1

Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

David G. Terrell
January - February 2009

"What exactly is warfare?"

Before I started reading Hamblin, I must admit that my first thought involved an image from a
Bugs Bunny cartoon (thus dating myself). Our hero, Bugs, is flying bodily through the air after
being booted in the rear by his arch-nemesis, Elmer Fudd. While flying through the air, with
stars streaming from his injured posterior, he announces with aplomb, "Of course you realize,
this means war!"

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

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

When I delved into Hamblin, I found the introduction strikingly erudite. Methinks I'm going to
like this book. His paraphrase of Clauswitz was enlightening—to the ancient world, "war is the
continuation of divine policy by other means"—and produced in me an “a'ha” moment. When I
reached his discussion of the "military threshold", I felt that Hamblin would appreciate my Bugs
Bunny/co-belligerents metaphor; especially after I read his assertion that warfare becomes
possible when it “... has essentially become endemic in a region…”.

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

Consider Clausewitz's first two maxims:

• War is politics by other means

• War is an act of force to compel our adversary to do our will.

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

• UBL and Zawahiri for al-Qaeda

• Qaddafi for Libya
• Saddam
 2
Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

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

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

• They get a shepatovka. we get a bazooka

• Mark VI Panzer -- Pershing
• SS-20 -- Pershing SRBM

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

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

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

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

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

Arms Race...

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

• The king as commander-in-chief, smiting foreigners. It’s never too clear if this is a
offensive or defensive action—only a winning one.
• The siege and capture of walled cities. Tactically offensive but it could be the end of a
defensively inspired campaign.
• Binding and executing prisoners. As always, it sucks to be them.
• Offering spoils to the gods.

The “gods thing” interests me. I personally believe that it is unnatural for an animal to kill
another member of its own species. I’m caused to ponder if the ritualized religious structures we
 3
Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

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

Back to the physical manifestation of Mesopotamian and Egyptian military forces… I see a
continual arms race—new technologies being widely adopted soon after their successful
introduction onto the battlefield. (I wonder how intensively they pursued espionage). I’ve only
scanned Spalinger over this and, the book has much to offer concerning the Egyptian end of
things. My predilection is to assume that what they did not develop, they copied and
archeological dating will be useful in trying to determine who invented what (like Canaanite
chariots).

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

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

casting objects), woodwork, wheels, stone masonry, excavation, pottery, food storage
• tactical employment: light (swords) and heavy (spears) infantry, indirect fire (archers),
scouting cavalry, courier communications, chariot & cart based shock forces.
Standardized panoply (at least head coverings or capes) facilitating identification and
possibly esprit d’corps. Probably some form of manual at arms and close order drill.
• organization. Probably derived from multiples of hunting bands. I’ve seen several
artifacts showing 40 Egyptian infantry troops in 4 files of 10. Platoons have been around
for quite a spell.

Not much seems available revealing the strategic arts of the countries but I will keep looking. If
someone finds something, I’ll be interested to hear of it.

Composite bow

Archery was my college sport, so I claim some little practical knowledge. The idea of a
"composite" bow, made of multiple pieces laminated or otherwise fastened together so as to
build a stiffer structure by adding metal or horn to wood, differs from the idea of a "recurved"
bow, whose shape allows the bow to bend backwards while keeping the tips nearer "normal" (in
the geometric sense) to the string, which can then take more strain without the string slipping
from the ends of the bow.

The sensitive technology for composite bows is an adhesive. I've seen simple composite bows
made of multiple pieces of wood wrapped with sinew. They did not work well and may be the
reason the technology did not spread quickly. Perhaps the Akkadians had an adhesive that others
were unable to reproduce... which might also explain their scarcity.
 4
Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

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

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

A bow can be both composite and recurved.

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

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

Attacking a stationary foe, perhaps formed in square against cavalry, from beyond their effective
range gives you a bloodless victory--or entices them into an attack, opening them up to flanking
cavalry.

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

Composite bow 2

The bow on Hamblin 87 is the closest to a recurve. It is also, conceptually a laminate/composite

bow... but wood can be steamed and shaped while hot and then let dry to hold such a shape. The
only consideration there is that a steamed bow of that shape wouldn't have much pull weight
(throwing capacity). Layers of bovine horn and wood could be used... HERE (see the FALCON)
is a link to some "traditional Turkish bows"

Note the before and after stringing shape of the bow.

 5
Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

A more pronounced "U" shape would produce the stringed shape shown held by Naram-sin.
 6
Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

As I looked at the costs of the modern versions of the ancient bows... each one was unique, and
consistent quality had to be an issue. How many bows did a bowyer have to make for every
masterpiece?

Looking at this through a symbolic lens... Because of its range and lethality, the bow could be a
earthy symbol for divine power... a'la Zeus' lightning bolts. Everyone else had a range limited to
the accurate throw of one's arm... the bow-armed king... he could really reach out there and touch
someone. Thus could he "smite" an enemy from a unassailable distance.

As Hamblin talks about maces as a weapon for the nobility, perhaps the composite bow was one
also.

