YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

download YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

of 27

Transcript of YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    1/75

     

    l

     

    /

    j

     

    i

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    2/75

    r

     

    l

     

    I

    ,

    ;

    'i

    i

    i

    i

    )

    CORRIGENDA

    Y. Yadin: The Art ofWa rfare in Biblical Lands

    p.48 (fig.) read  to fight  instead of   to light .

    pp. 79 and 206 (bottom) read 1307-1275 instead of   131

    0

    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  Tehutit cp .

      (cf 169) to be omitted.

    p. 159 read  { zoth century   C. instead of   c. 1900   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 Rockefeller

    Museum .

    Same correction in index, p. 474, No. 180.

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

    hunting charioteer .

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    3/75

    l

    :

    i, 1

     I

     : 1

     I

    j

     ONT NTS

     

    INTRODUCTION

    1

    The Art of Wa1are

    1

      o r t ~ f i e Cities

    ill

    Attack and

    Mobility

    4

    Deense

    16

    The Chariot

    4

    Attack and

    Penetrati

    on

    r6

    Cavalry

    5

    FortUlcatioll

    s andDeense

    18

    Firepower:

    Per

    s

    onal

    Weapon s

    6

    The Cit) Walls

    19

    The Bow

    6

    The Gate

    2

    The Compo site Bow

    7

     The Inlier

    Citadel

    23

    The Arrow

    8

    r at

    er

    Suppl» dllrin

      ? Siexe

    24

    The Qllillt r

    9

    Archa

    eological

    Sources

    25

    The Slin

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    4/75

    IV.

    T HE P ER IO D O F T HE P AT RIA RC HS  2100 1570

    B C

    58

    I

    Gideon andthe Three

    Hundred

    25

    6 Dauidand Solomon

    26

    7

    Weapons: Short-aud Medium-range

    59

    Methods of Wiltjare

    69

    I

    Abimclech

    and the Tower of

    The

    Conquest

    of

    Jeri/salem

    2

    67

    The Axe

    59

    Battle

     

    Fortified

    Cities

    69

    Sheehan

    260 The Battles David

    27°

    The Sword

    60

    Battle in Gpen Terrain:

    The Concubine ill Gibeah andthe

    The Army ofDavid and S ll l

    275

    The Spearandthejm din

    61

    TheDuel

    71

    Oroauiration ofthe TribalArmy

    262

    The Chariotandthe Cavalrv

    28

    4

    vVeapons: LOllg-rallge

    62

    Standard

    Combat

    73

    Saul the Warrior-Killg 26

    3

    The

    Fortifications

    287

    The

    BOl/

    62

    Communications

    and ltltelligmce

    73

    Dapidand Goliath

    265

    Plates

    331

    The S illg

    64

    The Chariot

    74

    f

    Personal

    Protection

    64

    plates

    I

    VII.

    T HE K IN GD OM S

    OF

    ISRAEL AN D

    JUDAH  920 586 B C

    291

    15

    2

    The Shield

    64

    The Troops andtheir Weapons

    293

    Fortified

    Citiesin Attackand

    Dciense

    3

    13

    Fortificatiolls

    65

    Iltjalltry

    294

    The Breach-the Batteriuo-Ratn

    3

    14

    The Archers

    295

    Other

    Devices

    3

    16

    V.

    T HE P ER IO D

    OF

    TH E

    SOJOURN

    I N E GYPT THE

    EXODUS

    The

    Slingmell

    29

    6

    Sealillg

    the Walls

    3

    16

    MOSE S AND J OSHUA  1570 1200 B C 7

    6

    The

    Cavalry

    297

    Penetration

    beneath

    the

    vValls

    3

    17

    vVeapoflS: Short-ami

    Mcdinm-ranoe

    77

    Attackand

    Defense 96

     

    The ChariotCorps

    297

    Siege, Ruse, and Psychological

    The Axe

    77

    Stratagems

    99

    Battlein Open Terrain

    302

    Warfare

    3

    18

    The Sword

    7

    8

    Battlein Open Terrain

    100

    The Battleof Samaria

    3°4

    Waterand

    Food

    Supply

    32°

    The Spear

    80

    The Battleof

    Megiddo

    100

    The Battle of the

    Wilderness

    ,tj

    The Walls

    3

    22

    T¥eapoflS: Lony-ranye

    80

    The Battle of

    Kadesh

    103

    Tekoa

    3

    10

    The Gate

    323

    The Bow

    80

    The

    March

    1°3

     

    josiah

    and

    the Battle

    of

    Dejensive

    Warfare

    325

    Personal Protection

    83

    The

    Surprise

    Attack

    1°4

    Meoiddo

    311

    Plates

    375

    The

    Countcrattacl: 105

    I

    he Shield

    83

    Tactics

    108

    ABBREVIATIONS

    OF

    PERIODICALS

    4

    65

    Arlllor

    84

    Illtelligence

    IIO

    The Helmet

    85

    Ambush andNight Fightitlg

    IIO

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

    4

    66

    M,)bility

    86

    Standard Formations

    II I

     

    The Chariot

    86

    Army

    Oroaniratioi:

    II

    I

    SOURCES

    FOR

    ILLUSTRATIONS

    470

    Methods of Assault

    011 Fortified

    Cities 90

    Chariot Units 113

    SUBJ E CT I NDE X O F P LA TE S

    1 vlilitary

    Administration

    4

    83

    The Fort ficatiolls

    90

    II3

    WaterSlIpply under Siege

    95

    Plates

    182

     

    n

    VI.

    T HE P E RI OD

    OF

    T HE J UDGE S

    AN D

    T HE U NI TE D

    MONARCHY  1200 920

    B C

    247

    The Philistines: Land and Napal Wars

    ill

    the Bible

    dllring

    the

    Period

    Battles

    248

    of thejudges 253

    The Land Battle 249 The Conquest of Bethel 253

    The Naval Battle 251 The Exploits of Eliud 254

    The Egyptiall Army 253 Deborah and Siscra 255

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    5/75

    PREF E

    This book w hich i s a first attempt to discussa ll the facets of the art

    of

    warfare.

    its implements. techniques and strategy in all Biblical lan

    ds

    requires a few

    explanatory words as to its structure and me thod of presentation to the reader.

    Although the book discusses a variety of subjects, each of which is in a sense

    independent , it is the interweaving

    of

    the various themes that makes the

    harmonious whole at which I have aimed,

    Th

    e book covets all lands of the Bibl

    e from

    Anarolia to Egypt and from

    Palestine to Mesopotamia- a part of the world conta ining nations and countries

    that had been fighting each other over long periods of history . Only a complete

    analysis from bot h the military and archaeological point of view will enable

    US

    to comprehend the development

    of

    warfare in all itsaspects: weapons,fortifications.

    army

    organization. and tactics.

    The book

    is. in fact. composed of three parts: the text accompanied by line

    drawings. the color plates. and explanat

    ory

    captions. This arrangement is

    necessitated by the fact that the principal sources for the subject are pictorial in

    character, consisting of thousands of carved and painted monuments. together

    with other remains of an archaeological character, which must first beset in their

    proper historical and geographical setting through archaeological and chrono

    logical analysis

    bef

    ore it is possible for one to draw military conclusions.

    The object of the text isto defmethe historicaland archaeological background.

    to describe t he various elements in the art of war and weave them int o a s ingle

    pattern whic h will make evident their mutua l relationship and their connexion

    wi th

    the different warring nations. The accompanying line draw ings should at

    this point assist the reader to visualize the subject without undue reference to the

    color plates. The subjects are discussed here w it hi n t heir archaeological period.

    andin each period the individual aspects are dealt with separately. This seemed to

    me preferable to discussing any one elemen t (e.g., the bow) from its very

    beguming to the end of the period discussed in the book.

    Th

    e latter may perhaps

    be a suitable method for a book whicha ims merely at presenti ng a body of data

    for reference purposes. but . in my opinion, it is unsuitable for a b

    ook

    whose

    aim

    it i s to emphasize the inter-relationship among the many elements which compose

    the art of warfare. thisbeing the only satisfactory way to grasp the development

    of thi s rt or science 

    Th

    e plates are put at the end of each par t. according to the archaeologica l

    periods. In this kind of book , which is based

     

    a large extent on archaeological

    fmds. it is imperative. I believe. topresent visually to the reader the many sources

    in as clear and faithful a manner as possible. The choice

    of

    suitable subjectsout of

    thousands

    of

    documents, the collection of colored and other pictures. and the

    PREF E

    arrangement of this abundant material on plates. by their ge

    ogr

    aphical provenance.

    their archaeological periods. and their relation to the various clements of war, has

    necessitated considerable effo rts. which often surpassed anything I had anticipated

    when I first started the book. Nevertheless. I believe this to have been worthwhile

    since the pictures will not on ly aid the reader to understand many things that

    ar

    e

    Impossible to describe in

    mer

    e words. bu t wi ll enable him to read critically and

    come to his own conclusions, Moreover.

    much of

    the material published here is

    scatte red i nscoresof museums and hundreds of publ ications (some of them quite

    rare). I have made a special point of presenting mate rial from these sources (such

    as the rare publications of Layard. Bott a, and Flandin) a nd at the same time trying

    to show them in conjunction with their places

    of

    discovery. I have made it a rule

    to present . wheneve r possible, the pictur es of the objec ts themselves. together

    with the monuments describing them. I have sometimes preferred a certain

    monument to others. not because of it sabsolute impo rtance, but on the basis of

    its relative artisti c value or i ts rarity . As f

    ot

    rhe written documents  gypti an.

