YadinYigael The art of warfare in Biblical Lands
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
s»
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