrionary include thephtform, body, dust- shield, front , tail. po le. yoke, axle . and wheels. This detailedterminology indicates both that the man ufactur e of chariots was well developedand that a wid e range of types was in use, for bat tle, racing , and transport . T heabun dance of terms and the large nu mber of chariot illustrations on ancientmonuments make it possible, w ith pleasing frequency, to identi fy the parts wi thaccu racv ,

Th~ legacy of illustrated monuments which feature the chariot is ri ~h andvaried . It includes drawings of cha riots (128); reliefs (t 30, 134) ; mosaics (1]2 - 133.138- 139); and models (129, 130, 131, 1]2 ). Archaeolog ical excavations have alsobrought to light parts of chariots, notably wheels and metal por tions of the body(13I) . Here is what the archaeologist wh o excavated at Kish had to say about thechariot parts he fou nd in tombs belonging to the Early Dynast ic period (seeaccompanying d rawing).

"T hree of the tombs contained chariots. T wo two-wh eeled chariots, orpossibly one tw o- wh eeled and one four-wh eeled . , , on ly . . . (one) specimen. . . could be studied in detail. . . . To w ards the front on each side of the pole ther ewere tw o pairs of skeleton s of equines w ith cheir leacher harnesses... . T he plat­form of the cha riot was made of wood, 45 ems. wide , cerm inating at the rear illa second small platform surrounded under the back end by a copper band . 011

each side of the platform attached to the tail stood stout spokes attached to an arcband to prot ect the load of the vehicle ftom rubbing against the wheels. I amunable to give the leng th of the platfo rm, since it was totally decayed in front. T hewheels fitted on to the ends of the axles have a diameter of 50 cms. Th e axles arc90 ems. long and hove a diameter of 8 cms. T he wheels were kep t in position bywooden pegs and ore made ofirregula r pieces of boar ds held together by transverseboards attached to them by w oo den pegs.

" . .. The copper nails of the felloes arc 4 em s. long and 2 cms. thick at thehead. Th ey arc dri ven inco the wo od obliquely and chere are abo ut 55 on thecirru m tercnce, t'52 meters in length... ."

The Chariot

.-l l/rilll'illg4 o1.!ollr-lI'J,,,t'1t·J d ,.lrio!

/;1.'111 Kishi J('sa ibcd 0 11 this page

1;

A solid wherl with noils of a chilriol

from SlIsa

T HE P E R I OD BEFORE AB R AH A M

T his qu otation underlines the point that information on the nature of thematerials and the deta iled measurements of the parts of a chari ot can be gainedonly by an examinat ion of its physical remains. We can now proceed to a review ofwhat we know of the chariot from illustrated m onuments wh ich are enlighteningon many addi tional details upon which the remains themselves are inevitably silent.

T here were two basic rypes of battle chariots-two-wheelers and four­wheelers. Th is we know not only from the above archaeologi cal discoveries butalso from ancient model s and mon umen ts. Th e battle chariot which appears in theStand ard of Ur (132-133) is a four-w heeled vehicle, capable of carrying twosoldier s, the fighting man and hisdriver. A simila r chariot appears in the designon the vase from Khafaj ah ( I ~8 ) . Th e lighter, two- wheeled chariot is the subj ectof ancient models (129, 130), and pan of a relief on a limeston e plaqu e from U r(130) . T hese light chario t. also served , without doubt, on the battl efield , and wereprobably used chiefly for com mand errands and communicati ons.

The chariots w ere usually harnessed to four dr aft anim als. T hese wereapparen tly not hor ses but wild asses or onagers or some other anim al close to theho rse breed. The fact that four such animals we re required sugg ests that they wereno t very robust, that the chario t itself must have been relatively heavy, and that itstraction system was not very advanced, so that the haulage powet of the beasts w asnot full y expl oited.

On the two-wheeled chariots, they had not yet succeeded in placing the axleat the rear of the carriage , T his was no doub t due to the weig ht of the chariot, fata rear axle would have pu t too heavy a load on the anima ls. But this certainlymeant that these vehicl es could not maneuver at speed on tu rns. However, thedan ger of ove rtu rning on a sharp curve was con siderab ly redu ced by linking thewheel, to a lon g axle-rod so that they were well clear o f the sides of the body. Thelength of the axle-rod was double the wid th of the carriage platfor m, 90 centimeterstoits45. The wheels themselveswere all, witho ut excep tion, heavy , solid ,and spoke­less, and were no doubt liable to break when the chario t took a curve at speed.

T o give the m greater strength, these solid wheels we re usually made not ofa single woo den plan k but of several boards, either straight (129), fm ed side byside with simply the edges curved to take the line of the wheel, or crescent-shaped(130) . Th e join of these boards with woo den pegs is characteristic of every repr e­sentation of these chariots in the mo numents of the period. The rims or " rites" ofthe wheels were mostl y secured by nails (128- 129) which appe ar to have coveredsome two-third, of the surface of the tire. From the remains foun d at Kish, we seetha t there were fifty nails, each wit h a z-cenrimcrcr broad head . cove ring a rimwh ose circumference was I! meters. Th ese nails served not on ly to strengthen thewheel but also to give gte;ter stability to the chariot by actin g as studs w hichgripped the eart h. O n occasion, instead of nails, the w heel was fm ed with abroa der rim to protect the wood on rough gro und (130 , 132-133) . Th e front ofthe chario t was shielded by a high upright pane l which gave protection to thesoldiers from fronta l missiles.

Th is shows that these chariots were used mainly for direct assault on theenemy . and not for m ovement at medi um ranges along the flanks. M oreover, as

4000-2 1 0 0 B. C .

we shall see later. the figh ting men in these chario ts were armed with the javelinand spear and no t with the bow. which indicates that the securit y they requiredwas against weapons of similar medium and short ranges.

The reins, from the anim als' heads to the hands of the charioteer, passedthrough two special rein guides. T he rein guides w ere generally tw o hoops o rrings, one for the right and one for the left group of reins (131, 132-(33 ). T heywere titled to the chariot pole, w hich was either curved or straight , close tothe' yo ke. T his system prevented ent anglemen t of the reins and also no doubtenabled the single charioteer to release them or tie them to the breast of thecharior (r35) when he needed both hands to operate his weapon.

The carriage of the chariot was usually made of a frame of woo den poles orcanes cove red wit h panels of wood or leather . At the rear of rhe heavy chariot wasan addi tiona l small platform, a kind of extension to the main platform, which gavemore room for the fightin g man and enabled him to operate more freely without ,jostling the driver. The main platform alone, j ust 45 centimete rs wide, wo uld nothave been enough to hold both dri ver and fighter stand ing side by side.

The four-wh eeled chariot offered more space for its two passengers; But itsnature certain ly gave it a reduce d speed and maneuverability over those of therwo- wheeled vehicle.

Th e weap ons carried by the chariot were in the main a spear and a qu iverfulof javelins (132- 133, 135) and occasionally an axe. T he absence of the bow fromthe armament of the Sum erian chario teer or even from tha t of the infantr ym an ismore instruc tive. For the bow. in the latest periods, was most definitely theweapon of the chariot. Th is indicates that the bow, the on ly accurate long-rangeweapon , w as not yet in wide use during this perio d. It shows, too , that the primaryfunction of the Sumerian chariot was to charge and pan ic the enemy and engagehim at medium rang e with the help of the j avelins, and then at short range wi ththe spear.

With all its shortcom ings, the Mesopo tamian chario t was assuredly a formid­able and decisive instrument of wa rfare in this region. And it was used conti­nuously in its basic original form thr oughout the whole of the third millennium(131), Only in the first half of the second millenn ium did it und ergo a revo lut ion­ary development which turned it into an effective mobile firing platfo rm . Th ischange came wi th the mastery of the two basic problems of mobil ity and firepowe r.Etiecrivc m obility was achieved with the discovery of the ligh t, spoked whe el andthe means of making a light bod y, whic h made possible the shifting of the ax leto rhe rear, to give it maneuverabi liry. It was aided by the use of fast horses inplace of the fanner onagers. Strengthened firepower was pro vided by the

A Jrawing (If the llIo,Jd };OJII

T,'1f .1g'.1o. q : p.ge ll9

39

The Mac"

Pre-D ynastic Esyptiall saucer-shaped

maceheads

40

T HE PERI O D BEFORE A B RAHAM

composite bow . Strangely enough, the spear continued to be included, as a kind of 'third-millenni um hangover, amo ng the weapons ofthe charioteer in Mesopotamiaand neighboring lands even in the later periods, long afeer the bow had becomethe principal armamen t of the chario t. As against this, the spear was never one ofthe weapons of the chario teer in Egypt, where the chariot made its appearanceonly very muc h later.

WEAP O NS SHO R T -RAN GE and Hand-to-hand Fighti"g

It is perhaps natural that am ong the most important weapons used in hand­to-hand fighting during Chalcolithic and the first hal f of the Early Bronze periods(3500 to 2500 B.C. ), pride of place should have been taken by the mace, And indeedthe mace in its variou s forms was a weapon of muc h strikin g power in wide usedur ing this period in all lands of the Bible, notably in those places and at thosetimes where the helmet had not yet made its appearance. Lon g after it had becomeobsolete as a battle weapon, the mace con tinued to serve as th e symbol ofauth orityof the king and the god . Some of the mo st interestin g specimens of ancient mace­heads are to be found in the Chal colithic collection discov ered a few years ago inthe excavations near Beer-sheba. Even mo re spectacular are the magnific entvarie ty bro ught to light by the Israel archaeo logical expedition to the caves of theW ilderness ofJ udea, near Ein Gedi, in the sprin g of 1961. Many of them are madeof a ha rd, heavy stone, like hemati te, similar to maceheads found at o ther sitesfro m the same period . (Hematite is a blood -colored stone containin g iron oxide.)But the re were also many made of copper (like those from Beer-sheba , 120).Now in this period, copper was j ust becoming known. The face that maceheadswere molded from copper is explicable only in terms of the high importance

. o f this weapon, so much so that neither resources nor effo rts were spared tostrengthen its striking power.

These maceh eads, as in other countries, were ofthe socke t type, the hilt beinginserted into the head and tightened by strips of cord.

In Egypt, too , the mace was in wid e service. At the beginning of the Pre­Dyna stic period , a rather strange typ e of macehead was found, shaped like a diskand slightl y concave (120). This type gradually disapp eared , as did many otherweapons which were designed to fulfil two different funct ions and end ed up byfulftlling neither. It is clear that the designers of the disk-shaped (or saucer-like)macehead sou ght to make it also a curring instr umen t by giving it a sharp edge,but this necessarily reduced its smi ting po wer. Eventually they realized that thetwo aims cou ld not be achieved th rough a single instru ment, and apart fromisolated exp erim ents here and there, they settled on the mace for striking and theaxe for piercing and cmting. And so, beginning with the latt er part of the Pre­Dynastic and continuing through the early part of th e O ld Kingdom, the mace­heads were either pear-shaped or round (124- 12s ). Thes e maces were found inexcavation relics and are depicted in the monuments of the period. Two of the

4000-2 I 0 0 B . C .

most important monumen ts from the end of the Pre-Dynastic perio d present wit hgraphic clarity the mace in the act of operation bo th in hand-to-hand fighting(116) and in hunting (119, top ). Thi s weapon was so characteristic of the time thatit even became the symbol of the pha raoh 's might. T he ceremonial macehead ofKing Scorpion (120), jus t befor e the Dynas tic period, is on e of the most interest­ing art objects of ancien t Egypt. And at the beginning of the D ynastic period , thepharaohs arc shown smiting their enem ies with a mace (10-1 I). These monumentsalso show us the shape of the hil t, whi ch was tapered toward the head andbroadened at the base to prevent the weapon from flying out of the hand w henswung. A further device to pre vent the handl e from slipping was to bind it wi tha rough cord (124).

In Mesopo tamia , too. we find the mace in wide use du ring the Chalcolit hic,Pro to-Litera te, and Early D ynastic periods. At first it was egg-shaped, then pear­shaped, and finally it was fluted (rzo) . T his last type, which was also found inSyria, succeeded in som e measur e in giving the mace a cutti ng functio n wi th thesharp edges between the grooves, wi thout redu cing its power to stun. T wo hand­some ceremo nial maceheads, encrusted wit h precious stone s and gold, dat ingback to 2500 B.C., are illustrated on page 142.

The mace, then , was an effective weapon so lon g as the enemy was notarmor ed and his head, in partic ular , was unhelrneted. Bur as soon as he appe aredon the batt lefield wi th these means of secur ity, another wea pon had to be inventedwhich could be swu ng with force and which had the pow er to pene trate. Thiswas the axe.

No weap on seems to have taxed the inventiveness of armi es and techn iciansmore heavily than the axe. And none is so integral to the various tra ditions whichmark the character of these armi es. Th e period which best reflects the ingenuity ofthe military artificer is the third millennium. This period saw the emergence ofevery type and prototype of axe wh ich was in use in all subseq uent per iod s rightup to the end of the Iron Age. Apart from the early experime nts in all lands of theBible with the pr imitive stone axes, both single- and double-b laded (118, bottomright-hand comer), the two main families of axe referr ed to in the Introduction,the tang type and the socket type , already appear in the first half of the thirdmillennium. In this period , roo, we also find two distinct functional for ms of axe- the axe for piercing and the axe for cutting.

It is no exaggeration to claim that one of the most rem arkable technicalachievements of the Sumerians was their use of an axe with a pipe- like socket. itsblade narrow , long, and very sharp-e dged. In this, they exploited to the maximumthe already existing prot otypes of such axes, as was recently shown by the dramaticdiscover-y of a great number of copp er axes in a cave in the Judean Desert , in theDead Sea in Israel (see pages 126-127). T he app earance of this type of piercingaxe precisely amon g the Sumer ians and the Early Dynastic period is no accident .For it is at th is time and in this land that we find our first evidenc e of a high-stan­dard metal helmet (see page 49). Such helmets could be rend ered ineffective onlyby a piercing axe which could be swung with force , by an axe , that is, whose

Tvpcs ~rEarly DylloHt;eSmnerion

s/ll k l't aXI 'S

41

TIVOtpsiloll-shapl'dtang-typr axes

jrom Palestine (Early Bronrc III.

26th-~J,J U III" ' )' B.C. ). Upper:

Jericho. U IVcr: Tell d-H(j;

42

THE PERIOD BEF O RE ABR AHAM

handle was very firmly attached to the blade. The Sumerian axeblade (134, 136,137,139) was made ofcopper. It was long and narro w. getting slightly wider androunder near the edge. Its socket was rather like a pipe, and set at an acute angle, sothat the handle , which fitted into it , sloped forward. To give a better grip andprevent its slipping out of the hand , the handle was slightly curved toward thebottom, where it was also thickened (137). The axe was the personal weapon ofthe spear-carrying infantry (bottom of 134, top of 1]2 ) and of the charioteers(bottom of 135, bott om of 1]2).

From the illustrated monuments and from the axeheads themselves whicharchaeologists have brought to light , we are now familiar with their detailedcharacteristics and their methods of use. The Sumerian axe continued to be usedright into the Aceadian period . particularly in Syria at the end of the thirdmillennium, aswe can see from the magnificent collection of axesdiscovered in thecelebrated tomb of Til Barsip (148). It underwent improvements from time totime. There was the later addition of a small blade or a lub (in the form of an .animal head) at the rear of the socket, which was accordingly shortened . And ofparticular interest were the changes in the shape of the blade which made it a moreeffective piercing instrument. On occasion, the blade was much narrower andtapered toward the edge, giving it almost the form ofa large peg (top left of 148).This type, together with the beautiful axe of Naram-Sin-a long, narrow-bladedweapon and a socket no longer in the form of a pipe-are the prototype of manyof the axes which appear in the Middle Bronze period, which we shall discusslater.

Another type of piercing axe in use at the time was the axe of Anatolia. Thiscould almost be called a double-bladed weapon. Its main blade, long and narrow,was similar to the Sumerian blade. On the other side of the socket was a smallerblade whose primary function was to add weight to the swing and to increasethereby the penetration power of the first blade. Som e excellent examples ofceremonial axes of this very eype, made of precious stones and metals, werediscovered in Tr oy at the end of the last century by the celebrated archaeologistSchliemann in a stratum belonging to the middle of the third millennium . Morerecently, a similar collection was found in the royal tombs at Dorak, not far fromthe southern coast of the Sea of Marmara, and they are even fmer and richer thanthe Trojan axes. They can be more precisely dated because of the name ofPharaohSahure which appears on some of the objects found in the same tombs. This thenin the first half of the 25th centur y B.C. Drawings of these axes are to be foundon page 143.

Th e socker-rype piercing axe spread from Mesopotamia to several lands ofthe Bible, but did not reach Egyp t. Egyptian armies always made do with thetang- type axe, primarily a cutting instrument, even durin g much later periodswhen they, too, had started using the piercing axe. But the rang-t ype cutting axe,notably the triple- tang epsilon form , also made its first appearance not in Egyptbut ill Mesopotamia , Syna, and Palestine. This axe, as we have observed, wasstrange to the conditions of warfare in Sumcr. Yet we have several examples fromthat region and during the period under review, particularly during the succeeding

4000-2100 B . C .

Acc, dian period . Thus we fmd a tang-eype cutting axe in the hand of a soldier ona monument of the period (151). T his, in fact, is similar in character to thecurved or sickle swo rd which. as we shall see, also had its origin in this period.This axe, however, was not in wide use in this region, and its birthpla ce wasprobably Syria and Palestine. T he best example of this kind of curved axe witha well-made central tang was found at Tell el-Hesi in Palestine (149). It was foundat a time when the methods of archaeological excavation were not as developedas they are today. and it was not possible therefore to date it definitely within thethird millennium. Out recently an identical typewas,found inJericho , together withporrery which was established as belonging to the Early Bronze III period (2600to ~300 B.C.) . Th is shows that the Palestinian relics were at least of the same periodas the Mesopotamian, or even earlier. Additional examples of these axes from thesecond half of the third millennium were discovered in Syria and southern Anatolia(see also ' 50, right), and from there the eype spread to Egypt at the end of thethird and beginn ing of the second millennium (IH, ISS ).

It is wor th record ing that already in the Accadian period we find efforts tostrengthen the attachment of handle to blade in the epsilon type by addingto the cent ral tang a vertical bar parallel to the handle. This weapon, proto ­type of the socketed "eye axe" which appears in the beginning of theMiddle Bronze period, is comm only known, because of its shape, as the "anchoraxe."

We have seen that, through out Egyptian history, the socket-ty pe axe was Egyptnever brought into use. This is explicable by the fact that , as we shall show , theEgyptian axes in the third millennium were always wide-edged cut ting weapons,and it was clearly difficult to fit such blades with a long socket. Moreover, it wascomparatively easy to attach the handle to the blade by means of a tang or bycords run through holes in the tear of the blade. But this explanation does no tmeet the point that when the first piercing axe was introd uced into Egypt in amuch L1Ier period, even then it was sockctlcss, Perhaps the reason is to be found inthe conservatism of the ancient Egyp tians, which is also noticeable in other fields,and in their laggardly absorption of new methods of warfare. But it may be alsothat throughout the third millennium, Egypt had no need for a piercing axe. Forno evidence has been found of the use in Egypt or in its immediate neighborhood ,during the third millennium, of the helmet or coat of mail, against which a piercingweapon would have been needed.

The cutting axe was an efficient weapon and WaS the standard type of axeused in Egypt throughout the third millennium. We finds signs of early experi­ments to produce a hybrid weapon by fitting a metal blade to a macehead. butthey failed. In the first half of the third millennium, the axeblades were mostlysemicircular and often were fitted with lugs at the rear, on either side, to enablethe handle to be bound more firmly. But starting from about 2500 B.C. we findthe gradual introduction of the narrow blade, shaped like a slice of an orange. Thiswas attached to a woo den handle by cords which were drawn through holes in itsneck and fastened securely round lugs on either side. 43

44

I lit: l:' t:1U V U llt:t- V1U, A tl RA HA M

Th e siege and bat tle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Ant a, atDeshashe in Upper Egyp t (146), is most instructiv e on the functi onin g of the axein battle. It show s very clearly the shape o f the "slice axe" used by Egyptiansoldiers and it also shows how it was used : it was sw ung with both hands andbrought smartly down to deliver a sharp blow . In a scene fro m the wall painringat Saqqa rah , the semicircu lar bladed axe is well dep icted. Here it was used mainl yfor tearing down the wall of a besieged ciry (147).

The illustration of a triple-tang crescen t, o r epsilon, axe in the hands of awarrior , discovered on a fragmen t of a ston e jar , and attributed to the end of thePre-Dynastic period, is an anom aly. Even in Mesop ota mia and Palestine, itappears in a sligh tly later period , and in Egy pt itselfnot before the end of the thirdmillenn ium . For the mo ment, we must reserve j udgme nt, for neither its or igin northe method of its discovery is yet surliciendy clear.

The Sword U nlike the mace and axe, whose com parative ly sma ll operative head or bladecould be easily attach ed to a long wooden handle, the sword could be fashionedonly after a mastery of the art of producing hard metals. For a long and toughblade which would not break or bend on impact co uld be made from hard metalalone. This technical limitation, together wi th the existence of the mace and thepiercing and cutting axe, explain the time-lag behind the appearance of the swordas a decisive weapon of warfare in the third millennium.

When they did app ear during this period , the swords were usually straight,doub le-edged, sharp. and very short, mo re like daggers designed mainly forstab bin g (144- 145). Since they we re not mad e of hard meta l, there was theconstant fear that the y wo uld break or be blunted by a heavy blow. This, however,was partly ove rcome by thickening the center of the blade throughout its length,giving it a protuberant spine (140. 141). The hilt was not an exte nsion of the bladebut was usually made ofsome other mate rial, either wood o r bon e, secured to theblade by nails. This att achm ent wo uld have been ineffective wit h a w eapon thatneeded to be swung downward, putting too grea t a pressure on the j oin, butserved this kind of sword, whose function was stabb ing , so that hilt and bladefollowed the same line of movement (145).

The swords shown on pages 140-145 are the most splendid and rypical speci­mens ever foun d in Mesopotamia, Anarolia, and Palestine. The pommel wasball-shaped or carved into an anima l head , or, as we fou nd am on g the swords inUr (140, 141) and Alaca H iiyiik in An atolia, crescent-shaped . A sword wi th acrescent -pommeled hilt would certainly no t be used for any thing more thanstabbing. It is wo rth recording that amo ng this large collection are two swordsmade of iron ! Not unnatu rally, they are from Anatolia. For it was from here thatthe kno wledge of iro n spread to oth er lan ds of the Bible som e 1,200 years later.AIso of intere st is the fact that the earliest obje ct made of iron was the sword. Andfor hundreds of years there were exhaustive experiments with hard metals tofashion blades that wo uld be long er and tougher. T he iron sw or d of D orak (145,

left ), for exam ple, was very long , 75 centimeters. But on the wh ole, these swordsof iron are except iona l among the fmds of the Bron ze Age in general and the third

4 0 0 0 - 2 I 00 B .C .

millenn ium in particu lar , and were discovered again only at the end of the Bronze

Age, in the L~th cen tury .In thesecond half ofthe thi rd millennium. the earliest types of the sickle sw ord

make their debut. These were the curved swords used for strikin g. They are clearlydepicted on relies from the Accadian period and they are perhaps the weapo nsshown on some of the monuments from the Sum erian peri od. T his con clusion isbased on the identificatio n of the object held by the warrior at the left of therelief from T elloh (136), in the right han d of King Eann atum (135, lowerregister), and by the soldier from Ma ri (137). There is a scho ol of thou ght w hichholds that these objects are no t swo rds but hurling-dubs, like boomerangs. It is noteasy to be definite on the point. But I inclin e to the view that all three are in factsickle swords. T he curved sword made its appearance at the same time as thecrescen ted cutting axe, and in many ways they may both be regarded as seeking toachieve the same aim . But while the axe comprised two components-the handleand the blade-with the concomi tan t problem of securing them firmly tog ether,the sickle sword was an attempt to solve it by fashioni ng both hilt and blade fromthe same bar o f metal" T he serious development of this weapon began at thebeginni ng of the Middle Bro nze Age, and we shall therefore be considering it in

a later chapt er.

T he mos t ancient monuments in our possession. belonging to the end of thefoutth millennium, show that the spear, of good technical standard , was already inwide use at that tim e. It had a long staff tipped wi th a leaf-shaped blade which hada protuberant spine. This was the weapon o f the warrior-hunter as dep icted on theEgyp tian Hunters' Slate Palette (118 and II9. top ) and on the black granitestele from W arka (t i S). It was in com mon use throughout the whole of the thirdmillennium , and ofall the weap ons of th is period, it was the most effective for bothchariot and infantry charg es. It was the basic weapon of the Sumerian (l p - I33,114). Th e Sum erian phalanx (see pages 49- 50) was also basically equipped wi th thelong spear, which was shoulder-sloped on the ma rch (134. bot tom ) and carriedhorizontally during the assault (l p - I 33, IH- 135, top). Indeed its impo rtance heremay be gauged by the fact that a literal description of the illustrations on Sumerianmonuments wo uld read like an accoun t of the role of the spear in the classic phalanx.

No t all the spearheads during the thir d millen nium were leaf-shaped . Interest­ing examples of another kind are the th ree spearheads discovered at T ell el-Hcsiin Palestine- toge ther with a crescent axe-one of whi ch is sho wn on page 149.The blade is long, spined , and triangular, and has tw o barbs at its base, to the rightand left. T he length of the blade, 22 centimeters, is a clear indication that this wa sa spear and not a javelin. On the other hand , its barbs-which made ext ractiondifficult by the wounded enemy-sugge st t~at in the battle charge, thi s weaponwas also usedfor hurli ng . In 1962, a group ofsimilar weapons was found in Israelbetween Haifa and Tel Aviv .

Th e spearhead had a tang, ending in a hook, whi ch was fitted into the w oo d .Th is problem of attachin g blade to wood was solved in o ther ways during thesecond halfof the th ird millennium. apart from the lessco mmon use of the socket.

The Spear and the j apeUI!

A pierced blade of a 5p t'aT ami recon­

snwctrd l1U'tMd of attachment

45

.J

lH E PE lUOl) BEfO RE ABRAH AM

One way, ty pical and of special interest, was to pierce holes in the blade throughwhich a cord could be threaded. This method was prevalent even at the beginningof the second millennium, having originated in Anatolia in the second half of thethird millennium. Several examplesof the pierced blade were found by Schliernannin T roy, bur the finest were those discovered in the royal tomb s of Alaca Hiiyiik(156). Th e long leaf-shaped blade ended in a long , slender tang that was bentor hooked to enable it ro be fastened more securely to the woo d. Thisimprovement was a particular development of che beginning of the MiddleBronze period, and we shall discuss it in greater detail later. This cype of blade, soeasy co ident ify, ofiers an instructive means of tracing ethnic and military tiesduring this period .

The Sumerian charioteers were bowless, Their compensation was the javelin.Like the Canaanite and Egyptian chariots of a later period which were fitted witharrow quivers, the Sumerian chariots were also equipped with quivers-but theirswere for javel ins. T his fearure stands out clearly in all the monum ents in which thechariot is depicted, notably in the vase from Khafajah ( I ~B) , the relief fromUr (130), the Standard of Ur (132-133), and especially in the chariot of Eannaturn(135). Page 1]4 shows a javelin-blade found at Ur .

LON G-RANG E WEAPO N S

Tile B OIl' Th e bow is depicted on many monuments belonging to the end of the fourthmillennium covering the Late Pre-Dynastic period in Egypt and the Proto-Literateperiod in Mesopotamia. The illustrations show a radical difference ill the shape ofthe bow in the two countries. In Egypt it was decidedly double-convex in shape.The Mesopotamian bow was a single-arc weapon.

In Egypt the bow appears in the hands of some of the warrior-hunters in theHunt ers' Slate Palette (119, top) and also as an inscribed sign a ll a cylinder sealfrom the same period (118). The bow was not composite. For the ends of its armsincline toward the string and not outwa rd. Moreover, it is not easy to imagine thatthe people of so early a period could have produced a composite bow of thedouble-convex form, the height of perfection of the compos ite rype. On the otherhand, the double-convex form shows that they had already discovered this devicefor bringing the weapon under greater tension.

Th e two arcs wer e sharply convex; their outer ends were close to the ends ofthe string ; and the grip was very wide. These fearures led several scholars tosuggest that the arms of this bow were made of animal horns, bound to a shortbar-the grip in fact-at their roots. It is true that J very small number of bowswith bodies made of hom have been found in Egypt. BUl these are only votivemodels. and otler no j ustification for the inference that the functional bows weremade of hom and not wood. Besides, a hom bow would not be pliable. The bestassumption is that if animal horns were used at all, they were attached to the endsof the wooden arms to give them a sharper curve. This wo uld not reduce thepliability of the wood, but would make it more convex.