    Arcadian, etc. whIChI have incorporated into the text . I have of course used

    translations and . unless otherwise indicated, I have mostly followed those in

    Pritchard s book (see bibliography). Th ese translationsdo not pretendt o be literal;

    their purpose is. in gcneral. to give a clear understand ing of the contents

    of

    the

    documents.

    As for the .explanatory captions. I thought it best not to inclu de too many

    descriptive details of the monumentsand finds in the text prope r. lesr it distract

    the reader from the main points and hinder him from seein g the wood for the

    trees.   nthe other hand. it is frequently these fine differences in details which

    make it possible to follow clearly the essential interrelationsh ip between the

    vanous aspects of warfare and the development of the science as a whole. Tha t is

    why I have paid particular attention to the captions of the more complex

    monuments which embody several subjects simultaneously.

    Th e reader who wishes to explore more thoroughly the whole subject. or

    thato f a particular chapter,has but to turn to the last pages for the very extensive

    bibliography ou every fmd and monument depicted in the book. I have not

    spared details there. since Iw ished to provid e t he reader with ample opport unity

    for studymg and c

    omp

    a rmg varrousopinions

    in

    regard to the objects.

    Onl y seldom have I touched on actual battles. the reason bcing that here.

    , more than on any other topic. the sources are very scant aud are subject to

    speculations and interpretations so extremely divergent that it is impossible to

    presen t the pro blem satisfactorily from a scientific viewpoint.  Moreove r. the

    detail s of the battles depend mainly on

    our

    knowledgc of the topog raphical

    factors which determined the tactical and strateg ical moves. In most of the

    famous battles this element is completely lacking , and of ten scholars cannot even

    IdentifYwith certainty the places named. Any change in iden tification of a site

    a matter which is of primary importance to

    our

    understauding of a particular

    h.ltlle

     a l

    ters. in fact. our grasp of the whole situation. Schemat ic maps. so often

    bra.ught forth to explain the battles in Biblical lands. may be useful to exp lain a

    war asawhole and the lines

    of

    the grand strategy . but   t more than that . and

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    6/75

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    7/75

     

    INTRO U TION

    TH R  OF W RF R

    War

    is the attempt by one nation to impose its will on another by force. This

    breakd

    own

    in hum an association has been a recurring feature in the history of man

    since the very beginning .

    Human

    conflict finds expression in the first pages of the

    Bible. Hardly has man begun life on earth when, as the Biblical narrative records

    with unadorned simplicity, Cain roseup against his brother Abel and killed him.

    Th

    e chain reaction to this event has continued right up to the zoth century. A study

    of human histo ry cannot therefore be complete without a study of the military

    events of the past and of the means conceived by nations to secure their own

    military aims and

    thw

    art those of their enemies. Moreover, in ancient times, as

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    8/75

     

    TH E

      RT O F W RF RE

    nat ion in w hose land it was discovered. Th e study of warfare must clearly cove r

    both rivals.

    Ther

    e 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 the

    different weapons fortifications   tactics and military organizations make up on each

    other. The progressive developments ineach branch and instrume nt of war during

    successive periods in history become clear only when examine d in the context of

    enem y opposition at the time. New tactics introduced by one sid e p rompted new

    counter-tactics by the other. Th esein

    tum

    produced furth er tacticalinn ovations by

    the first. W eapons development followed the same process. T he appearance of the

    composite bow  for example with i ts increased po we r of penetration le d t o t he

    invention of the coat of mail for defense. Thi s ill turn provided a further challenge

    for a weap on to defeat a r mo r . A nd so th e p ro cess continued leading to advances

    in both o ffensive a nd defensive battle devices. Similarly   the varioustypes of city

    fortifications can be und erstood on ly i n t he light of standard patt erns of attack on

    cities prevalent dur ing the different periods and in par ticular of the use of the

    battering-ram.

    T he s t ud y of military development .is in large measure the study of the

    unending process of r ea ct io n o f e ac h e le me nt i n warfare to its counterpart. But

    all elements must be considered as an int egrated wh ole and the relationship of

    each to the o ther properly examined. The development of w ea po ns m us t be

    studied against the background of t he developme nt of tactics army structure and

    the s ystems of fortifications. To study e ach element i n i solation w o u ld b e s u per

    ficial an d s terile and as unrewarding as the study of military developments of a

    singlenation without reference t o t hose

    of

    its neighbors. Bur accou n t m ust alsob e

    taken o f a hum an feature which has affected the rat e of m il itary development

    am o ng different peoples

     i n

    ertia or conservatism .

    Th

    e re are countlesse xamples

    thr ough out hist o ry r ig ht u p to the present time in wh ic h military inn ovations

    pro ved in battle havebeen spumed by other armies wh o h ave

    e r r e

    to adhere

    to tradition al patterns and have been finally int roduced only alter long delay.

    There is o ften a considerable time-lag be t we en the app earance of an i mp roved

    wea p on i n one country an d i ts a doption by another.

    .Moreover  even when some technical imp rov em en t g radually becomes

    accepted in the military scheme of things it suffers for a time by being considered

    i n t he o bsolete terms of patterns prevalent before its introduction. Th ese complex

    factors must alwavs be b o rn e in mind when we com e to stud y t he monuments left

    behind by the   ~ i o n s of antiquity. Th ese monum ent s r elate mo stly to warfare

    since wa r was a regular pa rt of the lives of these people.

    Military act io n may be classified in several ways. But none is completely

    satisfactory. Th e most general classification for example  is by the charactero f the

    operations either offensive or defensive. B ur i n every operation there is usually

    a concern bo th w ith offenseand defense. Even an army initiating an assault must

    be organized to defend itself against surprise or counterattack. This isalso true of

    the individual sold ie r w ho m us t b e a rm ed with bo th offensive and defensive

    weapons .

    I N T R O D U CT I

    O

    Military action may be classified accord in g to forms of warfare battle in

    op en terrain and battle on a fortified ciry. B ur here too each side mu st b e armed

    and or ganized in a m anner suited t o b oth types of warfare. For ir may hav e to

    move from the city to the plain or from th e p lain to the ci ty . during the course 

    of thefighting. An army mau led in anope n battlefield may seek to retreat behind

    a fortified base- as d id the Canaanites w hen beaten by Thu tmose III in the

    celebrated battle n ea r Megiddo . An d a n army th at may b e expected to sit behind

    rhe defensiv e w alls o f its city m ay br e ak out and attack the ene my in the open

    pla in- as happened with the countera ttack of the King of Samaria on the armies

    of Ar am w ho sought to besiege him.

    A nd t here is yer a further classification. A military action can be analyzed in

    the light of strategy and tactics. Basically strategy is the art of war. Tactics isthe

    art

    of

    battle con ce rn ed w it h t he m ov ement and operation

    of

    fighting uni ts on

    the battlefield.

    B ut h o we ver mili ta ry a ctio n may be classified and defined in the final

    analysisthe art

    of

    warfare is to seek t o achieve suprema cy over the enemy in three

    fields: mobiliry firepower  security. To putit another way it isth e ability t o m o ve

    troops to engage and inju r e t he enemy without serious inju ry to oneself.

    The principles of warfare discussed in the following chapters as they emerge

    f ro m t he m il it ar y record of ancient peoples reflect the att

    empt

    of each warring

    faction to achieve this triple supremacy over the enemy   or the act io n ta ke n after

    its successfulachievem ent. Th ese principles often regarde d a s the basis of strategy

    and tactics may be broken down into surprise; mainten ance of aim  econom y. and

    concentration of force;coo rdination of arms; security mobility an d the offensive

    spirit.

    Incidentall y surprise  s generally accep te d as the mo st important of these

    factors. Surpri se is in fact the ability to mo ve on e s forces to eng age the enem y

    a t a ti me place  and under condi tions which he does not expect for which he is

    unprepared and to which he cannot therefore react b y the most etfective

    app lication of hisown forcesand weapons .

    These principles are illustrated in cameo form at any boxin g match in which

    the contenders arc even unar med.

