Author: Cam Rea

Cam Rea is a Military Historian and has published several books and written numerous articles for Strategy & Tactics Press, Ancient Origins, and Classical Wisdom Weekly.
Posted on

Mastery of Time and Space in Warfare: Origins and Impact

What is Time and Space in Warfare?

Various military theorists have contributed to and shaped the evolving concepts of time and space in warfare for centuries. These crucial ideas play a fundamental role in military strategy, operations, and tactics, significantly influencing maneuver, positioning, and timing. Their profound impact on the outcome of military operations cannot be emphasized enough.

Space in warfare pertains to the physical environment in which military operations occur. This encompasses the geographical area, terrain, and spatial positioning of forces and assets. Time in warfare refers to the chronological aspect of military operations, including the planning, execution, and duration of actions and strategies. It entails considerations of military activities such as speed, timing, and temporal coordination. Therefore, in the art of war, space becomes a tangible representation of time, and time can be seen as the intangible kinetic dimension of space.

Time in Warfare

  • Timing of Engagements: Choosing the optimal moment to initiate or avoid combat.
  • Speed and Efficiency: Rapid movement and quick decision-making to exploit opportunities.
  • Duration: Managing the length of operations to maintain momentum and resources.
  • Synchronization: Coordinating multiple units and operations to maximize effectiveness.

Space in Warfare

  • Geographical Terrain: Utilizing natural features (e.g., mountains, rivers) for strategic advantage.
  • Positioning: Placing forces in advantageous locations relative to the enemy.
  • Movement and Maneuver: Moving forces through space to gain positional advantage.
  • Control of Key Locations: Holding vital areas such as chokepoints, supply routes, and strongholds.

As one can read, mastering time and space elements is essential for success in military operations. However, what are the origins of this theory?

Origins and Theory

Time and space have always been central to military theory, shaping strategies and tactics from ancient to modern times. Even in prehistoric times, the principles of time and space played a critical role in warfare. When it came to time, early human groups would choose the optimal moment to attack or retreat, often based on environmental conditions or the status of their resources. Rapid movement and quick decision-making were vital for surprise attacks or quick escapes. Managing the length of conflicts was essential to ensure resources were not depleted and to avoid prolonged vulnerability. Even with basic communication, coordination among group members was necessary to execute effective hunting strategies or defensive actions.

Regarding space, natural features like hills, caves, and water sources were used for shelter, ambushes, and strategic advantages. Placing groups in advantageous locations, such as high ground or hidden areas, gave early humans an edge over their enemies or prey. Skilled maneuvering through familiar terrain allowed for effective hunting and evasion tactics. Securing vital areas like water sources, fertile land, or resource-rich zones was crucial for survival and dominance.

These aspects of time and space allowed prehistoric humans to enhance their chances of survival and success in their conflicts and daily struggles. From these experiences, humans would continue to develop and refine their strategies, laying the foundation for more sophisticated tactics in future warfare. As societies evolved, these early timing, positioning, and resource management lessons informed the complex military doctrines that would shape human history.

Leveraging time and space became integral to warfare and the broader context of human organization and development, which caused some to theorize on the subject. Therefore, a short introduction to some of these thinkers is imperative, starting with the ancient world and working to the present. We begin with Sun Tzu.

From the ancient period, Sun Tzu’s (c. 544–496 BC)The Art of War emphasizes the importance of timing and spatial advantage. He writes about the need to adapt to changing circumstances and to use the terrain to one’s advantage. He argues that the effective use of time and space can determine the outcome of battles.

Thucydides’ (c. 460–395 BC) History of the Peloponnesian War discussed the strategic use of naval and land forces, highlighting the importance of logistics, troop movement, and attack timing.

Alexander the Great’s (356–323 BC) campaigns showcased the effective use of time and space. He used rapid movements over vast distances and diverse terrains to outmaneuver enemies. His battles, such as Gaugamela, demonstrated the importance of timely and precise deployments.

Julius Caesar’s (100–44 BC) Commentaries on the Gallic War documented the strategic use of time and space in military campaigns, including the rapid construction of fortifications and the use of geographical features to gain tactical advantages.

Vegetius’ (c. 4th century AD) Epitoma Rei Militaris emphasized the importance of logistics, training, and the strategic use of fortifications. Vegetius discussed the significance of preparation and the timing of maneuvers.

During the medieval period, Byzantine Emperor Maurice’s (6th century AD) manual Strategikon outlined the importance of mobility, terrain use, and attack timing. It also highlighted the need for adaptability and the strategic use of cavalry.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s (1469–1527)The Art of War advocated for a military organization based on Roman principles during the Renaissance and early modern period. It emphasized the importance of terrain and the timing of engagements and highlighted the need for flexibility and adaptability to changing circumstances.

Carl von Clausewitz’s (1780–1831) On War introduced the “culminating point” concept in warfare, where the balance of time and space would favor one side. Clausewitz emphasized the fog of war, the importance of timing in attacks, and the use of geography to achieve strategic goals.

Antoine-Henri Jomini’s (1779–1869) Summary of the Art of War focused on the principles of interior lines and the importance of time and space in achieving decisive victories. Jomini emphasized the rapid concentration of forces at critical points.

Alfred Thayer Mahan’s (1840–1914) The Influence of Sea Power upon History highlighted the strategic importance of naval power and the control of maritime space. Mahan discussed how naval supremacy could influence the timing and outcome of wars.

World War I and II showcased the significant role of logistics, the strategic use of terrain, and the timing of large-scale operations. The introduction of mechanized warfare and air power revolutionized the concepts of time and space in military theory.

During the modern era, nuclear strategy took precedence. The Cold War introduced the concept of deterrence, where the control of space (through missile deployment) and the timing of potential retaliatory strikes played crucial roles in maintaining the balance of power.

During the information age, military theory incorporates cyber warfare, space warfare, and real-time intelligence, exponentially expanding the concepts of time and space to include the virtual domain, where the speed of information and control of digital spaces are critical.

In summary, the strategic use of time and space remains a cornerstone of military theory, continually evolving with technological advancements and shifting geopolitical landscapes. While the concepts of time and space in warfare are universal, their application of military doctrine varies depending on the territorial size of the nation.

How Geography Shapes Time and Space in Military Doctrine and Theory

The geographic context significantly influences a nation’s military doctrine about spatial and temporal considerations. Essentially, military doctrine is designed to anticipate the preferred mode of warfare, although it may not align with the actual circumstances encountered.

This impacts military tactics, operations, strategy, and the nation’s infrastructure and economy. Larger geographical areas require more resources than smaller ones, including transportation, communication, and supply lines. However, this relationship can be nuanced, and several factors can influence the resource demands, effectively altering the offensive and defensive capabilities in said space.

Terrain and topography can be challenging if the area is mountainous, heavily forested, or a desert. These types of terrain can be more complex and resource-intensive to navigate and control than flat or open terrain for both the host nation and the invader. Because of this, the infrastructure, whether the presence or absence thereof, will significantly impact resource requirements for transportation and logistics. Densely populated areas may require more resources for maintaining order, providing services, and ensuring effective communication. At the same time, a sparsely populated area might need extensive communication networks and longer supply lines to reach dispersed inhabitants.

Weather is essential for those defending and invading, as harsh weather conditions (e.g., cold, heat, or heavy rainfall) can increase the need for specialized equipment, shelter, and additional logistics support. At the same time, seasonal variants and changes can affect an area’s accessibility and resource requirements. Because of this, the economic development of regions with established industries might have better infrastructure and resources in place, reducing the need for additional inputs. Meanwhile, underdeveloped regions may need more critical infrastructure, necessitating more transportation, communication, and supply network investments, which are strategically important.

The importance of infrastructure is another area of strategic value (e.g., ports, airports, crossroads, resource-rich regions), requiring a concentration of resources to secure and maintain control, especially in core areas. Core areas are high-value targets due to their significant infrastructure. Military doctrine often includes detailed plans for defending these areas because their loss could cripple military operations and destabilize the economy. However, the strategic value of core areas to invading armies is significant. Once controlled, these areas offer economic benefits, meet logistical needs, and enable the establishment of forward bases and defensive positions to better position forces strategically.

While core areas are desirable due to their resources and infrastructure, peripheral areas often lack these assets and are found less desirable. Military doctrine typically designates peripheral areas as low-priority. Because of this, peripheral areas tend to take to asymmetric warfare due to the lack of military presence.

Asymmetric warfare significantly alters the dimensions of space and time in war, introducing complexities that traditional warfare often does not encounter. When it comes to space in asymmetric warfare, the fluidity of the battlefield becomes non-linear since asymmetric engagements do not adhere to traditional frontlines. Guerrilla fighters move fluidly across vast territories, making the battlefield unpredictable and widespread. This use of terrain allows the guerrilla fighters to exploit challenging topography—mountains, forests, urban areas—leveraging local knowledge to their advantage, making it difficult for conventional forces to track and engage them.