4 0 00 -2 1 0 0 B . C .

The hunter's bow from Mesopotami a's Warka stele (r rs) , on the otherhand, was an almost semicircular single-arc weapon whose ends after meeting thestring, curve conspicuously upward . Th is, too , is a simple and no t a compositebow, despite the tendency of its arms to straighten themselves near the ends. Th ethicknessof its body suggests that the power of this bow was achieved by the useof J particularly hard and thick woo d, or perhaps by the lamination of severalscrips of wood, curning ir in fact into a reinforced bow. To prevent the string fromslipping off the body, the ends of the arms were curved. perhaps with the help ofanimal horn.

Thearrowsasdepieted both in the Hunters' SlatePalette andon theWarka stele'were fork-head ed and were no doubt made offlint, like the arrowheads found inarchaeological excavations. Thi s kind of arrow was used noc only for hunting butalso for fightin g, as is evident from an Egyptian fragment of a palette depicting thebody of a Semite pierced by a fork-headed arrow (119).

The bow , as we have observed, was no t used by the Sumerian anny. But irsusc by the armies of oth er lands of the Bible during this period. and later also inMesopotami a, is evident from several monuments . One of the most enlighteningis the siege and battle scene from Deshashe in Egypt (146). from which we learnthe type of bow used by the Semites defending themselves inside the fortified cityand also fighting outside it. This bow is definitely double-convex , and is notcomposite. T he Egyptian bow does not appear on the parts of this monumentwhich have been preserved. Bur since their enemies are depicted with their bodiesfnll of arrows, the assump tion is clear that the Egyptians. roo, used bows in addi­tion to their cutting axes. Moreover, the poseure of the Egyptian soldier to the leftof the ladder on page 146 is obviously that of an archer aiming his bow at the topof the wall. In fact, there arc some fragments of reliefs from this period which showclearly the shape of the Egyptain bow, which was rather similar (146, bottom left).

Most important of all the monuments showing thedevelopment of the bow ingeneraland in the third millennium in part icular is thecelebrated victor y monumentof the Aceadian king Nar arn-Sin. Here we have' the very first representation ofthe composite bow in the history of ancient weapons. And it is a singularly well­developed instrument.Th e King (I SO, left) is equipped with a battleaxe,and carriesa bow in his left hand and an arrow in his right. The bow , which is depicted withdetailed accuracy, bears the two characteristic features of the composite weapon;it is small- about 90 centimeters from end to end (an estimate based on its relation­ship to the size of the figure holding it ); and its arms tend to recurve near the endsand then become straight.

The comp osite bow is shown on another monument, from the Accadianperiod ( lS I , left), this time in action. Unfortunately only part of this stele ispreserved, but it is possible to not ice that though the bow is under maximumtension, its arms still curve outward slightly. The fact char the deified king isrepresented with the bow indicates the Accadian pride in this weapon. And it isperhaps this bow, mal e than any other weapon, which explains the interestinghistoric phenomenon whereby the Accadians were able to conquer and gaindominion over Mesopotamia and to penetral<' distant regions right up to the 47

T HE PE RIO D HEFORE ABRA HAM -1- 0 0 0 - 2 J 0 0 B. C.

49

-:---~ .... ~ ~

Battle illOpm Terrain

The Hcimet

-:

The illu strati on s of w arfare in o pen terrain durin g the per iod und er review

ale spa rse. Hu t w hat ther e is, is rich in con tent and deta il, un matched by any

ancien t monument earli er than rhe period of the N ew Kin gdo m in Egyp t. The

rwo mos t im portant m onumen ts o f our period arc o f co urse the Standard of Ur

and the Stele o f Vultur es, w hich hav e alread y served as references in o ur stu d y ofindiv idua l weapons. Bo th th ese monuments reveal that in o pen battl e infa n tr y and

vhariors fun ct ioned in close har mo ny .The structu re of the infan try un it du rin g the action phase of chargin g the

,'nem y is remarkable for its meth odi cal and discipli ned o rganization, and pr ima rily

It)! its use o f the deep ph alan x. The sold iers ad vanced und er the pr o tection of

recta ngu lar shields , their spe.m th ru st [o rw ard at the ho rizo ntal.W hat wa s th e st ruc ture of the ph alan x , T he answer is pro blemat ic, for it

lk pcnds on o ur understanding o f th c schemat ic co nv en tions l)f th e- Sume rian artist

m the Stele o f Vu ltu res. If we tak e his design ttl represent a side v iew of the

ph.il.ui x on t!Jl".- march, then what we have is a m ilit ar y uni t mo ving forward in

" colum n ofsix files with ele ven men in each fde (som e are depicted on the narro w

METH O D S OF W A R FAR E

The means of protect ion w ith which the Sumerian wa rr io r is most definitely

.rssociarcd is the metal helmet. T his is ve ry well depi cted in th e Standard of U r,

the Stele o f Vultures, and the in laid panel s fro m Mari (138- 139) . It wa s sligh tly

poin ted and covered bo th the cars and back of the neck . This ty pe of helmet, wi th

slight changes, w as also fo und in the excavations at Ur, cove ring the skulls o f

burred bodies. Such helmets w ere also w o rn by the kin gs, and had a recess in the

tear fo r the hair and plaits. Belonging to th is typ e is the ceremonial gold helmet

fr tlm Ur. And it is also sho wn on the conc h plaque fro m Mari (137) and the

Std e of Vultures (134- 135) . The Arc ad ian so ldier s w or e helmets sim ilar to th e

Sumerian, as we see fro m th e m onuments of N aram- Sin (150) and fro m the frag­

mcnt o f the Accadian ste le shown on page 15I.The coexistence o f piercing axe s and hig hly develo ped helmets is most

intere st ing . It is an excellent illu str atio n of th e recipro cal reaction between

fire powe r and defens e.

The shield wa s not the sol e m eans to protect the bod y of the Sum eri an soldier. A n ll,>r

From the inla id shell panel fr om the tem pie of Ishtar at Mari (I3 8- 139), and parti­

cularly from the Standard of Ur (132-133 ), we learn that the Sumerian troo ps

wore a sleevel ess cape w hich fastened at the neck . It is clear that this cape w as a

1~)[111 of armo r, parti cu larl y as it was studded wi th small circular pieces of metal ,

.l kind of early experim ent in the production of a coa t o f m ail. T hiscape of mail

' L IS apparen tly design ed agains t an ene m y arme d only w ith a non- composite bow

" hose arro ws were un able to pene tr ate it . But ir is pro bable that it w as pro of also

.lga inst the j avelin and spe ar.

PER SO N AL PR OTE CTI O N

Mediterr anean. It is indee d no exag get atio n to sug gest th at the, inventio n of the

composite bo w with its co m paratively long ran ge wa s as rev olutionary, in its day ,

and br ought comparable results, as the discover y of gunpo w der thousand s of

years later.

Th e d ifference betw een the tech nical achievement s ofthe w arr iors ofM esopo­

tamia and those of th e Eg yptian sold iers is one of the no table features ofany rev iew

of the m eans of w arfare in the thi rd mi llennium . The di fference w as not only in the

achieveme nts themselves but no tably in their ch aracter , w ith Mesop otamia regis­

ter in g ad vanced develo pmen ts in the means o f mobil ity and firepo wer. Firepo wer

in M eso potamia w as now a mo st efficie nt pier cing axe and the co m posite bow.

This indi cates tha t cond itions in the land made th em necessary , and that the means

of perso nal protecti on w ere first develop ed there to such a deg ree as to be proof

againsr such w eapons as the simple bow, the m ace, the cuttin g axe, and the

stabbing sw o rd. During this very period , while Mesopotamia w as making gr eat

progress in the fashion ing of mea ns o f protection, they were, apart from the shiel d ,

almost co m pletely ab sent in Egypt.

T he per son al shield w as no dou bt in use fro m a very earl y period . It already

appears on a w all paintin g from th e Late Pr e- D ynastic period (1I 7, bo tto m right)

where, in the du el, the soldier o n the left is shown bearin g a rath er large shield ,

m ade of anima l hid e stretched on a wooden frame. Several of the w arrior-hunters

on the Egyptian Hun ters' Slate Palett e arc carr y ing o bj ects whic h some schol arsbelieve to be o val shields (II 8, bottom ).

It was cer tain ly in use during th e Earl y Kingdom, where its sha pe was

apparently rectangular , ifwe are to j udge by the hieroglyphic signs fo r " to fight ."

This design sho ws hand s holding a mace and a medium-size shield. At all events , by

the end of the th ird mill ennium, the to p of the shield begins to be ro unde d and end

in a point, as we shall explain in th e next chapte r. B ut o f special interest is the fact

that in the ba ttle picture from Deshashe (146) the shield docs not appear at all.

Ve ry different is the sto ry in Mcsop o rarnia . O ur mo st imp ortant so urce here,

as for mau l' o ther im plem ents of wa r, is the celeb rated Stele of Vultures fro m

Telloh (134-135). In the top panel, we find for th e first time a phalanx of six ro ws(see bel ow ) o f hea vily arme d soldi er s, wh o carry a lar ge rectang ular shield w hich

co vers th em irom neck to ankl e. T he materi al o f w hich it wa s made cannot bedeter m ined . But from its size and shape it is pr esum ed to have been o f w ood and

covere d wi th hide. T he hide ma y have been studded WIth m etal disks for

strengt hening. The six circles w hich appear on the shields symb olize the six

so ld iers-one in each ro w-(similar to the six spears ), and th is suggests that each

shield had a metal d isk o n its b reast . The Eg yp tian shields d nr ing the period of the

New Kin gdo m were similarly str engthened.

The Slridd

50

Battle 0 11 Fortified Cities

THE PERI OD BEFORE AB R AH AM

side of the stele which is not shownj-s-possibly ten men and an officet or NC O.In such a case, the formation would present itself for battle by a right or left tumorder, which would offer a phalanx front six ranks deep. This conclusion is alsosupported by the assumption that the artist in fact sought to show the frontpresented by a unit , but depicted the warriors in a side view. It is reasonable to 'conclude that this was the intention. For ifnot, the phalanx would be chargingwith a narrow front of six soldiers to a depth of eleven ranks, a structure whichwo uld not enable the unit fully to exploit its firepowe r.

The phalanx assuredly went into action in the immediate wake of the chariotcharge or simultaneously. Since the armament of the chario t, as we have seenearlier. was largely medium- or short-range. it may be presumed that soon afier "the chariots had confused, scattered, and rrampeled the enemy by storm ingthrough their ranks and used their javelins to wound and kill, the phalanx wouldfollow up the charge from the flanks or the center and finish the battle with theirpiercing axes and spears. Th is integrated functioning of chariots and infantryorganizcd in a deep phalanx was possible largely on level ground. And indeed itis on such terrain that we first find them in operation .

Had the Sumerians been able to add to this battle formati on a long-r angearchery unit operating from the rear and the flanks, they wou ld certainly beentitled to the credit ofhaving achieved near perfection in the art of battle in openterrain in the first half of the third millennium in Mesopotamia. But this decisiveaddition was the contri bution of their successors, the Accadians, and indeed it was 'the integration of the archers which broke up the skillful patterns of the earlierbattle machine.

Against all this, how primit ive is the form of battle. particularly the duel,shown in the representation ofopen battle in the monument from Deshashe (146)to the left of the siege scene!

O nly more than 1.000 yeats later do we find a monument depicting a battlescene in which chariots, phalanx of infant ry armed with spears and swords. andlong-range archers operate together in full coordination. This was a portrayal ofone of the most important battles in early history, the battle between the Egyptiansand the Hitt ites.

After a gap of almost 4 .000 years. there is evidence of the establishment offortified cities in all the lands of the Bible at the end of the fourth and particularlyat the beginning of the third millennium. Thi s feature signalizes without doubt thebeginning of the historic periods and the emergence of powerful kings whosucceeded in bringing extensive regions under their domination. It is also a markedindication of the reciprocal comm ercial contacts between the different peoples atthe time, and, no less important. of their military contact .

The re was a combination of compelling forces which led to the constructionof powcrful fort ifications for the defense of cities at the beginning of this period.Th ese were, in the main , the concentr ation of wealth in the cities, partly fromagricultur e and partly from commerce; expansionist aims of a well-o rganizedpeople of one land and their encroachment upon spheres of influence of other

!>

I111II

~ I.

j

~.

kingdoms; and the presence of wandering tribes. large and strong, who drew theirlivelihood not only from their cattle but from predatory incursions into the 'cultivated fields of the settled population.

The existence of central authority, anxious to safeguard his lines ofcom muni­cation both to advance his own offensives and to blunt the attacking power of hisenemies. led to the siting of fortified cities and fortresses, beginning with thisperiod. not only in accordance with the economic and military needs of theindividual cities but with overall strategic considerations. Fortified cities andfortresses were built to comm and important highways. centers of water, andfrontiers. Central direction led to more standardized planning ofall for tifications.And the aggressive designs of powerful empires upon distant regions made itessential to construct torrificari ons able to withstand attack not only from imm e­diate neighbors but also. and for the most part . from nations farther away.

Remains of strong fortifications bd onging to the beginnin g of the thirdmillennium have been found in almost all the large city moundsof antiquity whichhave been excavated. Bur since these relics were naturally at the lowest anddeepest levels of the tells, only small and narrow sections of the fortifications wereaccessible to the archaeologists. As a result. wc have specific know ledge of thematerials with which they were built. the thickness of the walls. and other tech­nical details. Bur we have on the whole no such specific data on their plan. Thisgives particular importance to the designs of fortified cities which appear onseveral monum ents from the Late Pre-Dynastic and the Ist Dyna sty in Egyp t.Unlike the artists of later periods. from the Middle Kingdom up to the Assyrianperiod, who generally present their cities in elevation, the early Egypt ian artistsdepict their cities in plan. giving as it wcre a bird' s-eye view.

Th e one that sheds most light on OUt subject is certainly the celebrated Paletteof King Narmer ( 12 2 , (24). who was probably the founder of the first uniteddynasty of Egypt . Th e King himself appears on the palette in two scenes, oncewearing the crown of Upper Egypt and once wearing the crown of Lower Egypt.

,.

A Late Pre-D vnosiic slate pal.:tI~

",ith Jt'pjctj(lll of couqll(wl fortified

dries (the Cities Palette)

5 [

52

T HE PERI OD B EF ORE ABRA H AM

T his palette, which also bears the first clear signs of the beginn ings of Egyptianwriting, contains scenes whose meaning has been rhe subject ofmuch controversy.(A description of each side of the palette accompanies the plares in this book.) Theassumpri on of most scholars has been that the palette is dedicated solely to theunification of Upper and l ower Egypt under the rule of Narm er, and its scenestherefore were assumed to be illustrations of his victories in various parts of thecountry. Th e entwined serpent necks of the two anima ls, shown in the middle panelon page 122, are thus interpreted as symbolizing the subjugation and unification ofthe two partS of Egypt . But none of this discussion sheds light on the problemwhich concerns us, and that is, wh at was the character of the fortified cities whichN arrner destroyed or whose citizens he conquered!

At the bottom center panel on page 122 the King is depicted in the guise of abull battering a strongly fortified ciry with hishorns. Theciry isoval-shaped, its wallstudde d by several square bastions. The coun rerpart scene on the reverse (t24) ofthe palette shows, in the bott om panel, tw o enemies whose identity is symbolizedby the artist 's plan of the cities to which they belong or their characteristic dwell­ings. Above the enemy on the left is the plan of a square ciry, studded on all sidesby numerous basrions. T his rype of bastion-strengthened fortified ciry is similar tomany which appear on other ancient palettes, such as the palette on page t23, orthe one which is shown in the drawing on page 51.

These illustra tions, on their own , do not contradict the theory that all scenesfrom the Narmer Palette record battles which took place inside Egypt ; for weknow tha t during this period, Egypt boasted fortifi ed cities. But how then can oneexplain the special form of structur e which appears above the enemy on the rightin the scene of the two enemies? It com prises two separate cleme nts: (a) a semi­circular structur e, and (b) two very long walls leading out from it like the armsof a fan, with a jo-degree angle between them. Th ese walls have neither bastionsnor battlements. And the artist seems to have wished to stress their difference fromthe wall round the semicircular structure which is marked by several thin lines.Now this structure has no parallel in Egyp t. No r have Egyprologists been able toidentify it as a hieroglyphic or a pictog raph from among the known signs inEgypt . On the other hand, it seems to me, there is a strikin g similariry between itand structures east of the Jorda n and in the W adi Arava south of the Dead Sea,close to the celebrated King's W ay which passed through this region and whichlinked Egyp t with Trans-Jordan, Syria, and Mesopotamia, paralleling the sea routewest of rhe Jordan. In this eastern region, a large number of stone structures werefound which, because of their shape, were called by modern archaeologists "kites."These kite-shaped desert enclosures (124) are identical in form with the structuredepicted in the Narrn cr Palette, and they too consist of two distinct parts-thesemicircular enclosure and the two long walls running off it , often indeed, as longas 400 meters, and without bastions or towers. On the other hand, the enclosureitself did have " nests" and turrets at the poin ts where they were joined by the twowalls which show ed unmistakably that it was intend ed as a defense fortification.

How did it funetionlOpinions vary . But the prevailing view was that these kite enclosures were

"1'.

400 0 -210 0 B .C.

established by wanderin g shepherd tribes, who tended their flocks near by. W hendanger threatened, they quickly corralled their flocks between the two long wallsand drove them through the semicircular fortified enclosure, from whose turretsthey were able to maintain effective defense. T his view has received endorsementrecently with the discovery in Trans-Jordan of a graffito from the Safaitic period,which clearly shows horned animals being driven into the enclosure (124). Fromthis graffito we learn that these stru ctures were also in use in later periods.

If the above thesis is correct, then the Narmer Palette and the archaeologicalfmds in Trans-Jordan offer us very rare examples of a form of for tification builtnot for the defense of a ciry but of hunters, nomads, and shepherds. It also meansthat the Narmer Palette depicts not only the King' s victories inside but also outsideEgy pt. To come back to our scene of the tw o enemies, the kite struc ture on theright thus represents the King's domination , or struggle to dominate, or perhapsonly the aim of dominating , the King's W . y in the east. It may be then presumedthat the enemy figure on the left with his fortified city signifies the domin ation , ordesire to dominate, the area west of the Jordan. Moreover, the possibility cannotbe excluded that the oval-shaped forti fied city with its bastions together with theserpent-necked animals which appear on the palette represcnt not the record ofa victory in Egypt but the expression of an expansionist aim or perhaps a closerassociation with Mesopotamia and her cities. For during this period, animals withtheir serpent necks entwined was a widely used symbo l in Mesopotamia. And inMesopotamia in this period there existed strong forti fied cities like Warka. .

The theory that Narrner invasion forces reached Palestine was strengthenedvery recently when a potsherd was found in one of the southern Palestinian cities,Tell el-Manshieh, on which the name of Pharaoh Narm er was incised (see figureon this page). Incidentally, at this tell the remains of a very well-built brick wallwere revealed, including rectan gular bastions belonging to the same period .

Even more impressive are the fortifications of the same period recently dis­covered at Tell el-Far' ah (northern Palestine, Biblical T irzalu ]. Here was foundnot only a ciry wall with square bastions, but also a magnificent ciry gate-uniquefor Palestine- flanked by two protruding towers wit h empry spaces inside them.T hese spaces were, I believe, inten ded for ladders or wooden staircases, to enablethe defenders to climb up to the upper parts of the towers . The gate, with itsprotruding towers is not unlike the gates of Tr oy, discussedon page 57.

We can see, therefore, that already from the beginning of the EgyptianDynas tic periods, the cities of Palestine were endangered by military attack fromEgypt and perhaps also from other nations to the north . T his is certainly one of theprincipal reasons why almost every tell excavation in Palestine lays bare relics ofpowerful fort ifications from the Early Bronze ages, which are equivalent to theEarly Dynastic periods in Egypt.

We have mentioned tha t so far archaeological excavations have failed touncover very large sections of these fortifications because of technical difficultiesassociated with the process of excavating. But the small sections which have beenuncovered in such ancient cities as Megidd o, Bcrh-yerah, Gczer, Jcricho, and Ai,.and now also Tell el-Manshich , enable us to follow their method of construction.

. ~.

."ar/l/er'5 fl ,W lt' j"n'seJ (ltj a potsherd

J~III1J recently in the'UVTlhcf/l .\JegeIJ,

ill the southern pareoj Israel

53

Plan of U )lIJTl 4 the Early Broil;;:"

i)ftifi (ariol/S m Ai, sltarllil/,I! a semi­

circular bastion

THE PERI O D B EF O RE ABR AHAM

Th e fortifications were built ofbrick or stone, depending on the materials available .'near by, and often wirh a combination of both-bricks upon a foundation layer ofstone. The walls were very thick, a thickness indeed ofseveral meters, which wasfar greater than was required if the purpose was simply to prevent their beingbreached by the primitive methods available at the time. Th e real purpose of thethickness was to enable the walls to be built high enough to prevenr the enemyfrom scaling them with ladders. Th e construction of these thick high walls ofbrick or undr essed stone required special care and special methods to make themproof against collapse by earthquake or even by local breach. Th ey were thereforeoften built in vertical sections, one /lush against the oth er, without being bonded,so that the destruction of one section wo uld not bring down others with it. Th ebastions and towers, whose military role has already been described, also servedthe technical function of bolstering the walls.

Much ofimportance can be learned of the history offortifications and methodsof attack upon them dur ing the third millennium from the siege scene on themonument of Deshashe (146),which has already served us to illustrate the axe andthe bow. Th is monument, from the second half of the third millennium, is one ofthe few belonging to the period of the Old Kingdom in Egypt which deals withmilitary subjects. And it is the only monument extant from this period whichdepicts . fortified city under attack.

The city on the right is oval in plan, and its principal interest lies in the semi­circular bastions which protrude markedly from its walls. Judging from theportraits of its inhabitants, this wo uld seem to be a Palestinian city. And, indeed,relics of semicircular bastions belonging to this period have been found at archaeo­logical digs in Palestine as well as in Mesopo tamia. A very fine specimen wasdiscovered in one of the walls of Jericho from the third millennium. It was 2' 5

meters in diameter and was clearly capable also of support ing without difficulrya balcony from which the defenders could direct vertical fire upon the attackersbelow. Similar semicircular bastions were also found on the walls of the city ofAi belonging to the Early Bronze Age (see figure to the left on this page).

It was possible to exploit such bastions to the full only when the defenderswere equipped with elfective bows. And, as we have observed in an earlier chapter,the field of fire comm anded by the semicircular bastion was well suited to thisweapon. The Deshashe siege scene shows quite dearly that the defenders wereindeed armed with the double-convex bow, albeit not of the composite type.

PIa"0/4(amily JiSCtH'~n'Jf("'ifieJ citygate. from Teil el-Farah

(Bi/JIi(al TirztJlt?) 4 ,hefi rst IttJlf of the third mil!rn llilHtI B.C. To th,

pn'pMd reconstruction pr(pdred IJy the {'XCdl'ilt"r, Roll1fld J( Vaux ,

I dlMfd a series of staircases U'ithin the toU'ers

_ ......_,jf m

4000 -2100 B .C .

The combination of a well-designed bastion and an effective bow was bornof rhe need to find some defense against an enemy that did not limit his attem pted ilassault to scaling the wall but sought also to breach it. Again, the Deshashc monu­ment provides not only the earliest illustratio n of the semicircular bastion, whosedevelopment in the beginning of the second millenniu m we shall discusslater, butalso of combined attack upon a wall both by scaling and by breaching the gate.While ladders against the wall are being climbed under covering fire from archers,a technique we shall come across in the later periods, other attackers, in an interest­ing action, are shown trying to breach ehelefi corner of the wall. Thi s is preciselythe corner where the bastions are built very close together, and was.probabl y thesite of the gate-always the weak spot in the fortifications and always the focus ofattempts to break through. The breach was not yet effected by the battering-ram '-the earliest example of this implement , and a very primitive example it is,appears only at the beginning of the second millennium- but with the help ofspears or long poles which were thrust into the wall by the soldiers. Their com­mander is shown at their side, directing their operation or perhaps the tempo oftheir actions. Indeed some of the " spear" blades recently found between Tel Avivand Haifa-which were already mentioned-may have been, to judge by their

immense size, blades of such long poles. . The.fon of Hacilar in Asia MinorA more primitive method of tearing down a wall is presented in the second

Egyptian monument belonging to the next century, the wall painting whichappears on page 147. Here the soldiers are shown bartering at a wall with axeswhile standing on a ladder. Too method was effective against walls built of brickor mud and even continued to be used in the first millennium when the advancedrypes of bartering-ram were already available to the attacker .

The most remarkable development revealed in this wall painting is the natureofthe scaling-ladder. It rests on two solid wheels. This is the only example we have 'in an ancient monument of a mobile assault ladder which we know to have beenin use in the lands of the Bible. The wheels were not designed to facilitate move­well! of the ladder from one part of the wall to anoth er. This could be accom- .plished either by being carried or by the provision of several ladders. It seemsreasonably certain that they played a part in the breaching operation, enabling theladder to be pushed gradually closer and closer to the wall while it was beingbattered. At the beginning of the operation, the top of the ladder would be againstthe wall and its base at some distance, form ing an acute angle with the ground. Asthe breaching work progressed, it would be pushed for ward, the angle at the basewidening until the whole ladder was close to the wall . The method of keeping itstable is well illustrated in the scene. To the right of the ladder, a soldier is seensticking a bar into the ground to prevent the wheels from rolling. The soldier onthe left holds the ladder to stop it from falling while his comrades batter awaywith their axes.

This study on the fortifications of the third millennium wo uld be incompletewithout a derailed mention of the celebrated Trojan fortifications in north westTurkey. Th anks to the most recent excavations in Anatolia, in 1958-1959, we nowhaw definite proof that even during the Chalcolithic period , at the end of the fifth 55

56

Truy I

THE PERIOD BEFORE ABRAHAM

and during the fourth millennium, there were settlements surrounded by wallswhich may be described as reasonably fortified citadels. Places like Mersin,Beycesulran, and Hacilar can shed important light on the history offortifications inthis early period. Especially worthy of mention is the interesting citadel of HaciIarwhich was excavated in 1958, belonging to the last period ofsettlement on this siteof many strata. From the knowledge now in our possession, the archaeologistI. Mellaart was quite right when he declared that "So far, Hacilar is unique in theNcar East." (The fortifications ofJericho are very much earlier, while those ofMersin belong to the latter part of the period under rcview.)

We have not enough to go on as yet to reconstruct the plan of the Hacilarfortifications beyond indicating that the walls were 2 meters thick, are built ofbrick, and enclosed a number of chambers. But despite their importance in thehistory of settlement and fortificarions in the fifeh and fourth millennia, these wallsand citadels cannot be compared even faintly to the magnificent fortifications ofTroy in the third millennium. Since the excavations of Schliemann and Dorpfeld,more archaeological digs have been carried out at this site in the last few years byBlegen. And we now are in a position, for the first time, to understand the planof the fortifications and to be able to date them, both relatively and absolutely.

The excavations brought to light several series of fortifications of ditferentperiods and an even greater number of buildings of diflerent phases and stratainside the city. We shall confine ourselves in this study to an outline ofthe principalphases in the plans of the fortifications. We can say right away that these are notthe fortifications ofa densely populated city but of a large citadel. The diameter ofthe earliest citadels was not more than 80 meters, and even the large citadel duringthe third millennium, at its peak construction in Stratum IIe, had a diameter notmore than 120 meters. The wall of Troy I in its middle phase is already distinc­tive in that it broadens toward the base, forming a kind of glacis. Its lines are f1usqand unmarked by any sign ofbastions. Its gates are still quite primitive-a narrowpassageway between two towers.

There is a further improvement in the first fortification of Stratum II. Thegate is still a narrow opening between two towers, though these have now beenconsiderably extended on the outside, giving them the appearance of twolengthened walls. But the main wall of the citadel, at least in one section, now

Troy II. Note ill particular the tIVO

city gates discussed 0/1 IlCX[ page

4000-2100 B.C.

comprises a series of very strong bastions built on a sloping base. The bastions areJO meters apart, 3 meters thick, and project 2 meters from the wall. The wall itselfis built ofbricks upon a limestone foundation. The foundation in some places is ashigh as 8 meters from ground level, and its slope is not very steep. Later, whenlarger stones were used for building, the slope became much steeper.