    Th

    e constant movement of the bod y has a single

    pu rpose:

    to

    p ut th e b ox er i n the most advantageous position from wh ich he can

    both arrack and at the same time evade the blows of his opp onent . Th e predomi

    nan t r ole of one fis t i s to attack fi repowe r; of the other   to parry securiry. T o

    gain this advantageous position the boxer has to know where hisopp onent

    is o

    r

    is likely to be at a gi ve n mo ment  nd to se ck o ut his weak spots. In th is he is

    ser ve d by his senses

     s

    ight   sound and touch. Hi s e yes ears  and hands provi de

    him wit h t he intelligen ce which   i n b attle  s provided by recon naissance un its on

    patrol or at forward observation posts. Th e action of hisfists and other parts of his

    body is d irected by his brain th rough the me di um of nervesa nd muscles. T heir

    counterpart in warfa re is the military commander and his staff as the brain ; their

    Ilcrves the communications networ k ; t he ir muscles tr ai ned a nd d isciplined

    tr  ps

    Mobility firepow er and securi ty a s t h e t hr ee b as ic e le ments in the art of

    3

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    9/75

    T HE

    ART O F

    W ARF AR E

    warfare are appropriate headings un de r w hich the nature of ancient war fare and

    the weapollS used in antiquity may be examined  The three groups we shall be

    considering are

    theref

    ore:

    1 Means whose pur pose was to of ier mobility such as cha riot s  cavalr y  an d t he

    capacity of the foot soldier to m ove far and fast  

    2  

    Means of firepower namel y weapons w hose purposew as ro hit th e e nemy at

    v r ous ranges  

    3  Me an s of security n

    amel

    y protective devices such a s t he

    helmet

    shield   and

    arm or wh ose

    purp

    ose was to p

    arry

    or

    blunt

    the effectiveness of t he enemy s

    we apons

    The hariot

    Porrificarions are a subjec t in themselves For  

    though

    they may be classed as

    a se

    cur

    ity device against the designso f an enemy   their structure

    must

    be such as

    to offer their own tr oops mo bility and freedom of action in addit ion to secu rity

    both for soldiers and civi lians 

    Before pr oceeding to a descripti on

    and

    analysis of these m ea ns of w arfare it

    is perh apswo rth und erl ining that in th e final resort it is not wea ponsalone wh ich

    determ ine the issue in hatt ie but oft en particul arly where b

    oth

    sides are evenly

    matched  the spirit of the

    command

    er in the direction of h is for ces a nd t he s pirit

    o f th e troop s inth e handling of th eir weapons Th ese have been the decisive factors

    in fat

    ef

    ul wars throu gh out history  

    M OBIL IT Y

    Th e c

    hariot

    in batt le is basically a

    mobile

    firing platform

    It

    is

    not prim

    arily

    a

    mean

    s of transport from a distant base to the battlefield Its

    prin

    cipal purpose is

    to serveasa movablep latform within th e battlefield from w hich relatively lim ited

    firepower ca n b e r us hed to and

    brought

    to bear on decisive spots in the midst of

    th e fi g

    hting

      A secondaryand by no means

    neg

    ligible

    purpo

    se

    is

    its shock value 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 stabi li ry for the f i ring of weapons  Th ese needs are contradictory   For

    speed and ma neuverability are best pr ovided by a small

    and

    light chariot  But a

    s table f ir

    ing

    p la tf or m demands a heavier vehi cle capable of supporting and

    providing operational space for a t least one weap on-carrying soldier in addition

    to the dri ver Th e rival claims of these tw o considerations exercised the minds of

    m ilitar y planners thro ughout the generations 

    Diff

    erent soluti o ns we re devised at

    differ ent

    tim

    es 

    And

    these arc reflected in th e v a r ie ty of ancien t ba ttle chariots   At

    timess peed was sacrificed to stability   At other r im es stability gave wa y

     

    speed 

    Event ually the chari ot became a finel y balanced war instrument  serving both

    needsequally effectively   In its com plete form it w as a c omp le x v ehicle co

    mpri

    s-

    ing

    the follow i n g c arefully design e d p arts; bod y whe els axle chariot pol e yoke

    and fittin g s f or wea pollS su ch a s q ui vers bo w cases  an d sheaths and stands for

    ax es and spears

    T o giv e it strength

    and

    ligh tn ess  the chariot was bu i lt largel y of

    woo  -

    special kinds fo r e ach par

    t

    strips of leather   and various metals  t was not an

    instrument com mo n to th e equipment of all armies It could be fashioned on ly by

    nations co mm anding rich resources and ad v an ce d techniques T ech ni q ue w as

    important For as we shallsee later the turning-point in the devel

    opment

    of the

    c h ar i ot c a me w i th

    the

    lighter body

      the

    introducti

    on of t he l ig ht  spoked wheel 

    and the techni cal knowledge

    which

    en abled t he axle to be set farth er to the rear  

    For on ly w

    ith

    the rear axle co uld the chariot

    be

    co mpletel y m aneuverable even on

    sharp turns  But th is required lightness  For a r ea r axle on a heav y ch ariot ma de

    heavier by the weight of the military team   wou ld have been

    10 0

    grcat a strain on

    th e

    draft

    anim als It was the co mbination of the rear axle plu s the des ign of a light

    body and light w heels as well as po

    werful

    and swift draft animals whic h

    brought

    ab

    out

    the

    perf

    ect chariot : stable fast and highly man euverable

    Like the chariot t he primary purpose of the caval ry horse was also to serve as

    a mobile firing platform   th

    ough

    here too the panic and co nfusion induced inth e

    ene my by a cavalry charge wa s not

    without

    importance T he advantage of the

    horse

    over

    the chariot was

    its

    ability   m ov e ove r almost any ground wh ereas

    a w he eled vehicle was limited to comparat ive ly level and

    unbr

    oken terrain  

    Against this  the horse o ffered a po or and unstable fir ing

    platform

      In a chariot

    th ere w as t he dr iver con cerned solely

    with

    controlling the hors es and a f ight ing

    soldier free for operarional acrion In the cavalry rider and soldi er were one If

    his weapon were the

    bow

      requiring two hands to o perate  his control of t he horse

    in action was correspondingly reduced  E ven if arm ed w ith a spear which needed

    on ly one ha nd and left the o ther free for the reins   he lackeda third   hold a shield 

    T he eflcctivencss of t he m

    ount

    ed ho rse in battle in earlies t times was th us l imit ed 

    O nly

    with

    the very late introduction of improved saddles  stirr ups

    and

    spurs

    making it possible to

    contr

    ol the horse

    with

    thigh   kn ee and ankle w asth e cavalry

    manfree to fight

    wi t h bot h

    hands Smal l w o

    nder

    tha t th e cav alry made itsserious

    appearance on the battlefield

    only

    some

    1 500

    year s after the chari ot

    An Egyptian chariot  i the XV 11 h

     Dynasy

      avalry

    5

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    10/75

    A simpleJo hle-rollvcx

    boll

    o a Semite X1Jh DyuaslY

    Tire   Oll

    Slrullg

    ImJ

     m smmg

    Tatar composite

    llow

    THE

    ART

    OF W RF RE

    FIREPOWER Personal Weapolls

    Every fighting commander since the beginning of time has dreamed of

    possessing a weapon which could out-range anything in the armory of the enemy .

    With such a weapon he could not only surpriseh is foe, but could do so without

    harm   himselfandh ismen, for theycould remainout of reach of enemy missiles.

    But long-range weapons do not obviate the need for medium- and short

    range instruments of war. Theirkey importance is at the start of hostilities. But as

    the battle progresses, medium-range weapons must be b rought to bear on the

    enemy, giving way fmally to the weapons used in hand combat.

    I t was clearly impossible for the individual soldier to

    carry

    at

    all

    times the

    weapons for all ranges required at progressive

     t ges

    of battle. And so even the

    most ancient armies were organized in units linked to specific rypesof weapons :

    the long-range-weapon troops were usedat the start of the battle; the follow-up

    units were armed with medium-range weapons; and the hand-to-hand fighters

    engaged in the final phase

    of

    battle.

    Range, as a basic factorin the usc and development of weapons, canserve as

    a convenient criterion in weapons classfication. The major weapons in use in

    ancient times were the bow and the sling for long range; the javelin and thespear

    for medium range; and the sword, the axe, and the mace for short range.

    The bow is one of the earliestknown weapons of war. It was in use in pre

    historic times and was, because of itsrange, the most convenient weapon alsoof

    the hunter. The bow may well have been the firstcomposite implement devised

    by man, and definitely the first method of concentrating energy.

    Since we shall be discussing its development in some detail, let usfirstrecord

    its component parts and action. It consistsof two basic elements: thebody, which

    is of wood, and the string. The surface of the wood farthest from the string is

    cal led the back; the inner surface is called the belly. The point on the wood at

    which the bow is held, near itscenter,is called the grip. The parts of the woodon

    either side of the gr ip a re cal led arms, or limbs. The string isattached to the

    extreme ends

    of

    thearms.The bow isoperated by placing the base of the arrow

    against the string, putring the string under max

    imum

    tension by pulling it as far

    as possible from the wood, and suddenly releasing it. Theact of drawing thestring

    brings the ends of the body closer together and puts the wood under tension. Th e

    wood . which should be bothpliableand tough, springsback toi ts former position

    the moment tension on thestring is released, and this brings back the string with

    a snap, propelling the arrow sharply forward as it does so. The bowman holds the

    wood withh is left hand

      th

    e bow arm

     

    t the grip, and draws back the string

    with hisright , by whichhe also holdsthe base, or hook, of the arrow. To protect

    his left arm f rom the blow of the string as it snaps backo n release,the bowman

    often wore an armguard on the inside of the bow arm.