Guerrillas often operate and blend within civilian populations, complicating conventional force’s task of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. Thus, the operational space expands into urban and populated areas and becomes nuanced. This pressures conventional forces to spread out and cover more ground, diluting their combat effectiveness due to the creation of multiple fronts.

When it comes to time, in asymmetric warfare, protracted conflicts extend the duration of the war, which tends to drag out over more extended periods. Guerrillas avoid confrontation and focus on defeating the enemy over time through persistent, small-scale attacks. This type of war places tremendous psychological pressure on the conventional forces, and the sustained nature of guerrilla tactics aims to exhaust the opponent’s will to fight, eroding morale and political support over time. The operational tempo and the unpredictable nature of guerrilla attacks involve strategic decision-making regarding the timing and location of these actions. The intended goal is to maximize impact while circumventing fortified enemy positions. This irregular tempo disrupts conventional military operations. This operational flexibility allows guerrilla fighters to adapt quickly to changing circumstances, exploiting brief windows of opportunity that conventional forces might not be able to respond to as swiftly.

Overall, the strategic impact of asymmetric warfare on space and time strains resource allocation. Conventional forces must allocate significant resources to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance to track guerrilla movements, often stretching their capabilities thin. Guerrilla warfare imposes disproportionate costs on conventional armies, requiring more resources to effectively counter small, mobile units. Conventional forces must adapt their strategies to combat this, incorporating counterinsurgency tactics that emphasize winning hearts and minds, improving intelligence gathering, and building local alliances. This comprehensive approach to guerrilla warfare often requires a multi-faceted approach, integrating military, political, economic, and social efforts to undermine guerrilla support and address the root causes of the conflict.

An Example of How the Size of a Nation Can Influence Military Doctrine

As mentioned, a nation’s geography determines and significantly influences the concepts of time and space in military doctrine. Here is an example of how the size of a nation influences its military doctrine, particularly in terms of time and space, by briefly looking at the Ukraine-Russia conflict:

Strategic Depth and Geographic Considerations:

  • Large Nations:
    • Strategic Depth: Larger nations, such as Russia, enjoy a significant advantage in terms of strategic depth. This advantage allows them to withstand and absorb initial attacks and engage in prolonged conflicts without facing an immediate threat to their essential territories. This depth allows Russia to execute strategic maneuvers, regroup, and launch counterattacks from well-protected positions deep within its territory.
    • Geographic Diversity: A sprawling nation like Russia boasts a rich tapestry of terrain, ranging from dense forests to towering mountains and bustling urban centers. This varied landscape offers abundant opportunities for leveraging strategic defenses and launching tactical offensives.
    • Extended Frontlines: The vast territory also means extended frontlines, which require significant resources to defend and maintain supply lines.
  • Smaller Nations:
    • Limited Depth: Countries with smaller land areas, like Ukraine, have limited strategic depth. This means that they have less distance to fall back on if attacked, making them more susceptible to swift advances by an enemy. As a result, these countries must be more proactive and effective in defending their territory.
    • Concentration of Forces: Smaller countries might strategically position their military resources in vital regions to protect important locations and infrastructure.
    • Territorial Constraints: The limited size of the territory constricts the capacity to employ flexible defense strategies, thereby demanding resourceful utilization of the available space.

Time Considerations

Operational Tempo and Duration:

  • Large Nations:
    • Protracted Engagements: Larger nations can be involved in extended conflicts due to their ability to sustain longer supply lines, rotate troops to maintain troop morale and effectiveness, and maintain high levels of industrial production to support their war efforts. These factors allow larger nations to maintain a sustained military presence and effectively carry out their strategic objectives over a prolonged period.
    • Operational Flexibility: They possess the strategic flexibility to execute extended deep operations, apply delaying tactics to slow down the enemy’s advance, and make strategic withdrawals, all while being able to regroup and launch powerful counterattacks when necessary.
    • War of Attrition: A larger nation may opt for a strategy of attrition, gradually employing tactics to weaken the enemy’s capabilities over an extended period. This approach involves applying sustained pressure and gradually depleting the enemy’s resources to outlast and defeat them through a war of endurance.
  • Smaller Nations:
    • Need for Swift Actions: Smaller nations frequently need rapid and conclusive victories to uphold morale and garner international backing. Prolonged conflicts can deplete their resources and diminish public support over time.
    • Asymmetric Warfare: This type of warfare utilizes guerrilla warfare and hit-and-run attacks to disrupt and impede the advance of the larger opposing force.
    • Defensive Focus: The primary focus is establishing a sturdy and swift defense. This involves using fortified positions, navigating urban warfare scenarios, and leveraging local terrain knowledge to overcome potential shortcomings in depth.

Application to Ukraine-Russia Conflict

Russia’s Approach:

  • Multidomain Deep Battle: Utilizing its expansive geography, Russia implements multidomain deep battle strategies, merging land, air, sea, cyber, and space domains to disrupt and overpower Ukrainian defenses.
  • Strategic Bombardment: Long-range artillery, missile strikes, and air campaigns target Ukrainian infrastructure, military positions, and supply lines far from the front lines.
  • Sustained Pressure: Russia’s capacity to uphold extended military campaigns is readily apparent through its ongoing application of pressure across several strategic fronts. This is made possible by leveraging its extensive strategic depth and abundant resources, enabling sustained operations in various theaters of conflict.

Ukraine’s Approach:

  • Adaptive Defense: Ukraine has had to adapt its strategies to compensate for its smaller size, focusing on agile, mobile defense tactics and leveraging international support.
  • Rapid Response: The Ukrainian military prioritizes rapid response and flexible tactics, using local knowledge and smaller, more mobile units to counter Russian advances early in the war.
  • International Support: Continuous support from NATO and EU countries is crucial for Ukraine, providing advanced weaponry, intelligence, and training to enhance its defense capabilities.

It is evident that a nation’s physical size significantly impacts its military doctrine and approach to warfare. In the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Russia leverages its considerable size and diverse military capabilities to execute multidomain deep battle tactics. In contrast, Ukraine relies on adaptability, international support, and asymmetric tactics to defend against its larger adversary. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for a deeper analysis of the conflict and anticipating future developments.

Conclusion

The integration of time and space forms a fundamental element of military doctrine, influencing the strategic planning and execution of operations, logistics, and tactics by nations. The ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia is a prominent example of the profound influence of these principles. Russia’s vast geographical expanse and multifaceted capabilities exemplify a sophisticated utilization of time and space to establish strategic depth and operational adaptability. However, the fluid nature of contemporary warfare is conspicuous as smaller forces, such as Ukraine, have demonstrated their ability to employ time and space to offset a more substantial adversary through rapid adaptation and asymmetric tactics with international backing.


Time and space in war extend into cyberspace, where battles are fought on digital terrain, and timing is critical. Cyber operations can disrupt enemy communications, delay responses, and create strategic advantages, demonstrating that control over cyberspace and timing can be as decisive as traditional physical maneuvers.


Understanding the origins and fundamental principles of time and space in warfare is crucial for analyzing current conflicts and predicting future military developments. By appreciating how time and space influence war and politics, we gain deeper insights into the strategies and outcomes that define tomorrow’s battles.

References

Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. Penguin UK, 2003.

Caesar, Julius, and Carolyn Hammond. Seven Commentaries on the Gallic War. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Carl Von Clausewitz, and J J Graham. On War. United States: Value Classic Reprints, 2017.

Citino, Robert M. Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: The Evolution of Operational Warfare. University Press of Kansas: Kansas, 2022.

Flavius Vegetius. De RE MILITARI by VEGETIUS. Independently Published, 2019.

Glantz, David M. Soviet Military Operational Art: In Pursuit of Deep Battle (Soviet (Russian) Military Theory and Practice). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Routledge, 2012.

Griffith, Samuel B. The Art of War. London; New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Guderian, Heinz. Achtung Panzer! London: Cassell, 1999.

Habeck, Mary R. Storm of Steel the Development of Armor Doctrine in Germany and the Soviet Union, 1919–1939. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2017.

Isserson, G S, and Bruce Menning. The Evolution of Operational Art. Kansas: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2013.

Jomini, Antoine Henri, and O F Winship. Summary of the Art of War: Or, a New Analytical Compend of the Principle Combinations of Strategy, of Grand Tactics and of Military Policy. San Bernardino, Ca: Forgotten Books, 2015.

Mahan, A. T. The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783 – the Original Classic Edition. Dayboro: Emereo Pub., 2012.

Maurikios, and George T Dennis. Maurice’s Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2010.

Niccolò Machiavelli, and Christopher Lynch. Art of War. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Rex Warner. London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2008.

Posted on

A Thousand Shades of Afghanistan

Map of the 2021 Taliban-led offensive in Afghanistan after the announcement of the United States’ withdrawal. 