Archers & weapons - Akkadian

I'm thinking that is is quite possible that an artisan, lacking the materials for a self bow, learned
to fabricate a bow from smaller pieces of wood. Having it succeed, led to experimentation with
 7
Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

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

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

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

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

Nubian Campaigns

I was fascinated to read the sections of Senwosret III in Hamblin. His grasp of the importance of
Lines of Communications (LOC), evidenced by his enlarging the canal bypassing the First
Cataract, impressed me. His diplomatic assertion, that he “attacks when attacked, and is quiet
when it is quiet” (403) also fascinated me. It seems to be out of character for other Egyptian
rulers. I wonder how it jibes with his pushing the border with Nubia further south. As the text
seems to indicate, the Nubians probably could not keep their hands to themselves. Were more
arable lands available to the north?

Senruset III

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

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

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

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

Did the appellation 'god' mean more than "a really important, noble-born, person to whom I give
fealty, obedience and obeisance; acknowledge as occupying a divinely ordained position of
power; and whom commands the obedience of other followers willing to cut my throat if I
don't... shall we say... Cooperate."

Inquiring minds want to know.

It rates right up there with "How many licks does it take, to get to the center of a Tootse Roll?"
 8
Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

Forts

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

The 1911 Britannica says this:

Ancient Monuments south of Haifa. — Ruins of pyramids, temples, churches and other
monuments are found along both banks of the Nile almost as far south as the Fourth
Cataract, and again in the "Island of Mcroe." In the following list the ruins are named as
met with on the journey south from Wadi Haifa. Opposite that town on the cast bank arc
the remains of Bohon, where was found the stele, now at Florence, commemorating the
conquest of the region by Scnwosri (Uscrtescn) I. of Egypt (c. 2750 B.C.). Forty-three
miles farther south arc the ruins of the twin fortresses of Kumma and Semna. Here
the Nile narrows and passes the Semna cataract, and graven on the rocks are ancient
records of "high Nile."(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

Uronati to Semna-sud is about 4 miles. The lake is about 0.6 miles across at the points ID'd as
Kumma and Semna. They were close enough together to be mutually supporting. Here's the
coordinates (21°29'59.37"N, 30°58'1.34"E)

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

It is documented that Senusret III conducted four military campaigns into Kush and
established a line of forts within signaling distance of one another; Buhen being the
northernmost and the others along the banks of the Nile were Mirgissa, Shalfak,
 9
Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

Uronarti, Askut, Dabenarti, Semna, and Kumma. The Kushites captured Buhen
during the 13th dynasty, and held it until Ahmose I recaptured it at the beginning of the
18th dynasty. It was stormed and recaptured by indigenous forces at the end of Egypt's
20th dynasty. The triangular shaped fortress located on an island took advantage of the
narrow passage of the Nile between the walls of a canyon. ... the site has not been
submerged by Lake Nasser... (Emphasis added)

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

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

Forts 2

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

I had a marvelous opportunity to become friends with a tribal leader overseas who, though
uneducated, was very wise. From the lore he taught me, I learned that high IQs do not require a
modern education to exist.

People in ancient times, once the bottom steps of Maslow's hierarchy were being satisfied, had
time to build, think, experiment and develop--technologies and sciences that were different, but
no less astonishing.

It is a valuable concept in this self-assured, supremely-confident modern world--to realize that

we may not be quite so much smarter.

Organization

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

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

Organization 2

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

As to the OK being stronger than the MK, I don't see it; given the following:
 10
Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

• There's evidence that there was probably no professional officer class in the OK. [355]
The MK seemed to have titles indicative of a professional cadre. [421]
• the OK army was composed of regional units, called up as needed for imperial duty
[355], as were the MK. [418] MK units were also more tactically specialized. [423]
• OK weapons were mace, bow and dagger [356] with a more incomplete transition to
bronze weapons than in the MK. whereas the Mk saw evidence of the axe, sling and
parrying stick. [357, 424-5]
• OK use of archery was of limited effectiveness on armored targets. [359] In the MK,
evidence for formal practice and technical improvements in bows and arrows. [423-4]
• OK & MK fortifications were common. [360, 440] MK fortifications at the second
cataract are described as the "best Bronze Age fortifications anywhere in the world".
[441]

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

Mari archive

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

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

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

It makes my brains leak...

Law code

I'm getting enlightened by considering the laws in terms of... this law is meant to control a
behavior that was common enough to trouble the king's sleep.

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

Hmmmm. Compare 132 and 2. Sorta like the medieval test for a witch--if the accused floats (or
can swim?), they are innocent.
 11
Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

The system

The system of city states is logical to me, given the lack of any reliable, near real-time
communications that would standardize language, weights, measures, and politics. The Code of
Hammurabi stones are an interesting and innovative way to impose a cultural and legal norm
across a larger area. I could also see how they might represent a mode of identification--like
gang markings--to mark out territorial claims.

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

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

Chariots

I like Spalinger's explanation (15) of chariot-borne archers providing a fast-moving, longer-

ranged, crew-served weapon system with a larger magazine capacity and greater rate of fire than
most infantry-borne weapons (see slings and arrows, below).

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

David G Terrell
Herndon, Virginia

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

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

 12
Terrell DG, Short Notes on Ancient Warfare

© David G. Terrell, 2009-2011, except where otherwise noted, content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. For permission to reprint under terms outside the license, contact
davidterrell80@hotmail.com.