    The range of a bow depends on one or all of the following factors-its size,

    shape, and the pliabiliry and toughness of the wood. The bigger the bow, the

    grearer its pliability and consequently its range. But a large bow was more

    unwieldy to operate and it alsohampered mobility.

    I

    NTR

    O

    DU

    CTION

    The shape of the wood in the early simple bow was a single convexa rc, so

    that the distance between string and body was widest at their respective centers.

    Maximum tension wasreached when the hand on the string was pulled as far away

    as possible from thehand on the grip. But ir was found that this did not exploit

    the maximum pliabiliry from the wood to produce thc deserved tension. This, it

    was found, could be achieved by reducing thedistance between both fists in the

    start position, that is, between the grip au thebody and the center of the string.

    This led to the invention of the double-convex or double-span b

    ow lik

    e the

    shape of a Cupid upper lip which br

    ought

    the grip c loser 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 give

    it greater range.

    The emergence of the bow as a battle weapon of first importance camewith

    the introduction of the composite bow. Th isweapon proved decisive in numerous

    campaigns in ancient days.

    There was no s ingle natural element which could give a bow wood the

    required toughness and elasticity. But gradually the idea was developed of com-

    bining several available natural materials which, together, could meet all needs.

    Thus wasborn the composite bow. It wasmade offouemat

    erials w

    ood, sections

    of animal horn, animal tendons and s inews, and glue. Even the wood t he

    skeleton of thebow- was sometimes not made from a single block but comprised

    pieces of wood from different trees with varying pliabiliry suited to the different

    tension demand s at different parts of the limbs andthe grip. The back of the bow

    wascovered with strips and bands of s inews. The belly was re

    inf

    orced with two

    sections of animal ho rn , one on either side, the inner curve of the horn facing

    the belly.

    AUthese materials were stuck or bound together to form a single integrated

    body. And they were so bound that before the string was attached, the arms of

    the body tendedto bend the other way. To pull them round for the attachment

    of the s tr ing, or the bracing, so that the wood assumed the shape of a bow,

    required great strength. This, of course, put it under great tension even in its

    position of rest, and, when operated, greatly increased its propulsive power. The

    composIte structure made possible for the first time the production of a bow

    which, though comparatively small, and therefore light and mobile. nevertheless

    had considerable power. It waswell described by an Arab author of the r

    j th

    cemury   D He wrote:  The structure of the composite bow is not unlike that of

    man. The human body is made up of fonr basic clements-i-bones, flesh, arteries,

    andblood. The composite bow has the same four cowlterpart elements: wood- its

    skeleton; horns- i ts flesh; tendons

      i t

    s arteries; glue- its blood. Man hasback and

    belly. So hasthe bow. And juscas man can bend forward but is likely to damage

    himself bv bendmg too far backward, so with the operation of rhe bow.

    . The heighr of perfection of the composite bow was reached when, toendow

    Itwith greater power, it was given a double-convex form.

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

    The Co

    mposi

    te Boll

    Pars

    lil

    aTurkish composite bow.

    From Itj

    TOn fht

    } rst andsecond,

    pieces ojthin ivoodjonncd the core of

    [heboll and lire pieceglued

    t o g l { h a ~ 1 1 1 a C l : view. Thirdfro ,

     t fi the

    piece

    sgll/eJ

    togNh  r siJe

    view. Fourth: thestrip s i l l c l that

    IVel

    J/

    llcd tothe (ore, andwhich

    [o

    rmed

    the

    back l{ till 

    ;1

    1

      when

    stnmg . sec ions

    lif

    horn,  ,/ ; eh

    j;  neJ

    1   (

    bel)

    f

     

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    11/75

    9

    The QJli er

      et/

     

    ds release as depiced

    Or

    EgyptianandAssyria fO

    t l l lI l l

      lIl

    s  

    Top[ourdrawi/lgs depict

    p l i a H

    lwtoHl tltrCl 1 ssyriall

    Since the bow was reqnired to fire numerous arrows during the course of

    bottle,

    the archer had to have some means of carrying a reasonable complement

    vi arrowsin a handy manner whichwould put them within easy reach and facili

    tate speedy reloading, In thish e was served by the quiver. The quiver had to be

    capable of holding between twenty and thirty arrows and to be made of light

    weight material. It was carried either on the back oi the bowman or over his

    shoulder so tha tboth hands were free to fire the bow .

    Of the bow , as of the chariot , i t can be said that no other weapon in ancient

    days required so high a technical capacity to produ ce and such skil l t o operate.

    These two qualities in combination were decisive on more than one occasion in

    determining the course of history.

    Special technical difficulty was experienced in the attachment of arrowhead

    to body . If the base of the head wasinserted into the body, the arrowhead was

    known·as a tang. Ifthe bodywasfitted into the baseof the head, it was

    know

    n as

    a socket. The effectiveness of the arrow to pierce armor wasdetermined by the

    shape and structure

    of

    i ts head. Arrowheads may be classified as leaf-shaped, or

    triangular, etc.•and as flat or with a central spine or rib. The form wasnot the fruit

    of

    caprice but was dictated by the nature of the defenseand armor of the enemy.

    The sling, devised by ancient shepherds to scare predatory animals irom

    The Sliug

    attacking their flocks, gradually made its appearance on thebattlefield as a weapon

    ofwar. Fori t enableda missile   be thrown a considerabledista

    nce

    considerable

    for those

    days

    in any terrain, hilly as wellas flat. Its capacity to fire up a slope,

    mdeed, gaveit some importancein assaultson fortified cities.

    Olf IS

    of arrowheads

    TH RT

     

    W RF R

    yards, though itsabsolute range was about two times that distance. For the first

    time in history, it waspossible withthis weapon to surprise the enemy and attack

    him from beyond his range of retaliation, of hearing, and, on occasion, of vision.

    Its power also had a revolutionary impact on the art of warfare, and wasdirectly

    responsible for the introduction of the coar of mail fo r personal protection.

    Somewhere between the simple andthe composite bow came thecompound

    bow. This wass tronger than thefirst but lesscomplex and of course lesspowerful

    than the second. and was in wide use among armies who hadnot reached the

    technical standards demanded by the manufacture

    of

    the composite bow. The

    body of the compound bow wasmade of two or more strips of wood partially

    overlapping, glued together or bound with tendons and cord.

    Much of our knowledge of bows used by early warriors in Biblical lands

    comes from ancient drawings and bas-reliefs. The simple,reinforced,and compo

    site bows are depicted inthe works

    of

    ancient artists, both intheir single-span and

    double-convex forms. The composite bow is always easy to pickout . For,aswe

    have observed earlier, in thisbow, there was a tendency for theends of thearms

    to recurve and bend outwardsbefore,and often even after, they wereboundto the

    string. This feature is usually evident in the artistic representation of this type of

    bow, givingit almosta double-concave rather thanconvex appearance. Moreover,

    the form of attachment of the horns beneath the arms gave the composite bow,

    with the string as base, a triangular form. We are indebted to the ancient artists,

    who paid meticulous attention to detail, for the certainty wi th which we can

    recognize the different bows usedin antiquity.

    None of the improvementsto give the bow greater range would haveb een

    of any value without comparable advances in the development of the arrow,

    which is.afler all, the offensiveelement of this weapon. The arrow ismade up

    of

    three parts, each of a different material tosuititsspecial function. The arrowhead,

    which is the destructive part, had to be of the hardest possible material flint

    bone, or metal. The body of the arrow, whose function is t o direct the energy

    transmitted from the s tr ing on release. had to be long, thin, hard. straight, and

    light. and was made of wood orreed.The rail.designed to keep the arrow on its

    course in smooth and straight fligh t, was made of feathers. The feathers of an

    eagle, vulture, kite. or se a fowl were found to be the most effective. The t ail,

    without which the arrow cou ld not reach its target. was so important that its

    feathers were aptlydescribed by thePersiansa s  messengers of death.

    8

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    12/75

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    13/75

    Three

    typesof

    shields. From

    top

    1

    bottom: around Sea Peoples shield;

    l\l/Ig E . ~ y p t i J n shield; andjigure-8

    HifCilt shidJ.

    13

    The

    Shield

    SECURITY

    PersonalProtection

    a crossbar, by which i t was f it ted bet ter to the handle. This project ion and bar

    and the shape

    of

    the blade gave i t the outl ine

    of

    an anchor, and i t i s therefore

    called the anchor axe.

    The socket type also had i ts var iations. There was the axe

    with

    two large

    holesin the blade,

    known

    asthe eye axe; the duck-bill axe, with the longer blade

    and two smaller holes; axes

    with

    blades whose rear part was decorated with the

    likeness of animal heads, the fingers of a hand, a horse s mane.