It comes as no surprise that the Taliban have taken over Afghanistan in just a little over a week. Many, not all, in the administration and pentagon are surprised at how fast they could rapidly move across the country. This should not be a surprise.

When news reached that the Taliban were on the move, the White House made it clear that the Afghans were fully capable of deterring the threat. Our politicians assured the American people that the Afghans had the best training and equipment instead of returning it home. It’s much cheaper to leave the military items behind than bring them back. According to the BBC, the “Americans left behind about 3.5 million items, Gen Kohistani said, including tens of thousands of bottles of water, energy drinks and military ready-made meals, known as MREs. They also left behind thousands of civilian vehicles, without keys, and hundreds of armoured vehicles, the Associated Press reported.” Much of this military equipment will be sent to Iran, China, Russia, Pakistan, and other places to be examined, reverse engineering, and duplicated. According to Politico, the “United States spent more than $88 billion to train and equip Afghanistan’s army and police, nearly two-thirds of all of its foreign aid to the country since 2002.” I’m sure this number is an underestimate. So, with all the aid and training provided to the Afghan people, why did they collapse so quickly? The answer is they didn’t.

The Afgan troops did fight, losing 69,000 troops and perhaps many more. Let us also not forget the civilians caught in the crossfire. Without fuel, intelligence, air support, and much more, the tools to fight a war diminished. While many Afghans did fight, just as many saw no point. Would you want to continue the fight if you witnessed American troops pulling out overnight? While many did fight, just as many are okay with the Taliban. Those Afghanistan troops who did not fight are fine with the Taliban in charge due to their religious beliefs, kinships, clans, and tribal connections. These four alone, and perhaps many more, create a place for many parties within the many districts throughout Afghanistan to put aside their political differences and focus on what connects them. The Afgan landscape is a political kaleidoscope. This is what many in the military have failed to understand. They failed to understand that there are many shades of grey in Afghanistan.

The biggest mistake was thinking that Afghanistan was a country where we could create a state to our liking. Many military and political leaders failed to understand that Afghanistan is not a country but a phantom state where empires go to die.

By Cam Rea

Posted on

I Miss 50s Sci-Fi Movies on Cable TV

It was a decade of Elvis, Eisenhower, Cold War, atomic bombs, and sci-fi movies! I wasn’t born in the 50s, but I wish I could have been in the theaters and drive-ins during the 50s to view these sci-fi gems. Science fiction movies of the 50s have slowly faded away among younger people. Baby Boomers, Generation X, and the first wave of Millennials are the last to have remembered such movies flickering on the TV. Depending on where you live, channels such as TBS, USA, TNT, and perhaps your local station were known for such movies throughout the 80s and 90s. I miss those days and watching those movies on TV.

I love science fiction films of the 1950s! Of course, this is due to age and family culture. I was born 1977 to a southern family big into science fiction and horror films. According to Job Bob Briggs, it had to have the three B’s (Blood, Breasts, and Beasts) to be watchable.

Like most my age, we were exposed to films playing on the floor, model TV, or something compact. It was during a time when you either saw the movie or you didn’t. Unlike today, where you can buy or rent with a click. It was when you rented the movie or waited for it to air on TV. At some point during the year, they will show the flick on one of the few channels at your disposal. We still have a problem, and that is video rental stores. Most of your mom-and-pop rental stores didn’t carry every film because they were small businesses. Unlike Blockbuster or Family Video, they had a vast video library at their disposal and also had little depending on your taste. The one and perhaps the first video rental store we had in Kendallville during the early to mid-80s was called Genie’s. Genie’s had maybe fifty films at most, possibly more, but I do not recall having much to select. I remember how exciting it was to go there on the weekends. Most of the movies they featured were drama or action. But they had a nice shelf dedicated to horror! The problem is sci-fi films of the 50s were hard to come by. I could rent Friday the 13th (1980), an OK movie I have watched multiple times with the family, but I can’t rent The Thing (1951)! My only hope was to wait for Mom to buy the weekly TV guide so I could thumb through and circle the movies I wished to view. My Grandpa taught me this art at a young age and was a PRO!

The first time I was exposed to a science fiction horror film, I remember it was Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954). I first saw this film on TV at my aunt and uncle’s house in Michigan between 1980-81, so I was roughly 3-4. The film captivated and frightened me. It also didn’t help that it was night and I was watching a movie in the countryside. That night and film sparked my love affair with 1950s science fiction movies. The following year, I came across the American version of Godzilla (1956). I found this film at Genie’s rental. I saw this giant creature on the VHS cover that said, “Godzilla: King of the Monsters!” I had to see this!

As a child, I was in shock and awe and kept looking for it to appear on TV. I tried to rent the movie often, but to my surprise, others liked the film and rented it. It’s kind of like trying to rent the Tecmo Super Bowl at your local grocery store to find that it is missing every Friday and Saturday! But I digress. During this time, I encountered many strange moves, most of which were mentioned by my family. They would talk about movies like The Blob (1958), The Thing from Another World (1951), War of the Worlds (1953), Them (1954), 20 Million Miles to Earth (1957), Forbidden Planet (1956), and The Fly (1958) to name just a few. These movies were just myths that I needed to investigate. 


These films and many more from the 50s not mentioned, I would religiously look for in the TV guide and seek out at the local video store, hoping they would carry it. Eventually, Genie’s would go out of business, and the next rental store was Video Connection, which later became Video Unlimited. It was here that I could rent many of the moves listed. Many films were nothing more than myths and legends for a long time until I found them at the rental store or on TV. Once the 1980s had vanished, these movies were still played on cable. Channels like the USA Network or TBS were known for showing such features, especially on Commander USA’s Groovie Movies and Super Scary Saturday. Every Saturday, both programs would play at the same time but five minutes apart. Commander USA started at noon and Super Scary Saturday at 12:05 pm and would switch back and forth between both programs. But with the 90s, these movies were slowly fading from cable TV. Channels like TBS and TNT still showed them from time to time. Especially on TNT with the birth of Monstervision starting in 1991 during its early stages instead of the mid-late 90s hosted by Joe Bob Briggs. This is understandable, as many people wanted to see more modern movies and still do. When the 2000s came, I rarely saw a 50’s sci-fi flick featured. By the 2010s decade, it had pretty much vanished from cable TV. Of course, TCM and AMC show some of these movies every year on Halloween but not much.

CommanderUSA.jpg
James Hendricks as “Commander USA”

Super Scary Saturday (TV Series 1987–1989) - IMDb
Al Lewis as “Grampa”


The good news is these movies are back, but mostly streaming, and this is a good thing. For nearly 15 years, it was rare to see anything of the sort on basic or premium cable. With the advent of streaming and Blu-rays, they are more affordable to buy and rent. Not to forget, where I live, two great horror hosts show these types of films. They are Svengoolie on MeTV Fort Wayne at 8 pm and Lord Blood-Rah on MyTV Fort Wayne at 10 pm every Saturday.

The bad news is that 1950s sci-fi films are an acquired taste. For the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and some Millennials, you either loved or hated these films. I, for one, with many of the same age, perhaps a bit younger or older, do have an appreciation for these films, which were at one time a mystery and a myth until we saw it with our own eyes—kind of like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). I grew up seeing the film, and it was no myth –it was real! But most of my friends never saw the film, and the rumor persisted until they viewed it in some safe, secret location away from their parents and likely with that one family member who was a bit off. My family was odd since this was a normal viewing for us. Anyways, today’s youth have no idea. Ok, to be fair, some do. Most movies are old and in black and white. If that is not bad enough, the effects are dumb, and the acting is even worse. However, many young people who watch a sci-fi horror film don’t realize an original exists. Take John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982). Many people who saw it did know there was an original made in 1951 by Howard Hawks. In some ways, this is good because it brings back that myth and legendary status to these 50s films that fall in the science fiction horror genre.

While it is terrible that I can’t flip through the channels to find a good sci-fi horror creature feature on the TV throughout the weekdays, I now can buy or stream them for a low price or for free. Thank God for streaming, physical media, Svengoolie, Lord Blood-Rah, The Haunted Hotel by Rob Graves, and The Last Drive-In with Joe Bob Briggs!

Joe Bob Briggs
Posted on

My New Book is Out!

My new book The Assyrian Exile: Israel’s Legacy in Captivity is available for purchase.

O, Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. (Isaiah 10:5)

Assyria may have been the rod of God’s anger. I say this lightly, for the Bible explains that only God knows the heart of humanity as mentioned in Psalms. 17:3; 44:21; 139:1-4. The book is not about spirituality, rather an investigative history, concerning the deportation of the ten northern tribes of Israel. However, it would be wrong not to look into the spiritual issues concerning the fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

The beginning of Israel’s troubles starts in the mid 8th century BCE when the Assyrian armies poured down from the north into Israel. From here, we will look into the political and spiritual issues that are associated with Assyria and Israel, as well as the social aspect concerning the deportation of the Ten Tribes of Israel. From there will shift focus on Assyria’s policy towards captives, look into the place of exile.