The most interesting change of all appears in a later phase of citadel II, andreaches its highest stage of development in the celebrated phase IIe, when the cityfortifications were at their peak during the third millcnniurn. This was the changein the forms of the gate (see illustration) which was converted into a self-containedstructure with inner pilasters. In front of the entrance is an open square protectedby a wall on the right and on the left. From the square one reached the gate itself,which was built just inside the city. Its roof was supported by four pilasters, twoon either side. In many important particulars this gate is like the gates of theMiddle Bronze period in Palestine and Syria, as we shall see later, and it is the mostancient example of this type.

All the phases of the fortifications of Troy I and II belong to the thirdmillennium, ranging from the beginning to the end of that period. We are not yetin a position to associate with any precision this type of fortification with those inother lands of the Bible. But they show that also in Anatolia, as in the otherBiblical lands, significant achievements were registered in the construction offortifications in the third millennium.

CONCL USIONS

This millennium was a period ofextraordinary military activity which broughtin its wake innovations and developments in basic branches in the art of warfare.They were to have an important impact on warfare in the second and first millennia,notably in two major fields: battle in open terrain, with chariots and the infantryphalanx; and powerful fortifications and the early attempts to breach them. Thecomposite bow, which began to appear in the second half of the third millennium,continued to be perfected, and proved decisive in many battles both in opentorr-am and in siege. This acute military activity came to an end in the last centuriesof the millennium. All lands of the Bible seemed to go into decline some earlier,some later. The Accadian empire in Mesopotamia collapsed. Catastrophic fireconsumed the proud fortifications of the second citadel of Troy with its bastions,towers, and walls. The Old Kingdom in Egypt tottered and fdl. And the fortressesof Early Bronze Palestine and Syria were destroyed. This was a "decline and f,ll"period for all lands of the Bible. Kingdoms and Powers with traditions based ona high material culture seemed to vanish from the map of the Middle East.Wandering tribes came sweeping in with all the winds from heaven and coveredthese kingdoms, which seemed to crumble at the very height of their prosperityand power. Empires vanished. But not their inhabitants.

After a prolonged period of somber bleakness, the faintly glowing embers ofearlier traditions were sparked by the combustive fuel of new cultures into brightflame which lit up a new age, termed by archaeologists as the Middle Bronzepenod. 57

IV

THE PERIOD OF THEPATRIARCHS

2100- 1570 B. C .

The 5oc- year span between the end of the third millenn ium and the middle ofthe second is proba bly the most signifi cant in the general history of the landsof the Bible . It is a per iod of special importance in the development of systems ofwa rfare, for tifications , and armaments. Mass wan derings of tr ibes and peopl es,military and com mercial contacts betw een different parts of the M iddle East, andchanges in the political and ethnic struct ures of many countries brought the ent ireregion into touch with achievements of the third millennium wh ich had hithertobeen confined to a few coun tries alone . During this period, the art of wa rfareadvaneed to new levels, notably by the in trod uction of the horse and light chariotand by the perfection of the battering -ram. which chan ged the charac ter ofcampaigns in open terrain and against fortified cities respectiv ely .

T his pro cess is, of co urse, not suddenl y apparen t at the beginning of thesecond millennium. Nor was its development uniform in all lands of the Bible. Notthat our knowl edge of milita ry events in these lands throughout the entire periodund er review is uni form and com plete. Th ere are differences both in the quantityand quality of our info rm ation on the different coun tries and at different times.T his is du e simply to the variable nature of the archaeo log ical sourc e material onwhic h our knowledge is based. In some co unt ries and at some periods, it is rich andabundant . In ot her land s and at other tim es it is poor. We know , for exam ple, agood deal about Egypt at the time of the Middle Kingdom fro m the wealth ofwall paintings and relics of fortifications fro m that period (sec descrip tion, pages158-1 61). But in other lands of the Bible during this time archaeologi cal find s shedmu ch ligh t on the different types of weapons in use, but the re are no illustratedmonu ment s, and so we canno t reconstruct them in battle array. O n the other hand ,in the second part of the period under review, the H yksos period in Egypt andPalestine (see page 176), there arc neither dr awings nor engravings from Egypt on amil itary subj ect. But there is an abun dance of archaeological finds from which we

2100- 15 70 B . C .

learn much about typ es of weapons and fortifications. And there is a wealth ofwr itten documents, notably fro m Mari on rhe Eup hra tes, which enable us toteconstruCt the prevailing methods of wa rfare, com munications, intelligenceservices, and army stru cture . It is also possible, from the details provided by theavailable archaeo logical sources, to gain an insight into other branch es of wa rfareon which no such sou rces have, as yet, been discovered.

WE A P 0 N S Shorr- and Medium-rallge

Amon g the weapon s used for short- range and hand-to-h and fightin g. the axeunderwent the most interesting development. It is particularly instructive to tracethe development of the flat, m ulti-ranged cutting axe whose begin nings we havefollowed in Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine in the second half of the previousmillennium. Interestingly eno ugh, th is axe , effective largely against an enemy notequipped with helmets, became obso lete in the count ry of its invention. yetcontinued to be widely used and even perfected-in the land ofits adop tion - Egypt.Th is w as due, no doub t, to two factors: it conformed to the tradition of Egyptianaxes, which wer e socketless; and it suited the pattern of warfare in Egypt d uringthe first half of this period when the fighting was without arm or, the w arriorsprotecting themselves with a large bod y-shield (see page 155).

Th e Eg yptian epsilon axe was really a union of the short blade w ith the w ideedge, which was already in use in Egyp t, and the tr iple-tang device of the Mesopo­tamian, Syrian, and Palestinian axe. In the latter type, the three tangs are wedgedinto the haft and made secure by bindin g; in the Egyptian axe, the rangs have holesth rough which they are fastened to the haft either by small nails or with cord, orby a combination ofboth, simila r to their earlier method of attaching blade to haft.Some typical examples of this axe are shown on pages 154 and 155. At least one(154, right) show s that on occasion the haft itself was made of metal. T hese relics,and the meticulous illustrations on the monu ments, co mpl ement each otheradmirably.

Q uite different was the development du ring the very same tim e in Syria;Palestine, and the neighboring regio n. And here, tOO, the weapon that eme rgedshowed the twin influence of tradition and necessity . Th e tradit ion in these landswas the socket type; the necessity was occasioned by the appearance of helmets andarmor , against wh ich the cutting axe w as ineffective. This led to the invention ofa completely new type of axe-a piercing weapon with a socket .

It developed out of the epsilon and the anchor axes and is commonly referredto as the eye axe ('68- 171) because of the prom inen ce of irs two ho les, whi ch looklike hollow eye,. T hese are really a carryover of the spaces between the tWOinne rcurves of the epsilon tang- but they are now bo und ed at the rear by the socket.Th e eye axe was a difficult w eapon to produce. Some splend id examples of cere­monial axes of this type, made of gold, we re found at Byblos and are shown onpages 170 and 171.

The eye axe was bro ught to Egypt by the Semites wh en they starte d to

The Axe

.-1 St'milt' lI',lr' ;M oti d.-piat',lllll a

lVall p.li/Jlil/.~ ill BI'I/;-/ l<1s<1l1.

Sate lht' eye axt' 59

I

I

i!I ,II

m( ,

A l\1iddlc Bronre I

stra~g lJl fll' IH'JgeJ

sIj'orJ

Hyksos Ja.~gas (.\fiddle Bro/lze JI)

The Spear and tire[avetin

At the end of the rhird millenniu m, the armorers were still grappling with theproblem offi nding an effective method of attaching the spearhead and javelin-headto the wooden staff. and had come up with nothin g better than the tang. This alsomarked the type of spear and javelin in use at the beginning of the second mil­lennium, and not until a later stage in the first half of the second millennium wasthe socket type to be developed and more com monl y used.

At the beginning of this period , then, the attachment both in the spear andjave lin was by means of a tang which was voluted or curved at the rear. Bothinstruments were designed to pierce. In action , with the power of the thrust, thewooden staffs were liable to split. Wi th a bent or voluted tang, this danger waschecked.

The drawing on page 157 shows the method of attaching these sockerlessbladesto the staff. The top of the staff wo uld be split down the center and the tang inserted,irs volute turned outward, and then the entire upper porti on of the staff, with thetang wedged in, was tightly bound with stout cord. This method was typical of the' peats from Cyprus ; of the "eye" or double-pierced blade of the rSth-ccntu ryspear of Anniras, the Early Hittite king, found in Ktiltepe in Anatolia (156, f.1tright), which shows that this type of blade was in wide use at this time; and of asimilar spear from Megiddo belonging to the same period . The most interestingof the spears and javelins with a voluted tang are those found in Palestine at thebeginning of the Middle Bronze period . Th eir technical standard is qu ite high.

These weapons belonged mainly to the semi-nomadic warriorswho suddenly 'started pou ring into Palestine. Such javelins have been found in many graves,together with the straight sword . but 50 far no city ruins have been unearthedwhich can be definitely associated with soldiers who bore arms with a volu tedtang. Since this device is characteristic of the military culture primaril y of thenorthern areas of the lands of the Bible at this period. it may be presumed that the .nomad, trekked to Palestine from these regions at the time of the great wanderingswhich marked the end of the third millennium . It is conceivable, therefore, thatt\ htaham'sjoull1cying to Canaan was part of this great trek, and that the weapons

The distinctive feature of all these swords dur ing the first half of the secondmillennium is the shortnessof the blade in relation to its hilt. The hilt was roughlytwice the length of the blade, giving the weapon an axe-like quality : Thisrelationship undergoes a change in the sickle swords of the second half of thismillennium, when the blade is as long as its hilt , and at times even longer. It wasduring this period that this weapon can be said to have become a prop er sword.

In addition to the curved or sickle swords. the Middle Bronze Age alsoproduced a series of short straight swords, somewhat like d,'ggers. They weredesigned no doubt fOldefense in hand- to-hand combat. Un like the straight narrowsword of the early part of the Middle Bronze period, the blades become broaderduring Middle Bronze II, taking on the shape of a pointed leaf. Th ey weredesigned primarily for stabbing, and the blade was therefore strengthened by acentral spine (sometimes more than one) or ribs. Examples of the spined or ribbedsword. both from Egypt and Palestine, are shown on pages 174 and 175.

1 100 - 1570 B . C .

Efforts to design an axe that would more effectively fulfill its function , whichresulted in the advanced piercing axe, were also characteristic of the developm entof the swor d. This led to the emergence of a well-made sickle sword, which firstappeared in the second half of the third millennium. It was a striking, as distinctfrom a thrusting, weapon, and was, as we have seen, really a kind of cutting axewhose blade and handle were fashioned out of one bar of metal. Several lineexamples of this type of sword, found at Byblos in Mesopotamia and at Shcchcmin Palestine (172), show that it was quite common dur ing this period. Th is swordwas easy to handle, even by charioteers at the height of a charge.

T HE PERIO D OF TH E P ATRIA RCH S

infiltrate and establish themselves there and even serve in the army. But it did not .gain acceptance, no doubt because the tradition of the tang type was too entrenched.There are, however, some Egyptian examples (168, right ; 169, top) of the tang axebeing given an eye form. Th e illustration at the top ofpage 169 shows the purelydecorative influence of the "eyes," for they are artificially carved on a semicircularblade of the socketless type.

The Syrian and Palestinian eye axe was further developed to make it a mor8effective piercing instrument by lengthening the blade and narrowing the edge.The hollows have become smaller and less prominent, and the whol e bladeassumed the appearance of a duck's bill (167, right). Th is, in fact, is what it iscalled today. Th e haft was usually curved to prevent it from slipping out of thehand, for the weapon required to be swung with much force. T his is seen in thecelebrated Beni-hasau wall painting of the caravan of Semites going down toEgypt, like the Israelites. The warrior on the extreme left on page 166 bears inhis right hand an object which looks like an axe of this type. In Baghouz, Syria,a cemetery was discovered belonging to this period which contained graves ofwarriors who had been bur ied with their weapons. Th ese included duck-bill axes.Page 166, right, shows such an axe with a curved handle, which had been setat the head of a warrior laid out on a bed at burial.

In the 18th century, the duck-bill axe had already given way to a new typewhich was designed solely for piercing and penetration. Th is development wascertainly prompted by advances in the development ofarmor . It demanded a verylong blade with a narrow thin edge (174),almost like a chisel. This was a socket .,axe, the prototype of which we have already come across du ring the Accadianperiod in Mesopotamia, and which is illustrated on the Naram-Sin monument(150, left). These weapons were so widely used during this period that there ishardly a warrior' s grave in Palestine and Syria in which they are not to be found(see page 166).

In Egypt during this time, there is evidence of an axe with a long and narrowblade more suited to piercing than the earlier cutting axes. But it is still a tang axeand its edge is wide.

Each stage in the development of the axe during this period, and its transfor­mation from the epsilon tang type to the narrow-edged long-bladed socket type,reflect the untiring efforts of armies to perfect their weapons and enhance theireffectiveness against the armor of their adversaries.

The Sword

&ji: 41/ Egyptiall version

of ,Ju epsilonaxe

Right: 0.1 ,i/llk-bill 4.W

frlJlII BagllOuz

Two typcs of til(' JHiddlc Bronz e II

uarr"w soc1ieted axes

60

Ii:

LJi!ij1.--'--~

c:: .=-:::]c---~===~

62

T HE PE RIOD OF T HE PATR IARC HS

used by his hou sehold were rhis type ofja vclin and spear, as well as the straight and

narrow swo rd.Another characteristic of the spear and j avelin at the beginning of the Midd le'

Bronze period is its meta l butt at the base of the staff. We have ment ioned that theblades of this weap on were found in many graves. Found with them were metalrips, also voluted (156, second from righ r). They were assuredly not used as a formof blade . They almost certainly served as the bun of the javelin or spear, enabling.the weapon 10 be stuck in the gro und w hen no t in use. Und er certai n circum ­stances, they could also be used to strike the enemy, as we sec from the Biblicalsrory in II Samuel 2 : 23 which describes the slaying of Asahel by Abner: " Howbeit,he refused to turn aside : wherefore Abne r, wit h the hind er end of the spear, smo te

him und er the fifth rib.. . ."The tanganachment, as we have seen, had serious disadvan tages, the most"

important of which was the <huger of splitting the staff in action . Efforts con-.tinued to devise an improved method, and by the later part of the first half of the 'second millennium a sock et- type head for spear and j avelin, of qu ite advancedstandard, becomes the universal ty pe.

The Egy ptian wall painti ngs on pages 166- 167, 169 endo rse the point thatthe spear and the j avelin , together with the axe and, as we shall see laser, the bow,were the most important weapons for the warrior of the first half of the second

millenni um.

LO N G-RA N GE WEA PONS

The Botl' Th e bow, however , remained the prim ary w ar weap on of the Middle Bronze;period , despite the high advances in the development of short- and med ium-rangeweapo m . Thi s is evident from the many illustrated monuments of the perio d. Wealso know much of the character of these weapons from actua l bows found in

Egyp t.In Mesopotamia the composite bow was, as we have seen, widely used as early

as the Accadian period . But in the early cen turies of the second millennium its use

Two archers d S J"p;cr,'J 011 a U'oJlI

pail/lillg ill Bcni-hasan, Note the

archer ~m theleft who strillgs the bow

ArthctsasIlt'picu Jen d II'all J'iJj,lt jJl.~ iJ1

Bm i-lltlSall. •'1(1'C l1Ie pil($ oj arrows,

Il l ld thearcheru-lw uses his 1(~ ,/0'

hf(f(j",c the boUJ

was sparse. Th is was d ue 'no doubt to its com plicated manufacture, whic h wasbeyond the capacities of the semi-n oma dic tr ibes of Syria and Palestine. And inconservative Egy pt, too , its develop men t was slow . Arm or was not yet in generalusc by Egypt's imm ediate enemies ro the south and west, and so the stimu lus waslacking for so advanced and exp ensive a lon g- range weapon as the composite bow.But we have evidence of such a wea pon, of an advanced type, ar the beginning ofrhc period of the New Kingdom in the 16th century. T his means that it must havebeen introduced into service at the end of the previous period. during the laterccntu ries of the Midd le Bro nze period, the Hyksos per iod .

As we say, there is no clear posi tive proof of the wide usc of the compositebow during the first half of the second millennium. But there is much evidence ofthe wide usc of the simp le bow dur ing th is period. It was a double-convex weap on.There is reason to suppose that in many cases it was also rein forced.

A fine examp le of this rype appears in the wall paint ing from Beni~hasan

(166- i67). The bow borne by the soldier on the extreme left is ve ry pronoun cedlyd4IiIIble-convex and has a particularly thick grip . Some scholars hold this to be acomposite bow, but the inward curve of the anus clearly discounts this view.Ne vertheless, though sim ple, it w as a well-mad e we apon .

Doub le-convex bows are also borne by several o f the soldiers storming thefortifications in other scenes from the Beni-hasan painting (158- 159). T he mon u­mcnr shown on page 162, also depicts a double-convex bow , although the curvesare somewhat shallow .

Conclusive proof that these bows w ere no t comp osite is given by the weaponsthemselves, a nu mber of which were discovered in Egypt ian tombs (163, bottom ).They arc mad e from a single, strong , and sizable piece of wood , and measur e upto between 1' 5 and 1'7 meters. T here is also a painting (165, bo ttom) showing awo rkshop for the manufacture of bows. Th e double-convex bows here are mownwithou t their strings . If they were composite, their anns would surely curveout­wards, toward the back. They do not .

In addi tion to the dou ble-con vex simple bo w, the o rdinary large single-a rcbow was also in common usc. Th is can be seen from the wooden model of N ubianarchers (16J), fro m actua l relics of bows found in ancient tombs, and from theEgyptian wall painti ngs show n on pages 160 and [61. Though a simp le bow , itspenetra ting force was considerab le if the enemy was without armo r. T his weknow fro m the arrow-riddled bodies of wa rrio rs fro m this period whi ch we refound in Egypt . In one case the arrow had gone righ t through the body from backto chest and prot ruded for a distance of some 20 centi meters.

THE PERIOD OF THE PATRIARCHS

In order not to strain the pliability of the bow, the string was usually notfitted until shortly before battle. It was then done by slipping one looped end overone end of the bow, the bow held upright with that end on the ground, and thenbent to meet the other loop ofthe string either by the weight of the body (158, topleft, and figure on page 62) at by kneeling and pulling it down. This isalsodescribedby Sinuhe when he tells of his bracing the bow before starting to practice on theeve of battle,

The quiver was already known in this period. Its Semitic name, ashpah, isindeed found in Egyptian documents, which shows that it was introduced intothat country from Syria and Palestine. Yet the wall paintings from the period ofthe Middle Kingdom show that the Egyptians used to carry their arrows mainlynot in quivers but in bundles which were laid at the foot of the bow (158, top left,and also figure on page 63).

The bow was used not only in open battle but also-and probably in themain-by both attackers and defenders in the battle on fortified cities, as is shownin the sceneson pages 158-159. Remains of fortifications from this period, as weshall see later, show the provisions of well-dcsigned firing embrasures fat thearchers defending the wall. The attacking archers were not equipped with shields,they were screened by the shields of the axe- and spear-bearers,

There is no substantiation from ancient monuments at relics, but it may beassumed that the composite bow began to be widely used during the later part ofthis period, particularly in Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. This supposition isbased on the fact that at the beginning of the following period it appears in a vetyadvanced form. And we know that it was in common use in these lands in thepreceding period.

The Slitlc~ The slingmen were used in support of the archers, as they were in laterperiods. They were particularly useful in an attack on a fortified city, since theycould direct high-angle fire up a steep slope. They ate depicted in the wall paintingsshown on page 159, top right.

PERSONAL PROTECTION

The Shield Since the helmet and armor did not make their bold appearance in Egyptuntil the end of the Middle Bronze period-the beginning of the New Kingdom-the warrior during the preceding period, that is the Middle Kingdom, had to beprotected only by the shield. And it is understandable therefore that this should bea large shield, capable of giving complete cover to the whole of the bare body ofthe fighter, particularly one equipped with short-range weapons for hand-to-handcombat. A good example of such a shield is shown in the wall painting on page155, lefr, which depicts a soldier armed with a cutting axe and bearing a shieldwhich matches his height. It is wide at the base, narrowing toward the head, whichis rounded. Though made ofwood and covered with hide, it must have been heavyand surely impaired mobility. This perhaps explains the appearance of anothertype of shield at this time which was smaller and lighter. It was of medium size,

2IOO-I570 B.C.

and though there were slight variations in shape, its standard form was wide at thebase with a pointed or rounded head (158).

We have no concrete information on the type of shield in vogue in Egyptduring the latter part of Middle Bronze II, nor in the other countries of the Bible.But in these lands the shields were probably smaller than the Egyptian, for weknow that their people had already developed some form of armor and did notneed the shield for complete body protection. It is also reasonable to assume thatthe shape of their shields was rectangular, for the Sumerian shields during theprevious period were rectangular and so were the shields of the Asiatic peoplesduring the Late Bronze period. The round shield, designed mainly to ptotect theuncovered face, did not come into use until the end of the iarh century, havingapparently been introduced by the "Sea Peoples."

Thus we sec that this period, too, reflects the interrelationship betweenweapons and armor-or its absence-in the lands of the Bible, and the time-oldstruggle between mobility andsecurity.

Ancient relics, archaeological excavations, and written sources from the first Fortiiicatioushalf of the second millennium shed more detailed light on the fortifications of theperiod and the pattems of battle on a fortified city than on any other branch ofwarfare. The study ofthese subjects can therefore be most instructive to our generalunderstanding of the art of warfare of this period. It also serves as a significantpreface to our consideration of fortifications in the period which follows, sincetheir development sprung from the achievements gained earlier.

It is well to begin with a description of the Egyptian fortifications of theMiddle Kingdom as shown on wall paintings and as revealed by archaeologicalexcavation. A good jumping-off point are the fortresses or fortified citiesdepicted on some of the wall paintings of Bcni-hasan (158-159). These types ofstructure contain almost all the elements required ofa complete system offortifica­tions: high walls with battlements to facilitate defensive fire, and balconies for thedefenders to harass the enemy's flanksand direct vertical fire on troops approachingthe wall. The lower part of the wall, strengthened by a sloped bank or glacis, isshown vety clearly. These fortresses or fortified cities sometimes have two gates,sometimes only one. The illustration of the gate in the painting is a simple outline,offering no details of its structure. All we can see is that it was rectangular in shapewith horizontal lintels. On the other hand, the methods and patterns of defense ofthe troops on the wall and the methods of attack by the assaulting troops aredepicted very well.

But the most illuminating insight into the character ofstrongholds at the timeof rhe XIIth Dynasty, in the 20th and roth centuries, is provided by the fortifies­tionsofBuhen in Nubia-Sudan oftoday-on the west bank ofthe Nile, near WadiHaIfa. These fortifications, which were thoroughly excavated only as recently as .1<)57 by Emery, are the most complete example of a fottress of this period amongthe many found aloug the trade routes and the strategical areas of Nubia. Thesewell-preserved structures, with the help of the wall paintings mentioned above,enable us to reconstruct the plan and appearance of the fortress (160-161).

66

THE PERIOD OF THE PATRIARCHS

The fortress is almost square, measuring 170 by 180 meters. The fortificationscomprise four basic elements: the main (inner) wall, the outer or advance wall, themoat, and the very well-fortified gate structure.

The main wall was built of bricks and was about 5 meters thick. It is con­sidered to have been 10 meters high. The gate was in the center of the western sideof the wall. Throughout its entire length the wall was "blistered" at intervals of5 meters with protruding square bastions, each 2 meters wide. Each corner of thefortress was marked by a large tower, which protruded from rhe face of the walleven more conspicuously than the bastions.

An impressive feature of the Buhen fortifications is the siting and the form ofthe low outer wall, which served also as a kind of revetment to the near wall of themoat immediately beneath it. This low wall was also of brick, and along its facea series of semicircular bastions 3 meters wide had been built at intervals of10 meters. In the wall and bastions there were two rows offiring embrasures, oneabove the other, with loopholes arranged in groups of three, centering on eachshooting embrasure. This is an example of excellent exploitation of the purpos: ofthe semicircular bastion to give a wide-angled field of fire. For each embrasurecnabled fire to be applied downward onto the attackers in the moat in threedirections: straight.down, a little to the left, a little to the right. These bastions,likeothers in Nubia, such as Aniba, Ikkur, and Kuban, are in the tradition of the curvedbastions whose origins we first came across in the middle of the third millenniumin Palestine, Egypt, and Mesopotamia.

At the foot of the outer wall there was a dry moat 8·5 meters wide and morethan 6 meters deep. To make it even more difficult to cross, an additional lowwall had been built on its farther bank, and its outer face strengthened by an earthglacis.

The entire gate complex is ingenious in plan and formidable in structure. Theopening in the outer wall and the wall on the further lip of the moat were in linewith the double-doored gateway in the western side of the main wall. Two largetowers were built on either side of the entranceways, 15 meters in length, stretch­ing from the main gateway to the moat and even beyond. For they protruded evenfrom the wall on the distant bank of the moat, and formed a well-fortified gatecomplex from which fire could be directed across the moat to the right and left.According to the archaeologists who carried out the excavations, there were indi­cations that originally there had been a wooden drawbridge across the moat whichcould be withdrawn in time of need by means ofrollers.

Some impression of the effectivenessof these fortifications may be gained byrecalling that for assault troops to reach their objective, they had to penetrate thefirst low wall, then cross the moat, then fight their way through the outer wallwith its semicircular bastions, and then get through the main wall-all under a hailofarrows. It is quite clear that this would have been nearly impossible except at thepoints of the gate. And indeed the excavations revealed that there had been greatfires at the site of the gare. It is equally clear that no such formidable fortificationswould have been necessaryif the enemy were not yet in possessionof the battering­ram. And evidence that the battering-ram was already in use is provided by the

2100-1570 B.C.

WJ!J paintings of Bcni-hasan. We shall deal with this at greater length when wecome to study the method ofattack on these fortifications and on those ofPalestineand Mesopotamia and in the Middle Bronze II period.

One of the characteristic features of the fortifications of Palestine and Syria inthis period, beginning, that is, from the rSrh century, is the large gla~is or steeplysloped bank by which they were surronnded. Since this has been the subject ofmuch controversy among scholars, it is perhaps worth going into some detail asto its nature. It will be recalled that when the people of the Middle Bronze IIperiod came to build new cities on a tell, which had been the sire of settlement forsome 1,500 years, they found a pretty high mound with steeplv sloping sidesformed by layers of debris from earlier cities. The Hyksos glacis was in fact builtnot at the peak of rhe tell but against its slopes. In other words, it covered andencircled the lower part of the tell which was below the walls of the new city. Atthe beginning ofthis period, the glacis was built in a special way, colorfully termedthe "sandwich" method. It was constructed of repeated layers ofbeaten earth, clay,gravel, and limestone. The face of the glacis was covered with thin layers ofplaster,and made very smooth. In some cases, as for example at Tell el-lerishe near TelAviv, the-glacis was an even more complex structure, being greatly strengthenedby the addition of bricks to the,layers of limestone. The city walls, built mostly ofbrick, were constructed at the top of the glacis. During the latter part of thisperiod-although in some cases even earlier-the beaten earth and indeed thewhole sandwich system gave way to the glacis constructed entirely of stone,turning it into a battered wall, a wall in fact which covered the foot of the tell.Several fine examples of this type were found, notably in Jericho, Hazar (179),and Shechem. At the foot of the glacis a moat was dug or hewn out of the rock.Many were very wide and deep. At Tell e1-'Ajjul, for example, in southernPalestine, the moat was 15 meters wide and 10 meters deep.

In addition to such tell cities whose slopes were strengthened by glacis,a newtype ofcity makes its appearance during the Middle Bronze" period. It, too, hasa glacis, of either the sandwich or stone form. But it is quite different from theearlier cities. These new cities were very large and were not built upon an existingtell, but either very close to it, as a kind of extension, or without any relationshipwhatsoever to a tell. The size ofsuch cities-like Hazar in Israel which covered anarea of 1,000 by 7,000 meters, or Qatna in Syria whose area was 1,000 by 1,000

meters-clearly indicates that the earlier tell cirv was too small and the inhabitantshad therefore to build a new one outside th; tell area, usually on the adjacentunfortified level ground. Since this new area lacked the natural defensive qualitiesof a tell city, they had to construct artificial devices for protection. This they didin a remarkable manner, which reflected ingenuity and daring in their engineering.They built walls as well as steeply sloped banks in the following way.