    The variety

    of

    axes reflected the attempts of armorers at successiveperiods ro

    meet the new technical and tactical demands

    of

    the times. Each will be studied in

    detail in rhe context of itsappropriate period.

    Of the t hr ee bas ic e lement s i n t he a rt of

    warfare-mobility

    firepower,

    security-the

    thi rd is the most passive.But wi thout i t, the other two cannot be

    ful ly exercised,and at t imes not atal l. A weapon cannotbe f ired i f i t swielder i s

    put out

    of action, through lack of secure defense, before he begins. Security is

    a factor of warfare not only at the strategic and tacticallevelsbut alsoat the level

    of the individual soldier.

    One of the most absorbing chapters in the story of warfare is the search

    through the agesfor deviceswhich would offer personal security to the soldier on

    the battlefield without limiting his mobility or firepower. There was a constant

    srrcggle for priority among the three. A large and heavy shield could give excel

    lent security-but at the expense of mobility, Protective devicesfor ears and eyes

    would hamper both mobi li ty and the eff iciency to direct f ire. A shield which

    requi red tobe held byone hand lef tonly the otherf ree to operate a weapon. And

    a coat of mai l which freed both hands was unwieldy and slowed movement . In

    determining which of the three factors should beemphasized in rhe planning

    of

    a protectiveinstrument, account wastaken of the character of one s own offensive

    weapons, those

    of

    the enemy, and

    of

    the forms

    of

    mobility available to both

    chariots, cavalry, or infantry. The appropriate solution was sought by the appro

    priate adaptation of the shape of the protect ive device and rhe mater ia] f rom

    which i t was to be made.

    Instruments for personal defense fal l into two categor ies-shields and

    armor.

    The shie ld i s s imply a dev ice to serve asa bar ri er between t he body

    of

    a

    soldier and the weapon of his enemy. For reasons we have already considered, no

    shield could be completely satisfactory. If it was large enough ro give complete

    protect ion, i t was too heavy to permit f ree movement. I f i t was small enough to

    give easy mobility, it was inadeqnate to after the body full cover.

    Typesofaxes:

    far

    l ~ i

    epsilon;

    uext

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

    The nt xt pairaretallgand

    socket

    axes,andfar

    r ~ ~ I t :

    lugged»xcheads

    than with the mace. And the varied attempts

    to

    find solutions led to the variety

    of

    shapes devised for the blade during the different periods in history.

    S ince the axe was conceived, as the sword, for hand- to-hand f ight ing i ts

    development was guided by the samealternate purposes of the sword-to pierce

    (paralleling the sword s function of s tabbing) and to cut . The prior ity of one

    purpose over the other during a specificperiod was determined by the quality of

    the enemy s armor at the t ime. This, too, inf luenced the form of the axeblade.

    The

    cutting axe was effective againstan unarmored enemy. Against armor, the

    piercing axe was required, with deep power

    of

    penetration, Axes may therefore

    be broadlyclassifiedaccording to shape,which also coincides

    with

    their respective

    functions: the axe

    with

    a long blade ending in a short sharp edge,for piercing; and

    the axe

    with

    a short bladeand a wide edge,for cutting. There were alsovariations

    within each type.

    A problem facing i ts manufacture, which often inf luenced the form and

    development of the axe, was again the problem of fitting blade to handle in such

    a manner that i twould not f lyoff in act ion. This, of course,is a danger in all such

    instruments, even the axeusedby the laborer. And the Bible draws attention

    to

    it

    in Deuteronomy

     9: :  And

    when a man goerh into the wood with hisneighbor

    to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut

    down

    the tree,

    and the head slippeth from the helve, and l ighteth upon his neighbor, that he

    die 

    The axe may thereforebe further classified according to the way its bladeis

    joined to the handle: the socket type,in which the handle isfitted into a socketin

    the blade; and the tang type,in which the rear of theblade isfitted into thehandle.

    In the latter type, the

    join

    wasstrengthened by binding or intertwining with cord.

    In some tang-type cutt ing axes, with rhe shor t blade and wide edge, the rear

    of

    the blade had three projectionsor tangs bywhich itwasfitted to the handle, giving

    it the appearance of the figure 3, or-it depends

    how

    you look at i t o the Greek

    letterepsilon. This axe is therefore

    known

    asthe epsilon axe. AnotherMadeof the

    sametype had a somewhatlonger central tang projection from its rear fitted

    with

     -ppa two d r a l l i t l . ~ s , s l kctcd axe

    with malic-like  Jack Below,socketed

    axes lI ilh f i l l g c r ~ l i k e backs

    c::

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    14/75

    strength and lighmess were made of wood or leather and st iffened with met al

    plates and studs. All these variants a re fully depicted in several illustrated mon u

    ments.

    Th e tw in advantages of personal armor were that it cove red the body of the A r/Hor

    fighter and left his hands free to oper.te his weapon. Its drawbacks were that it

    was difficult and expensive to manufactur e and its weight hampered movement .

    The simplest solution w a s. uniform made of leather or some tough fiber. This

    would not give perfect protection bur i t could give some was simp le to manu-

    f. crure and was light to wear. I tcould  in a

    W y

    serve asa substitute for the long

    shield and only a short shield would be required for protection of the face though

    this would

    not

    help the bo

    wmen

    or cavalry who needed tw o free hands . T he

    simple solution was not therefore the ideal solution .

    The big advance toward perfection camewi th the coat of mail. This consisted

    of hundreds of small pieces of metal like fish-scales wh ich joined together and

    attached to the surface of . clot h o r leather cloak . Wh ete

     

    armor made of plates

    of metal was excessively heavy to wear and interfe red wi th movement  the coat

    of mai l was relativel y light and afforded easier movement. It was certainly the

    best protective device conce ived a t the time. Bur even the coat of mail had its

    disadvantages . Its manufacture dema nded high technical skills and

    W

    very

    costly . It also had its point s of weakness at the join of the sleeves and between

    the scales.

      IN TR O D U

    CT I

    O N

    The most vulnerable p. rt of the soldier in battle was his head. And so the  he   e I t

    search for protection by meanso f some form of helmer goes back to early times.

    Interestingly enough  because of the climate in the lands of the Middle East in

    Biblical times  the development

    of

    the helmet never reached the stage achieved

    in Europe where it a lsocoveted the face. T heonly improvementsin the Eastern

    helmet were the armored neckband which protected the gap between the origi nal

    helmet and the coat of mail  a col la r made of scales. Neither of these hampered

    m

    ovement

    or vision

    Diffe re nt armies during different per iods favored special shapes for their

    helmet. In some cases such as the round- or cone-shaped helmet  the consideration

    was functional: to deflect the arrow and make difficu lt its penetr ation.

     n

    most

    cases  the reason was quite different . One was to facilitate identificat io n between

    friend and foe in the midst of the anarchy of battle . Th e head of the soldier stands

    more than my ot herpart of hisbod y andso each>rmy would equipitstroops

    W

    it

    specially shaped or specially decorated helmet. Some went furrher  and

    equipped different units of the same . rmy with different helmets so tha t the

    co

    mm

    ander in the field coul d q uickly identify the position of each at al l times.

    And there were also instances in which the shape

    of

    the he lmetand its decoration

    had the ir origin in some t ribal or other tradition and served no military purpose.

    Some of these types of helmets have provided us with a safe clue in de termining

    the periods of ancient illustrated monuments  su ch as the monum ents of the

      yrian period 

    .1

     

    .1s.yrio ll

    hdm l

    Typeso sltie s: all

    except

    that

    c rri ed

    by warrior in

    cerrer.

    whois Egypl;au

    Typesofarm r scaes

     ll 

    mflhoJ of

    f

    U

    fttling a J14dllg  rom Cypress

    The

    ancient armorers sought compromise solutions to these conflicting c

    on

    siderati ons  experimenting with different shapes or d if fe rent materials or both.

    Their effor ts are reflected in thenumerous shapes of shields which have been   ound

    - long   short rectangular circular  triangul ar shields shaped like a figur e 8  flat

    shields and co

    nvex

    shields. E.ch pro vides its own clue to the reasoning behind its

    design. The l

    ong

    shield served the soldier who f

    ought

    wi thout armor and needed

    maximum

    bod

    y protection.

    The

    sh

    ort

      usually round shield was for the armored

    fighter who required pro tection for his face alone . The figure -S shield was simply

    an

    econom

    y

    form

    of the

    long

    shield   with superfluous partscut out to save material

    and weight. The convex shield gave sl

    ightly

    more protection to the s ides of the

    body and was a lsod esigned to defle ct arrows 

    These were all personal shields carried by the fighter himself.Bu t also in use

    in ancient times was the very large shield. Thi s was carried by a special shield

    bearer who was constantly at the side of the fight er he was protecting.