Understand that there are many facts in this book and just as many speculations. Not everything in this book is concrete. Remember, we are dealing with a history that at times appears to be silent. Therefore, I will do my best in providing information available in areas that appear to be dim on the matter.

Posted on

Ark of the Covenant: A Weapon, A Throne, A Temple – Part II

Model of the Ark of the Covenant
Ark of the Covenant: Destruction, War & Plague – Part II

One of history’s most intriguing ancient mysteries remains the elusive and legendary Ark of the Covenant, also known as the Ark of the Testimony. According to Biblical sources, it was constructed after Moses had freed the Israelites from Egypt in the wilderness, and items of spiritual significance were placed in the chest.

After crossing the Jordan with the Ark, Joshua ordered his men to remove the twelve stones holding back the water, indicating no retreat or surrender. To fulfill the promise, you must fight to the death.

The Shout That Made Jericho Fall

According to Joshua 6:1-27, the Israelite army carried the Ark around Jericho once a day for seven days, and on the seventh day, they made a tremendous shout, and the walls came tumbling down. This may be partially true, but with a twist: Understand that Joshua was near Jericho at Gilgal. Joshua would have sent spies out to traverse the land and to gather intelligence from the locals. One such place was the fortified city of Jericho. Once the spies were inside, they went to an inn. Why an inn, you may ask? Because an inn is where you will hear all the gossip from the citizens to the traveling merchant. It was here that the spies are said to have met with a Canaanite prostitute by the name of Rahab. She informed them much about the city and the soldiers that resided within.

Rahab (center) in James Tissot's The Harlot of Jericho and the Two Spies. Between circa 1896 and circa 1902

Rahab (center) in James Tissot’s The Harlot of Jericho and the Two Spies. Between circa 1896 and circa 1902 (Public Domain)

The city of Jericho was not large, roughly 8.5 square acres or 1,400 meters (370,000 square feet) in circumference, with a population roughly between 2,400-2,600 inhabitants. Given the size of the population, the city of Jericho could muster between 500 and 600 men to defend the city walls, which meant roughly every 2.74 meters (nine feet) a soldier would be stationed.

Dwelling foundations unearthed at Tell es-Sultan in Jericho (Abraham/Public Domain)

Joshua informed the officers that Jericho was shut tight; no one entered or left, which suggested that even the local farmers sought refuge behind the walls. This told Joshua that the king of Jericho could not field an army. While a direct attack will do more harm than good, Joshua takes an indirect approach to overcome the city’s defenses. He explained to his officers that the location of Rahab’s window was on the city wall. Joshua made it clear to his officers that on the day of battle, the army, roughly between 8,000 and 9,000 men, was to concentrate most of its effort on marching in a column around the city for six days in silence.

Carrying the Ark of the Covenant: gilded bas-relief at Auch Cathedral, France

Carrying the Ark of the Covenant: gilded bas-relief at Auch Cathedral, France (Vassil/Public Domain)

On the seventh day, the Israelites circled the city seven times, and on the seventh circuit, the priests blew their trumpets, the army let out a loud shout, and the walls came tumbling down. However, the walls did not tumble, at least not in the literal sense. Instead, after six days, Rahab’s inn would have had at least 35-40 armed men hiding in her dwelling. Once those men heard the final blast of the trumpets and the loud shout given by the Israelites, those 35-40 men stormed out of Rahab’s inn to the walls near the main gate, slaughtered the guards, and opened Jericho to the onslaught. The Israelite army, roughly 8,000 men, stormed into the city. Some may have used scaling ladders, and once in: “They completely destroyed everything in the city with the sword — men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” (Josh, 6:21) All breath had been extinguished except for Rahab and her family.

The covered ark and seven priests with rams' horns, at the Battle of Jericho, in an eighteenth-century artist's depiction.

The covered ark and seven priests with rams’ horns, at the Battle of Jericho, in an eighteenth-century artist’s depiction. (Public Domain)

As one can read, the Ark was nothing more than a decoy to keep the people occupied so that the Israelites could acquire the much-needed metals to supply their army.

The Philistines Capture the Ark and Pay the Price

As the Israelite forces gathered at Ebenezer, the better-equipped and organized Philistines, seeing that their opponent was nothing more than a ragtag, unorganized body of men, left the safety of Aphek and marched toward the Israelites who wished to do battle. Once both armies were in battle formation, the slaughter commenced. The Philistines are said to have slaughtered four thousand Israelites that day. The Israelite elders felt they lost the first engagement due to not having the Ark of the Covenant present at the battle. Because of this, the elders sent messengers to Shiloh, located in Ephraim, requesting that Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas, bring forth the ark to the battle. Hophni and Phinehas brought the ark to the Israelite camp, where a great roar of excitement was heard. The Israelite forces, confident that their god was with them, went forth to battle against the Philistines the next day and suffered a terrible loss in which many thousands of men were slaughtered. Hophni and Phinehas were killed, and worst of all, the Ark of the Covenant was now in the possession of the Philistines. When messengers reached Eli to inform him of the dreadful news, he fell off his seat and broke his neck. (1 Samuel 4:1-18)

With the Israelite forces broken, the Ark captured, and Eli dead, the Philistines quickly overran the Jezreel valley, gained access to the northern highlands, and were able to overrun the territory of Ephraim and Benjamin, forcing them into tributary status. While the battle of Aphek-Ebenezer was a major Israelite defeat, it was also an indirect victory.

Death Plagues the City

The Ark fell into the hands of the Philistines, who triumphantly brought it back to Ashdod. While they celebrated, an invisible hand of death fell on them. According to the Bible, the people of Ashdod and its vicinity were afflicted with a mysterious illness. When the Philistines moved the Ark to Gath in hopes of alleviating their ills, death followed. Neither young nor old could escape. (1 Samuel 5:1-9) But what was this plague, and how did it come about?

The Plague of Ashdod.

The Plague of Ashdod. (Public Domain)

The Bible mentions that the plague the Philistines were afflicted with was emerods, better known today as hemorrhoids. However, this seems unlikely. Hemorrhoids do not kill the young and old, for hemorrhoids are not contagious. The Hebrew word is ofalim, which does not mean hemorrhoids but tumors or swellings. This suggests that the Philistines were suffering from bubonic plague, for the Bible gives another clue: vermin.

The Philistines grew tired of the ark and discussed with their holy men how to return the vile object that had been afflicting them for seven months. The Philistine holy men clarified that if you wanted to appease the god of Israel, make a guilt offering to him. “Then you will be healed, and you will know why his hand has not been lifted from you.” The Philistines responded, “What guilt offering should we send to him?” The Philistine holy men advised that they should make “Five gold tumors and five gold rats, according to the number of the Philistine rulers, because the same plague has struck both you and your rulers. Make models of the tumors and of the rats that are destroying the country, and give glory to Israel’s god.” (1 Samuel 6:5) The passages are clear: The Ark produced the plague, and the rats helped in its spread. But how did the Ark produce plague?

It seems probable that the Ark of the Covenant contained more than just a few holy items. Historian Adrienne Mayor mentions that the Ark may have contained sealed containers or cloth “that harbored aerosolized plague germs, or an insect vector that infected the rodents in Philistine territory.” In other words, whoever opened the ark to examine the objects within unknowingly opened Pandora’s Box.

After the Philistines had made the “Five gold tumors and five gold rats,” they placed the objects in a chest next to the ark on the cart drawn by two oxen. The five Philistine rulers escorted them to the border of Beth Shemesh. As the Israelites of Beth Shemesh were harvesting their wheat in the field of Joshua, “they looked up and saw the ark, they rejoiced at the sight.” (1 Samuel 6:13). It was an indirect victory by means of biological warfare. However, the Israelites would also pay the price.

Ark in the land of Philistines and the Temple of Dagon

Ark in the land of Philistines and the Temple of Dagon (Public Domain)

After the Levites had taken the chest and Ark down from the cart, they opened the Ark to observe the objects inside and to see if the contents were still there, and in doing so, unknowingly unleashed the same pestilence that afflicted the Philistines. Samuel states that the Lord “smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men.” (1 Sam 6:15-19) While it’s possible that people wanted to look inside the Ark out of curiosity, the Levites handling the Ark were the first exposed to the pestilence, which quickly spread throughout Beth Shemesh and other parts of Israel. While 50,070 seems a bit much, the likely number of dead was a little more than five thousand.

The aftermath of Aphek-Ebenezer was two-sided. The Philistines won the land battles while the Israelites won biologically, even though the majority of the populace and priests likely had no clue what caused the dangers in the Ark. While the epidemic stopped the advancement of the Philistines temporarily, it also further weakened the Israelites and denied them any hope of attacking the weakened Philistines once the plague had subsided.