They wanted their wall to be as high as the wall at the top of the tell city. Thismeant a construction anywhere between 20 to 40 meters high, which was hardlypossible. So they solved the problem by digging a moat. utilizing the excavatedeanh to form a rampart and constructing rhe wall upon it. This, then, gave thewali the required height. Archaeological digs have laid bare such walls built on

The plan (~( HROT. Bd')l/!: tlte bottle­

shaped IIppercity. A!Jtlvt'., the hllge

rcctanoular lowercity. At IcJc rite

earthen rmJlparr all.J [esse. Areas ,ifexcavations lIIarkd 11'111, letters

Battle Oil Fort!fiedCit ies

CiIy <~atfs. Top to bottolll ; Gal.'r.

Sicncm,alldBcth-sucmesh

METHO D S OF WARFARE

, poin t wou ld have been too steep. And so an oblique path with an embankmentwas laid acro ss the slope. o f gentle gradient , which reached the gate from therigh t-from the point o f view of the person facing the city-so that the right, orexposed. side of an enemy would be at the mercy of the city 's defend ers. Imme­diately in front of the gateway. the path ended in a leveled piece of ground wid eenough to allow a chariot to turn and en ter the gate fro m the right . The path. itsembankment, and the leveled space in frolll of the gate were protected by a thickrevetm ent wall built of large basalt boulders which for med a kind of de fensive

glacis for the entire slope (179, top ). T he degree of tho ugh t, planning , resources,and sheer physical labor that went into the construction of the path and the revet­ment wall arc an indi cation of the high importance attached to this solution to theprobl em ofent ry into the city . Th ere is no doubt that the change from the steppedapproach and the ang led gateway to the sloped path and the dir ect entrancewaycoincided with the introdu ction of the chariot to wider use in the I xth cenlUry- afeature on wh ich we shall have more to say later. '

2100-J570 B . C .

The large cit ies built either as an extension of Ot apart from a city on a tellwere heavily popu lated. A city like Qa tna, for example. could hold som e 40.000

inhabitants, and Hazor could hold close to 30,000. Clearly, onl y with the help ofso considerable a population could such cities defend their walls, whose perimeterreached 4 kilom eters at Qa tna and 3 kilometers at Hazer.

T he appearance of th is new type of fortification , with its glacis, the new gatestructure offeting ent ry to chario ts. and the large lower cities looking like hugecamps, is exp licable only in terms of a revo lutionar y change in the methods ofwarfare which demanded appropriate counter-measures. Since th is occurred atthe same time as the introduction of the hor se-drawn chariot , and because of thecharacter of the new gate and the camp- like form of the lower city, it was widelybelieved until quite recently tha t the powerful glacis was designed as a means ofprotec tion against attack by chariots.

No elabora te exp lanation is required to dismiss this theory as ground less. Forapart from the difficulty of conceiving that chariots co uld carry Ollt a charge upsuch steep slopes, we know tha t at no tim e was the chari ot ever used to breach afor tification . And it is fallacious to co mpare it. as some do. with the modern tank .The chariot, for breaching purp oses. could never be more formidable than theforeheads of the horses by wh ich it was drawn . And, in any case. an upt ight wallwo uld surely be more effective than a glacis ill sto pping a charging column ofg.illoping horses.

There can be no question that the stren gthening of the lowe r port ion of thewall, and particularly the smooth . beaten-earth slopes of the tells. were certainlydC'signed to prevent enemy atte mpts to teat down and destroy the wall and theslopes beneath it and enter the city thro ugh the breach . This explanation wo uld10llg have been generally accepted if it were not for the wid espread , though

City gate's, Troy, Ala/akh. aliaQawa

hugemounds of beaten earth . The idea was at once simp le and ingenious . And the

sing le o perat ion of excava tin g the moa t served a do uble purpose.Th e project mu st have kept thousands ofl abo rers on the j ob for several years,

to j udge by the scale of the fortifi cations of Hazor : the western ram part of beaten 'earth is 700 m eters in length. At its widest point, the base of the ram part is 90meters broad and 15 meters high . T he moat to ies immediate west (178 ), fromwhose scoop ed out earth this ramp art was formed, reaches a depth of I ) meters. Ithas inclined sides. like the cross-section of a basin. and is 80 meters wide across thetop and 40 met ers wide at its base: Th is. therefore, gives the side of rhc fortifiedcity a man-made steep slope 30 meters in heighI- t) meters being the sloping sideof the moat and [) meters the height of the mound. Structures on a similar scalewere also found at Qa ma and new cities of the same type elsewhere. Incidentally.the co nsiderable wid th of the moat kept enem y arche rs that muc h fart her awayfrom the mound . and weakened the effect iveness of thei r weapollS.

Archaeological excavations of the Middl e Bronze II period also provi de uswith much information on the plan of the city gate. At the beginning of thisperiod the gate is still angled, like the lett er L. so that anyone wh o entered had to 'go through a turning. An enemy fighting his way through would thus have totum and leave one side exposed to the fire of the defenders. A typical example ofsuch a gate was found at Stratum 13 of the Megiddo excavations (sec figure onthis page). Th e path leading to the gate was stepped , And this together with theturning in the gate would have mad e it difficult for a chario t to maneuver. It maytherefo re be presumed tha t at this time. chariots were not yet in use. no t even by

the ru lers of the city .Th is gate belongs to the mid dle of the rSrh century, sho rtly before the intro­

duction of the new type of glacis on for tifications. With the innovation of this .glacis, w e fmd a change in the type of gate now built in all the cities in Palestineand Syria during Middle Bronze II. Instead of the angl ed gate , the ent rance is nowstraigh t and direct. Bur to give them greater prot ect ion , they are built in depth,the length ofth e passageway reaching from I ) to 20 meters. Th ese gates (see figureson pages 68-69) all have six inner pilasters, three on each side, which narrowed theentrance at these three poin ts. W e do not know whether there was on ly one set ofdoors-which is most likely, betwe en the twin pilasters nearest the exte rnal face ofthe wall-or additional doors between the othe r sets of pilasters. The T rojan gatesfrom the middl e of the thi rd millennium ate perh aps the earliest example of this

type. although they have only four pilasters.Th e gates found at several archaeologi cal excavations in Syria and Palestine

are protected by two large towers , one on either side. Th ey wer e almost certainly

multi-stor ied. as is ev idenced by the stairways found inside.An extremely strong gate of this type was also found in the no rtheast corner

of the lowe r city of Haze r, belonging to the t Sth cent ury (Areak) .T his relic at Hazer also provides a good illustration of the inte gration of the

appr oach path to the gate with in the overall system of fortifica rions of the city .The gate itself was bui lt on the high gtound of the city site. and w as some 25 metersabove the surrounding countryside. A direct approach path from below to so high

I

/

\

7 0

I N t: !'.l:lU UI) OF T HE PATIU AR CH S

erroneous, belief that the battering-ram did not make its appearance on the battle­field unril the Assyrian period in the roth centu ry-that is, nearly 1.000 years later.B~t the evidence both ofIllustrated monuments and written documents shows thatqUIte well-devd oped battering-rams were already being used in the first half ofthesecond millennium , We can go even furth er and say that, from the siege scene ofDeshashe dalt.ng back ro the 25th century , and from the character of the powerfulthIrd-lllIllenmu m Trojan fortIficanons. for example, with their glacis and bastions.It IS reasonable to assume that a primitive type of battering-r am was in use as f.1fback as rhis early period .

At alI eve~ ts. we have clear proof that it was in use in the first half of thesecond m']le~nlllm . The earliest illustrations of battering-rams known to us so farare those which appear on the wall paintings of Berti-h asan dating back to thezoth century (158- 159). To the right of the fortre ss we see a mobile Structurerather like a hut with a slightly point ed arched roof, which could be moved withthe help of two parallel crossbars. It served as cover for two or three soldiers whosehands grasp a very long beam with a sharp tip, prob ably made of metal. T he pointofthe beam IS aimed at the top of the fortress wall, to the balconies and battlements,"for the lower portion of the wall is already protected by a low glacis.Th e fortifica_ll•t l (~llS . of Buh cn, referred to earlier, compl ement the details of the Beni-hasanpamon gs to gIve a complete picture.

T hese battering-rams, though they seem primitive, were no doubt effectiveunder the.prevailin~ conditi ons. O therwise, it is hardly likely that they would bedepicted m these SIege scenes as the principal weapon of an army attacking afortress. Moreover, the excavations at Buhen show that its magnificent forrifica­nons were destroyed as a result of breaching by a more developed battering-ramand being set on tire, during the Hyksos period in the i xh century. '

On llllp roven1t'nts ro the battering-ram in the rSth cent ury we learn from themany wn tren documents of Mari on the Euphrates. T he Mari letters make severalrnenn ons of the battering- ram. made largely of wood, and of its effectiveness.Ishme-Dagnn, for example, w rites as follows:

. . ' 'T hus saith (shme-Dagan. thy broth er ! 'After l conquered (the names of threecin esJ, I turned and laid SIege to Hurara. I set against it the siege tow ers and batter­mg-r ams and in seven days I vanquished it. Be pleased!' "

Th e power of the battering- ram must have been great, for in another letter,Ish~e-D.,gan reports that he conquered another city in a single day. It was alsopossible to move this heavy implement over long distances and even to surmountnatural barriers. For another letter talks of transportin g it by wagon and boat.. Mo~e derailed evidence of how the battering- ram was operated is contained111 a Hittite document from Boghazkoy which describes rhe siege of a city namedUrshu at the end of Midd le Bronze 11. The text reads:

. " :hey broke the battering-ram. The King waxed wroth and his face wasgn m : T hey consranrly bring me evil tidings Make battcri . h.'. . . . . . .. .. a Jncnng-ram m [ eHurrian manner! and let It be bro ught into place. Makc a " mo untain" and Jet it[also ] be set III Its place. Hew a great batter ing-ram from the mo untains of Hazzu

, ;

21 00-15 7 0 B . C.

and let it be brought into place. Begin to heap up earth . . . .' The King wasangeredand said : 'W atch the roads; observe wh o enters the city and wh o leaves the city.No one is to go out from the city to the enemy . .. .' They answered : ' \Ve watch,Eight y chariots and eight armies surro und the city.' ''

Thi s document sheds light on several details conce rning the action of thebattering-ram and its manufactu re. Th e " mountain" is nothing other than themound or ramp of earth which had to be laid up to the wall, to fill in part ofthe moat, over which the battering-ram could be moved into position. as we shallsee very clearlyfrom the illustrated Assyrian monuments from the first millennium.Th e description also completes the picture of the besieging units. Th e chariots. ofcourse, were there no t for storming the city but to seal off rhe approach roadsagainst allied help to the besieged.

The purpose of the siege towers referred to in the Mari documents. as in thelater period. was to enable the attacking archers to give covering fire from a greaterheight to the men operating the battering- ram. and to neutralize the weapons ofthe defenders upon the batt lements. Th e importance of this covering tire byarchers is endorsed in rhe Beni-hasan paintings , but here the mobile tower had notyet been intr oduced and the bows are fired from the standing or kneeling positionfrom the ground.

All the evidence, it seems to me, clearly supports the view that the tremendousresources and labor invested in the fortifications of the Middl e Bronze period weredesigned primarily to prevent breaching by the battering- ram. Th is was the majorpurpose of the moat, the outer or advanced wall. and the glacis, which protectedthe steep slope aud lower portion of the wall. Th e gate. on the other hand . wasgiven its new fonn ( 0 enable the city 's o wn chariots to enter and leave. witho ut, atthe same time, making it easier to breach by the enemy. W e see, therefore . thatalreadv in the first half of the second millennium , the foundations were laid for theextra; rdinarily advanced methods of attack on and defense oi a for tified citywhich reached thcir apogee in the first millennium.

Th e absence of paintings or reliefs on the mon uments belonging to most ofthe Middle Bronze " period, unlike the periods which preceded and followed it,leaves us withou t any detailed illustration of the methods of open battle at thistime. Fortunately, however, we can till the gaps by dra wing on the writtendocuments of the period which have much to say on vital aspects of oursubjec t.

In a zoth-century B.C. docume nt from the period of the Middle Kingdom, wefind the earliest detailed written description of a unique form of battIe-the duel.

Battle ;'1 Open Terrain :The Dllel

Duels as dfpi{(('J 011a lJIall paintino

ifI Beni-liasan

2100-1570 B.C.

rVarriors depicted orl a wall painting

ill BClli-hasmi

Two Canaanite warriors 011 alt

18Ih-(clllllry B.C. vase, rccmtlyfOUlld

at Tellel-Far'all (Ilorthern Pahstitte)

73

Standard Combat

Communications andIntellioence

With all the importance of the duel, it does not mean, of course, that themajor campaigns between national armies were settled in this way. The woodenmodel of spear-carrying Nubian archers from Egypt (163), belonging to theMiddle Kingdom, shows that armies of this period were already organized in unitswhich marched in disciplined order. The written records also contain much detailon the size of armies and the units taking part in battle, which indicate that therewas open combat on a large scale. Thus we find several references in the Maridocuments from the r Sth century to militia units of 10,000 warriors. Mostlv, ofcourse, the units referred to are smaller, containing 3,000, 2,000, 1,000,600,' and100 men. Also mentioned is the joo-man unit, used mainly as an assault unit,comprising three companies of 100 men each. It appears from the documents thatthe basic unit, the section, was probably composed of 10 men. This is also borneout by Sinnhe's reference to the palace guard: "When the day had broken, veryearly, they came and summoned me 10 men coming and 10 men going to usherme to the palace."

If this period is poor in documents and monuments which show the move­ment of armies and their maneuvers on the battlefield, there is detailed writteninformation on the intelligence and communications services without which itwould not have been possible effectively to plan and execute large-scale militaryoperations. We draw again on the Mari documents on an account of the quitewell-developed communications system. It was based on signaling, and the signalswere given by torches or firebrands according to a prearranged code. The follow-ing two letters explain the system: .

"To my lord: Thus Nannum, thy servant. Yesterday I departed from Mari,and spent the night at Zuruban. All the .Benjamites raised fire signals. From5amanum to Ilum-Muluk, from Ilum-Muluk to Mishlan, all the cities of theBenjamites of Terqa district raised fire signals in response, and so far I have notascertained the meaning of those signals. Now I shall determine the meaning andI shall write to my lord whether it is thus or not."

This letter shows that the signals were flashed in accordance with a code, andthat the writer of the letter recognized them as a system of transmitting informa­tIon. This practice was in wide use as the second letter indicates:

"When I had made ready the city of Hirnush over against him and he saw that

mourning for him. Then I carried offhis goods and plundered his cattle. Whar hehad planned to do to me I did to him. I took what was in his tent and stripped hisencampment."

This lively and detailed account can be completed by the Deshashe siegescenes which depict (146) dueling warriors near the fortress. Though they are notduels in the basic sense with which we arc concerned they sbow the characteristicfighting pattern which was followed by the representative duel. Incidentally,Sinuhc's adversary seemed to have used the eye axe which, as we have observedearlier, was apparently in wide use in this period.

I1

IThis, let us recall, covers the period of the Beni-hasan wall paintings with theirbattle and siege scenes, The duel was a contest between two warrior-heroes, asrepresentatives of two contending forces, Its outcome, under prearranged agree­ment between both sides, determined the issue between the two forces, Thissystem, which obtained even in later periods such as the Mycenaean in Greece,found its most dramatic expression in the duel between David and Goliath, andbetween the warriors of the House of Saul and the House of David as we shall seelater. A description no less colorful, and amazingly similar to the David-Goliathepic, is found in a document known as "The Story of Sinnhe the Egyptian."Sinuhe, a Chamberlain in the royal court of the XIlth Dynasty, had chosen volun­tary exile and went to live with the Semitic tribes in northern Palestine and Syria.His hosts were hospitable and he spent a very happy time among them. But hefmally returned to his country at the invitation of the Egyptian court. During hisstay with the Semitic tribes, an encounter took place which Sinuhe describes in the

following way:

"A mighty man ofRetenu [i.c., Syria and Palestine] that he might challengeme in my own camp. He was a hero without his peer, and he had repelled all of it[i.e., he had beaten everyone of the land ofRetenuJ. He said that he would fightme, he intended to despoil me, and he planned to plunder my cattle, on the adviceof his tribe. That prince [the host of Sinuhe1discussed it with me and I said: 'I donot know him. Certainly I am no confederate of his, so that I move freely in hisencampment. Is it the case that I have ever opened his door or overthrown hisfences? Rather, it is hostility because he sees me carrying out thy commissions.I am really like a stray bull in the midst of another herd, and a bull of these cattleattacks him ... .' During the night I strung my bow and shot my arrows [inpractice}. I gave free play to my sword and polished my weapons. When daybroke, Retenu was come. It had whipped up its tribes and collected the countriesof a good half of it. It had thought only of his fight. Then he came to me as I waswaiting, for I had placed myself near him. Every heart burnt for me. They said:'Is there another strong man who could fight against hirru' Then he took his shield,his battleaxe, and his armful of javelins. Now afrer I had let his weapons issueforth, I made his arrows pass by me uselessly, one close to another. He charged me,and I shot him, my arrows sticking in his neck. He cried our and fell on his nose.I felled him with his own battlcaxe and raised my cry of victory over his back,while every Asiatic roared. I gave praise to Montu, while his adherents were72

7 57+

T HE P ERIOD O F T HE PATRIAR C HS

the land was hastening to my aid, he raised a fire signal, and all the cities of theland of Ursum on the other side acknowledged."

From other letters we learn that this method of signaling was used for calls forimm ediate help by those under attack. T here is no specific infor mation on themeans of com mun ication between units during an attack, but it was probablycarried out by special runners, by semaphore, or by trum pet-calls as in a laterperiod .

Th e intelligence services were also well developed. T his can be well imagined,for it wou ld have been impossible to plan and carry out long-range operations andhandl e large formations in different conditions of terrain with out advance intelli­gence. And again the documents of Mari illuminate the systems of intelligence inuse du ring this period. From one of these letters we learn of the practice ofdispatching powerfu l reconn aissance units for the express purpose of capturingprisoners for interrogation. Here is the letter:

" Harnmurabi spoke to me as follows: ' A heavily armed force had gone toraid the enemy column, but there was no suitable base to be found, so that forcehad returned empty-h anded and the column of the enemy is proceeding in goodorder without panic. Now let a light armed force go to raid the enemy columnand cap ture informers [literally, "men of tong ue"] .' ''

T hese " men of tongue" were, according to other letters, a most importantmeans of intelligence. T he docum ents also show that battle intelligence was basedon fast and detailed reports from commanders to their superior officers. T hecommanders of Mari indicate whether they ate transmitting direct or only hearsayinform ation, and they record in detail the movements of the enemy: He hasreached the river. He has not yet crossed. He is now organ izing for battle. Th efollowing form ula is typical: "On the sixth day of the month ... 6,000 soldiers ofso and so reached such and such a place. Th eir rum ored aim is to conql1er suchand such a city.. . ."

T he administrative services also operated at a high level of efficiency. Th is canbe seen from the receipts and the detailed lists of equipment and supplies found inthe Mari archives. We have seen earlier how the engineerin g and transport servicesof the army managed to move siege towers and battering-rams ove r long distancesby wagon and boat. Th ese operations predate by at least 2 00 years the action ofThutrnose 1Il who transported boats on ox-drawn carts. Before the discovery ofthe Mari documen ts, the operation ofThutmose 1Il at the beginning of the 1jthcentury was considered one of the most daring engineering feats of the period.

T here mUS1 also have been SOme SOrt of medical service, j udging from thereports of the Mari commanders who frequently refer to rhe health of their men, .and send " strength" reports like " No dead; no sick."

The Chariot Our knowledge of the chariot during this period comes almost exclusivelyfrom wr itten documents, This docs not imply that its function at this time was of

2IOO - 1 5 70 B .C .

secondary import ance.. On the contrary , there is much reason to believe thatbegitlning from the rSth cemury the horse-d rawn chariot was one of the mostimportant instrume nts of batt le in open terrain. But its fate in the first tw oc<'nturiesof the second millennium is not at all clear. \Ve know of its existence fromthe Assyrian documents, but the general picture is blurred. It is certain that duringthe 20th and iorh cemuri es, the chariot was not yet in use in Egypt and it isdoubtful jf it was used in the region of Palestine and Syria. In the many wallpaintings from the Xllrh Dynasty, which have been referred to in earlier chaptersand which often deal with military subjects, the chariot docs not appear at all ,neither among the Eg yptian warriors nor among the Semite'S. There is no doubtthat, had it been in usc, it would have been depicted on these monuments.

On the other hand, the documents from Mari of the rSth century speak ofhorse-d rawn chariots. T hat they were broug ht into COmmon use from no w on iscertain ly to be inferred from the new gate structure in fortifications designed totake chariots. which we have already discussed. But we also have concrete evidencein the skeletons of horses found at excavations and in the chariot horses' bits alsofound in strata belon ging to the Middle Bronze II period. A fine example is the bitwith spoked check-pieces found at Tell cl-'Ajjul in Palestine which appears onpage 180. Incidentally, these bits show the great advance in the chario ts of thisperiod over the chariots of the third millennium. For they enabled the driver tomaintain full cont rol over his fast horses and to guide them at the gallop even onsharp turns and in other maneuvers.

Additional important evidence of the use of the chariot in this period is themention of the " horses of Hyksos" in a document from the time of PharaohKamose, the last king of the XVlIth Dynasty, at the beginning of the ierh century.T he Hyksos were the Asiatic tribes who ruled Egypt in the 17th century , andKamose, by fighting against the " horses of Hyksos," paved the way for their finalexpulsion from Egypt. It is cleat from this that the Hyksos were using chariot sbefore their encounter with Karnosc, that is, already in the 17th century.

Our fmal piece of evidence comes from the period imme diately followin g,the period of the New Kingdom . At its very beginn ing. as we shall sec later,Canaanite chariots make their appearance for the first time in Egypt . T he standardof their developm ent indicates clearly that they must have been in prolo nged usebefore this time. Th e sum total of all this evidence docs not amount to a sharp lyetched picture, but it is enough to show with certainty that the migh t of armies inthe Asiatic lands of the Bible in the second half of the Middle Bronze period wasbased on the light horse-d rawn chariot with spoked wheels. -l-do ek;j .

It IS equally evident that the art of warfare reached its highest standard in the penSiVe.. J.otim half of the second millennium. Th is was true of combat in open terrain, with <;11\ ell tor ~the chario t and the composite bow as the principal battle instruments; of the e. ret..structure of fortifications, with their glacis and moats; and of attack on a fortifiedcity. in which the battering-ram held a prized place. In no later period, until theinvention of gunpowder. did the armies of the wo rld succeed in introducing on to

the battlefield new methods or new weapons of war. But they did succeed inpetfecting them, as we shall sec in the follow ing chapters.

v

THE PERIOD OF THE SOJOURNIN EGYPT, THE EXODUS,

MOSES, AND JOSHUA

I57 0-I200B.C.

The period of the New Kingdom in Egypt, or the Late Bronze period, to use thelanguage ofarchaeology ofPalestine and Syria, is the period which saw the renais­sance of Egypt and its development into a mighty Power that struck terror inthe entire region right up to the frontiers of the Hittite kingdom. This is also theperiod in which the great Hittite Empire became a formidable military force, theonly one indeed able to stand up to the Egyptians. This is the period which coveredthe Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt under the leadership of Moses, and theconquest of Canaan underJoshua. And, in its fmal phase, this was the period whichsaw the beginnings of the collapse of the two mighty empires, Egyptian andHittite, and the rise of the "Sea Peoples," who gained domination of the coastalregion at about the same time as the Israelite tribes were securing control of theeastern area.

These momentous historic events would have vanished into oblivion if itwere not for the rich legacy of written documents and illustrated monuments inwhich they are recorded, and which illuminate the social, cultural, and militarycontext in which they were set. The number of wall paintings, reliefs, and otherarchaeological finds from this important period, which provide direct informationon its military problems, is greater than those which have been preserved from theprevious period and from many of the later periods.

Bur this information, however valuable, would be incomplete without thewritten documents. These are of extraordinary importance, particularly for thesubject of our study. In addition to the Bible itself, there is much material ofsignificance in the rhousandsof documents discovered in the archives of Nuzi,Bogbazkoy, Ugarit, and Tell el-Arnarna, from the 15th to the r jth centuries B.C.,

",

1\

f

I

i

Il

i

I

1570-1200 B.C.

coinciding with the period under review. The diversity of the documents is alsoof great value in completing the gaps in our knowledge. They include chronicles,peace treaties, administrative records, and exchanges of correspondence betweenthe various kings and rulers. The military events referred to earlier find their echoin these documents either directly or indirectly.

And this period, too, left behind in documents and illustrated monuments, theearliest detailed descriptions of warfare in the lands of the Bible: the battle ofThutmose III near Megiddo; the celebrated battle between Ramcses II and the Kingof the Hittites near Kadesh on the Orontes; and Joshua's battle of conquest. Thesedocuments and monuments enable us to follow the military features of the periodwith an authenticity and detail which was impossible before. They show thatmany of the weapons and methods of warfare and fortifications were the heritageof the previous period. But they also show considerable advances in militaryfields.

We shall begin our study as usual with the basic clements of warfare,mobility, firepower, and security. And we shall follow with a description andanalysis ofseveral of the celebrated battles of the period in which we shall see theseelements in operation.

WE AP 0 N S Shorr- and Mcdiutu-ranoe

In this, as in the previous period, we again come across the two earlier andconflicting traditions: the Egyptians continue with conservative consistency tostick exclusively to the tang-type axe, while the other lands of the Bible continueto use, in addition, the socket-type weapon.

At the beginning of the period, particularly from the rorh to the r jth century,the Egyptian axes follow the earlier Hyksos pattern. They are piercing axes witha long, narrow blade, and wide edge. The finest examples of such weapons, whichcan be dated absolutely, are presented on pages 180 and 181. They belong to the endof the XVIIth and the beginning of the XVlIIth Dynasties, at the very outset of theNew Kingdom. The axe on page 180 bears the name of Kamose, the Pharaoh whostarted the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. The axe on page 18I is theceremonial axe of his nrother, Queen Ahhorep, who received it as a present fromher second son, Ahmose, the founder of the XVlIIth Dynasty, who completed theHyksos expulsion started by his brother Kamose. Both axes are similar in shape,with a long and narrow blade which curves to a wide edge and a wide rear. Therear portion has two lugs by which the blade, whose back is inserted into thewooden haft, is tightly bound to strengthen the join. The edge is very sharp andconvex, which makes it an excellent piercing weapon.

This axe was used throughout the period of the New Kingdom, though itsshape underwent slight changes. Beginning from the r yth century, its bladebecomes shorter and its edge narrower until eventually the edge becomes thenarrowest part of the blade. The beginning of this development is well illustratedin me axe (184) which bears the name of Thutrnose III, whose dates are

All axeIwm Chooar-Bazar

(18th ct'HflIry B,C.)

The axe (lIthe warrior)fum Bogltazkiiy

(page 222)

The tl'urriilr-gI,Js.1;01/1 't'4dlikaya.

wilh siclelc swords (pdgr 205)

!THE PERIOD O F T HE SOJO U RN I N EGYPT

1490--1436 B.C., and. in the axes depicted in the relief from Deir el- Bahri belongingto the same period (185). The end development can be scm in the axes in the handsof Turankhamun 's infantr ymen as depicted on the painted lid of a wooden chestfound in his tomb at Th ebes. belonging to the middle of the 14th cent ury (214­

215), and those borne by the soldiers of Rarncses II as illuminated in the relieffromthe temple of Karnak (228), belonging to the middle of the t j rh century.

In other lands of the Bible, we come acrossa tang-type axe reminiscent oftheearlier period. Th is weapon (184, top ) differs from the Egyptian type in that itsrear portion is much longer, forming a deep tang. And the lugs here are positionedberween the tang and the blade.

But the most interesting and indeed the most beautiful group of axes from theother lands of the Bible in this period arc of the socket type. Two representativeexamples arc shown on page 222. The port ion of the blade to the rear of the socketis fashioned inca ornamental lugs, or prongs, in the shape of fingers of a hand, oran animal' s mane. This had a functional and not only a decorative purpose, for theprongs gave the rear part of the axehead an operational value. The rSth-centuryaxes from Kiilrcpe in Anatol ia and from Chagar-Bazar in northwestern Mesopo­tamia (sec figure on page 77), which have somet hing akin to lugs at the rear ofthe socket, are no doubt the ptot otypes of those shown on page 222 which arctypical of the axes of the Late Bronze period.