    Ancient designers were as concern ed with the choice of material as th ey were

    wi th shape in the s earc h for the ideal shield. The ideal was of course material

    which was bot h l i ght and tough and easily available. Most early shields were of

    wood leather plaited twigs or reeds  or of metal. The metal shields were very

    heavy but they gave better protection. Some shields as a compromise between

    W

     

    ~

    W

     

    :

    o

    14

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    15/75

    16

    AttackandP

     n tr t

    ion

    THE   RTOF W RFARE

    F

    ORTIFIED

    C ITIES IN

      TT

    A

    CK   ND

    DE

    FENS

    E

    The art of war fare knows no more illuminating example, on so large a scale,

    of the characteristic chain reaction feature of mil itary developments than the

    history ofthe fortified city in defense and attack.The battl e on s uch acity produced

    special and conflicting problems for the atta cker and th e defender. And the actions

    of one were a direct response to the actionso f the o the r.Th e study of the systems

    of defense and the methods of attack, the problems of each and the various solu

    tions conceived during rh e d ifferent periods, is therefor e of great interest to the

    student

    of

    milit ary history. Such study also sheds much light on the his to ry of

    man , for human being s, from earliest times, s

    ought

    shelter from thei r enemies,

    bo th man and beast, and devised some system of fortifications. The development

    of su ch systems and the innovations introduced at different tim es are indices of

    bo th the technical advances registered by one perio d over itspredecessor and also

    of new means and methods of assault which they we re devised to counter.

    Fortificationsarc basically an artificial barrier. whether or no t they are buil t

    around naturally defensive terrain , whose purposeis .to

    deny

    the enemy the two

    important advantagesin assault, mobility and firepower, and to provide a founda

    tion of security for the defender.This dual purpose cannot, as may be supposed, be

    achieved by the erection of a s imple b arrier,

    but

    by designing it in such a way as

    to afford freedom of movement and firepower to t he d

    ef

    enders behind it.

    To follo w the reciprocal developments in the methodso f at tackand defense,

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

    There were

    fi ve possible ways

    of

    conquering a fortified city . Sometimes one

    was enough. At othertimes a combination of two or

    mor

    e was necessary.

    The

    five

    methods we re: p enetrat ion by force from above the fortif icat ions, penetration

    through the barri er , penetration from below, siege, penetration by ruse.

    T he first three methods demanded sufficient resources at the d isposal of the

    attackers to enable them, at specific stages of the battle , to cover their penetration

    un its, so that theycould wor k withoutinte

    rf

    erence, by maintaining steady fire on

    the defenders and preventing

    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 penetr ation through the fortifications could be gained in severalways.

    It could be effected by breaching the wall, ei the r by primitive methods using

    hammers. axes, spears, and swords,o r by a special instrument called the battering

    ram . It could also be done by demolishing the doors

    of

    the gate or setting them

    on fire.

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

    inven tion , technically complicated to manufacture, and requiring, for its opera

    tion , both engineering skill and the capacity to give effective and sustained cover

    to its operators.

    In itselementa lfo rm, the ba tte ring-ram was a long beamwith a sharp metal

    head.  

    would

    be thrus t

    with

    force against the wall to bebreachedso

    that

    itshead

    was lodgeddeeply between the stones or bricks. Ir wo uld then be levered right and  

    left , therebydislodging the stones or bricks and causing part of the wall to collapse.

    The beamand itssharp head represent the firing power of the bart ering-ram .  

    In action, the penetration unit handling the battering-ram had to reach the

    wall, bringing them close to the defendersabove  n

    d to their missiles.T o prorect

    rhern, an early improvemen t was int roduced. The battering b eam was carried

    beneath a long wooden box-like structure, similar to th e top half of a covered

    wagon , i ts surface strengthened wi th leather or shields, its forward pa rt o pen to

    allow the beam to be swun g.

    But only in the more primitive batter

    ing ram

    was tills structure used solely

    for protection. In later periods. wi th more advanced engineering skills, it was

    adapted to serve also the technical purpose of easing the movement of the beam

    and g iv in g i t a more powerful thrust. The merhod most comm only used was ro

    drop a rope from the  ceiling   of th e stru ctur e and t ie it to the beam atan appro

    priateSpot , so that it became a kind of pendu lum. It cou ld then be swung backward

    and forward, gathering m

    om

    entum, so th at, when released, it wo uld fly forward

    with greater force and wedge itself mo re firml y i n t he wall. T hespecial shape of

    the structure stems from this second function.Itsforwardpo rtion was higher than

    the rest of i ts body ,rathe r l i ke a tower , and i t was w ithin this tower tha t the rope

    hung

    from

    th e to p and was tied to the beam.

    The battering-ram, complete wi th struc ture, was heavy . It had to be brough t

    fr

    om

    greatdistances to the proximityo f the city under assault , and thenright up to

    the walls. Th e mo re advanced types were therefore equipped wi th wheels, and

    this indeed gave it the appearance of a com plete covered wagon and not just the

    top h

    alf

    From

    the

    rear base to the battlefield, it wo uld often be dra

    wn

    by dr aft

    animals. But in the

    final

    phase . i t would have to be moved to thec ity wall by the

    soldiers themselves. Thi s w as a tough task, for t he gro und was usually rough,

    roc ky, and steep, To make it easier, the a ssaulting force would try to lay an

    improvised track, oft en of earth occasionally strengthened with wooden planks,

    toserve asa smooth ramp of gentl e gradient along which the bartering-ramcould

    be moved from the foot of the slopes to the city wall. Whe n it ha d b een b roughr

    within appropriate range for the battering operation, it wou l d b e b ra ke d a t t he

    spot to prevent its rolling back,

    Oft en, to give the penetration unit additional protection , the covering fire

    from the regula rinfantr y was strengthened by fire from special troopsw ho would

    accompany the batt ering-ram, walki ng at its sides or even inside the structure . Ar

    a later period , such troop s wer e mov ed in high, mobile, wooden towers from

    which they could fire ar the defenders upon the walls.

    Penetration from beneath the fortificarious was perhapslessdangerous for the

    assault group, but technically

    more

    difficult . Th e tunneling could be start ed outside

    the range

    of

    the defenders weapons, and c

    ould

    be done in darkness. But it was

    a l

    engthy

    process, Moreover, if at some stage the ope ration should becomeknow n

    to the defenders, they could offe r awarm welcome to the attackers astheyemerged

    fr

    om

    the o th er end of t he tunnel. However, with the discovery

    of

    destru ctive

    >

    A primitive battering-fdm operated by

    threesoldiers[

     

    rnbthitlJ rover.

    Bm;-ha  J   10th cr /tury BC . Set

    p lge J59

    17

    ;  

    . ..

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    16/75

     

    ssyrianlla

     t ring

     ram

    For fic

     t otl

    SaudDclense

    18

    devices which could be placed beneath the foundations of the wall, this penetration

    fr om beneaththe fortifications became in amuch later period extremely dangerous

    fo r the defenders.

    The siege, as a method of conquering a fortified city, was by its ve ry nature

    themost protracted of all, and the least dangerous t the attacker, I ts aim was to

    encircle the city and so preventsupplit

    from

    reaching the defenders within. But

    it demanded of the besieging

    army

    special measures for i ts own defense. For it

    became, in great measure, a passive force, and one which was exposed to attack

    at any point by allies o

    fthe

    besieged city who might com e at them from

    an

    direction. It mig ht alsob e attacked by the defenders themselves who, when their

    plight became desperate. might venture fonh from their beleaguered positions and

    attemptto break through the ring. To meet these possiblethreats, a besieging

    army

    would establish fortified camps. This also enabled them to preventoutside armed

    assistance

    from

    reaching the city and the defenders f rom leaving it. .

    The lengthy process ofsiegewasresorted to by a hostile army when time was

    on i ts s ide and it could afford t owait, or when it lacked the means of penetration

    by force. or when t he fortificationsof the city were too powerful to overcome.

    Some sieges lasted severalyears.

    Penetration by ruse had as i tsaim the conquest of a city with om the dangers

    of the first three methods and without the delay of the f our th . Men of a hostile

    army would seek to infiltrate into the city by cunning, using some trick to gain the

    confidence of the defenders. Once inside, they would overpower the guards and

    open the city gates to the waiting attackers.

    The fortifications

    of

    an ancient city and the principles go

    wm

    ing i ts defense

    were determined primarily by its topographical position, and it s shape and size.

    And , apartfrom certain subsidiary considerations , the natureand siting of most of

    the cities of Palestine, Sy

    ri a

    , and Anatolia, and of many orhe r parts

    of

    Biblical

    lands, were them selves determined by two basic factors:strategic and tacticalo n

    the one hand, and the source.

    of

    water on the other.

    Mostcities were established only at sites whose natur alconditions met these

    two basic needs. But i n many parts of the Middle East, both needs could bemet

    only by diametr ically opposite conditions. For tactical considerations usually

    demanded the siting of a city on the top ofa hill or mountain, whereas the sources

    of wat

    er-springs

    , streams, or

    rivers-wer

    e most often

    to

    be found in the valley.

    To resolve this obj ective contradiction

    of

    nature, fortifications had to be planned

    soas to encompass at leastpart of the sources of water; or else somesuitablesystem

    had to be devised for ensuring that water flowed in to the city.