The Enduring Enigma

So, what was the Ark of the Covenant? Was it a golden chest that served as the throne for Yahweh and had an unexplainable power, or was it just a beautifully gilded box with some nasty surprises inside? Based on the readings, it seems that the Ark was nothing more than a chest designed for a political purpose: to unite the Israelites and give them an identity. It also served as a religious symbol. Not only was Yahweh their king, but he was also, in fact, their God. Because of this, the Ark served as a place to worship wherever it resided. Thirdly and lastly, it had a military function. One could say the Ark served as Yahweh’s chariot. Yahweh was their commander and God of war. Moreover, like any good weapon, if it were to fall into the hands of the enemy, it could defend itself as it did against the Philistines when it unleashed a nasty plague upon them.

Overall, however, one looks at the Ark; it all comes down to faith.

Replica of the Ark of the Covenant in the Royal Arch Room of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial

Replica of the Ark of the Covenant in the Royal Arch Room of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial (CC BY-SA 2.5)

Cam Rea is an author and military historian. He has written numerous articles for Ancient Origins, and Classical Wisdom Weekly and has authored several books, including Hebrew Wars: A Military History of Ancient Israel from Abraham to Judges.

—

Top Image: Model of the Ark of the Covenant (Public Domain)

By Cam Rea

References

Gabriel, Richard A. The Culture of War: Invention and Early Development. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.

—. The Military History of Ancient Israel. Westport: Praeger, 2003.

Hamilton, Victor P. Handbook on the Historical Books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther. Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.

Mayor, Adrienne. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. London: Duckworth, 2005.

Orent, Wendy. Plague: The Mysterious Past and Terrifying Future of the World’s Most Dangerous Disease. New York: Free Press, 2004.

Sicker, Martin. The Rise and Fall of the Ancient Israelite States. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2003.

Sivertsen, Barbara J. The Parting of the Sea: How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Story of Exodus. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.

Stager, Lawrence E. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.” JSTOR. Autumn 1985. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1356862

Posted on

Ark of the Covenant: A Weapon, A Throne, A Temple – Part I

‘The Ark Passes Over the Jordan’
Ark of the Covenant: A Weapon, A Throne, A Temple – Part I

The Ark of the Covenant, also known as the Ark of the Testimony, is one of history’s most fascinating ancient mysteries. According to Biblical sources, it was built after Moses had freed the Israelites from Egypt in the wilderness. The chest was filled with items of spiritual significance and served as a visible sign of Yahweh’s (the Hebrew name of God) presence to the Israelites. However, the Ark went missing after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE.

Why the Ark?

According to Exodus 19:5-6, Yahweh made a covenant with the Israelites: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” It was believed this covenant brought about the construction of the Ark.

Another reason for the Ark’s construction was political. The Israelites believed Yahweh to be their king, and building it allowed them to transport their monarch wherever they went. This also made the Ark a military weapon. If Yahweh was their king/god, then he was their commander, which made the Ark a weapon. Therefore, the Israelites needed a symbol that they could look to, and it put fear into the minds of their enemies. More on this later.

A 4th century BCE drachm (quarter shekel) coin from the Persian province of Yehud Medinata, possibly representing Yahweh seated on a winged and wheeled throne. An inscription lies on the face of the coin, either a Phoenician inscription on the coin reading "YHW" or an Aramaic inscription reading "YHD"

A 4th century BCE drachm (quarter shekel) coin from the Persian province of Yehud Medinata, possibly representing Yahweh seated on a winged and wheeled throne. An inscription lies on the face of the coin, either a Phoenician inscription on the coin reading “YHW” or an Aramaic inscription reading “YHD” (Public Domain)

The Construction of the Ark

According to the book of Exodus 25:10-22, construction of the Ark began at Mount Sinai:

Have them make an ark of acacia wood—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry it. The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. Then put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law, which I will give you.

Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law that I will give you. There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the covenant law, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites.

A model of the Ark of the Covenant from biblical description

A model of the Ark of the Covenant from biblical description (Blake Patterson/CC BY 2.0)

What is interesting about this is that the manufacture of not just the Ark but weapons also took place at Mount Sinai. The Israelites had difficulty acquiring the necessary skills to manufacture bronze weapons in the wilderness. Casting bronze was not easy or an ordinary skill. Exodus is silent when it comes to blacksmiths. One could argue that no blacksmiths were available within the camp. Alternatively, there might have been a handful of blacksmiths who either lacked the necessary equipment to produce the urgently needed weapons or were unskilled in weapon forging. So, the question arises: how did the Israelites manage to produce sufficient weapons, not to mention the Ark of Covenant? The solution to this enigma lies in Sinai.

Mount Sinai, also known as Mount Horbe

Mount Sinai, also known as Mount Horbe (Mohammed Moussa/CC BY-SA 3.0)

Moses led the Israelites into Sinai and to the base of Mount Horeb due to his relatives, the availability of copper, and the metalworkers who lived there. Moses knew well the area of Sinai and Mount Horeb (an alternative name for Mt. Sinai), for Moses used to lead Jethro’s flock “to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.” (Exodus 3:1) Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, was a Kenite/Midian priest who lived in the lands of Midian. (Judg 1:16; Ex 3:1; Num10:29) Moses led the Hebrews to Mount Sinai/Horeb, for he was familiar with the territory and the resources mined and forged at Sinai.

Moses Breaking the Tablets of the Law (1659) by Rembrandt

Moses Breaking the Tablets of the Law (1659) by Rembrandt (Public Domain)

The approach to Mount Sinai, painting by David Roberts

The approach to Mount Sinai, painting by David Roberts (Public Domain)

While Moses and a few others with him were familiar with the sights and sounds at Mount Sinai/Horeb, most of the Israelites and those tagging along were not, especially on the morning of the third day. “And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.” (Exodus 19:16)

While it is possible that Yahweh did descend in a thunderous roar accompanied by spectacular lightning and smoke atop Mount Sinai/Horeb, perhaps there is another alternative to consider. Perhaps the reported sound of thunder the Israelites heard was none other than the metalsmiths atop the mountain who were smelting and hammering away. The flashes of what appeared to be lightning were nothing more than the flickering of the high flames produced by the furnaces. As for the cloud of smoke caused by the furnaces, it takes twice to four times as much charcoal to smelt copper compared to iron, which would produce a heavy cloud of smoke. The mountain landscape would have sounded and appeared eerie to the people below. The clue that links this possibility all together is the Kenites.

The Kenite name comes from the Hebrew word qayin, which means smith or metalworker. The Kenites lived in oasis towns in Midian and Sinai, where they mined the abundant rich copper ore at various spots in southwestern and southeastern Sinai. Furthermore, their location at the copper mines was not far from the trade routes that passed through Sinai, which allowed them to sell their goods and purchase the expensive tin needed to produce bronze, which was rare in the Middle East.

Because of this, it is possible to suggest that the Ark of the Covenant was designed and the metals collected atop Mount Sinai due to the Kenites who lived and worked within the vicinity. This speculation is because Moses was believed to be atop the Sinai for 40 days. However, the Bible gives two different accounts of who partook in the Ark. According to Exodus 31, Moses instructed Bezalel and Oholiab to construct the Ark, but the book of Deuteronomy 10:1-5 says Moses constructed it. At the same time, Bezalel and Oholiab are not mentioned. Forty days allow plenty of time to help in the design and manufacture of the weapons and the Ark, along with other items of religious significance. Therefore, it seems reasonable that Moses knew what he was doing when he arrived at Sinai to pay for weapons and the Ark with the gold they stripped from Egypt.

Power of the Ark

The power of the Ark is another intriguing matter. In biblical sources, the Ark divided the Jordan River for the Israelites to cross. In another instance, it brought down the walls of Jericho. It is said to have killed the Bethsames when they opened it. The Philistines are said to have acquired “hemorrhoids” (as shall be explained) after capturing the Ark, which caused them to quickly return it to the Israelites. And finally, there is the story of Uzzah, who was stuck down for placing his hands on the Ark as he tried to prevent it from falling. However, how true are these stories, and if they are true, is there another explanation worth considering?

Moses and Joshua bowing before the Ark.

Moses and Joshua bowing before the Ark. (Public Domain)

The Ark and the Jordan River

According to the book of Joshua 3:16, “the waters which came down from above stood and rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, even the salt sea, failed, and were cut off: and the people passed over right against Jericho.” So, did the Jordan River miraculously divide, allowing them to march across a dry riverbed, or is there more to the story?

Earthquakes are common along the Dead Sea depression and might contribute to the Jordan splitting for Joshua. In 1927, an earthquake cut off the river for twenty-two hours. In 1546, an earthquake triggered a landslide, stopping the river from flowing for two days. In 1267, the river stopped again at midnight and would not flow until 10:00 the following morning. While this is plausible, the Book of Joshua provides an overlooked possibility.