The Sword The pattern in the development of the sword during this period has the samecentral design as in the previous period but there ate several inceresting andcharacteristic changes. The curved or sickle sword of the Middle Bronze periodwas, as we have seen, little more than a cutting axe, and it therefore had a com­paratively long hilt and short blade. But with the total disappearance of the cuttingaxe in the Late Bronze period as a result of the widespread use of the helmet andarmo r, the warrio r was left withou t a cutting weapon for use in chariot fightingor against an unarmored enemy. This explains the change in the curved swordduring this period and the revolutionary difference in the relationship ofblade andhilt . The blade is now long, equal in lengt h to the hilt , and sometimes longer.Th ere are many examples of this type ofcurv ed sword, both among the archaeo­logical finds and in the graphic representations on the reliefs of the period. Fromthese illustrated monum ents in particular do we learn how Widespread was the useof the sword from Anatolia to Egypt. Th e 13rh-cenrury rock carving tramYazilikaya near Boghazkoy in Anatolia (205) depicts warrior-gods marching incolumn (see figure on page 79) bearing the curved sword with the long blade ontheir shoulder. Th is apparent ly was how the sword was carried on the march, asdepicred also on the [are-r j rh-centur y ivory carving from Megiddo (206). Thefou r swords shown on page 207 complete our knowledge of its detailed formand shape. The first specimen was found at Gezer in Palestine in the tomb ofa nobleman , belonging to the first half of the qrh century . (The swo rd shown onpage 209 (left) from the same period, wasdiscovered at Ugarit ; 209 (cenrer) is fromthe tom b of T utankhamun and was found together with another sword of similartype. They were certainly not Egyptian, but probably reached the Pharaoh as a

"1\

II

gift or as booty .) The sickle sword on page 207 (left) bears the name of theAssyrian king, Adad-Nirari (1310-1280 B.C.), and therefore is of extreme impo r­tance for dating some other specimens. In shape it is transitional between thoseof the rath century and those of the t zth and 1 111, centuries.

In the period of the New Kingdom, the Egyptians, too, began to use thesword very widely. Th ey no dou bt learned the art of its manufacture from thepeople of Canaan, as they did with the chariot and the composite bow, as weshall see later. The Egyptians called this sword H opesh aiter their term for theforeleg of an animal. In their sword s, the blade was somewhat longer than the hiltand was quite wide. This is further evidence that it reached Egypt during theperiod of the New Kingdom, for at this time this type of sword was alreadyestablished among the Canaanites. No t only was the lehopesh sword in comm onuse with the Egyptian army of this period, as is shown by such monuments as therelief at the temple of Karnak (228, left) , but it became the symbo l of Pharaonicauthority . Th e relief showing Rameses 1II smiting his Canaanite enemies (350)depicts him brandishing this type of sword. In earlier periods, the Pharaoh isshown wielding a mace.

The fact that the long-bladed curved sword, a smiting weapon, was so WidelYjused at this time, explains the Biblical phrase so frequently applied to Joshua's 7actions of conquest, which started in this very period- "h e smo te with the edge ofthe sword ." Tltis expression could not be used for the action of the short, straightnarrow sword, which was a thrusting or stabbing weapon, but for the operation(If the curved sword, wit h whose edge one smote the enemy. .

Side by side with the smiting sword , which was the most convenient weaponfor the charge of the phalanx in hand-to-hand combat (228), much progress wasmade during this period in the developm ent of the straight sword. At the begin­nmg of the period , it is still a kind of dagger, with a narrow blade (208- 209),similar to the dagger-swords of the Middle Bronze period . But starring from ther jrh century, the long straight blade begins to be more popular under the influenceof the Sea Peoples.

The Sea Peoples, some of whom were mercenaries serving' in the royalEgyptian armies of the XIXth Dynasty, were armed with very long sword s of thesame type as those used by the Egyptian soldiers, particularly when scaling laddersin an assault on for tifications where a smiting weapon would have been ineffective(22H, the warrior on the right-hand ladder). A sword of this rype belonging to theend of the r jrh century, bearing the name of Pharaoh Merneptah, was discoveredat Ugarir (209, left). Its blade was 60 centimeters, and its hilt added another 79

The Spear

The BolV

80

THE PERIOD OF THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT

Lj. centimeters to the length of the sword. Another group offour swords, probablyslightly earlier, were also found at Ugarit in the house of the high priest.

The spear was a basic weapon of the infantry. Several illustrated monumentsclearly depict special spear units, carrying spear and shield (216-217, 230). Theyformed, rogether with the sword- and axe-bearers, the main power of the phalanxin assault (238).

The 'socketed spearhead was leaf-shaped and strengthened by a protuberantspine. A good example is shown in the relief from Shihan in Trans-Jordan (223,top). Some scholars ascribe this relief to the end of the third millennium, but fromthe shape of the warrior's helmet and his curled locks it clearly belongs to the latterhalf of the second millennium. The top part of this relief is broken, and this givesthe impression that the warrior is holding a short-handled weapon. But it iscertainly a heavy spear with a long staff. Even the way in which it is held with bothhands shows that the action was spear-thrusting and not javelin-hurling as has beensuggested.

The spear was also used effectively by defenders on the ramparts to stabattacking troops ascending ladders (229). And it had an interesting function in thechariot units. Egyptian chariots were not equipped with the spear. But it wasfrequently to be found in the chariots of the neighboring armies, where it was keptin a special pipe-like socket, at the rear of the vehicle. This spear was the weapon ofthe driver, and it was no doubt used under certain battle conditions when thecharioteer was pressed into service as an infantryman. This difference between theEgyptian and the Asiatic chariot units is strongly in evidence in the chariots ofthe Hittite King in the Battle of Kadesh. The chariots of the Hittites and their allieswere manned by two warriors in addition to the driver. The warriors were armedwith a shield and along spear (239). The spear in this case assuredly served as theprincipal weapon in the charge into the enemy ranks. This tradition is followedby the chariot units of the first millennium in Syria and Assyria. Their standardequipment always' includes a spear, which is kept at the rear of the vehicle andserves as the weapon of the driver.

As against this, beginning with the XIXth Dynasty, the Egyptian chariots areequipped with short javelins which are carried in a special quiver (240).

LONG-RANGE WEAPONS

The illustrated monuments and written documents carry the clear implicationthat the composite bow was the decisive weapon in all the big armies of the landsof the Bible during this period. Its effectiveness to the chariot units and the infantryas well as for the defense of ramparts made it a most sought after weapon, andspecial workshops were established for its manufacture. It was, however, a difficultweapon to make, and not every warrior was equipped with it. The armies ofsmall kingdoms and the fighting men of small tribes, unlike the regular forces ofrich empires, could not produce this rype of weapon in mass quantities. An

1570-1200 B.C.

additional difficulry was that not every rype of wood, horns, and tendons were suit­able for the manufacture ofan effective composite bow. An interesting document,which itemizes the rypes ofmaterials required 10 produce this instrument, is foundin the Ugarit texts. Aqhat promises Anat to supply her with the necessarymaterials:

"Let me vow iqlnn [birch tree, ] from LebanonLet me vow tendons from wild bullsLet me vow horns from wild goatsSinews from the locks of bulls."

The shape of the composite bow is well illustrated in many monuments. Twobasic rypes are in evidence: the triangular bow and the recurved bow. Both arecarried by Semites bearing votive offerings as depicted on a wall painting of ther yth century (195). The triangular bow is a shallow isosceles, with a wide-angledpeak of about 120 degrees and the angles formed by the string and the ends of thearms each 30 degrees. Some good illustrations of this bow are to be seen in theThutmose IV chariot reliefs, both in the hands of Pharaoh himself and in those ofhis enemies (193) and in the wall paintings on pages 195 and 199.

The recurved composite bow is easily recognized by the tendency of its armsto curve away from the string near its ends when it is not drawn, and even whenit is, as the bow of Rameses II well shows (240-241). The composite how wasliable to be damaged by changes of weather, among other reasons, and so, like theviolin, it was frequently kept in a special case. Such bow cases were fitted to theside of the chariot and the bow remained there when not in use. These cases, too,offer additional testimony to the extensive use of the triangular composite bow.A detail from the wall painting of the tomb ofKenamon (199) shows one of thesecases being carried by an arms-bearer. It is the same shape as the bow, a shallowisosceles triangle. A similar case is depicted in the relief from Deir el-Bahri (185).Several illustrations, notably the wall painting from the tomb of Nebamon (210),show that it was easy to open-from the top--to allow the bow to be quicklywithdrawn and put into operation. Other cases appear on pages 192, 196, 215,and 216.

The arrows usually had a body made of reed. This was an ideal substance,strong, pliant, easy to shape and to receive the arrowhead and tail-feathers. Manyarrows of reed were found in Egypt in a good state of preservation. This materialis also mentioned in the Ugarir text referred to earlier. Following his undertakingto Anat, which we have quoted, to send her materials for the bow, Aqhat goes onto promise special reeds from a place noted for the excellence of its specimens. Thecommon use of the reed for this purpose also finds substantiation in the word forarrow in Nuzi. It is "reed."

The arrowhead for battle was generally of bronze. In this period it was ratherthick in the middle and had a spine, either protuberant or flat. This is explicable bythe prevalent use at this time of the coat of mail which could be penetrated onlyby a spined or ribbed arrowhead. Much effort went into fashioning the thickportion of the head, between its rear part and the beginning of its tang. This 81

Th e archers were long-range warri ors and fought at times with the slingmen. W~ ;>In the Egyptian monuments fro m the Ne w Kingd om, the sling appears only at the -7 ~ ,beginning of the X'Xth Dynasty . W e shall have mo re to say about the function ofthe bow in barrle when we discuss tactics and methods of warfare.

82

TH E PE RIO D OF THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT

thickening prevented the arrowhea d from being pushed into its teed body andsplieting it on impact with the target. Th is was, of course, essential fa t comba tagainst armo r. Th e aim of more eriecrive penetration of arm or also found expres­sion in the manufactur e ofan iron arrowhead, but it was very rare. One was foundin Egypt, belon ging to the beginning of the qth century, the perio d of Amen­horep III.

The arrows wer e generally carried in a quiver. It was long and cylindrical andmade of leather (198, center). To make it easier for the archer to carry, it had ashoulder m ap (198, right). Alrhou gh quivers were titted to chariots, somecharioteers also carried additional quivers on their shou lders (186, 187, 2I-l-2 I5,216- 217). Each quiver held between twenty -five and thi rty arrows. Thi s we knowspecifically from the Nuzi documents of the 15th century. In one docu ment,lisringmilitary equipment, we fmd the follow ing : "5 leather qui vers, 30 arrows ineach"; " . . . T otal 7 leather quivers , 178 arrows placed in them."

Th e operation of the compos ite bow requir ed strenuo us training . The archerhad to develo p his muscles, acquire the correct stance, learn to hold the arrowcorrec tly while drawing rhe bow. For this purp ose special practice ranges wereestablished. Th e instructors would stand behind the trainees and correct theirposition and aim. Traini ng would begin on the simple bow (201, bottom right )and lead up to the composite weapo n (201, bott om left). The left forearm -thebow arm-was bound with a special leather guard to prot ect it from the Sllap ofthe string on release (192, J99, 2J5, and 240). T he range targets were rectangularboards of wood fixed to a bar. For testing a particularly strong bow wi th greatpower of penetra tion, a target board of crude copper was used. Here is a contem­porary boasting report of practice firing by Pharaoh Thurmose 1II which show shis strength and skill:

"H e shot an ingot of copper, every shaft being split like a reed. T hen HisMaj esty pllt a sample there in the House of Amon, being a tatg et of wor ked copperof three fingers in thickness, wi th his arrow therein. W hen it had passed throughit, he made three palms come alit of the back of it [i.c., about 25 centime ters ofthe arrow protruding from the back of rhe rarger]."

The system of training on the rang es and the siting of the targets is describedin the teport on the prowess of another Pharaoh, Am enliorep II, son of Thut­mose Ill. T his shows tha t stress was laid in the Iraining of chariot archers on firin gwit h the horses at full gallop. Th is is also depicted on illustrated monuments suchas 1.00 :

" He [rhe king] entered into his north ern garden and found that there had beenset up for him four targets of Asiatic copper of one palm in their thickn ess, withtw em y cubits betw een one POStand its fellow. T hen His Majesty appeared in achariot like Mont u [the god of war] in his power. He grasped his bow and grippedfour ar row s [see page 2001 at the same rime. So he rode northward, shootingat them like Montu in his regalia. His arrow s had come out of the back thereofwh ile he was attacking another post. It was really a deed which had never been

J

iIi

Ij.,1

III

I

15 70 -1 2 00 B .C .

done nor heard of by report : shoo ting ar a targer or coppe r an arro w which cameout of it and dropp ed to the ground. . . ."

PERSO NAL PR OTE CTI O N

Th e shield unde rwent considerable changes during the period of rhe NewKingdom in Egypt-the Late Bronze period in the o ther lands of the Bible-forarmor and the helmet were already in wide use. This prom pted far-r eachingmodifications in the shape and size of the shield. It becam e smaller and smaller asthe coat of mail and the helmet became more and more eriecrive.

But there were differences in the types of shield used in Egypt, Palestine,Syria, and Anatolia and the shields of the Sea Peoples of the Egyptian armi esdur ing the XIXth D ynasty in the r jrh century. The Egyptian shield throughou tthe period of the New Kingd om is comparatively small. Its top is rounded and isslightly wider than its base, which is straight. This suggests that it was designedprimarily to protect the face and the upper part of the body. This shape remainsvirtually unchanged, with on ly minor modifications throughout the New Kingdom.

The shields were made of woo d and covered with leather (202- 203). In thei j rh century, the top part of the shield protecting the face is strengthened wi tha metal disk. Th e loop or strap could be length ened to enable the shield to becarried on the back. Th is was very practical in operations against a for tified city(228), both in scaling the ladders and breaching the gate.

The light circular shield was used in the Egyptian arm y exclusively by theSea Peoples (229). Th ese troops were well armo red; their basic weapons wese thelong sword and spear. Thi s shield was parti cularly well suited to hand- to-handcombat, and did not encumb er movement .

The Canaanite, Palestinian, and Syrian shields may have followe d the tradi­tion of the old Sumerian pattern. wh ich was conceivably popula r in this region.We have no actual shields found at excavations. But we know the rype of shieldsused by the Palestinian and Syrian warr iors tor they are represented on illustratedEgyptian monuments. T he mo st important for our purp oses is the relief on thechario t of Thutmose IV from the 15th century (192-193). Th e shields here arcrectangular, and are apparently no larger than 60 by 30 centimeters. It is possiblethat they were slightly convex. T here are two rypes. On e is made of plaited reeds(192) atid the oth er of wood covered with leather studd ed wi th numerous me taltacks and disks, both for added protection and for decoration (193, 199, top right).There are somewhat similar illustrations of Semit ic shields on the painted side panelof the chest from the tomb of Tu tankhamun from the rr rh crn tllry (216- 217) as

The Shield

A Iyp;lil! E.I:Yl',io1l , sl,it'!,J

(lItheSlOW Kjl~':llom

A nllo,

TH E I'EIU O D O F TH E SOJO U R N IN E G Y P T

against the round-topped shields of the warriors in the Egyptian army withwhom they ate seen locked in battle.

The Canaanite shields depicted in the reliefs of Seti I (231) and Rameses II(where the Canaanites are fighting together with th~ Hittites) are also oblong. Butwe fmd a radical change beginning with the r jth ce ntury when both the roundand the rectangular shields appear on the battlefield. W e find the round shield inthe hands not only of a warrior from the city of Ashkelon (228) but also of thefighters depicted in the Megiddo reliefs. In the Megiddo illustrations. some areshown equipped with a sickle sword and carrying a round shield on their back(206-207). some carry an axe and a round shield (2.p ), and some a spear and asimilar shield (2.B ). There is no doubt that this shield was introduced into theCanaanite armies under the influence of the Sea Peoples who made their appearancein this part of the world precisely at this time.

Th e Hittite shield was quite different from all theothers. and is well illustratedin the Rarneses relief of the Battle of Kadesh (see figur e on page 88) . It is shapedlike a rough figure 8, round and wide at the top and bott om and narrow at thewaist. broadly following the lines of the human body, T he Hit tite chariots wereused for short-range combat, and this perhaps explains the form of their shield. Forir gave protection to the whole body, yet was reasonably lighr by virtue of itsnarrowness at the center.

Th e coat of mail is the outcome of the advancement of the bow and thechariot to extensive use. Th e charioteer and the archer were the only warriors whorequired both hands to operate their battle instruments. and so lacked the means ofpro tecting their body wit h a shield. At the beginning. the archer, even wieldingrhe simple bow, was in large measure protected by distance. since he was out ofrange of enemy missiles. But with the development and wider use of the comp ositebow . this military advantage was neutralized. It wasofcourse possible to solve theproblem for the archer and the charioteer by means of the special shield-bearer.And this method was indeed adopted in later periods. For the chariot it meant theaddition of a third man-driver. archer. plus bearer-which put a heavy strain onthe light vehicle. Despite this, the system was prevalent among the Hittites. Butthe search for the ideal solution persisted. It was found in the coat ofmail. wit h irsmetal scales. hard , reasonably light , and flexible. It was expensive. and not allarmies could afford it. Even large armies could no t afford to armor all the men inevery unit . Th ey laid down priorities. Top of the priori ty list were the archers andthe charioteers.

As the bow and the chariot became more and more commo n in the LateBronze period. so did the coat of mail. Thutmose III records. for example, that inthe Battle of Megiddo he took more than 200 coats of mail as war booty. Aninstructive illustration of the use of this type of armo r by the Canaanite charic tdrive rs is to be found in the Th urmose IV chariot relief (192. 196, top). Here wesec how the driver wore his scaled armor. It covered his body and the top part ofhis arms almost to the elbow. His neck, too , is protected by a leather collarstiffened by pieces of metal.

1 5 7 0 -1 2 0 0 B .C.

Th e Egyptian artist also points up the weak spotS of the coat of mail byshowing an arrow stuck in to the driver at the armpi t. at the join of the sleeve tothe bod y of the coat. (Compare this with I Kings 22: 34: " And a cerrain man drewa bow at a venture. and smote the king of Israel between the joints and (of] thearmo r. . ..") This relief also shows in detail the shape of the scales. They are largelyreccJnguh r, with the bottom edge fashioned into a point , and they have a protu­berant spine down the center. A well-preserved part of an earlier coat of mail.found at Nuzi (196. bottom), has a row of scales in one section which are roundedat one side. From this relic we learn that me scales were not of even size. Theyvaried according to their position on the coat. The smallest ones were 64- milli­meters long and 36 millimeters wide; the intermediate were 101 by 4-5 millimeters;and the largest. 118 by 63 millimeters. Their average thickness was 2 millimeters.

By comparison, the scales of the coats of mail found at Thebes in the palaceof Amenhorep III (197. bott om ) come to a point at the bottom and arc Il 5 milli­meters in length . Armor with precisely this type of scale is excellent ly illustratedin complete form in the wall painting from the tomb of Kcnamon in the reign ofAmcnhorep II (197, top).

These large scales must have been very heavy, and in time improvementswere effected and the scales made smaller. A coat with small scaleswas worn byRarneses II at the Battle of Kadesh (24<>-241).

Since the ancient artists often depicted the scales simply in painting, wh ichwears off in time. their apparem absence from many reliefs was interpreted bysome as indicating that the coat of mail was not widely used. But the Battle ofKadesh wall painting (237). whose colors were apparently well preserved whenthe copy was made, shows that even the Hitt ite charioteers wo re similarly scaledarmored clothing .

The coat ofmail in the Kenamon wall painting has about 450 large scales. Thearmor of Thutmose IV's enemies (196. top) had a similar number- or slightly less.Details on the number of scales per coat are given in the equipmentlists from theNuzi archives. Large and small scales are itemized separately. The text of onetablet deals. for example, with four coats of mail. One is listed as having 400 largescales and 280 small scales-c-oso in all. Another has a total of I ,035 scales.The coatswere thus of different sizes and different quality. Th e bigger and better the coat,the larger the number of small scales.

The method of attaching the scales to the garment of leather or cloth is alsowell seen in the armor found in N uzi, Egypt. Palestine, and Syria. The scales weresewn on to the garment wi th strong thread which passed through tiny holespunctured in each scale-usually three at the top . two at the botto m, and two atone side. But the numbe r and position of the holes varied from one type of armorto another. And they were also suited to the part ofthe body the scale was to cover.

These details serve to underline the two weaknesses of the coat of mail: irsweight and its complicated manufacture.

The helmet, too, was in extensive use by warriors in the Late Bronze period . The Helme:Those worn by some of the enemy chariot drivers in the Th utmose IV chariot

T H E P ERIO D O F THE SOJ O URN IN EG YPT 15 70 - [ 20 0 B . C.

would cover about halfway up to the tlrighs ofthe charioteer. The leather coveringhas not been preserved, bur from wall paintings of rhe period. we see that thewhole of the front and the bottom part of the sides of the body were so covered.The axle-rod is 6 centimeters thick at the center and its length between the wheelsis 1'23 mcrers-e-aj centimeters longer than the wid th of the body . so- that theclearance of each wheel from the side of the body was II'S centimeters. Th e totallength of the axle-rod is 1'53 meters, for it extended beyond eachwheel by IS centi­meters. Making the axle-rod so much longer than the width of the body gave thechariot greater stability on sharp turns. The wheels had four spokes whose thick­ness near the cenrer reached 4 centimeters.

The chariot pole is 2'5 meters long. its hind end attached to the rear barof the body frame and running under the body. giving additional strength to anotherwise frail structu re. It is 6'7 centimeters at its thickest point . As it emergesfrom rhc underside of the body, it is attached to the top part of the vehicle's frontby leather thongs. All wall paintings of chariots seem to make a point of showingthis (186, 187, 189). The yoke is shaped like a double-convex bow and is attachedto the forward end of the pole by nails. The yoke in all its detail is port rayed withminute accuracy also on the Canaanite chariot depicted on the wall painting fromthe tomb of Rekhmire in Th ebes showing Canaanites bearing gifts (189). TheFlorence chariot reveals how much thought and effort went into the making ofa chariot and how each part required its own special wood. The pole, for example,was made ofelm, the tires of pine; the binding of the spokes and other partsof thebody was done with strips of birch. Everything was planned to make the vehiclelight. flexible, and strong. And, indeed, several illustrated monuments depict gift­bearers carrving a chariot on their back-which shows that it must have beenvery light.

Th roughout most of the t yrh century the Egyptian chariot is still almostidentical with the Canaanite, and the axle-rod, though well to the rear, is not yetflush with the rear of the body (190). Bur starting with the reign of Thutm ose IV,at theend ofthe 15th celltury, the Egyptian chariot begins ro shake off' its Canaaniteinfluence and undergo considerable change.

Thutrnose N chariot's body bears ;eliefs on both sides (192- 193). From thesereliefs we sec clearly that the chariot is now heavier and its wheels have not fourbur eight spokes. This sudden doub ling of spokes was apparently an experimentwhich was not successful. f or with the reign of Amenhotep lII, we fmd theEgyptian chariot fitted with six-spoke wheels (t90, 210, z r t , 212, 213, 215, 216,2]2,235, 240). So widespread and meticulous is the delineation of ihe number ofwhee spokes on chariots depicted on Egyptian monuments that they can be usedas J criterion for determining whether the monument is earlier or later than'400 H.C .

Excellent examples from which we learn the trend ofchariot measurements inthe second half of the 14th century are those of T urankhamun, The vehicle is1'25 meters high and I '02 meters wide. The axle-rod from wheel to wheel is 1'75meters. The width of the body was thus four-sevenths of the length of the rod, andthis must have given ir great stability on turns. The diameter of the wheels.is

i

i

IIj!1I

IIf

.. Ifj

fI

MOB ILITY

relief (192- 193) are slightly pointed and cover the ears and the forehead up to theeyebrows. This meta) headgear must have become very hot in battle, and so it wascovered by some insulating material, which was also decorative. Some helmets,for example, had long feathers stuck to the crown, their points meeting at the top.their broad porti ons fanned and covetin g the metal. Some were overlaid with acloth-piece, or cloth strips. And some had a tassel attached to the crown andknotted at the back like a plait. Such a helmer. albeit with well-defined ear-shields,is worn by the warrior carved in rhe relief on the gate jamb at Boghazkiiy (222,top). Egyptian warriors also wo re helmets, especially in assault. These, like theircoats of mail, were quite expensive, and it is presumably because of their value thathelmets are often depicted in Egyptian wall paintings in rhe hands of Semitesbearing gifts. Th e piercing axe, a universal weapon in this period, was primarilydesigned against this metal helmet.

As the means ofsecurity reached the point where they matched the means offirepower, mobility became the decisive factor in battle. And so as armor and thehelmet on the one hand and the composite bow on the other both achieved highstandards of development, the chariot assumed a more significant place on thebatt lefield.

The Chariot Th e chariot reached Egypt from Canaan. This is also borne out by the factthat Egyptian terms for the chariot and horses are borr owed from the Canaanite.Moreover, the Egyp tian chariot in the first half of the XV IIlth Dynasty is exactlylike the Canaanite chariot. Thi s is seen in wall paintings which often depictCanaanites bearing chariots as votive gifts to the Egyptian royal court.

Our sources of information on the chariot in the Late Bronze period arc richand varied. Th ey comprise wall paintings, reliefs, remains of actual chariots, andliterary descriptions, from which ir is possible to reconstruct, down to the lastdetail, the shape of the chariot, its measurements, the materials from which it wasmade, irs crew, horses, armament, and the way it was used in battle. .

Chariots in the 16th and 15th centuries were light. Th ey had two wheels, eachoffour spokes. The body had a woo den frame partly covered with leather or someother light material, and was harnessed to two horses. In order to understand thechanges in developm ent of the chariot during this period , it is well to give detailedstudy to this Canaanite-Egyptian type at the beginning of the period. A goodexample for our study is the chariot found in Egypt and now in the FlorenceMuseum , from the Early XVlllth Dynasty in the 15th century (19t) . It wasapparently made in Canaan and brought to Egypt either as war boory or as a gift.

Thi s chariot has three main elements: the body, the wheels, and the pole andyoke. The body has a woo den frame. From a side view the body looks like aquadrant, one radius forming the upright front , the other radius forming the

fl. re-fl,t -) horizontal base with its rear resting on the axle, and the arc forming the back. ItsD. L J . base is 1 meter WIde and i meter deep. It is 75 centimeters high in front-which

C~,,(/CH e.5"cnbeJ.86

The Hinuc chariots ill theBattle of

KdJesh U'Or the i l lJ WIfOCY (1f Jhis

Jrf1ll' ''t~~ set' page 1}9. WI/om, where

tilt' II'/H'c'/S /'.1 1'( six spokesand

not eight)

92 centimeters and the len gth of the pole is 2' 56 'm eters. The pole, as wi thCanaani te and other Eg yptian chari ots , runs und er the bod y and gives it additionalsupport. This chariot is depicted in action in the splendid paint ings on th e wood enchest found in rhe tomb of T Ulank ham un (21 4-2 IS. 2. 1~217) ,

The E gy ptian chariot in the r jth century remains vi rt ually un changed , havingappa rently reached peak qua lity in the 14th. T his is evident from the superb reliefshowing Rarnese s II chargin g th rou gh th e Hitti te a'rm y, his bow at the draw

(24?-241). T he single difference seems to be tha t in thi s century, the side of thevehicle is fitte d with a special quiver for hurling j avelins (240) in addition to thebow case and arrow quiver. We can identi fy th e type of the se javelins, of whi chw e shall hav e mo re to say when we come to the chap ter on Goliath.

In Ca naan itself the chariot, which m ade its im pact on th e Egyptian vehicl e,developed in much the sam e way as th e Egypt ian . But fro m the XVIllth Dynasty,when Eg ypt gained dominion over Canaan, the Canaanites ceased to be their ownmasters in the m anufacture of chariots , and a certa in decline set it. However, the

influence now seem s to be in the reverse direction , with Canaanite chariot s, begin­ning wi th the 14th cent ury, following the Egyptian patt ern . They becom e heavierand their wheels have six spo kes. O n the ot her hand , since they appare ndy did notsucceed in developing a light eno ug h bod y, the axle-ro d is positioned und er thecente r and not at the rear ed ge of the bod y, so as not to put too heavy a str ain onth e horses (20~207) . As a result , the chariot lost a good part ofits m aneuverabili ty

on the fast tum. This difference betw een the Canaani te and E gyptia n chariots iswell underlin ed in the T urankham un pain ting (2 1~2 1 7) .