    Additional security considerations, particularly in lands ruled by powerful

    centralauthority,dictated the establishment of cities at sites which were of country

    wide or even regional st rategic importance, in orde r to protect main lines of

    communications. highways, routes to supply bases, or distant sources of water.

    Th

    e nearest approach

    to

    complemen ta ry natural condirions to satisfy both

    securiry and economic needs was to be found onl ya t specificp laces. Since their

    topo graphy remained virtually unchanged throughout the pen ods under review,

    IN T R OD U C

    TI

    O N

    it

    is

    not strange for us to find a general continuiry of settlemen t at each site, with

    a new city built on the ruins of the old.

    This process, which led to the creation of the celebrated   tell, or mound, of

    the Middle East, created in t ime irs own special problems of defense. At first, it

    gave the new city an advantage. For its new construction raised it abo ve the level

    of itspredecessor, and gaveita commanding defense position over thesurrounding

    country. But later, as the tell got higher and higher, after hundreds o r thousands

    of years of settlement, it produced two great disadvantages.

    Th

    e higher the tell,

    the softer its slopes. For now they were not of rock buts imp ly the sides of a huge

    heap made up of the crumbled ruins of dead cities.

    Th

    ey were easier now to

    penetrate by anyon e seeking to undermine the foundations of the wall at the top.

    This probl em was to exercise the minds of planners of forti fications in the later

    periods. Moreover, the higherth e tell, the smaller the area of the city built on its

    crown. This in tum led to a mor e reduced population , with a corresponding

    reduction in the number

    of

    fighters to defend it. In time, these two defense

    disadvantages often prompt ed the inhabitants to make one of two far-reaching

    decisions; either to build an   extension of the city at a lower level, or to abandon

    thesitealtogether. W here it was decided to build an extension, it meant the virtual

    construction ofa new lowerciry on level ground.Th is required an artificial system

    of defense in place of the natural topographical defense advantages enj oyed by the

    o riginal city on the tell. These arc the major premises in anyanalysis

    of

    the defense

    problems of fortified cities. They made their impact on the character of the ciry.

    More important , they determined its size in most of the Biblical lands. In the

    earlie st periods, the average area of most cities in Palestine, Syria, Anatolia, and

    Mesopotamia ranged from 5 to

    10

    acres. Th ere were also, of course, a number

    of

    principal cities covering an area of

    hundr

    eds of acres. On the reasonabl e assump

    tion that ther e were rough ly 240 inhabitants to an urban acre, the population

    figures of most of the citieso f the ancient Middle East ranged from

    1,

    00 0 to

    3,

    00 0

    ,

    with some cities boasting a population of between 5 000 and 10 ,0 00 . There were  

    a few exceptions where the population reached scores of thousands. The propor

    tion of fighters a

    mong

    the inhabitants averaged 25 per cent. So that the small cities

    had about 300 fighting men, the medium-sized citiesabout 1.

    000 to

    2. 00 0 , and the

    large cities several thousand.

    In the organization of the defense of these ancient cities, there wasa concen

    tration of three major elements : the walls and subsidiary fortifications; the inner

    citadel; and the supply of water.

    The primary purpose of the city walls was

    to

    prevent the enemy from The   ity Walls

    breaking into thecity, to deny him, that is, his advantag e of mobility. BUla passive

    barrier could only hold him up temporarily. For , as we have observed, the walls

    could be scaled o r breached. They had therefore

    to

    be so built as to enable the

    defenders to ti re their weapons from the top, and so frustra te the enemy design.

    The wall and its torrificanons compr ised three principal components: the wall

    itself-e-rhe barrier ; its upper structures, ro enable the defend ers to fire their weapons

    and to give them protection while doing

    s

    the firing plar form and defensive

    19

    .t ,

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    17/75

    .. tl

    Egypliallrepresentation o

    all

    Asiatic city

    (Illp)

    allJ a reconsuvaion

    o crenelaion and

    balcony

     

    T

    H u

    r OF

    cover; forward obstacles andtraps, set up in f ront

    of

    the wall to keep the enemy

    archers asfar away as possibleand to prevent battering-rams from being brought

    into action. The city gate posed a special problem. For by its narure it was the

    weakest point in the system of fortifications.

    To make scaling difficult, rhe wall had to be high. To prevent breaching, it

    had to be thick. And to withstand underminingor tunneling below it, itsfounda- .

    tions needed tobe deep and broadly based. A wall which is both high and thick,

    whether built of stone or b rick, or a combination of the two (bricks upon a base

    of stones), requires additional strengthening by a series of regularly spaced

    buttresses

    of

    considerable thickness.

    The defenders on the ramparts had tobe f ree to f ir eon the enemy in three

    directions: forward, to direct frontal fire on the approaching attackers; right and

    left, to br ing f lanking fire to bear on the enemy: downward against troops

    attempting to bring up ladders and battering-rams. The top of the walls had

    therefo re to be wide enough to give sufficent freedom of movement to the

    defenders, and to be so designed as to offer them fields of fire in the required

    directions while at the same time giving them protection from enemya rrows.

    The architectural solution to meet theseneeds wasthe battlement. This was

    a crenelated parapet built along the top

    of

    t he walls facing the enemy. It looked

    from a distancelikea row

    of

    teeth with gapsbetween them. The teeth are known

    as caps or merlons. The gaps are called embrasures or crenels. The defending

    soldier would fire hisweapon through the embrasure and find protection from

    enemy mi

    ss l s

    by dodging behind the merion. Special towers or bastions built as

    an 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 distance

    between the towers wasnever more thandouble the range of the defender bows,

    and often less. In this way, fire from any two towers could cover the g round

    between them. An inferior alternative was to give a stepped line to the wall itself,

    but this was not aseffective asthe tower o rbastion. The shape

    of

    the tower was

    square or semicircular. The latter was technically more difficultto build, but i thad

    the advantage of commanding a wider field of fire and eliminating   dead areas.

    To enable the defenders to dealwith troops who had managed to reach the

    wall, the towers were built with balconies which had holes or slots in the floor

    through which verticalfire could bedirected down upon the heads of the enemy.

    Sometimesthe fortifications were so built that the dead ground at the foot of the

    vertical wall was wiped out completely. This was done by filli ng it i n wi th an

    embankment. This iscalled a glacis,a bank sloping down from a certain point in

    thewall and broadening itsbase. It exposed the attackers to the defenders fire and

    made it difficult for them to breach the lower part of the wall by battering-ram .

    The security of the walli tselfwas effected in one or both of t wo ways. One .

    was the construction of an Outer or advance wall. This was particularly necessary

    where the main wall was at the top of a highhill or cell. The outer wall wasthen

    lower 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 the

    outer wall was an obstacle

    of

    the reverse kind the digging-

    of

    a wide and deep

    IN TH O D UCT I O N

    moat running round the baseof the main wall. Thish ad the advantage, especially

    when filled with water, of denying to the enemy the use

    of

    h is battering-ram

    unless he was powerful and skilled enough to bridge the moat or fill it up at

    certain points a ll under fire. The ideal securiry for the main wall was acombina

    tion of glacis, moat, and outer wall.

    The gate was inevitably the weakest point i n the system of forrificarions. It

    was, indeed, a gap in the wall, deliberately left in order to allow entrance into the

    city of inhabitants and friends. It was natural that the attacker should also seek to

    gain entrance through this gap. And so the gate was always the focus of action in

    battle, receiving the concentrated attention of both attackersand defenders.

     t

    wasalso the central problem engaging the minds of thosewho planned the

    fortifications. And the most imaginative ingenuity and the finest engineering

    talent were mobilized over a long period

    CO

    design a city gate which would give

    maximum trouble to an attacking army and maximum help to its defenders. The

    result wasa series of devices, each serving a limited purposebut together providing

    a

    form idable

    defensecomplex.

    Primary attention was given tothe planning

    of

    the approach path to the gate.

    The gate, likethe wallof which i twasa parr, wasusuallysituated high upon ahill

    or tell. To reach i t f rom 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 would

    be far too steep even for the defenders themselves, whether in chariots or wagons

    or on foot. W herever possible the approach road was planned so as to reach the

    gate from the

    right

    from the point of view of those facing the gate from the

    outside, or le ft from the point of view of the defenders. Th is prod uced the first

    difficulty for the attacker. For it meant his having to move upthe incline with the

    right sideof his body nearest ro thewall.Sincehecarried hisshieldin his left hand,

    he was exposed to the fire of the defenders without cover.

    This principle in planning wasfollowed with even greater cflecnvenesswhere

    the fortification system included a lower outer wall. Thiswall, too, would have

    a gate. And it was sited to the right of the gate in the main wall (from thepoint of

    view ofone facing the main wall). The two gares were usually linked by a broad

    wall. So, again, if the attacker succeeded in gaining entrance through rhe gate of

    the outer wall, he would have to approach the main gate withthe right side of his

    body exposed to the defenders weapons.