As mentioned, they left Shittim (an ancient city in Moab, now Abil-ez-Zeit, Jordan) and encamped on the east bank of the Jordan River. Richard Gabriel points out that there is “no sound military reason for the three-day encampment.” From a military standpoint, it makes no sense to sit and wait for three days before crossing, considering that the king of Jericho easily could have mustered his forces and acquired the aid of local allies to deploy their forces along the west side of the Jordan River, thus using it as a tactical obstacle. However, the king evidently did not have the luxury of allies to assist him in preventing an Israelite crossing of the Jordan. The lack of assistance was apparently due to the disunity between the various Canaanite city-states. This is not to say that they could not unite to attack a common foe, but the military and political disunity shows their true weakness in preventing a foreign invasion. While Joshua’s decision seems a bit risky, he was no fool. So, what were the Israelites doing? The answer is they were taking advantage of a recent earthquake.

That the waters which came down from above stood and rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, even the salt sea, failed, and were cut off. (Joshua 3:16)

With a natural obstacle in place, the flow of water slowed down and slowly receded, thus making the river shallow enough to build a barrier of some sort to hold back the slow, if not standing, waters. Joshua indicates that the “Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest.” (Joshua 4:2-3) Knowing that the fords were flooded, Joshua decided that three days was sufficient to construct a barrier made of stone to hold back the waters and to allow the army to move fluidly across. Once the army crossed, Joshua gave the order to remove the stones:

“Take for yourselves from the people twelve men, a man from every tribe; and give them this order: ‘Take twelve stones from the middle of the Yarden riverbed, where the cohanim are standing, carry them over with you and set them down in the place where you will camp tonight.’”

Joshua passing the River Jordan with the Ark of the Covenant.

Joshua passing the River Jordan with the Ark of the Covenant. (Public Domain)

Joshua’s order to remove the twelve stones indicates that there is no retreat and no surrender. To fulfill the promise, you must fight to the death. Joshua understood well that a force with its back against a wall would fight more ferociously. Moreover, removing the barrier that held back the waters protected those Israelites on the east side of the Jordan if something went wrong.

Cam Rea is an author and military historian. He has written numerous articles for Ancient Origins Classical Wisdom Weekly and has authored several books, including Hebrew Wars: A Military History of Ancient Israel from Abraham to Judges.

—

Top Image: ‘The Ark Passes Over the Jordan’ ( Public Domain )

By Cam Rea

References

Gabriel, Richard A. The Culture of War: Invention and Early Development. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.

—. The Military History of Ancient Israel. Westport: Praeger, 2003.

Hamilton, Victor P. Handbook on the Historical Books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther. Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.

Mayor, Adrienne. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. London: Duckworth, 2005.

Orent, Wendy. Plague: The Mysterious Past and Terrifying Future of the World’s Most Dangerous Disease. New York: Free Press, 2004.

Sicker, Martin. The Rise and Fall of the Ancient Israelite States. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2003.

Sivertsen, Barbara J. The Parting of the Sea: How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Story of Exodus. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.

Stager, Lawrence E. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.” JSTOR. Autumn 1985. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1356862

Posted on

Orban: The Man Who Brought Down the Walls of Constantinople – Part 2

For 53 days, the forces of the Ottoman Empire shook what was left of the Eastern Roman Empire (known as Byzantium, or the Byzantine Empire) until they were able to breach the massive walls of Constantinople, conquering the last standing remnants of the once mighty Roman Empire.

Sultan Mehmed II was so pleased with Orban’s massive, destructive cannon that he wanted another twice its size! Orban headed back to his foundry in Edirne (Adrianople) acquiring more timber and bronze, and in three months he produced a twenty-seven-foot-long monster that had a diameter of 2.5 to three feet (76.2 to 91.44 cm) and could fire a stone projectile weighing between 1440-1500 lbs (653 – 680 kg).

[Read Part 1]

Moreover, to make sure this weapon fire properly without exploding, the barrel was walled with eight inches (20 cm) of solid bronze to absorb the force of the blast. This massive weapon was finished in January 1453.

Citizens were warned in the surrounding area not to panic if they heard a loud boom:

“In January [the Sultan] decided to test the cannon which the Hungarian had made. It was carefully set in position before the main gateway leading into the palace [at Adrianople] which he had built that year, the ball was fitted into it, and its ration of powder weighed out. It was planned to fire it the next morning, and public announcements were made throughout Adrianople, to advising everyone of the loud and thunderous noise which it would make so that no one would be struck dumb by hearing the noise unexpectedly or any pregnant women miscarry. In the morning the gunpowder was lit, there was a great rush of hot air, and the shot was driven forth, leaving the cannon with a loud explosion which filled the air with clouds of smoke. The sound was heard a hundred stadia away, and the shot travelled a thousand paces from the point of firing, making a hole six feet deep at the point where it landed.”

Seeing potential in this new weapon, Mehmed ordered the production of more, but in smaller caliber. Once finished, the number of cannons produced was 14 large and 56 small; all of which would be used to batter the walls of Constantinople.

On the Move, Setting Up and Firing!

After the cannons had been tested and they were deemed ready for service, the Sultan Mehmed sent out the order to his officers to muster the forces and meet at the Ottoman capital of Edirne. The size of the Ottoman force that was to lay siege to Constantinople is uncertain. Some suggest the Ottoman army was 50,000–80,000 or 80,000-100,000 troops. Others say 120,000 and some go as high as 300,000 with 120,000 non-combatants in attendance.

Map of Constantinople (1422) by Florentine cartographer Cristoforo Buondelmonti is the oldest surviving map of the city, and the only one that predates the Turkish conquest of the city in 1453 (Public Domain)

Once the army arrived outside the walls of Constantinople, much of the smaller artillery likely accompanied the main force. As for the heavier cannon pieces, particularly the famous Basilica, or the Ottoman Cannon, it took 70 oxen and 10,000 men even though other sources suggest only 1,000 men. The move from Edirne to Constantinople was a distance of 140 miles (225 kilometers).

Bronze cast Ottoman bombard, Cast in the 15th–16th century,  Fired shots of 1,000 lbs. (453 kg) (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The Long Haul

Moving the large cannon, as one can image, was a laborious task. To move this gargantuan weapon of war, the tube had to be lifted and placed on a number of attached wagons, which as mentioned, were pulled by many oxen. Scouts went ahead to report back of the terrain that lied ahead, while the men with the cannon had to help guide, push, and pull the wagons and beasts over the rolling Thracian countryside. Those workers ahead were tasked with leveling out the road as best as they could and building wooden bridges over the rivers and gullies. The total distance this juggernaut made was two-and-a-half-miles a day, (about four kilometers).

By the time Orban’s Basilica cannon arrived the Ottoman troops were already in position, Sappers had already been making a clear path for fire by cutting down the orchards and vineyards, while others dug ditches the length of the walls of Theodosius and 250 yards (228 meters) from them. It is safe to say that many of the smaller cannons had been set in place since Mehmed grouped the cannons into 14 or 15 batteries pointed at the walls’ vulnerable points.

The restored walls of Constantinople (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Exploiting Weakness

According to the Venetian physician and eyewitness Nicolo Barbaro, “These cannon were planted in four places: first of all, three cannon were placed near the palace of the Most Serene Emperor, and three other cannons were placed near the Pigi gate, and two at the Cressu gate, and another four at the gate of San Romano, the weakest part of the whole city.” The larger cannons would receive support by smaller ones in each battery. As for Basilica, it was placed in front of Mehmed’s tent so that he could watch and praise his new toy. Basilica had to be lifted from the wagons and lowered into position using a block-and-tackle system onto a sloping wooden platform. To protect the cannon from enemy fire, the men built a wooden palisade with hinged doors that would be opened when it was time to fire. Greek politician, scholar, and historian Michael Critobulus (1410-1470) mentions this as well and states:

After this, having pointed the cannon toward whatever it was intended to hit, and having leveled it by certain technical means and calculations toward the target, they brought up great beams of wood and laid them underneath and fitted them carefully. On these they placed immense stones, weighting it down and making it secure above and below and behind and everywhere, lest by the force of the velocity and by the shock of the movement of its own emplacement, it should be displaced and shoot wide of its mark.

Furthermore, the Ottomans still relied on tradition siege machines such as the trebuchet to batter the walls.

Counterweight trebuchet by the German engineer Konrad Kyeser (c. 1405) (Public Domain)

Barbaro also mentions Basilica: “One of these four cannon which were at the gate of San Romano threw a ball weighing about twelve hundred pounds, more or less, and thirteen quarte in circumference, which will show the terrible damage it inflicted where it landed.”