The Hittite char iot is known to us on ly from the Rarneses II reliefs portrayingthe Batt le of Kadesh. It is difficult to be specific about it, for the Hit ti te for ces werea coalition of several peoples . Th e reliefs sho w a number of chariots whose axle-rodpasses und er the cente r of the body; others sho w a m uch taller case. Bur in somecases (as in 239), th ere is no apparent distinc tion between the Hi tti te and Egyptiancha riots . Both have the rod at the rear edge of the body base. It is of course

impossible to determi ne the measure of accuracy of the Egypt ian artists in this case.For differences are shown in the various shapes of Hitt ite chariot portrayed

on other reliefs in vario us tem ples. At all event s. it would seem that the Hit titechario t did have the axle-rod under the cente r and not the rea r, for we know thatit carried a crew of th ree, w hich w ould have ma de it too heavy for a rear axle.

In action , the Egyptian, Canaanite, and Hitti te chariots we re harnessed to tw o

horses. Bur the proportion of horses to chario ts captu red in battle, which we see

fI

II

IfiI!I!I

III!~iIiI

iI

!

III

KIIiiii

1570-1200 tl .L ,

quite often from the wri tten records, was th ree to one. This suggests th at the full

eumplement was th ree horses per chari o t, two committed and one in reserve ,unharnessed. In a later period , in the 9th century. the th ird ho rse was also occa­SIOnally harne ssed to the vehicle, as we shall see late r. T he hor se was o ften prot ected

in bat t le by special armo r which cover ed its back.The delicate and precise struc ture of the chariot demanded special workshops

for its manufacture. From E gyptian wa ll paintings (202) we see th e process,which seem s to follow the assemb ly-line pa tte rn. One group makes the rim , ano ther

thespokes,another assembles the wheel. O the r groups are conce rned wi th the wo odenpartS of the vehicle, some making th e body, others the pole, o the rs the axle- rod .Som e arc seen fitting th e leather and the accessories, like qui vers and bow cases.

On e of the big probl em s was m aintenance. Th e chario t had to be kept in goodro ud irion on the march , in batt le, and afterward. W heels and other part s o f th ew hick would break. Th ey had to be chang ed , strengthened , o r repaired . T o meetthis need, special repair wo rkshops were established , even alon g specific ro utes, and

eq uipment stores for spare partS were pur up at appropriate places. Thus we readin one of the letters sent to the Gov ernor of T a'anach in the 15th centu ry (accord­

ing to Albright' s translation) :

"I was ambushed in Gurra; so give me this day two chario t wheels and anaxle and two. , . , And when the making of the axle has been comp leted , send

it to I11C••••"

SeveralImportant documentswhich relate to the subject of maintenance we refmmd ill the royal archiv es of U garit . They record the nu mber of chariots br oughtinto the workshops for repa ir , and the state of their condi tion: O ne , fo r exa mple,

says that eight chari o ts were brou ght in to fie King' 5 palace, complete wi th theirwheels, po les, and harness. But " two chariots are wi tho ut quivers," The documen t '

. goes <In to say that three pain ofwheels and one pole were taken for repa ir to the"dJ icl' artifi cer," nam ely,' to the perso n in charge of the workshops. .

A rather amusing and interesting chronicle of the exper iences of an Eg ypt ian

courier dn ving his chario t in the land of Cana an appears in one o f the Eg yp tianpap yri. He starts wi th an account of how the knaves of Jaffa sabo taged hi s vehicl e

while he 'u s asleep :

" A cow ard steals thy bow, th y dagg er , and thy qu iver. T h y reins are cut inthe dark ness. Thy hor se is gone and statt s a cuna way ov er th e slippery ground, asthe road str etches our before him . He smashes thy chario t... . T h y wea pons havefallen 10 the grou nd . .. ."

After this comes a descr ipt ion of the chario t-repair workshop in Jaffa:

" Thou art introduced into the arm ory, and workshops surround thee. Crafts­men and leather wor kers are close bv thee, and thcv do all tha t thou hast desired .

Th ey take care of thy chario t. so that it ceases t~ be loose. Th y pole is new ly

trimm ed. its att achments are applied . T hey put bindings on thy coll ar- piece.. , .They fix up thy yoke . . .. T hou goest forth quickly to figh t , to accomplish deeds"f L"ro islll ."

90

The Fortificatiolls

I r 11::: l ' r:::l\ l V LJ ,-J r i rr n ~LlJUUKI'I 11'1 .l::: G Y I' I

Th ere were of course also mob ile wor kshops for rhe repai r of wea pons andchariots on the march and in battle, One such workshop is depicted in the reliefsho wing the camp of Rameses II at the Battle of Kadesh (236-237). At the sideof the camp (236, top panel) we see rhe artifi cer repairin g a chario t pole, assistedby two apprentices.

\Ve mentioned earlier that different parts of the chariot were made ofdifferent wood-cach suited to the function of the part . Th e woods had thereforeto be bro ugh r from diflerent places, and the written doc um ents specify geographicregions (like the area of Beth-shan) in Palestine and Syria which we re known forthe qu aliry of tree that was just right for a particular part .

Incidentally, chariots were not the on ly wheeled vehicles used by rhe armiesof this period . T hey also had rransport vehicles to carry equipment and supplies forthe fighring men. From the reliefs of the Bat tle of Kadesh, we sec rhar borh theHitti te and the Egy prian armies had qu ite a nu mber of such wagons hitched todr aft animals. T he Hittite wago ns we re four-wheelers and were certainl y heavierthan the two- wh eeled Egy ptian types (236- 237, center ). Th ey look like largebo ilers with a ro unde d lid. Supplies were also carr ied by pack asses.

METH O DS OF ASSAULT ON FORTIFIED CITIES

MoS!of the cities of the Late Bronze period were:est.blished on the city siresof the previous period. Where th e fortifi cation s of the earlier settlements werecompletely destro yed , new fort ificat ions we re bui lt. Where they had been onlypartially demolished . they were repaired and renova ted. W here rhey had remainedundamaged. they were taken ove r for use in this later period. This is the case, Ibelieve. wi th the celebrated.wall ofJericho, wirh its stone glacis, referr ed to earlier- the very "walls ofJericho" mentioned in the Biblical description of the conquestby Joshu; . For altho ugh its bo tto m part is certainly Middl e Bronze, it was so solidthat if the wall had been damaged in the roth century - that is, ar the end ofMiddleBronze II- only the " pper pari would have been afleeted , the part buil t of brick,and this was prob ably renovared in the Late Bron ze period . It w ou ld be idle ro goon searching lor anot her wall from the tim e of Joshua. or to seck to ascribe itsabsence to erosion. Thi s, I believe. is the wa ll of Joshua's Jericho .

W e lind evidence in other cities of this period in Palestine, Egyp t, and Syriathar earlier fortific at ions continued in use, eirher as they were or wi th partialreconstruction. O ccasionally some serious change was' introduced. In Hazar, forexample, the earlier wall of the large lower city remained . Its gates were rebuilron rhc same sire and afrer the same parrern as the original. Th e chang e they mayhave made is rhe construction in some places of stone walls or isolated lowers onrop of the earth ramparts which protected the city from the west and no rth. InMegiddo , roo, the four-chambcred city gate , built at the end of the Middl e Bronzeperiod . remained standing.

,\Vh~r", .. the earlier fcrrificatious..hadbeenruined.torwhere their design nolonger wet tj;~ ~~~ds ofthe new Late Bronze city , nei, fortifications were built.

15 7 0 - [20 0 B , C .

An instructive example of the impressive fo rtifications of this Late Bron ze periodin Palestine is the well-preserved "o ut er wall" of Gezer; It encompasses rhe entirearea of the rell and is buil r of huge stone bo ulders-Ir is 4 meters th ick and in sorne «

I ocs it has rema ined sranding to a height oht meters. It has severa l rectangularp a II'"bastions. which protrude both from the inner and exteri or surfaces of the w a .They arc more than JO meters long and their-corners are strengthened by q uarried ,stone. Some were built at the some time as the wa ll, others were added later .

The fort ress of Buhcn , whos e design in the Midd le Bronze period wasdescnbed in detail earlier, also had its character changed in this later period, and

it now has walls with squote bastions .But the ' finest example of Lore Bronze city forrifi carions are undoubtedly'

those of Hattussas, capital of the Hittites in Anatolia, now called Bo ghazkcy. Hereone can readily discern the innovations of the Late Bronze period , for this city W3S

builr anew in stages at the rime of the Hittite Empire over an incomparably greater 'area than it> predecessor .el rs system of fort ifications is therefore o riginal, and isclearly characteristic of the period . It is one of the largest cities of this time whosefortifications are well preserved . It also offers an insight into the engmeermg skillsof the period. For it is bui lt on hilly ground. with different sections at diflerentlevels, and the fort ification s had ro be suited to the prevailing topographic condi­tions. They show all the features of a perfect system.

Tbe city at this period comprised three basic elements; (a) The acropolis or'citadel, known in Turkish as Bliytik KaIe-"the .great citadel "~built on a hillabove the west bank of a deep rav ine. Its measurements are I SO by ·250 meters.(b) Th e lower city , lying northwest of the citadel, between two ravin es, measuring"about r ,ooo by 500 meters. «) T he large upper city, built to the south of the 'citadel and lower city on grOlmd which rises steadily southward. It is 1.400 by ~

1,100 meters ; The overall length of the city complex, lower and upper , fromnorth to south reaches 2 ,000 meters.

Tu understand the essent ial charac ter of the Hatt ussasf orrification s ir mus t beremembered rhar the three comp onents of the ciry were no t bu ilt at the same time.The oradd is the earliest, and was built largel y in the first half of the secondnullennium . The lower city forrifications belong mainly to the 15th century, The 'large upper city was bui lt at the beginning of the14th century or later, and showsthe YOSt expansion of this settlemen t at a time when th e Hittit e . Empire w as infull blossom . It also shows the migh ty efforts of the Hittite kin g, Suppiluliumas, ,tu include 'wi thin the overall fortifications the commanding high ground to .

the south 'of the lower ciry. ,Th e fearur es of the terra in, the hills and the river­beds, necessitated the construction of this new wall whose perim eter approximatedto 4 kilome ters! Add 10 this the 2 kilom eters of outer wall round the lower cityand rhe citadel, and we have a total of 6 kilometers of wall which had to be

defend ed by the qth-I3th-eentury inhabitants of Hatrussas. 'The part of the lower city wall which has rem ained is mo stly the southern

sect ion. It is built on a high eart h ramp.rt and is a double wall , of the casematetype, its outer "skin" being 3 meters thick. the inner skin 2 '7 meters, and the spacebetween 2'1 meters, giving the wall an efiecrive thickness of some 8 meters,

Planof Bog/lazkoy- Halflw ,1S- the

capital ojthc Hittites. C,'wr"l right:

the citadel. Top Idi: the l,)wf?r city.

Below,' the tlpprrcity

91

SOOm

t

..

Tht' King's G,ut'4B,'gha.z1.,:{l'y wilh

Iht' li ly 11'0111and temples

THE PER IOD O F T H E SOJ O U RN INfE G Y PT;1-,

Rectan gu lar bastions or rowers had been built on the o uter surface of the wall;>some small, con taining one chamber, and some large, up to ' 15 meters wi de,':containin g two chambers. .. t

At the foot of the rampart, six posterns had ~built leading in to thelower ..city. Their length was the width o f the rampart fl:itli base-some 50 meters.',Ceilin g and wails Were ofnone, which had then in tfun been covered with earth. 'Wi th the construction of the upper city in the later period, these posternsserved as .useful throughw ays to it from the lower city and saved the inha bitants the need to

.usc the more distant main gates. B ut since they had been bui lt before the up percity, their main function must have been part of the fortification design of thelower city . The suggestion ' has been made that they w ere conceived as hidden ,'corrido rs through wh ich a counterattack could be launched against an attacking ,force. But this is hardly acceptable, for the runnel exits could very we ll be seen by 'the enemy ; It is most pro bable that they wer e indeed used for actio n agains t anassaulting group, bu t not to hide their movem ent. Rather was it to enable the'defenders to make sorties at the moment' when th.t enemy were beginning to

", /lIIp.!/;. or to enable them to engage the enem y in o pen barrle outside the citywalls while receiving strong cover ing fire from their comrades on the for midabletowers on both sides of each post ern gate. ;

These post erns were ofcourse additional weak spot s in the system offor tifica­tions. But their considerable lengt h, their narrownessj and the protection affordedby the flanking towers made the task of pcnerrarion by a hostile o utside for ceexcessively difficult . ;

Posterns are a typical featu re of the' fortificatio~ in Anatolia. One w as dis- '.,covered in Alaca H irytik, belon ging to the MiddlejBr onze period, 50 mete rslong. Here, too , its additional purpose was to afford ~ge to the inhabitants in 1.

and out of the city at times of emergency when the gates were closed. It was sitedbetw een the two ciry gates which were 700 meters apar t. A superb pos tern was .,discovered at U garir, belonging to the Late Bronze peri od and certainly built on ,".the pattern of the .Hittite tunnels, At Boghazkoy irse)f, a very large postern was, .found in the fortifications of the upper city> ;

T hese fortifications ofthe upper 14th-13th-eenrurrcity are the most powerfulof the.entire complex.And though similar to those of the lower city , their plan andthe quality of their construction are mo re ad vanced. Here, too (225, bottom) , theyare bui lt on a very high and wide ramp art . T hey comprise two wails: the ma in,wall. and , at a distance of 8' 5 meters, an outer wall. TJ#s o uter wall is also built on 'a rampart, and is 1 m eter thick. It is srren grhened 11 rectangular bastions, built ~ ;

at a distance of 30 ineters from each other and set ex:d:cly between the towers on > ,.

the main w all. Th is mai n w all, like the wall of the lower city. isa do uble-casemate ., ,

stru cture, its o uter skin 1·6 meters thick, its inner skin 1' 4 me ters, and the spacebetw een them I ' 5 Ine.ren , gi\~ng it II overal l thi ckness of more than 4 meters. 'Irs f(lnn idabj~' qUJliri:' apm from the (litter wa ll, deAved from the considerable 'number ;' f towers (no t bastions ) built into it. T bet were 8 meters wid e and "protruded outward som e 5'.5 meters. Its lower section, tOO, was fIlled with earth 'and stones between t he skins. And it w as upo n this flat!.llurf2ce tha t the upper waH ·

fKI

II!

structure of brick was built, mos t probably with casemates. ,T he casema tes were(00 narrow to serv e as storeho uses or dwel ling-chamb ers. Th ey wer e used aspaSS:l geways for the troops at the low em brasures which were cut into them , asillustrated on the wall rd iefs (sec figure on r1iis page). Through these emb rasures.the ,k f,'nd ers could engage those of the enemy who had succeeded in breachingthe outer wall and had rcached the area which was "d ead ground" to the soldiets011 top of the main wall.

Th e top of the rampart, parti cularly in the tegion of the gates, was coveredwith Idtge polygonal stones. Most im pressive were the two main city gates them­sclves-i-rh e southeastern King', Gate (~4) and the southwestern Lions' Gate(225. rop), Bot h were similar in plan. T hey fonned a " gate citadel" between themain and outer wal ls which comprised two long towers, and en trance to the citywas th rough the passage between the rowers, Thi s passage had two gateways, adouh ll' doo r at each, an outer one near the outer wal l and an inne r on e near themain \\".,1 1. Th e jamb s of each gateway we re hu ge vaulted stone pillars. T he outerdam s .rpparenrly opened inward and the inner doors ou twa rd. The gate wasr".Khnl by an oblique sloping path or ram p w hich exposed hostile users to fire{rolll the tow ers and bastions of the mai n and ou ter walls. In fron t of the gate was3 leveled open " square."

The Lions ' Gate gets its name from the lion car ved in high relief on each of '. West Gal' 4 B,'ghazkdy (sw io,, )

T HE PE RIO D O F THE SOJ O UR N IN EGYPT 15 7 0 -1 2 00 B . C .

Plan (Jf lho! gatesof B,'ghazkciy.

~1b..)f>e: The Kittg' j Gate

Below: The Liom' Gat(

The postern at Yerleapu, Bogl/tJzkiiy.

A view ,"rough the poslfm. A section

lhrou,~h the postern andthe walls

95

Water Supplyunder Siege

out wbar they looked like , we must have recourse to the illustrated monuments ofthe period. Fortunately there are man y Egyptian reliefs which depict cities whicb ..were attacked or conquered by the pharaohs of the XIXth Dynasty . Incidenta lly, .Seri I and Rarneses II fo ught much in Canaan, In these battl es, nuny cities certainlysuriered destruction. an occurrence which is substantiated by archaeologicalexcavations. As a result, the fortifications of cities of the J j th cent ur y were greatlyweakened. Where a city had been cap tur ed, no new fort ifications were con­structed. The earlier ones were either repaired . often in a slapdash manne r, orreJl1 ained untouched, in ruin. T his may exp lain w hy the tr ibes of Israel, und er theleadership of Joshua, were able to conque r some of these cities.

Th e pharaoh s never conquered Hat tussas. And so there is no Egyptian reliefwh ich illustrates its fort ifications. But reliefs show ing o ther cities tell us muchabo u t the upper struc tures of their fortificatio ns and arc also instructive, byinference. about cities like Hartussas.

Most of the reliefs depict the captured cities in the stand ard for m , present ingthem as twa-story structur es (228, 230, 2]2) . In the main, the intention is assured lyto show an elevation view of the high inner citadel , or acropolis, and the mainwall. Sometimes the ar tist manages to depict also the out er wall (229) , as in theHarrussas fortific ations.

The reliefs suggest tha t the gates in Canaan were not vaulted, as in Hattussas,

but were rectangular. One can discern. in some of the reliefs, the embrasures andwin dows ill the wall (229). T his testifies to an uppe r structure of casemates. Thebalconi es on the tow ers and bastions, who se vital function we have discussedearlier. are shown with the utmost clarity in all the reliefs. And this is also tru e o fthe batrlcmen ts on the outer wall, the main wall, and the bu ildin gs of theacro po lis.

A special type of fortification of this period were the ",igJols. T hese weresmall citadels built to guard such important military objectives as wells andcommunications. They, roo . appear on some reliefs. A migdol of this rype w asdiscovered in 1960 in Israel, not far hom Ashdod. It is square in plan . with rect­angular bastions, and bas two sto ries-just as dep icted in the reliefi (sec figure on

page 97).A word abou t the for tified tem ples inside the city . Th ese arc the places to

wh ich the citizens w ou ld flee afier their wall had been breached, as described inthe Hible in the slOry of the tower of Shcchern du n ng the period of the J udges(which we deal with later). T he principal strength of these tem ple forrificarionslay in the thickness of their walls, the two towers at the entrance, and certainly theroof wi th its balconies and battleme nts.

In rhe plann ing of fortifications, one of the tou ghest problem s that dema ndedsolution was the guatantee of a tegular supp ly of water ill tim e o f siege. In thepeno d under review, ingenious devices were introd uced to meet this need ,stagger ing in the scale and qu ality of their skilled engineering. T he most interestingand form idable of all that have come ro light so far are those discove red at ­Megiddo. T he well which supp lied water to the city was in a natu ral cave at the

IIthe two jam bs of its·outer gatewa y- "the keepers of m e gate." The King's G.Jte;~

is SO called today. because of the figure of the warriozor deity, whi ch was carved '!.'"on the inner left jamb-from the point of view of J,meone inside looking out.4­T his relief (222, top) is now in the Hittite Mu seum inAnkara and is ther efore notseen in the phot og raph on page 224. .

Far the most interesting feature of the sou thern wall is the fortificationarr angem ents in the middle of the area betw een the Lions' Gate and the King'sGate. T his is known today as Yerkapu - the Earth Gate (225, bottom).

ln the main wall between these two city gates is a ~mall opening for the use ofpedestr ians called the Sphinx Gate, because of the figures of a sphinx whichdecorated its j amb s. T he ram part at this point is quite h igh- about I I meters. T ogain access to the Sph inx Gate from outside, two rows of steps were cut in rheramp art Some distance to its righr and to its left. At the to p of each stairway, asmall"wicket gate had been cut in the outer wall which gave entry 10 the spacebetween the main and outer walls throu gh which the Sphinx Gate could bereached. ,

At the foot of the rampart in front of the SphinxGate and midway betweenth e tw o stairways, a postern had been constructed int o the rampart leadin g rightth ro ugh into the city. Its length was 80 meters-the width of the ram part at thissection-s -reaching , at its other end, a point J J meters immediately beneath theSph inx Gate. T his was the Earth Postern , or Gate, and its purpose is believed tohave been both to save the inha bitants from the steep clim b up the tampart , and,in attack , to enable sorties to be carried out against the enemy in certain cond ition so f battle. T his postern apparently had doors at both ends which cou ld be closedduting siege.

To com plete the picture of the Boghazkoy forti fications, it should be addedthat the lower city also had a num ber o f innet defensive walls which created a kindof citadel wit hin a citadel. It is possible that these inner walls were the boundariesof earlier cities and became " inner" only wi th the growt h and expansion of thesettlement . But in the city's final phase, they certai nly add ed strength to the systemof fort iti cations. T he upp er city, too , was strengthened by several independentcitadels, built on roc k cliffs, which formed a cha in of fort ifications wi thin the cityitself. (

Nowhere, neither in Boghazkoy nor in any other' city in Syria , Palestine, or'

I .".' J _ , ~ Egypt. has the re beenany discovery of the upper parts of fortificauons. To find

. '1' ~~. ~ \ ;- \ -" .~ ';'; V 'I.-- t 'It ' ''''-/. ." ,; '4.'r-~ . . I ~. \'- .\

• . · 'Hf?J!''f ~ ' · . ,

r'1 ff~..·1J(tI! : ~ ,irA. ~Xt~*l~ ;'\. ~ .. ,j~j 1 . ?J(}ff!&~~~\

, ',./1 ; i a.::.~ '~~~~j '\." I ffJAsJt..:;£-'-~ . '"~~, .J;~~- -, - c _ ~-~-. -='="I I'

lB·m-"• .~. 1.: ; ' ..

- ..

,

15 7 0 - 1 2 0 0B . C .

A .Higll0! guardillg a lI,dl ill rhe

desert bcrwetlJEgypt andPalc~,t it1 e .

as depicted 011 a r('li~f ~r SNi, I

" His Majesty sent forth every valian t man of his army, to breach the new wallwhich Kadesh had made. I was the one who breached it, being the first of everyvaliant man."

cover- ten ts dep icted in the relief port rayin g the conquest of Deper (z2.9}. But the ,derails of the reliefdo not suppo rt th is thesis, If these tents were indeed intended asbattering-rams, the artist wou ld surely have given pro minence to the most impo r­tant element of this weapon- the met al-headed beam. And this does not appear atall. It is tar more proba ble that these tents represent the camp of Pharaoh an d hissons; set up near the city , as in the relief mowing the Ba ttle ofKadesh (236-237).

The absence of the battering- ram in the Egyp tian armies of the New King­dom , when it was already in use in Canaan and Anatolia in the first half of thesecond millennium , and indeed also in Egypt, may have several explanations: the ' 'considerable distance betw een the military bases in Egypt and the battleg roundsin Canaan; whi ch no doubt proved a tough adm inistrative and technical obstacle .for the movement of this heavy instrument; the con servatism of the ancientEgyptians; and, more parti cularly , the firmness of the forrificaeions at the end ofthe previous and the beginning of th is period. Th ese fortificatio ns w ere builtespecially to withstand the batterin g-ram. And they succeeded in blunt ing itsetl,:ctiveness, for it was not as yet a perfect instrum ent , Thi s is a good example ofone aspect of the chain reaction produced by offensive and defensive devices.Proficient counrer-measures, as w e can see, render obsolete, at least tem porari ly ,the weapon or a part icular model of th e weapon against which they were devised.

The most usual method of attack on a city was penetration abo," the walls,usingscaling-ladden. This system is well illustrated in the reliefs (228, 229). Underheavy coveting fire from the archers, the assault tro ops would rush to scale thewalls and try to reach the top. The Egyptian shield , wi th the sho ulder-m ap attachedto its inner surface, was part icularly suited to th is task. For the attacking soldiercould hang it over his back (228), and this left his hands free for the climb and

the fig hting.A'second meth od, which paralleled the first , was penetration through the city

gates. The assault troops would sto rm the gate, their backs protected by shields, .'and, armed with axes (228). the y would try and tear down the bolts and hinges. ·

Both opera tions demand much courage. And thus does one of the prou dsoldiers of Thurmose III deliver himself:

Against such forms of attack, the defend ers respond ed with several measures. L( _Th ey posted archers on the wall to give co unter-fire to the enemy 's bows (229) ,while other !roops armed with spears attacked the assaulting so ldiers scaling theladders. 1\ number of the defenders hu rled stones upon the enemy below. Some ofthe stones were large and heavy, requiring the lise of bath hands (229, top righr).If at the beginning or dur ing the barrie some of the defendin g units fightin g out­side the wall found themselves compelled to fall back to rhe city, they we re hauledup by their com rades at the top of the wall w ith rop e or with strips made ofclothing. This is surely the rep resentation by the artist of the two figures han gingto a tope on the wall in the relief sho wn on page 229. Endorsement of this

western foot of tbe teU-outside the bou ndaries of the 'city fortifi cations. The solemethods of secur ing water from this source during siege were to pu mp it from thewe ll into the city , or to devise some appro ach system which wo uld give theinhabitants access withou t having to venture beyond the walls. The stratagemconceived by the planners of the Megi ddo forti fications was at once simple anda stro ke of genius. Within the city compound, at a p(>int not far from the well, •they sunk • vertical sbah to the same depth as the\o;ell-30 meters. The first8 meters were fairly easy going, for they were diggini through the dust and ashesof earlier ruined settlements. But the next 22 meters had to be cut through solidvrock, From the base of this shaft, they cut a ho rizontal tunnel right through­to the well-a distance of 67 meters, T he tunnel had an average height of3' 5 meters. T he floor of the tunn el was engineered with a slight gradient slopingdown toward the city , so that there was a gravity flow of water fro m the wellinto the city. O n completion of the engineerin g job, the well was sealed from theoutside by a thick wall. T he labor involved in this! excava tion and tunnel ingproject must have been enormo us. Bur it was vital forthe defense of the city.

O n occasion, these stratagems were apparently not unknown to the enemy.And so from time to time, as the archaeological diggings show , the outside wallsealing the well was breached or torn down , and another wall built in its placelater with the repair of the for tifications. T hese installations were until veryrecent ly ascribed to the Late Bronze period. But our ~xcavations at Megiddo in1960 showed that the whole ente rprise sho uld actually be attri buted to the reignsof Solomon or Ahab in the Israelite period. O n the o th~r hand , installations similarin basic patterns to rhat of Megiddo, but of inferior stat.dard, we re also discoveredin other Palestinian cities which belong to the Late Bron ze perio d.

T he conquest of forti fied cities posed a grim problem in this period, too, forthe attacking arm y. O f the fIve methods of capturing a fortifi ed city mentioned ino ur Introduct ion, we can, wi th the help of illust rated monuments and writtendocuments, follow the use of only a few of rhem . One of the ' most remarkable ~

features of the m.ny detailed Egyptian reliefs and of the written documents of thisperiod is th at in no t one ofthem isthere a single sign of or reference to the battering­ram, Some scholars, it is true, have sought to recogn ize barrermg-ramsin the four

RJ:glJt: The submissioJJ

of a Syrian city as depicted

011 Egyptianrcliifof

Ramcses II

Attack and Dei euse

THE PERIOD OF THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT

interpretation is to be found in this description of the siege of Megiddo by Thur­mose III which talks of the retreat of the enemy after their failure outside the city:

"They abandoned their horses and their chariots of gold and silver, so tharsomeone might draw them up into this town by hoisting on their garments. Nowthe people had shut rhis town against them, but they let down garments to hoistthem up into this town."

Attack by breaching the gate and scaling rhe wall involved the assault unitsin very heavy casualries, and could be undertaken mostly against cities whosefortification system was not ofa high standard or whose troops were not the besr.Ofren the invading army resorted to siege or infiltration stratagems.

And indeed we hear at the very beginning of this period of one of the mostprolonged sieges carried out at this time. The Egyptian documents record thatPharaohAhmose, founder of the XVIIIth Dynasty, in hi. campaign against the'Hyksos armies. laid siege for three consecutive years to Sharuhen, a fortified cityin southern Palestine (also mentioned in Joshua 19: 6).

Thutrnosc III tried to follow up his celebrated success on the battlefield nearMegiddo by taking the city by storm. But his soldiers, instead of pursuing theretreating troops who were retiring to entrench themselves behind their citywalls, tarried on the field of batrle to collect war booty. And when they reachedthe city, they were repelled. Thutmose was therefore forced to put Megiddo undersiege for seven months, as recorded in one of the documents.