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

    of

    the

    · l J j  

    a

    j ;m

    (lpcrmiug

    f r

    Jl I

    f,d,i .   t l

    m..I

      ,J

    par

    ot

    pet.

      ,  ,,1

     

    /IQ ,, id . BOli-hasan, c. 1900

    B.

    C

    S

     -

    pil\ ,·. 158-159

    The Gate

    2

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    18/75

    T HE  RT

    OF W RF

    RE I

    NTR

    ODU TIO N

     

    The II/I/er Citadel

    gateway wh ich cramped their freedom of action   while the defenders could

    operate under no such disability. But this type of gateway became fairly obsolete

    with the emergence of the char io t . For the cnrranccway had then

     

    be wide

    enou gh to take the vehicles of the inh abitants in peacetime. In som e cases  the

    W J S retained bu r the ent rance and turn ings were made wid er

    The main weakness of the perimete r fortifications even though they were

    formidable  was the magnitude of their circumference. Even a city

    of

    average size

    had a perimeter of some 700 me ters  and in the big cities it was often several

    kilome tccs. Feinting or diversionary attacks by the enemy compelled the defenders

     

    m an every meter

    of

    the wall whi le the assaulting army could concentrate i ts

    main striking force against one point alone. And once th e w all at th is point was

    breached  the rest of the wall served no furt her defense purpose  even though it

    might be intact and it s guards unharmed. T o meet this weakness of the outer

    fun ifications several additional defense systems were devised .Th e most

    comm

    on

    was the division of th e c ity into several section s  each capable of independent

    defense  by the consrruction of an additional wall  an inner citadel  or both.

    T he citadel usually include d the palace of the governor or the king and the

    dwelling h ousesof his ministers and sometimes also the temple.

    It

    w as built 011 the

      r

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    19/75

    TH E ART O F WARFARE

    highest part of the city to give it additional na tural protection.

    It

    wasconstructed

    as a self-contained defensive unit, even t ho ugh, on occasion, one or more of its

    sideswasbased on and contiguous to the city wal l. The citadel was a replica of the

    fortified ciry, having its main wall, gateway, out er wall , and sometimes even a

    moat. I t was small in area, and wasusually the scene of the city s last stand , with

    the governor and the surviving inhabitantsw ho had taken refuge therein fighting

    to the end . In the fight on the citadel, the defenders had a n advantage in tha t the

    assault ttoopS, to reach the fort , ha d t o batter their way through the built-uparea

    of the city, with its tortuous alleywaysconvenient for ambush. In the large cities,

    whe re the original ciry on the heigh ts had been extended by the building of a

    for tified lower c ity a t i ts foot , the original ciry became a kind of double inner

    citadel, serving as the inner citadel

    of

    the entire combined-citiesarea, and having

    its own inner fort which housed the govemor.

    Water Supply  ur  g Siege

    Th

    e various systems of fortifica tions had as their purpose the prevention of

    the enem y from breaking in to the ciry . B ut the planning of the fortifications had

    also to take account of the need to keep

    both

    troops and civilians supplied with

    water even during a siege.

    It

    W3S comparatively eosyto store food. But this was

    not tr ue of wat er . A partial solution was the cistern. And this served for long

    periods asthesa le solution. But it could not be the decisive answer, particularly in

    time of dr

    ought It

    has already been observed that the siting of . ciry was largely

    de termined by itsproximiry to sources of water. If the source w a s stream , the

    ciry might be buil t on one of its banks , and this afforded easy access to the wate r

    supply in time of siege. The stream could alsoserve as p rt of the city s defense

    system. But the problem arose where the ciry was bui lt on a hill o r t el l a nd was

    dependent for i ts water supply on a spring whi ch, naturally. would be found

    nearer to the foo t of the hill, and outside the ciry wal l. The solution here was to

    block i ts mouth and camouflageit from the enemy, while safeguarding access to

    its source by the inhab itants of the ciry.

    Th is could be, and was, done in one of two w y s, and sometim es both : either

    by cutting a tunnel at a gt3dient from the spring or well through to a cistern inside

    the ciry in to which the wate r wou ldflow by graviry, and which wo uld be reached

    b  pit equipped with a staircase; or by digging a pit inside the ciry, and, at its

    bottom, tunneling a passageway th rough to the outside ne ar rhe spring, which

    cou ld the n be reached without detection by the besiegers. Th ese were tunnel ing

    projects of considerablecomplexity. But , as weshall see later ,w e h ave eviden ce of

    extraordinarily advan ced engineering knowledge and skills displayed by the

    people of antiqu ity in the construction of such tunnels. And, indeed, if it were not

    for such engineering feats, thesecities would not have been able to hold out against

    lengthy siege.

    Yet despite power fu l fortificat ions and high ly developed systems of defense,

    we know that many fortified citieswere vanq uished. Thisunderlinesthe point that,

    in the final analysis.what countsis not the strengthof the defenses nor the power of

    the assault WC3pOns but the spirit of the man behind the wall and the man behind

      the battering-ram.

    i

    I

    1

    ;)

    3

    j

    1

    1

    I

     

    ,

    :;

     .

    ,

    <

    ;1

     

    ,

    ,.

    ;

     

    I

    NTR

    ODUCT I ON

    AR CHAE

    OL

    O

    GICAL

    SO U

    RC

    ES

    Th e sole evidence in our possession which can help us to trace the patt e rn of

    life in ancient days arc the

    material

    remains left behind by ancient peoples.

    Th

    eir

    thoughts, feelings, mood s, and aspirations arc lost to us forever unless they found

    expression in tangible relics, an d we can only seek to reC3pun;. them by analogy

    and inference from the remains whic h have been brought to ligh t. Archaeologic al

    discoveries arc thus our main sources for an investigation of the art and methods

      f war fare in Biblical lands in ancient t imes.

    Thank

    s to the revolutionary development of archaeological research in the

    Biblical lands in the last hundred years, and par ticularl y in the last few decades, we

    now have a wealth of finds which shed light on most of the subjects dealt wi th in

    this book . Moreover, since, as we have observe d, warfare played no less formidable

    a role in the lives of anc ient peop les than it does in those of the nations of today ,

    many of the material legacies b id bare by archaeological expeditionsrelate to war.

    For convenient study, th isa rchaeological evidence will be d iscussed under three

    headings: illustratedm onuments, both sculptured and drawn; ruins of fortifications

    and actual weapo ns found by excavation; written documents,

    Thisgroup of relics is, in some ways , the most important for a study of ancient  llustr te Monuments

    warfare. Fo ron

    many

    of these monuments ore graphic representations of military

    events which cannotbe reconstructed by an examination of o th er relics nor given

    such tangible expression by liter ary description alone. They are of immense help

    to an understan ding of severa l branches of warfare- tactics, weapons, and

    fortific tions 

    o f special valuearc the drawings and reliefs of military articles and weapons

    which were made of perishable materials, such as wood, leather, or textiles. Such

    materials de fy preservation, except unde r s pecial cond itio ns,and rarely have they

    figured among the finds of the archaeolog ist.

    Our

    knowledge of them would be

    incompletew ithout the designs on ancient monuments. And even i f, for example,

    a reasonably preserved part of a chariot is discovered , it will tell US nothing of

    how the horses were harnesse d or how the chari ot was used in battle. But the

    draw in g o n a m

    onume

    nt may. T he same is true of instruments fashioned from

    harde r material whic h preserves longer. A few metal scalesw i ll tell us something

    abo ut the coat of mail. But only th rough monuments do we know what the

    garment looked l ike and how it was worn

    We

    wou ldknow almost nothing of

    the development of the bow th

    rough

    the different perio ds and in the different

    countriesif it were not for its reproduction on mo numents. The batte ring-ram ,

    nud e of I llany parts, mos t of them perishable, wo uld be a mystery to us toda y if

    we had no ancient picture showi ng t he c

    omp

    lete imp lemen t in act io n . And the

    same. of course, is true of fortificati ons. Most of the f

    ort

    ified walls we re either

    destro yed or fell in to ruin already in ancient tim es, with almost noth ing left above

    their foundations. Yet it was precisely the ir upper portions, the towers, battlements,

    ramparts. and b alconies, which were the vita l functional features of the defense

      y  cm. Only by their visual representati on on monuments are we able to res tore

    25

  • 8/20/2019 YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands

    20/75

    32

     

    THE

    FORTIFI TIONS

    O J

    ERI HO

    7

    B C  

    The Most  ncient ortlji  tions ill the World

    Had thisbook been wri tten in the year 1951, or even in 1955,it would havebegun

    with a descriprion

    of

    the artifactsand monuments belonging to the second half

    of

    the fourth millennium, 3500 to 3000

    B.C .

    This would correspond to theend of the

    Pre-D ynastic period in Egyp t, the beginning of the Pro to-Literate period in

    Mesopotamia, and the end of the Chalcolithic period in Palestine and Syria.

    But now, thanks to the amazing archaeological discoveries in Jericho in the

    last ten years, we can start with the earliest known forti fication s in the world,

    dating back toabout 7000 B.C. , the beginning of th