Critobulus describes the firing of the cannon stating: “And the stone, borne with enormous force and velocity, hit the wall, which it immediately shook and knocked down, and was itself broken into many fragments and scattered, hurling the pieces everywhere and killing those who happened to be nearby.”

Giant Ammunition

If the size and weight of the cannon were not enough, the ammunition was also another weightier matter. To produce such ammunition, it had to be hewed from the rock and shaped. The stone balls used were made on the north coast of the Black Sea. Besides the stone balls, there was a large need for saltpeter (potassium nitrate). Not only did the crews man, load, fire, and reposition after each shot, but they also repaired what they could. This went for all the cannon batteries.

Critobulus mentions that when the cannon was fired, the impact sometimes “demolished a whole section, and sometimes a half-section, and sometimes a larger or smaller section of a tower, turret or battlement. And there was no part of the wall strong enough or resistant enough or thick enough to be able to withstand it, or to wholly resist such force and such a blow of the stone cannonball.”

Shots fired from the Basilica sometimes did not hit their target but instead flew over the wall and traveled up to a mile into the city. As the ball came down, it would mow through humans and property before settling into the ground, causing a quake felt for two miles.

Assaulting under Fire and the Final Explosion

The 70 cannons of various sizes hurled stone projectiles continuously at the walls for 53 days. One can only imagine the psychological impact the cannons had on the citizens and defenders alike: the sound of loud sounds of stone balls flying right over your head and smashing into buildings, with the added knowledge that death was a matter of chance and nearly a certainty.

Sultan Mehmed II – Mehmed the Conqueror (Public Domain)

Sultan Mehmed launched assault after assault, during which his cannons could punch holes through walls or did enough damage that debris fell and created a ramp from which his armies could reach the breach in the wall. However, defenders on the walls could push and keep the invaders back.

The Fall of Constantinople, illustration from ‘Hutchinson’s History of the Nations’, 1915 (Public Domain)

While the Byzantine army did not have sufficient manpower to defeat the Ottoman army in a head-on battle, the walls of Constantinople provided much safety and support. Understand that the Ottoman cannons took time to fire, which in turn allowed the defenders on the walls to repair the breaches made. In futility, Mehmed continued launching assaults that failed each time.

Mehmed’s strategy, as Roger Crowley states, “was attritional—and impatient,” or what I like to call attrition through impatience. Mehmed knew that as long as his cannons shot holes through the walls and he launched assault after assault, the citizens and defenders would soon give up. The Greek scholar Melissenos, who was not there but collected articles that described the action a century later, mentions that the “assault continued night and day with no relief from the clashes and explosions, crashing of stones and cannon-balls on the walls, for the Sultan hoped in this way to take the city easily, since we were few against many, by pounding us to death and exhaustion, and so he allowed us no rest from attack.” While wave after wave of Ottoman attacks continued along with the constant bombardment, Basilica began to break.

Holding a Tiger by the Tail

While Basilica was an awesome sight and sound to those firing the cannon and a terror to those receiving its wrath, truth be told, the weapon was more of a burden than a blessing. Loading and re-aiming the cannon took much time, and it could only fire seven times a day. Another major issue with the cannon was that producing such a weapon on such a large scale and under a deadline worried Orban—and rightfully so.

Using the colossal canon was like grabbing a tiger by the tail. It was, in effect, employing something powerful and dangerous that could hurt the wielder as much as any target.

An expert iron founder and engineer, Orban, noticed that hairline fractures began appearing on the cannon. After each shot, the crews had to quickly pour oil onto the barrel to prevent cold air from enlarging the fissures. Even when they tried to fit iron hoops around the barrel, it did little to support it. However, pouring warm oil was not enough, and the cannon eventually “cracked as it was being fired and split into many pieces, killing and wounding many nearby.” Those killed in the blast supposedly included Orban. However, that is what Christian chroniclers wish happened.

Taking the City: The Fall of Constantinople and the Rise of Artillery

The entry of Sultan Mehmed II into Constantinople, painting by Fausto Zonaro (1854-1929) (Public Domain)

On 29 May 1453, the Ottoman forces of Mehmed finally made their way into the city. They defeated the remaining defenders, killing the last Roman Emperor Constantine XI in the streets, ending an Empire from 27 BC – 1453 CE.

Mosaic of Emperor Constantine I with a representation of the city of Constantinople (Public Domain)

While Mehmed made Constantinople the new capital of the Ottoman Empire, the cannon made by Orban also had an impact. The impact of Orban’s cannon had caused little damage but much noise. In other words, Orban’s attempt to produce a cannon of such magnitude showed the potential that could be harnessed if trial and error could be applied with sufficient time and testing. This would happen much later in Western Europe during the Renaissance and beyond. The cannon produced by Orban was nothing more than a colossal weapon that produced lots of smoke and loud noise and, on occasion, landed on its target. Overall, the weakening and destruction of the walls of Constantinople were not due to just Basilica but the combination of all the firepower at the Ottoman’s disposal—even the trebuchets.

The Tsar Cannon (caliber 890 mm), cast in 1586 in Moscow. It is the largest extant bombard in the world. (CC BY 3.0)

Basilica only made a name for itself due to its sheer size, overshadowing the other cannons in their arsenal at the siege of Constantinople of 1453.

The final siege of Constantinople, contemporary 15th-century French miniature, 1455 (Public Domain)

—

Top Image: Detail; The entry of Sultan Mehmed II into Constantinople, painting by Fausto Zonaro (1854-1929) (Pubic Domain)

By Cam Rea

References

Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time

Gábor Ágoston, Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization)

Lars Brownworth, Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization

Marios Philippides, Walter K. Hanak, The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies

Michael Kritovoulos, The Siege of Constantinople in 1453, according to Kritovoulos, [Online] Available at: http://deremilitari.org/2016/08/the-siege-of-constantinople-in-1453-according-to-kritovoulos/

Nicolo Barbaro, The Siege of Constantinople in 1453, [Online] Available at: http://deremilitari.org/2016/08/the-siege-of-constantinople-in-1453-according-to-nicolo-barbaro/

Roger Crowley, 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West.

—The Guns of Constantinople, http://www.historynet.com/the-guns-of-constantinople.htm

Stephen Turnbull, The Walls of Constantinople AD 324-1453 (Fortress).

Suraiya Faroqhi, The Ottoman Empire and the World around It.

Bernard S. Bachrach, Kelly DeVries, and Clifford J. Rogers, The Journal of Medieval Military History, Vol II.

Posted on

Orban: The Man Who Brought Down the Walls of Constantinople – Part I

For 53 days, starting on Friday, 6 April, the forces of the Ottoman Empire shook what was left of the Eastern Roman Empire (known as Byzantium, or the Byzantine Empire) until they were able to breach the massive walls of Constantinople on Tuesday, 29 May 1453, conquering the last standing remnants of the once mighty Roman Empire. The conquest of Constantinople could have been drastically different were it not for a man by the name of Orban and his massive cannon.

The Dardanelles Gun, cast in 1464 and based on the Orban bombard that was used for the Ottoman besiegers of Constantinople in 1453

The Dardanelles Gun, cast in 1464 and based on the Orban bombard that was used for the Ottoman besiegers of Constantinople in 1453 (Public Domain)

Who Was Orban?

Orban (also known as Urban) was a cannon caster of possible Hungarian origin (but this is disputed). A Byzantine Greek historian from Athens by the name of Laonikos Khalkokondyles (c.1430 – c. 1470) mentions something different:

There was an artilleryman of the king [sultan] called Orbanos. He was a Dacian by birth and earlier he had spent time with the Greeks. Because he needed a better salary for himself, he left the Greeks and came to the Porte of the king [sultan].

Khalkokondyles mentions that Orban was not Hungarian but “Dacian.” To clarify, the term Dacian he used shows his love of antiquity, but the term would not have been familiar to the uneducated. Most people during that time would have no idea what or where Dacia was. The name Dacia comes from ancient Rome, and the states of Wallachia and Transylvania were within its territory. It is possible that Orban was Hungarian and went south seeking those who could use his services. Some have even suggested the Orban may have been German. But his method of casting cannons was the biggest giveaway to show that Orban was an Eastern European from Hungary, Wallachia, or Transylvania.

Earliest picture of a European cannon, Walter de Milemete, 1326

Earliest picture of a European cannon, Walter de Milemete, 1326 (Public Domain)

Orban promoted his services by casting bronze bombards. The bronze casting of cannons or bombards had been abandoned in Western Europe by the 1440s. This was because Western cannon casters found that manufacturing smaller pieces made from iron was easier to deal with. Therefore, Orban’s methods in casting cannon suggest that his origins were probably Eastern European.

Pumhart von Steyr, a medieval supergun, Austria.

Pumhart von Steyr, a medieval supergun, Austria.  (Public Domain)

Looking for a Deal

Orban, soon to be the last Byzantine emperor, visited the court of Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos (8 February 1405 – 29 May 1453) to pitch his cannons.