The siege operation, though less dangerous than breaching, was neverthelessvery difficult and complicated. For the besieging army had to encamp for a longperiod in the open, set up encampments all round the city, and maintain vigilantdefense against sorties and raids by the troops under siege. There is a detaileddescription in one of the Egyptian docnments of how these encampments wereestablished:

"Orders were issued to the commander of the troops to provide for theirdivision and to inform each man of his place. Theymeasured this city, which W~S'

corralled with a moat, and enclosed with fresh timbers of ali their pleasant trees,

while His Majesty himself was in a fortress east of this.. town being watchful, .•. 'People were appointed as sentries at the enclosure of His Majesty, and they weretold: 'Be steadfast! Be vigilant, be vigilant! ... '"

In these siege operations. they would cut down the trees in the area, as we seefrom the above document, with which to build their encampments or forts. This,too, is depicted in the Egyptian reliefs (346). A faithful description of this customappears in the Bible-Deuteronomy 20: 19-20:

"When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it .to takeit, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thoumayest eat of them. and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field isman's life) to employ them iri the siege: Only the trees which thou knowest thatthey be not trees for meat, thou shalr destroy and cut them down; and thou shaltbuild bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued."

1570-1200 B.C.

We have seen that the conquest of a fortified city was a very difficult opera- Strataocmsrion. It is not therefore to be wondered that side by side with the above methodsof warfare, the attacking army continuously sought means of entering the city bycLUllling and stratagem. For all the solidity and strengrh of a city's fortifications,rhcv had their weak spots. And since the defenses were all designed to meet attack

from the outside, oace me enemy had succeeded in penetrating one of the weakpoints and entering the city, the rest of the fortifications were rendered valueless.There were of course exceptions, as at Boghazkov, which had inner citadels andwails.And this lessenedthe danger. Bur, in general, penetration of thefortificationsat one point was likely to cause a total collapse of the city's defenses.

There are many stories of celebrated stratagems whereby cities were enteredand captured. Many have about them the ring oflegend. Bur their very composi­tion makes it evident that such devices were used. One of the most famousdc'scriptions ofa stratagem of this nature is undoubtedly that contained in the storyof rhc Trojan Horse, in the Bartle of Troy.

JAHA. But there is a legendary Egyptian tale. which predates the Trojanbartle by several hundred years, which relates, in the style of Ali Baba, how thecity ofJalfa was captured by the forces of Thutrnose Ill. The Commandet of thebc'sieging army, That, notified the Governor of Jaffa that he had decided tosurrender and that it was his intention to give himself up. together with his wifeand children:

"And he [That1had the 200 baskets brought which he had made. and he had200 soldiers get down into them. And their arms were filled with bonds and fetters.and they were sealed up with seals. And they were given their sandals, as well astheir carrying poles and staves. And they had every good soldier carrying them,totahng 500 men. And they were told: 'When you enter the city, you are to letalit your companions and lay hold on all the people who are in the city and putthem in bonds immediately.' And they went out to tell the .charioteer of theEucmv ofJafra: 'Thus speaks your lord: "Go and tell your mistress [i.e., the wifeof the prince ofJalfa 1: 'Rejoice. for Seth the god has given us That, along with his\\'Ifc' and his children I' See the vanguard of their tribute. You shall tell her aboutthese 200 baskets [which were filled with men with fetters and bonds ].''' Then hewent ahead of them to bring the good news to his mistress, saying: 'We havecaptured That.' And they opened the locks of the city before the soldiers. Andrhcy entered the city and let alit their companions. And they laid hold on the city,small and great, and put them in bonds and fetters immediately. So the mightyarm of Pharaoh-life. prosperity, health-captured rhe city."

JE~ICIlO. The Biblical story of Joshua's conquest of Jericho apparentlydescribes another kind of stratagem whose military implications, however. havebeen obscure. Its highlights, apart from the collapse of the walls. are to be foundin joshua 6: 3. 16.20:

"And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about thecity once. Thus shalt thou do six days .... And it came to pass at the seventh time, 99

THE PERIOD OF THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT

when the priests blew with their trumpets, Joshua said unto the people, 'Shout'for the Lord hath given you the city .. .' so that the people went up into the city.every man straight before him, and they took the city."

It seems to me that this stratagem is explicable in the light of a later onewhich is described in a Roman book of military ruses composed by Frontinus:

"When Dominus Calvinus was besieging Lueria, a town of the Lugeriansprotected not only by its location and siegeworks but also by the superiority of itsdefenders, he instituted the practice of marching frequently around the walls withall his forces, and then marching back to camp. When the townspeople had beeninduced by this routine to believe that the Roman commander did this for theputpose of drill, and consequently took no precautions against his efforts, hetransformed this practice of parading into a sudden attack, and gaining possessionof the walls, forced the inhabitants to surrender."

A I. A simpler stratagem, and one easier to understand, is that described in theBiblical story of the capture of the city of Ai. Its main purpose was to draw thecity's inhabitants away from the fortifications, and then enter. The plan is presentedsimply and clearly in Joshua 8: 3-8:

" ... and Joshua chose out thirty thousand mighty men ofvalor, and sent themaway by night. And he commanded them, saying, 'Behold, ye shall lie in waitagainsr the city, even behind the city: go not very far from the city, but be ye allready: And I, and all the people that are with me, will approach unto the city:and it shall come to pass, when they come out against us, as at the first, that we willflee before them, (For they will come out after us.) till we have drawn them fromthe city; for they will say. "They flee before us, as at the first": therefore we willflee before them, Then ye shall rise up from the ambush and seize upon the city:for the Lord your God will deliver it into your hand. And it shall be, when ye havetaken the city, that ye shall set the city on fire... .' "

Battle ill Cpcn Terrain Before discussing the organization and services of the army in this period, itmay be found useful to describe two of the most celebrated battles that took placeat this time, which are depicted and described in detail in the Egyptian monuments.

The Battle of Meoiddo The first is the battle of Thutmose III which led to the capture of Megiddo "at the beginning of the r yth century. This is, in fact, the earliest battle in human ~.history of which a detailed account exists. And it is the first of a series of battlesfought near Megiddo (244-245), each ofwhich was decisive, each determining thefate of Palestine,

The strategic .importance ofMegiddo lies in its position commanding the exit 'from Wadi Au. the narrow defile which links the coastal plain of Palestine withrhe Valley ofjezreel through the hills south of the Carmel Mountains. This was theroute of the famous Via Maris, the great trunk road which served as the maincommunications line between Egypt and the important empires of Mesopotamia,Syria, and Anatolia.in the uorrh.tWhocver controlled Megiddo controlled this

100 communications route, and, consequently, important areas of the Fertile Crescent.

1570- 1200B.C.

This explains why the King of Kadesh on the Orontes, in the north, movedsouthward with all his allies to Megiddo in an effort to barthe northward advanceofThutmose II1.The defeat of the King of Kadesh in this battle at Megiddo, far ashe was from his main bases, apparently served as a "classic lesson" to the laternorthern kings. For in the second battle, this time at Kadesh, some 200 years later,against Rameses II, the Hittites apparently tried the opposite strategy, seeking todraw the Egyptian forces as far northward as possible so that they would be farfrom their bases, and this time they would suffer defeat. When we analyze thesetwo battles, we shall do well to bear in mind these two basic and diametricallyopposed strategic approaches of the northern king,-offensive strategy and defen­sive tactics in the Battle ofMegiddo, and defensive strategy and offensive tactics inthe Battle of Kadesh. These two approaches have in fact always been the two basicJoctrines of warfare of the nations up to present times. Their application, whenthere has been a failure to learn the lessons of the Megiddo and Kadesh battles, hasbrought defeat in the most decisive campaigns. Perhaps the most interesting recentparallel of the alternate use of these two doctrines occurred in the Second WorldWar, in the series of battles between the Allied Powers and the Germans in theNorth African Campaign. But we must return to Megiddo.

In the spring of the year 14.68B.C., Thutmose III set out from Egypt at thehead ofhisarmies to campaign against the nations of Syria and Canaan who hadfortified themselves in the neighborhood of Megiddo under the leadership of theKing of Kadesh. Nine days later, he and his forces reached their base in Gaza,having covered some 26 kilometers a dav.-Prom here he advanced northward tothe city of Yehem in the northern Sharon. He now took counsel to decide howhe' would advance on Megiddo, for he had the choice of three routes: the directroute through the defile of Aruna (Iron, Wadi Ara); the northern route throughDlcfti, which would bring him out north of Megiddo; or the southern route.!clding to Ta'anach, a few kilometers south ofMegiddo. The report of this councilof war, as transmitted by the royal scribes and recorded on the walls of the temples,is most instructive, and points to the practice of the army staff conference beforethe' commander made his decision. It is worth quoting.

The Pharaoh first briefs his commanders on the latest intelligence on theenemy. as elucidated from spies; gives them his appreciation of enemy strength;and informs them of the enemy decision to make a stand at Megiddo, or, in hiswords:

"For he says-so ir is reported-I shall wait here at Megiddo [to ftght againstthe Pharaoh]."

The report records that the conference continued with the commandersexpressing their objections to an advance on Megiddo by the shortest and mostdirect route. This is what they say:

"What is it like to go on this road which becomes so narrow? It is reportedth.ir the foe is there, waiting on the outside, while they arc becoming morenumerous, will not horse have to go after horse, and the arlllY and the peopleSImilarly? Will rhe vanguard of us be fighting while the rear guard is waiting here 101

102

THE PE RIOD O F TH E SOJOURN IN EGY PT

in Aru na unab le to fig hu Now two ocher roads are here. One of the roads-behold

ir is to [he ease of us, so [hat ir co mes out ar T a' anach. The ocher- behold, it is to

the north side of Djef[i. and we will co m e our [ 0 the nort h of Megiddo. Ler our

victo rio us lord pr oceed on the one o f rhcm w hich is satisfacrory to his heart, butdo no t make us go on [hac difficult road !"

Accordi ng to the w rit ten reco rd . the Pharaoh decided for pr estige reasons to

choose precisely [he short and difficu lt route:

" T hey w ill say . these ene mies w hom Re ab o rnina rcs: 'Has H is Majesty set

ou t on ano ther road because he has beco me afraid of US1' - SO they w ill speak ."

On the o ther hand. his decision may wel l have been based on his app reciatio n

of [he int ell igence repons. For .from the con tinuation 'of the written record. it ­

appea rs dut th e enemy expected the Egyptian Pharao h to ad vance either north- .wa rd or sourhward>

T he sou the rn flank of the Canaanites wa s certain ly near Ta 'a nach, and their

northern flank was apparen tly near the exit of the Djefti route, N ear Megidd o

itself w as established [he main camp ofall the allied kings, w ith all th eir follow ing.

who had combined to resist Thutmose III. For [he city of M egiddo was too smallto con tain all this vast force.

W hen T hu trno se' s vanguard had reached the neighb orhood of the exit from

W adi Ar a and halted at the Qina bro ok (between Megiddo and Wadi Ara),

his rea[gu ard w as still at Acuna. And .now he listened to the supplication of hisco m manders [0 wait until his rear unit s hav e caught up wi th them :

"Then they said to His Maje sty : . . . 'B ehold , His Majes ty has come fort hwith his victo rio us army. and they have filled the valley. Lee our victorious lor d

listen to us [his time, and Jet our lo rd guard for us the rear of his army and his

peopl e. \V hen the rear o f [he arm y comes forth for us into [he open . then we shall

fight against these foreigners. then we shall no t trouble our hea rts about the rearo f an arm y.' ''

This soun d adv ice by his command ers, w ho we re insisting on the con centra­

tion of fo rce befo re the assault , w as accepted by the Pha raoh , and he set up camp

sou th of Megiddo, on [he banks of the Q ina bro ok. This cam p was certainly

sim ilar to the pro visional cam p establi shed tw o centuries later by Ramescs II near

Kadesh, as we sha ll see later. In the even ing the army w as informed of the plan to .

launch th.e. at.eaek.uexe .morning:against the enemy near Megiddo, wh ose mainforceswer~' still some distance away near T a'anach, in the so uth , and near the exit : .

of the Djefti route in the north. The announcements declared : " Prepare ye! Make

your weapons rea dy; since one (the Pha raoh ]. will engage in co m ba t wi th rhat :w re«:h;,(I enemy in th e morning."

.. This apparent ly was the customary prepa ration of an arIll Y for bat tle. As

Joshua J : I O- J I records:

" T hen J oshua commanded the officers of the people. saying, 'Pass through the

host, and com m and the people, saying, Pr epare yo u victuals: fo r w ithin thr ee daysy" sha ll pass over th is Jordan, to go in to possess th e land. . . .' ''

fj

1!'j1

I!1I

I,I

I•' Jj!IiJ

1i

!

1 5 7 0 - I 200 B . C .

Beto re the assault, and with his forces assembled. Thurm ose divi ded th em into

rhr ee groups and assigned thei r areas o f operation : the southern flank . between rhe

Q ina brook and the exit from W adi Ara; the northern Bank. northwest of

M<.giddo ; and the center , wh ere he hi mself w ould be•. The assault was launched

ar dawn agamst the enemy camp s near Megi dd o. It ended wi th th e rou t of rheCanaJnitcs. who start ed fleeing w ith their kings tow ard M cgidd o, an d, as we

noted earl ier , rhey we re hauled over th e w alls in to the city by their garments. And

now ther e was an occurre nce w hich is typical of m any undi sciplined and untrained

n oo ps. ThecEgyptian army, ins tead of adhering to the princi ple of mainten anceof aim and con tinuin g to destroy th e enemy and preven t hi. escape. fell np on his

poss<:ssiolti kft behin d in the camp', co llecting boory. As the royal scri be put it .

with uuadorned simplicity :

" Now if only H is Maj esty 's army had not given up thei r hearts to captur ing

[he possessions of the enemy, they would ha ve capt ured Megiddo at thi s tim e."

And so the King of Kadesh and his allies ma naged to escape. Such is the iro ny

of fate that zoo years later, in the Battle of Kadesh, it was pr ecisely the Egyp tian

arrnv of l'haraol; Rameses II wh o were saved from certain annihil ation by th e same

circ~mstal\ces. w hen the Hi tti te chariot force, which had stormed his cam p,

jumped "If thei r cha riots to collect th e Egyptian spoils instead of sticking to the

job of destroymg the army. T he capaci ty of an officer to mak e his m en respect the

principle " f"maintenance of aim " is indeed one of the suprem e tests of comm and.Megiddo was eventu ally captured after a seven- m ont hs' siege. T he high

importance of its conq uest is w ell ex pressed in th e words of the Pharaoh to his

army :

" Capture ye effectivel y, my victo rious army ! Behold all the for eig n countries

have been pur III thi s to wn by the co m mand of Re on this da y, inasmuch as every

prince " r every northern country is shut up within it. for the cap tu ring of Me giddo

is the cJpturing o f 3 thousand towns!"

And 1I0 W, befor e sum marizing o ur co nclusions on the methods o f war fare in

this period , let lIS consider the seco nd celebrated bartl e th at too k place some 200

vc.irs later bet ween th e Pharaoh Ram cses II and [he coa lirion arm ies of H itrites and

Can,u l1Ite's und er the leadership of the King of the Hitt ites. T his w as the Batt le of

Kadcsh on the O rontes.

Thi s battl e is so we ll descr ibed and in such det ail in Egypt ian wr itt en do cu- The Battle of Kadesltrn cnrs and so widely illus tr ated in man y reliefs. complete w ith captions (see fig ure.

on ~l.l g(·s l Ot ff ) that it is possible to reconstruct it in JIl its minutiae, Thi s isalso the only bat tle in the per iod in w hich we have full parti culars on the organiza-

tion and tactical handl ing of its chario t units.Since this bat tle is so we ll document ed , let us begin w ith a few qu orari ons

from the' narrati ve and co m pleme nt them later by the illustr ations in th e reliefs.

Ramescs II set ou r from Egypt in the spring with four divisions, moving The Mardinor thwar d along the coa stal-route until he arrived south of Kad esh, on ·the east

bauk of the River O ron tcs, He th en crossed over to the west bank: 1°3

10 5

battle, The infantry and chariorry ofHis Maj esty . . . retreated before them. N ow 'His Majesty had halted on the north of the city of Kadesh, on the western bank ofthe Orontes. Then carne one to tell it [i.e., the disaster] to His Majesty." •

" His Majesty . . . shone like his father Montu when he took the adorn ments T he C ouuterattacleof war, as he seized his coat of mail he was like Baal in his hou r. . . . His Majestyhalrcd the rou t, then he charged into the foe, the vanquished foe of Hatt i, beingalone by him self and none other with him . When His Majesty went to look behindhim he found 2 , 50 0 chariot ry sur rounding him, in his w ay out, being all the youthof the wretched foe of Hatti, tog ethe r wit h its numerous allied co untries . .. beingthree men ( 0 a span, acting in unison."

Befor e start ing o ur analysis of this battle, the first question that springs tomind is how could Ramescs II have adva nced on Kadesh witho ut paying attentionto seem icy, and with the com plete assurance that non e of the Hitti te enemy was inthe vicinity until he was sudden ly taken by surp rise from the south! Th e docu mentfro m \\ hich the above qu otations arc taken is silent on the subjec t. T his documentis anarrative " poem" .on the battl e. But a more dera iled account appeat s in the" IEci,) documents. And these show that Rameses was lulled into a false sense of' <"um; by the King of Kadesh who used one of the earliest kn own ruses to deceivethe <ncmy...

...""",~-""--'~- - ._------ - - ---!

iI.!I!iI1•

The Baule of M./("jhas depicted in the

Ramesseum. A ll the wh((ls should

have six spokes and nOI eight. as it

was nr o71 lollJly copied bymodem

artists ha c andwidelyreproduced in

m""ybooks. C): F"g" 88, 2J9.

240-2 4 1

" His Majesty .. . crossed the ford of the O rontes, wi th the first division ofAm on. , . . His Majesty reached the town of Kadesh.. , . Now the wretched foe "belonging to Haiti, with the numerous foreign countries which w ere wi th him ,

"was wa iting hidden and ready on the northeast of the rown of Kadesh , while HisMajesty was alone by himself with hisretinue. The divis ion of Amon was on themarch behind him; the division of Re was crossin g the ford in a distric t sou th ofthe to wn of Shabtuna, at the distance o f one iter (abo ut 2 kilometers] from the .,place where His Majes ty was; thedivision ofPtah was on the south of the town of .Arnaim; an d the.division of Seth was marchin g on the road. His Majesty had 'formed the firse raub of bart Ie ofall the leaders of his army, while the y were still ­on me shore in the land of Amurru." .

T he Surprise Atta ck " Beho ld, the wretched foe o f Hatri was station ed in the mids t ofhis infant rywhich was with him, and he came not out to fight, for fear of His Majesty, Thenhe ma de to go the peop le of the chari otry, an exceedingly nume ro us m ultitudelike the sand, being. three . people to each chances Now they had ma de theircom bin ation rhus : amo ng every two yo uths was one man of the wretched foe ofHarti, equipped wi th ail the weapons of battle. Lo, the y had stationed them inbattle arr ay. concealed northeast qf thecity of Kadesh. They came forth from the .southern side of Kadesh , and they cut through the division of Re in its middle,while they were marching without knowing and without being drawn up for1° 4

The tIlolmd of Kadesh-« Tell Ncb;

.\find-sllrrounded by rivets and

",ater canols

:b- ~ __:.. ...

106

t t« Battle of Ksdesh: Th, ma" h of

,h( l our Egyptidll Jh' is;(JtlShefim!

,("ssing ,he OrOllU5, 015reconunuted

by Breasted

. , "a.~/.., ..

,- " " ;;; ::~::j;~:"': '~~{b:_~' . .~ . '\ .:- ,

~"" ..~ ~.~;.~,,~,~;;~>- , :.\i :.. · '~·C<:·\O ',',-""".: ; -, - . ~·': -·"'· · 'fi·}.f; ; " .""J . • '.,,,:. ..:., ·,'Ii6I' ·' c-;:-';'- r ..-~

~t~,F~;~~;i~::~;~~,i~' . t~;'~~' _ /')::-:i'~~;P;""~~' " ~< - , . • r,r??{.::~;A./ -'." . :~.?' /f.'t'1f.r- ~:~- : :. -.: o-~

T o link the following description with the previous, we go back a little in ournext quot ation and start it just befor e the story of the dece ption:

"When His Majesty appeared like the rising of Re, he assumed the ado rn­ment s of his father Montu. When the king pr oceeded northward , and His Majestyhad arrived at the localit y south of the city of Shabtu na, there came two shan! •[Bedouin] to speak to His Majesty as fo llows : 'O ur brethren, who belong to thegreatest of the famil ies with the w retched foe of Harri, have made us co me to HisMajesty to say : " W e will be subjects of Pharaoh, , . and we w ill flee from thewretched foe of Hau i who is in the land of Aleppo, on the north ot T unip. He fearsbecause of Pharaoh to come north ward ;" N ow these Shasu spoke these wordswhich they spoke to His Majes ty falsely, for the w retched foe of H arti made themto come to spy whe re His Maj esty was, in ord er to cause the arm y of H is Majestyno t to draw up for fighting him . to battle wirh the wretched foe of Hatti."

Bu t or rhe tim e, Rameses did no t perceive that they had co me on a mission ofdeceit. He swallo wed their sto ry. and advanced to the neighborhoo d o f Kadesh,fully con vinced that the Hitt ite coalition forces were far to the north , near Aleppo .

He set up his cam p (depicted in reliefs on pages 236-23 7-see detailed descripti onin the captions and figur es in the text) ro the west of Kadesh. And on ly then did he 'discover his gr im plight . as a result of the captute of two Hitrire reconnaissancescouts;

" T hen , as His Majesty sat upon a thr one of gold, there arrived a scout whowas in the follow ing of His Majesty, and he bro ught two scouts of the wretched

l 5 7 0 -1 2 0 0 B .C.

foe' ofllarri. Th e)' wac cond ucted into the presence and His Majesty said to them :·w h.H arc ye, Th ey said : 'A s for us the wretched fo e of Harri has caused that wedm uld com e to spy out where His Majesty is.' Said His Maj esty to them : 'He 'Where is he, the wre tched foe of Hat ri e Behold , I have heard saying : " He is in theLl tHI of Aleppo. " Said they: 'See, the wr etched foe of Hatti is stationed tog etherwith many countries.. . . Th ey are equipped wit h infa nrry and chariot ry. bearingrhcir weapons, more nume rous arc they than the sand of the shore. See, they are 'srandiug, drawn up for battle behind Kadesh the deceitful.' '' ,

Ramcses W lt/ I' Il ea l Kadcsh as

depicted at tilt' R,ml(·S~ ' ·II "'. to !'C

CIl lIIJ'iJf cJ whit ril e ,,<1' / (' (.rtIlP as

represented in .-lbtl-S ill/llt" (page l OS ).

a//l! LIIX ,l ( (Jl<lgC J 09)

ro8

Abll-S imbcl (,( p.~~es 236-2J7)

Tactics

"The arrival of the scour of the Phar aoh . . . bringing the two scouts of thewretched foe of Hatti into the presence of Pharaoh . T hey are beating them, tomake them tell where the wretch ed foe of Hatri is!"

Bur for Rameses the information had come too late. He was already trapp ed.At the moment when he was sending word ro alert his o ther divisions nearShabtuna, the Hitti te chariots sprung their charge on the marc hing divisions, asdescribed in the narra tive "poem." The bewi ldered division fled toward Pharaoh' scamp, wi th the Hittites in hot pursuit an d eventually encircling the camp . ThePharaoh then launche d a desperate counterattack, slightly checking the enemyassaulting units, and striking against othe r Hittite units on his eastern flank, nearKadesh, And now me Hittite assault charioteers began to plunder and pillage the 'Egyp tian camp . This turned the tide b tally again st them. ..f or whi le they weregathering their booty, they were suddenly attacked by a formation which hadbeen held in reserve and which had now arrived in the nick of time. These werethe Na 'aron troops, a crack Canaanite unit serving wit h the Egyptian forces. .Na'c run means literal ly " young men." T hey were picked troops, who hadapparently been detailed to protect the distant western flank. Now they fd l uponthe plundering Hittit es and wiped them out.

T he Egyptian defeat was thus turned into a local victory, while the Pharaohpressed his attack against the enemy in the east near Kadesh, dr iving them towardthe river. The Hitti te King , wi th his infantry division numbering some 6, 000 men ,'halted on the other side of the river. But he Wasnow powerless. fo r allhischariots .had been com mitted and his infantrymen alone were inelfeetive against me assaultof'Rameseschariors, T he Hittites accordingly retired to Kadesh and fortified rhern- :selves wit hin the city. 'T he battle ended in stalemate. Both sides had been badlymauled, and they satisfied themselves with the signing of a non-aggres sion pact.Th is is the most detailed treaty of its kind which has been left to liS from this period.

The methods of warfare and the principles of strategy and tactics followed byboth sides are quite clear. The Hittite King pursued a defensive strategy, andsucceeded in drawing the Egyptian Pharaoh deep within his territory so that he

I 57 0 -1 20 0 B .C .

collid smite his flank at the proper mom ent in a surprise attack, wh ile he himselfW JS based on Kadesh and the O ronres, wh ich gave him both concealment and a

seCUfe shelter.This battle also o tters a splendid example of the me of me chariot unit as

a ,triking force , which carries out an assault up to hand-to-hand combat range. .Th ese tactics matched the particular character of the Hittite chariot, wh ich was"quipped mainly with the spear, a short- range weapon. The chario t crew of three ,virtually turned the Hittite chario ts into a transpor ted or mounted infantry umt, ­qualtfied also to engage in hand-t o-h and combat at th~ end of ,the char.ge.

Th is kind of maneuve r could, of course, succeed III oper.oo ns agamst anenemy flank which was on the march and without securi ty. But the weakness of ­the Hit tite chariot was imm ediately evident when the Egyptian chariots , armed .with the long-range composite bow, went over to the counte rattack . The brilliantman eu ver of the Hi ttit e King failed because he had given insufficient rhoughr to theplanning of the action he wo uld need to rake if his surprise attack f.il ed. .,

Rameses, on the other hand . failed hopelessly in his strategic j udgments. Andhe managed to extricate himself from utter defeat only because of his keen leader­ship in battle, recogni zing that attack is the best defense. His cOlll1 ter-?lfensive savedhim at the decisive moment.

Bur it seems that in his e. gerness to glorify the personal heroism of Rameses,the roval scribe underrated his stra tegic ability too heavily. For the sudden for­tuitou s arr ival of the Canaani te Na'arun for mation from the west, which saved theday for Rarncses, finds, strangely enough, no ment ion in the general chronicles ofthe battle. T he scribe may have considered that giving credit to the Na'arun unitwould derogate from the measure of his Pha raoh 's prowess. But to Rameses credit,it may be claimed that when he raced north toward Kadesh without effective The (.:Imp in the Luxor rdilj s

THE PERIOD OF THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT I 570- I 200 B.C.

security, he must have taken into account the presence of this striking force on hiswestern flank, and he used it not only to secure a strategic flank, but also as a hiddenreserve to be rushed into action at a decisive moment.

The Battle of Kadesh offers us an insight into the military patterns of theperiod, with its imperial armies of high standard, whose commanders are capableof handling large formations of infantry and chariots in accordance with thesoundest principles of strategy followed to this day.

Intelligence The description of the battle near Megiddo and especially the chronicle of theBattle ofKadesh underline the high importance attached by the armies of the landsof the Bible to the intelligence services. Operations like deceptive patrols and thecapture of Hittite scouts by Egyptian scouts point to the existence of a well­developed system of intelligence. The questions put by Ramescs to the Hittiteprisoners also show that the purpose of the interrogation was to secure precisetactical information:

1. What nations does the Hittite armies comprise I

2. What is the composition of the army-infantry, chariots I

3. Their weapons I

4. Their numbers?5. Their exact location and the measures of their preparedness-

This alertness to intelligence and the use of spies are stressed also in theBiblical stories ofJoshua's conquests. Spies were dispatched to Jericho and to Aibefore the military operations, and the intelligence they brought back on the spiritand strength of the enemy served as the basis of the attack plan.

As opposed to this tactical intelligence, there is an eloquent example ofstrategic intelligence in the instructions given by Moses to the twelve spies beforetheir departure for the land of Canaan. The points on which the espionage missionis ordered to gain information ,are different from those sought by Rameses andJoshua, and have a definite strategic character:

1. "And sec the land, what it is...."2. "And the people thar dwellerh therein, whether they be strong or weak, few

or many."3. "And what the land is they dwell in, whether it be good or bad."4-. "And what cities they be that they dwell in, whether in camps, or in srrong­

holds."5. "And what the land is, whether it be fat or lean, whether there be wood

therein, or nor."