Constantine XI Palaiologos

Constantine XI Palaiologos (Tilemahos Efthimiadis /CC BY 2.0)

Orban entered Constantinople’s capital and offered his services to the emperor. The emperor was delighted to meet him because he was interested in using the new technology to his advantage. He had seen it first-hand at the Hexamilion, a defensive wall constructed across the Isthmus of Corinth, and was impressed by the power of this new war device as it smashed through rock.

Excavation of the Hexamilion wall

Excavation of the Hexamilion wall (CC BY-SA 3.0)

However, Constantine did not have the resources, such as timber for the foundry fires or even the money to offer Orban to build the desired weapons. Constantine also did not want the man to leave his capital and sought to keep him as long as he could. In order to do this, he provided a stipend from scraps to keep the man. This only lasted so long that after the money ran dry, Orban left the city seeking a new customer. He made his way to the court of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II (30 March 1432 – 3 May 1481), best known as Mehmed the Conqueror (the very man who would soon lay waste to Constantinople).

Mehmed II in Edirne (Public Domain)

Orban made his way to either the Ottoman capital located west of Constantinople at Edirne, historically known as Adrianople, in the northwestern Turkish province of Edirne, or Rumelihisarı (also known as Rumelian Castle, which means the “Strait-Cutter Castle”), Mehmed’s fortress located in the Sarıyer district near Constantinople on a hill on the European side of the Bosphorus.

Rumelihisarı as seen from the Bosphorus strait, Istanbul, Turkey, built by Sultan Mehmed II between 1451 and 1452, before the Fall of Constantinople (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Once Orban arrived, he requested an audience with Mehmed to sell him his services. After Mehmed was informed of Orban’s engineering skills, he was happy to welcome this traveler, show him that his skills would be appreciated, and showered him with gifts. Mehmed promised Orban he would give him the highest wage besides the many gifts. Afterward, Mehmed asked Orban if it was possible to build a powerful enough cannon to breach the walls of Constantinople. Orban said, “I can cast a cannon of bronze with the capacity of the stone you want. I have examined the walls of the city in great detail. I can shatter to dust not only these walls with the stones from my gun, but the very walls of Babylon itself.”

The only thing Orban could not promise to Mehmed, and which he made clear, was that he could not determine the range. Mehmed overlooked this handicap and bade him to start work on the cannon immediately.

The restored walls of Constantinople

The restored walls of Constantinople (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The Dangerous Task of Constructing the Cannon in the Fires of Hell

Orban had a large and dangerous task ahead of him. Besides the difficulty in constructing cannons on such a scale, he had to design and create a furnace big enough for the job. Orban constructed two brick-lined furnaces faced with fired clay inside and out and reinforced with large stones. This was because the furnace needed to withstand high temperatures— beyond 1,000 degrees centigrade. It had to be enclosed on the outside by heaps of charcoal that were described as being “so deep that it hid the furnace, apart from their mouths.” Cannon making, like any new technology, was hazardous. An Ottoman traveler during the medieval period by the name of Evliya Chelebi visited a gun factory and made note of the dangers of such work that took place:

On the day when cannon are to be cast, the masters, foremen and founders, together with the Grand Master of the Artillery, the Chief Overseer, Imam, Muezzin and timekeeper, all assemble and to the cries of “Allah! Allah!,” the wood is thrown into the furnace. After these have been heated doe twenty-four hours, the founders and stokers strip naked, wearing nothing but their slippers, an odd kind of cap which leaves nothing but their eyes visible, and thick sleeves to protect his arms; for, after the fire has been alight in the furnaces twenty-four hours, no person can approach on account of the heat, save he be attired in the above manner. Whoever wishes to see a good picture of the fires of hell should witness this sight. 

Given that Orban did not have a thermometer, the foundry workers had to judge the right temperature based on sight. Once they felt comfortable, the workers started to throw in copper along with scraps of tin to make bronze. Acquiring copper was easy for the Ottomans, for their copper source was in Anatolia (Turkey), while tin came from outside sources. However, given the circumstances, the Ottomans likely acquired bronze bells from Christian churches to be melted and remolded into cannons.

Molten Metals and Evil Eyes

The process, as mentioned, was dangerous and required a keen sense of understanding the molten metals. In other words, Orban and the foundry workers understood that each piece of metal must be examined before being tossed into the cauldron. As for the dross that floated on the surface had to be carefully skimmed off using metal ladles. This doesn’t even mention the noxious fumes tin gives off, and on top of that, if the scrap metal lying around was wet, once thrown into the furnace, it would cause the water to vaporize, rupture the furnace, and cause an explosion that would kill or maim everyone close.

But of the metals being added into the cauldron, tin was held with some superstition when it was time to throw it in. According to Evliya:

[…]the Vezirs, the Mufti and Sheiks are summoned; only forty persons, besides the personnel of the foundry, are admitted all told. The rest of the attendants are shut out, because the metal, when infusion, will not suffer to be looked at by evil eyes. The masters then desire the Vezirs and sheiks who are seated on sofas at a great distance to repeat unceasingly the words “There is no power and strength save in Allah!” Thereupon the master-workmen with wooden shovels throw several hundredweight of tin into the sea of molten brass, and the head-founder says to the Grand Vizier, Vezirs and Sheiks: “Throw some gold and silver coins into the brazen sea as alms, in the name of the True Faith!” Poles as long as the yard of ships are used for mixing the gold and silver with the metal and are replaced as fast as consumed.

Birth of a Terrible Monster

Before the cannon that would bring the walls of Constantinople tumbling down, Orban built a prototype mounted to the walls Rumelihisarı. Doukas, (c. 1400 – after 1462), a Byzantine historian under Constantine XI, spoke of this cannon, stating, “They began amassing bronze and the technician [sc. Orban] created the form of the cannon; and in three months a terrible and unprecedented monster was constructed and cast.”

Illustration of a 15th-century trade galley from a manuscript by Michael of Rhodes (1401–1445) (Public Domain)

The cannon in question was made of bronze and was capable of firing a stone ball weighing roughly 600 lbs. (272 kg). Mehmed wanted to clarify that any ship wishing to pass through the Bosphorus Strait must pay a toll or face repercussions. Not long after, a Venetian merchant ship was about to pass through the Bosporus Strait, but it was ordered to stop and pay the tax. The Venetians were perplexed and refused to obey. They decided to make a run for it and paid the price.

“In those days a big ship of the Venetians was sailing down the narrows [the Bosphorus] by the town of Baskesen [“Head Cutter,” that is, Rumeli Hisar], commanded by Antonio Rizzo…they fired a very large stone from the castle and it struck the ship.” After their ship was blasted out of the water, the shocked Venetians who made it to shore were executed along with their captain. As well, the body of the captain was impaled on the banks as a public warning. After seeing what the massive cannon could do, Mehmed wanted something bigger.

Bigger and Better

Mehmed was so pleased with the cannon that he wanted another twice its size! Orban headed back to his foundry in Edirne (Adrianople), acquiring more timber and bronze. In three months, he produced a twenty-seven-foot-long monster that had a diameter of 2.5 to three feet (76.2 to 91.44 cm) and could fire a stone projectile weighing between 1440 and 1500 lbs (653 and 680 kg).

Muzzle view of the Great Turkish Bombard Cannon

Muzzle view of the Great Turkish Bombard Cannon (Simon Cope/CC BY-SA 2.0)

Moreover, to make sure this weapon fires properly without exploding, the barrel was walled with eight inches (20 cm) of solid bronze to absorb the force of the blast. This massive weapon was finished in January 1453. Citizens were warned in the surrounding area not to panic if they heard a loud boom:

In January [the Sultan] decided to test the cannon which the Hungarian had made…

Top Image: Modern painting of Mehmed and the Ottoman Army approaching Constantinople with a giant bombard, by Fausto Zonaro (Public Domain)

By Cam Rea

References

Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time

Gábor Ágoston, Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization)

Lars Brownworth, Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization

Marios Philippides, Walter K. Hanak, The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies

Michael Kritovoulos, The Siege of Constantinople in 1453, according to Kritovoulos, [Online] Available at: http://deremilitari.org/2016/08/the-siege-of-constantinople-in-1453-according-to-kritovoulos/

Nicolo Barbaro, The Siege of Constantinople in 1453, [Online] Available at: http://deremilitari.org/2016/08/the-siege-of-constantinople-in-1453-according-to-nicolo-barbaro/

Roger Crowley, 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West.

—The Guns of Constantinople, http://www.historynet.com/the-guns-of-constantinople.htm

Stephen Turnbull, The Walls of Constantinople AD 324-1453 (Fortress).

Suraiya Faroqhi, The Ottoman Empire and the World around It.

Bernard S. Bachrach, Kelly DeVries, and Clifford J. Rogers, The Journal of Medieval Military History, Vol II.