110

Ambtlshmid Night Fighting

The functioning of good intelligence service enabled small forces in particularto undertake ambush as a regulat method of warfare. Tactically, the ambush is themost murderous form of battle, which exploits the principle of surprise to itsmaximum. ,

Apart from the ambush incidents included in the general battle operationsmentioned earlier, we have additional information on the use of the ambush in

this period. The Anastasi PapyrtlS I contains the following interesting questionwhich is put to a military scribe to test his knowledge:

"Behold, the ambuscade is in a ravine 2,000 cubits deep, filled with bouldersand pebbles. Thou makest a detour as thou graspest the bow. Thou makest a feintto thy left, that thou mightest make the chiefs to see, but their cyes are good andthy hand falters. Thou perish like a lion, 0, good tnahar [swift military scribe]."

This type of ambush was carried out particularly in rugged areas of roughbroken ground, marked by ravines and dry riverbeds, which impeded themaneuverability of the enemy's chariots. There is little doubt that this kind ofambush is what the officers ofThutmose feared when they sought to dissuade himfrom taking the direct route through the defile of the Aruna stream. The defile andthe hazard of ambush while moving through it are dramatically described in thesame Anastasi Papyrus:

"The narrow valley is dangerous with Bedouin, hidden under the bushes.Some of them are 4-or 5 cubits from their noses to the heel, and fierce of face.Their hearts are not mild, and they do not listen to wheedling. Thou art alone;there is no scribe with thee, no army behind thee. Thou findcst no scout, that hemight make thee a way crossing. Thou cornesr to a decision going forward,although thou knowest not the road. Shuddering seizes thee, the hair of thy headstands up, and thy soul lies in thy hand. Thy path is filled with boulders and withreeds, thorns, brambles, and 'wolf paw.' The ravine is on one side of thee, and themountain rises on the other. Thou goest on jolting, with thy chariot on its side,af",J to press thy horse liard. If it should be thrown toward the abyss, thy collar­plc'CC would be left uncovered and thy girth would fall. Thou unfasten the yokein order to repair the collar-piece in the middle of the narrow valley. Thou art notcompetent in the way to bind it; thou knowest not how to lash it. ... Thousrarrcst to trot. The sky is opened. Then thou thinkest that the foe is behindthtl' .. . . tt

The darkness ofnight necessary to the laying of an ambush, was also requiredhI Irregular forces operating against a regular army, both to cover their advanceand to launch their attack. The book of Joshua describes how at times Joshuawould advance all through the night in order to surprise the enemy at dawn.Smnlarly, one of the documents of Mursilis, the Hittite King, speaks of the special','CUnty orders he gave to his forces lor his own safety when he was compelled tonuke a night march. The same document echoes the wrath of the regular armiesag,unst night attacks and night ambush by the irregulars:

"They [the irregulars] did not dare to attack me in the daylight, and preferredto fIll on me during the night. In the night we will attack him."

The ambush was only a minor action among the operations of regular armies Standard Formations-r!",ugh it was not so considered by its victims. The chronicles of war and the III

Army Orgmlizatioll

II2

I II Auacl:

T H E PE RIOD O F THE SOJOURN IN E G YP T

many illustrated monum ents show that in the imposing battles in open terrain,large military formations took parr, well organized in the phalanx, charging eachother in hand-t o-h and combat.

Thealliedarmy under the Hittite King at Kadesh is estimated at between16 ,000 and t7.ooo men. In the chariot units were 7.500 men-each of the 2.500,had a crew of rhree.s'The rest were infantry, stationed behind Kadesh, who wereorganized in phalanx battle formatio n.

The Egyptian anny hadfour divisions, each of 5,000 men . This estimate issupported by the information contained in the Anastasi Papyrus, in another rest 'questiou put to a military scribe on the subject ofsupplies to an Eg yptian expedi­tionary force composed of Eg yptian troops and various mercenaries :

"T hou art sent on a mission to Djahi at [he head of [he victorious army, to

crush the rebels called Naarun. The bowm en of the army which is before thee[i.e., the Egypt ian army ] amount to 1,900, the Sherden p o, the Qeh eq 1,600, theMeshwesh 100, and the Negroes 880-tota15,000 in all not counting their officers."

Similarly, the King of Byblos (Gebal) in the Tell el-Amama letters requeststhe Pharaoh to send an expeditionary force of 5,000 men and 50 chariots tosave his city.

It is not easy to present with accuracy the structure of the smaller units whichwent to make up the large formations. But from the various monuments and alsofrom the Bible, it can be assumed that they were based on the decimal notation.The -smallest unit , the section. apparently compris ed TO men, and the platoon50 men . W e have no clear inform ation on the strength of the compa ny, but wecan infer from the Egyptian document> that it consisted of not more than four orfive pl.tOOllS-200 at 250 men. Between the comp.ny and the division (really a.

brigadej there was certainly the battalion whose total strength was not fixed but

1

was com posed of several companies , four or five.At all events, both the written docum ents and the reliefs clearly indicate that

these divisions not only marched together, arranged in a specially organi zed patternbut that.they also fough t under the organization of the deep phalanx. made up ofstraight ranks in close order. A poetic description of an army on the march in closeforma tion appears in one of the documents of Ugarit:

"T hey march in thousands serried and in myriads massed. After two, twomarch, after three all of them."

The reliefsof the Bartle ofK.adesh clearly portr.y the assault of ihe Na'arununit in phalanx formation, with a phalanx of ten ranks, line abreast, and the tenmen in each section for ming a file, one behind the oth er, one in each rank. Th eHittite infantry behind the city of Kadesh are depicted in the same w.y. But theyare shown before .rhe action , while their phalanx are still organized for the rnarch.:So they are depicted as a column, and the ten-man section is converted from a fileinto a .line-abreast rank, From the reliefs, it is easy to gather how the phalanx .transformeclits pattern of organization for the march into its organization fotattack. It can bebest explained by • diagram. '

I5 70-I200B . C .

The allied army under the Hitti te King at Kadesh had 2,500 chariots. We have Chariot Unitsno breakdown of this figure which would enable us to determine the size of thechariot unit of each king. But since we know that this allied force comprised themen of very many kings, we can assume that each unit was not larger than 300chariots, and many were very much smaller.

The docu ments of Tell el-Amarna make frequent mention of units of 50 .chariots. 30. and even 10. Similarly. we know of 100- and jo-chariot units in .Anatolia, The documents of Nuzi mention units of 50 chariots under the com­mand ofa "Captain of Fifry." And this is true also of Egypt. All this suggests thatthe basic unit consisted of 10, and several such units would make up a squadro nof 30 or 50 chariots. Presumably the largest tactic. I unit consisted of 150.These were usually attached to infantry divisions of expeditionary forces.

It may be recorded that in this period , chario t units were still the only mobileformations in the armies of the lands of the Bible, for the cavalry regiment did notmake itsappearanccuntilthe end of the second millennium. In this period, we knowof the horseman being used only for isolated communications functio ns, such asmessengers (221). Let us add. as a piquant item, the followi ng extract from a letterby the King of Byblos:

"The messenger of the king of Aceo is more heeded than my messenger,because a horse was given to him ."

The employment of such large armies and their operation at such distances lHi!irary Admin istrationfrom"their main bases naturally called for ramified military administration. And,indeed, the numerous written documents from Nuz i, Ugari t, Anarolia, and Egyptclearly indicate the existence in this period of well-developed quarterma ster andadj utan t services which maintai ned detailed records of the army form ations. theirequipment , the sums of money paid to them. and so on. W e also learn from theserecords and from the illustrated monuments that detailed lists were prepared ofcaptured booty, categorized according to type.

The problem ofsupply to expediti onary forces was not easy. And the militaryscribes and qwutermasrers under went special exercises to make them proficient indetermining the battle rations requ ited by the various army corps. Here, fotexample, is a test question on the subject which appears further down in theAnastasi Papyrus I which we quoted earlier in connexion with the 5.00Q-strongEgyptian expeditionary force:

"There is brou ght thee a peace offering before thee; bread, cattle, and wine.T he number ofmen is too great for thee. W hereas the provisions arc too small forthem. . . . Th ou receive them. place them in camp . T he troops are ready andprepared. Make them quickly into portions, that of each man at his hand . . . .Midday is come. the camp is hot. Time to start ! Don' t let the troop commanderbe angry ! Much marching isahead of us. What bread have we at all!, . .. So thouart an experienced scribe. if thou canst approac h to give the provisions."

. This document. too. shows that an expeditionary force did not bring with itall the supplies it wo uld need, but got much of its food from the produce of the I 13

II4

THE PERIOD OF THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT

land through which it passed and from supplies and equipment provided by thevarious enthralled local governots. From the narrative of the Battle of Megiddoby Thunnose Hl, we learn that a good part of the food for his men and fodder forhis beasts came from the local produce. The' letters of Tell el-Amarna contain amany notifications to the Egyptian Pharaoh from the kingsof Canaan, assuringhim that they have prepared all the requisite supplies for his expeditionary army,as requested in prior orders by the military scribes.

Those supplies which accompaniedan army were carried by pack ass andox-drawn wagons, The wagons bore the-collapsible partsof camps. as at Kadesh,and sometimes.even boats needed for ferrying troops across a river, as we see fromthe document of Thutmose Ill:

"When my Majesty crossed over to the marches of Asia, I had many ships ofcedar built on the mountain of God's land [the Middle East], near the Lady ofByblos. They were placed on chariots with cattle drawing them. They journeyedin front of my Majesty, in order to cross that great river which lies between thisforeign country and Naharin."

Thc military panorama of this lively period of history is one of formidablefortifications encircling the key cities of the Middle East; of large, well-trainedarmies, equipped with chariots and supply and engineering services, movingbetween Egypt and Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Canaan; of ferocious battleswaged between mighty empires, involving high tactical skill and ingeniousstratagems. These military campaigns eventually drained the energy and resourcesof most of these kingdoms and led to their downfall. And this opened the way tonew nations, like the Tribes of Israel from the east and the Sea Peoples from thewest andnorth, who conquered and settled large areas of Palestine over which themighty nations of earlier ages had fought for so long.

"1\

PLATES

VOLUME ONE

Page fI R: Up per left, granite stele from W ar­ka, LICe Proto-Literate. Baghdad Museum.U Ll({ Om. Hunters" Slue Palette (including: C3H

of the upper righ t fragm enc). Late Pre­Dyn.rsric. British M useum . Middle, cylinder

SCJ I from Hicrakonpolis, Pre-Dynastic. Th ePetr ie Collection. Page 1 19 . top ; O riginalupper fragmt"nt of Hunt ers' Slate Palet te.Louvre. Bon om : Slate fragme nt from LowerEgypr. Pre-Dynastic. Mct~opolltan Museumof Art. 1 19

The bow. Two types emerge in thefourth millennium-s­in Mesopotamia,a single-arc form;in Egypt, a double­convex weapon

The Nimrod-like Mesopotamian king (,)depicted on the c. 3000 B.C. comm emorativestele on page II 8 (upper left) holds an almostsemicircula r single-arc wC3pon in the lowerhunti ng scene. In contrast, the Egypti.tnbowforms on both the cylinder SC'.JI (page I I !I.

middle) and me celebrated Hunt ers' SlatePalette (lower left, and enlarged fragm eD(,upper righ() show a double-convex instru­ment in usc at the same orne. Huntin g figureson the palette also exhibit long spe.us, maces,boom erangs, double-headed axes, and thefork -headed arrow. Another instance of thel.rsr is shown in the fragme ntary Egypt iancarving at the lower right, in which J fork­headed arrow has pierced a warrior's body .

lI 8

TlO

The mace­key weaponfor hand-to-handfighting untilthe appearanceof the helmet

The maceheads shown here, all from theperiod between 3500 and 2500 B.C., embracea variety of materials and shapes. The roundcopper examples (upper left) art from excava­tions near Beer-sheba. Below them arc twoMesopotamian limestone mace-heads, borh

poar...hapcd and fiured. Tho porphyry. disk­shaped example (above) and the magnificent

ceremonial macehead of King Scorpion

(right) arc both Egyptian.

Above left: Marchcads from r.nAbu Mat.ir,

Chalcolirhic. I Jcpartutenr of Antiquities,

r.rc1lJ.n)I\)~iClI Museum. Jerusalem. Below

lett: Macchc.ids from Tdl Agn,b. E,nlyDynastic. Museum of the OriC11u} Institute,

Chi('agn. Above: E;ypti.1ll macehcad. Pre­1);;11:15U':' Hrmsh l'v1USCUllL Richt: Kllltt

Scorpion Ill.lCdK'.1J from Hicr rkonpolis.Late Prc-Dvn.istic. Ashmolean Museum, 0:-;:­

ford.

T HE PER IO D B EF O RE A B R A H A M ( 4000-2 100 B . C . )

12 4

King N arrnersubduesSouthernPalestine

l eft: Hen..-, on the reverse side of the Palette o fKing Na rmer , the King wears (he cro wn of

Uppe r Egypt. Below him , ( W O enemies licefrom stron ghol ds that are depicted in minia ­

cure-c-one, J. rectangular bastioned cirv, whichmay represent settlements west of 'jordau : the

other, a kite-shaped enclosure, possibly sym­bolizing territ ory cast ofJ ordan. T he drawings

represent Tran s-jordanien kite-shaped en­closures similar to that sho wn on the palette .

Far left: Palett e of King N armer. Left. abo ve :Plan of a kite-shaped desert enclosure. Below :

Stone .~ rqtfito from the Cairn of H.lIli'.Safaitic period. Trans-jordan .

The mace in action

The famous slate palette on page 12 4 showsthe King stri king his enemy w ith a mace. Its

handle is bound wi th cor d, probably to prevent

slipping. A similarly bound mace (c. 1 900 H.C. )

appe,us in use on an ivory plaque from AbyJ m(upper righ t) comm emo rating the victory o fKing \V cdymu over the Semites, and inscribed" First rime of smiting of the East." T he

middle illustration nf .3cylinder sr ,ll from thesamc' P'..riod show) a bound captive bl·j ll ~

struck wi th J. mao- . Two fine E~)'pti.ln m. nc­

her.Is [horh Co ~,)OO R.C.). enc· of brccci.r rockand rhc other of .rl duvcr, OOl J IH c m cJ wuh

'iap.:n (~ md f tlulIn , .'ppl..·.u bclo v,.

Righ t. {dP t o bottom : Plaque from Abvd cs .lsr Dyna sty. British Mu seum. Ivo ry cylinder

seal {rom Hicr akonpolis, Isr Dynas ty. Briti sh

Museum. Early Dvnasric macehccds. BritishMu~um. .

12 6

T his socketed axehcad, fou nd in a cave in the

j udean desert in Israel berweeu Ei Cedi and

Massada in 1901, is par t of J. discovery th atmakes revo lutionary impact on accepted ideas

of the technical level and ethn ic character of-c-and contacts betwe en- the lands of theBible Juring this early period. T he more than

4 50 copper objects found belong to the end ofthe C halcolitbic and the beginn ing of the

Early Brcnze periods- c. 3 100 D. C.

Th e axcheads, like this one , reveal the high

technical ..randards that the period achieved .

Th ey are certainly not inferior to the Sumeriansocketed 4Xe-S of the: first half of the thirdm illenn ium (see page:: I ] 7) which, pri or to the

196 1 judean discovery. were considered as a

standard of perfection for contemporary

metal-w ork.

Th e exact origin of the objecrs-e-which in­eludes man y cult instru ments-in the Jude an

find is unknown . The pres<,'nce among them

of socketed piercing axes su~gests the moun ­raino us regions to the north and east of

Mesopotarnia-c-the area whi ch g.:we birth to,

or W.:lS domin ant in, the launchin g of Surner­ian culture. On the o ther hand , both the shape

and quantity of the maceheads found indicate

close contact with Egypt , Palestine, and Syria.

Sinceaccess to the cave in which the cache waslocated wa s very difficult, it is presumed that

the objects were brou gh t there by local resi­dent s who were forced [Q Hee before an

invadin g force. The possibility is tha t this out­

side force w as an Egyptlan arm y. for at the

end of the four th millennium, and the begin ­ning of the third, the Egypt ians began tound ertake widespread military action (see

page 124) in the southern regions of Palestineand T rans-j ordan and even beyond .

Socketed axehcad from Nahal Mishrnar(c. 3100 B.C.). Dep artm ent of Antiquities,

Archaeological Museu m. Jerusalem.

r u u 1'1, 1< 10 11 BEf OR E A B R A H A M ( 4000 - 2 100 II . C . )

Gebal

r

An important cache of weaponsand cult objects

1 2 7

The four-wheeled battle chariot harnessed tofour equines, depicted on this Mesopotamianvase, was capable of carrying two men.Despite its early date (c. 2800 B,C.), it incor­porates such features as milled (or studded)wheels for improved traction,

Left: Two views of a vase from Khafajah,Early Dynastic II. British Museum. Above:Drawing of the vase panel depicting the

chariot.

A lighter, two-wheeled Sumerian chariotfrom the same period (c. 2800 B.C.), harnessedto four onagers. Although not equipped witharms like the javelin-carrying four-wheeledchariot, these smaller chariots undoubtedlyserved on the battlefield, at least for com­munications. This modem model, patternedon an ancient j-inch copper miniature, revealscharacteristic details like the studded three­board wheels md the rein ring, through whichpasses the sin~le pair of reins attached to .aninside animal.

Facing page: Model, in Museum of theOriental Institute, Chicago, based on copperminiature from Tell Agrab, Early Dynastic n.

Baghdad Museum,

ru s PERIOD BEFORE ABRAHAM (4000-2fOO B.C.)

Chariots-in widespread use inMesopotamia in the first half ofthe third millennium E.c.although unknown in Egyptuntil more than r,ooo years later 129

r

A lr,lgment of J limeston e relief dn ed c. 2500

B.C., d early depicts the three-boarded rimmed

structure of the chariot wheel. The poleeme rges from the body of this chariot in a

high curve, and, descends toward the four

onagcrs. Th e reins pass through the rein ringarcached to rhc p"l l'. Th is two-wheeled chari otis ,..qu ipped tor b.ndc wi th q uiver of javelinsand swo rds with crescen t-shaped pommels.

l eft : Th e crude (b y ruodcl of a two-wheeledSum er ian d l.lri.)(, J .lll'J C 2800--2700 B.C.• has

n...,,) lrolcs fur ril l ' rein s carefully pierced in thebreast.

Above: Rchef from Ur , Early Dynastic m(Isr I)ynnry (If Ur). University of Penn­sylv:mil Museum. Left: Model from Kish,

Eatl y D~11.lS [ i (. Museum of the O riental

Institute, Ch.ic.l:!.,.

The MI.·snr·I ) ~.lm ioln chariot characteristically

made usc of a rein ring mounted on the poleto keep the reins from snarling. This silver rein

right (far right ), found in (he tomb of Que enShubad o f U r and dated c. 2.500 B.C. , is deco r­ated with an onagcr of electrum, an alia)' ofsilver and gold .

Right: A m uch lat er day cult model of a rwo­

wheeled chario t (c. 20C() B.C. ) isessentially thesame J5 the one foun d at Kish and illus trat edon this page.

Far right : Rein ring from Ur , Early DynasticIII, British M useum. Right: Model fromLagash, Nee- Sume rian. Louvre,

T H E PEHl O J) BCl OR E ABR A ll.\M ( .. 0 0 0 2 10 0 B . C . )

The legacyof chariot illustrationis rich and varied

J 3 I

The SUOd,lfJ ofUr war pmcl. 'JIlC of rbc twomost import.mr lDllitJry documents of the­

third millennium H.C.

C"l'pa «~isfcr. The Sumerian Kin~ [center},f0Unw~-J hy the royal guard and Ins four­wheeled W.1f chrriot, receives a precession of

hound captives,

Afiddle(c'gisfCf, A phalanx of Sumerian soldiers,

armed wirh spears and wearing metal helmetsand studded capt.-'S, charges the enemy.

Lower rt'gi:-rcr, Four four-wheeled chariots in a

battle cllJrbt.~. which some authorities interpret

.:IS the- s.uuc chariot in successive stages of

motion. The type of chariot shown here hasroom for two mcn------tlrivcr JuJ warrior-r-and

is equipped with quiver .md javelins. The rein

rin?" [most dearly shown at kft). althoughundccorarcd. is similar to the silver example

shown on p3gC J 3I.

Ah,lVC: Panel, encrusted with slnll.Iapis Iazuli,

and red limestone. E,irly Dynastic 1II (c. 2500

8.C.). Bnnsb Museum l.ch : A clay model ofa chcnor [rum Kish.

The Sumerian annyfights and subdues its enerrues

133

134

The King of Lagashleads his troopsto battle

The ocher of the two most import ant milita rydocuments of the third millennium e.c.c-the

Stele of Vultures .

Upper u g;Sft" , Eannatum , King of Lagash(right), leads a heavily armed phalanx ofsoldiers in ;;I column of six Cues [indicated bythe six tiers of ~PC.ln. and six mew studs 0 0 theshields). The troops. wearing meu l helmetsand heavy rectang ular shields. and armed wi thheavy SJX·.n~ which th~~y hold with both hands,charge over the bod ies of their fallen enemies.

Lo wer fegisur. Eann arum, in 1 chariot equ ippedwith qui ver , light jav elins, and a battlcaxe,

leads charg ing trO Op s we aring metal helmets-but without shields-s-and armed with longspears and socketed axes. T he King holds 4­

long spear in his left hand , 1 sickle sword in

his right.

Limestone stele from T elloh, Early Dyn astic1II (c. 25 00 B.C. ). Louvre. Righ t: Silver

javel in-head from Ur , Early Dynastic ill.

\

lhc socketed .rcc W,,$ IJIle ,)f the Sumcri.ms

most rcm.irknblc tc~'lHlit'JI .achievements.

Bbdl'~ like the c')ppn one shown on p.lW· t jo

(c 1500 n.c.] were c.cp.ihlc of picrcin~ sturdy

metal helmets by virtue of a long, narrowprofile and firm anchoring on handles thatcould be swung with force. The royal axe

shown here (also c. 2500 B,C.), a ceremonialobject with gold bands around the wooden 137

Left: Axe from Ur, Early Dynastic III. British

Museum. Above: Conch plaque from temple

of Ishtar at Mar i, Early Dynastic III. Louvre.

!ut"t, emb,)dlcs the s.rlrcnt fc.imrcs. Above: .J\

mcr.d-hchnctc-! warrior (shown on ,I .undl

pLqUl' fr.uu rjn- s.imc p~'ri,)J) c.rrrrcs ,ISIKkl:tt.'J

lXC ,1l1J .1 WClpnl1 rb.n has been ilklltlflt'l{ :1::;.1

sickle sword.

Above: Relief on J circular column b.rsc fromLagash, Early Dvn.istic JII, Louvre. Rurht:

Socketed axchcad from Klut"Jj_th, EJrlyDynastic III. Museum ofthe Oricnr allnstnutc.

Chicago,

The sword that Emn.irum h(lids in the lower

resister of thc Stele of Vuhurcs (p:lgC I3 5):a.ppc:lr:i Jg.tin .rr the Icfr of this relicf, Jettedc. 2500 B.C., anti in the vimil.uly dared conch

pl.cquc (rum Mari on p.q;(: 137. These three

instances JrguL' th.u the sickle sword lud made

its debut in the Sumerian period. Here the

sword-bearer with J. shield tJCL"S a warrior

armed with a SpC.tf

Weaponsfor hand-to-hand fighting136

THE PERIOD BEFORE ABRAHAM (4000-2100 B.C.)

00

00

The swordlagged behind themace and the axeas a decisiveweapon of warfare

The swords that appeared in the third millen­nium were more like daggers---designcdmainly f,)r stabbing. I-jilts. like the lapis lazulione shown at left, were secured to the bladewith nails, an atr.ichmcnt too weak to permit

a downward swing. A crescent hilt, like thenne: on the iron sword (left, above) definircly

[iuritcc] usc to a t()[w,lrd thrust.

Left: Gold sword .md gold-decorated open­work sheath from the Royal Cemetery at Ur.The plain back of the sheath has two verticalslits to allow it to be attached to the belt. EarlyDynastic III (c. 2500 B.C.). Baghdad Museum.Left, above: Iron sword with gold-coveredcrescent hilt from the royal tomb at Abc.HUyUk, Anatolia (c. 2500 B.C.). Hittite

The sword was oneof the earliest objectsmade of iron

Anatolian armorers were experimenting withiron bb ~k s ;1$ lOJ rly as the third mi llenni um in

orde r to produce :l longer and stronger\\'cap~)n . At h:tl 0 11 this page. an iron swo rd

from the royal treasure ll t Dorak, with cb­snl ian porumc ] cud hill studded wi th gold and

amber, is 75 f ms. lollg. The hronre swo rd be~

side it [also from Dorak] has J, stained ivoryhand le cove red wi th go ld and J po mmel of

rock-crystal.

Pour addino nal swords from D or.ik, show non pJ.gl' 144. inco rpo rate (k ti: r» right) abron ze blade ..md bon -head pom mel of cock ­crystal wi th eves .,f lr pis 11I 111i; J srlvcr b lade

anda gold rcn tr.il ~r ll\C and a lion-bead 1")lU ­

nu-l of pJ.k· hlue "t.' IlC with ncphntc riv..ts; .1

bronze bbJc. :-:.olJ lulr• .l ll t l l .q-is lazuh pom­mel: and a '1k n 1,1•.1.., d t"Cn r lf,·d wi rh .1 hoarm ou f silver hdf ll c ( n U h.'d with"!! ,.,I, j dolph inv.

~:: .: : ~

\ . . ..-~•• ! . , • • •• ,.~.' ... .-..... ,;(

•• e

; I

IIIi

This drawing of a limestone relief (above)from the 24m CL'11tury B.C shows Egyptian

troops armed with shallow axes in open battlewith long-haired Semites. At the right, in the

earliest known depiction of siege activities,

the Egyptians raise a scaling-ladder against thewalls of their enemies' fortified ciry and.

below, usc battering-poles to breach the gate

of the city, which is flanked by semicircularbastions, like the other bastions of the city.

The late-third-millennium shallow axehcad

(below right), of the same type as those de­picted in the siege scene. is pierced with holt'S

for securing it to J haft. The scene of Egyptianarchers (below left) was discovered at Lislu in

the vicinity of the pyramid of Amcncmbvr I,

the founder of the XIIth Dynasty. T .ikcn byhim from earlier buildings, such fr J~lllcnts

wac used as fill for his own tomb. TillSpieceprobably came from structures connected with

the Great Pyramid of Cheeps, which havealmost entirely disappeared as a result of such

despoiling.

Above: Relief in the tomb of Anta, Desha-she,

Upper Egypt, Late Vrh Dynasty. Belowright: Axehead. British Museum. Belowlcfi: Relief from the reign of Cheeps, IVth

Dynasty.

"' iii lll!e~"·

The Egyptians besiege and attack a fortified city

KA wall painting from a z jrd-century B.C.

tomb shows another Egyptian siege. hereinvolving a unique mobile scaling-ladder. The

attacking army uses axes with semicircular

heads like the one shown at right.

Above: Wall painting from the tomb ofKaemhescr, Saqqarah. Vlrh Dvnastv. Righr:

Axehcad, larc third millennium KC. Metro­

politan Museum of Art.

THE PEHIOD BEFOHE ABRAHAM (4000--2100 B.C.)

~. ru s PERIOD BEFORE ABRAHAM (4000-2100 B.C.)

Thl' composite bow m,ly have been the deer­

sivc t.rctor in Acc.rdun vicrorv over the

Sumcrr.ms. In the detail {above) from .1 com­m, mor.uivc jtJ~· found .ir SllSJ, the victorious

Kill::: Naram-Sin, shown trampling hi'>

enemies, holds what seems to be the first

recorded example of this effective w~apol1.

The- King wears a homed helmet-a symbol

of dcific'ation-c-and also carries a narrow­bladed .1XC on his left arm, an arrow in his

riulir lund. Above .u ri~ht, the c. 2-000 B.C.

Ilusluulia (thc' ruler <It Eshuuma} shows asimil.irlv victorious J.nJ helmeted dl'ity (Tish­

polk) armed with an epsilon axe.

Above lefr: Sandstone stele from Susa, z j rdcentury a.c. Louvre, Right: Impression of aseal from Tell el-AS013.r, Nee-Sumerian

period. Museum of the Oriental Institute,

Chicago.

Facing page. left: A fragment of another

Accadian stele shows the composite bow inaction, Right, a second Accadion fr.l~l1lent

shows bou~d captives before a soldier ~rmt:dwith a bartleaxc.

Facing page. lefr: Limestone stele fr.lgmen[from Lagash, period of Sargon or Naram-Sin­

Louvre. Right: Diorite stele fragment trom

Susa, Accadian period, Louvre.

The earliest knownrepresentation ofthe composite bow

151