War and Civilization

May 8, 2017

Who were the Ancient Danites & Danaan? Part I

The Danaan and Danites are a mystery people for many historians. Speculated to have been Greek seafarers in the late Bronze Age, they are also closely associated with the Sea Peoples who ravaged the Eastern Mediterranean during the same period. Other evidence suggests they originated somewhere along the coast of the Levant, or they were an Israelite tribe that fled with Moses during the biblical Exodus from Egypt. Whoever the Danaan or Danites were, they left a conflicting legacy.

The warriors who sacked Egypt for its spoils, or Homer’s Troy may explain the mysterious identity and origins of these people, along with the use of Greek mythologies and the Bible itself. Let us first look at the Bible and its description of the events that took place before delving into the Greek story about Danaus and Aegyptus.

Who are the Danites?

According to the Book of Genesis, Dan was the fifth son of Jacob and was mother Bilhah’s first son. He was the founder of the Israelite Tribe of Dan. In the biblical account, Dan’s mother is described as Rachel’s handmaid, who becomes one of Jacob’s wives. (Genesis 30:1-6). The tribe of Dan fled Egypt with the rest of the Israelites led by Moses during the Exodus.

The Dan tribe's serpent plate

The Dan tribe’s serpent plate (CC BY 2.0)

Afterwards, the Danites along with their Israelite brethren fought and defeated many foes, such as the Canaanites, Ammonites, Moabites and the most troublesome: the Philistines. Dan’s territorial allotment, recorded in Joshua 19:40-46, only gives a list of towns:

The seventh lot came out for the tribe of Dan according to its clans. The territory of their inheritance included:

Zorah, Eshtaol, Ir Shemesh, Shaalabbin, Aijalon, Ithlah, Elon, Timnah, Ekron, Eltekeh, Gibbethon, Baalath, Jehud, Bene Berak, Gath Rimmon, Me Jarkon and Rakkon, with the area facing Joppa.

While verses 42-46 describe settlements, verses 47-48 mention that the Danites left and “went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father.” However, verses 40-48 were likely added later. The reason the author of Joshua did not describe borders but provided a list of settlements and a quick mention of their move to the north is that the borders of Dan were constantly changing due to the rift they had with the Philistines, which caused them to pack up and migrate north. However, Dan’s relationship with the Philistines may not have always been hostile.

When the Danites had settled between the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim, a problem arose; their territory was too small. They could not expand north, south, or east, for that was their brethren’s territory. Therefore, they looked west but ran into another problem. Further expansion west was not possible due to the powerful city-states along the coast of southern Canaan. Because of this, the Danites were landlocked.

A mosaic in the Jewish Quarter representing the 12 Tribes of Israel, including the Danites

A mosaic in the Jewish Quarter representing the 12 Tribes of Israel, including the Danites (CC BY 2.0)

The elders of Dan sought a means to acquire more territory. However, Joshua 19:47 suggests that they were not militarily capable on their own to push out the Canaanites along the coast. While the elders probably considered asking their kin to assist them in their endeavor to expand further, the Israelite tribes around Dan had problems of their own. Because of this, they understandably refrained from any military action that could jeopardize their holdings. This would change when the Philistines arrived.

Philistines, or Peleset, captives of the Egyptians, from a graphic wall relief at Medinet Habu. Circa 1185-52 BC, during the reign of Ramesses III.

Philistines, or Peleset, captives of the Egyptians, from a graphic wall relief at Medinet Habu. Circa 1185-52 BC, during the reign of Ramesses III. (Public Domain)

Who are the Sea Peoples?

The Philistines were of Aegean origin, possibly originating from Cyprus or Crete. They were known in Egyptian inscriptions as the Peleset, and were a part of a conjectured conglomerate of sea raiders that Egyptologist Gaston Maspero came to call Sea Peoples. They took part in a large migration/invasion towards the end of the Bronze Age.

The Danites may have joined this conglomerate. While there is no proof that they ever did, the Medinet Habu inscriptions of Ramses III, mention a group known as the Denyen who were defeated by his forces at the Battle of the Djahy (1179):

The foreign countries made a conspiracy in their islands. All at once the lands were removed and scattered in the fray. No land could stand before their arms: from Hatti, Qode, Carchemish, Arzawa and Alashiya on, being cut off at one time. A camp was set up in Amurru. They desolated its people, and its land was like that which has never come into being. They were coming forward toward Egypt, while the flame was prepared before them. Their confederation was the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen and Weshesh, lands united. They laid their hands upon the land as far as the circuit of the earth, their hearts confident and trusting: ‘Our plans will succeed!’

Whether the Denyen were, in fact, the Biblical tribe of Dan will remain disputed. However, one could argue from a military and political perspective that the Danites did aid the Philistines against the Egyptians.

Philistine Bichrome pottery, theorized to be of Sea Peoples origin.

Philistine Bichrome pottery, theorized to be of Sea Peoples origin. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

As mentioned, the Danites allotted territory was too small. Their desire to expand was cut short because they had not the military means to go it alone. When the Philistines and company were making their way south, the Danites saw an opportunity. They joined this coalition of marauders, who were possibly led by the Philistines, in an attempt to expand territorially along the coast of southern Canaan around 1179 BCE. However, as this conglomerate made their way south, they attacked the Canaanite city-states subject to the Egyptians and took them. Afterwards, they continued south, where they engaged the Egyptian army at Djahy and were defeated.

One would think that the Egyptians would have executed or enslaved the defeated forces. Even though the Philistines lost the battle, they won the spoils. Instead, Ramses III decided that since he lost his garrison in southern Canaan, he would use the Philistines to regarrison the coastal fortified cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Gaza—not only to secure the land but also to secure the trade route. The Philistines were assigned to govern and protect a stretch of land along the coast 40 miles long (64 km) and roughly 15 miles (24 km) wide.

Outer gate wall at Ashkelon. Original mud bricks of the outer gate structure of Philistine Ashkelon. The bricks are from the middle bronze age, roughly 4000 years ago.

Outer gate wall at Ashkelon. Original mud bricks of the outer gate structure of Philistine Ashkelon. The bricks are from the middle bronze age, roughly 4000 years ago. (Ian Scott/CC BY-SA 2.0)

While the Philistines won the land grab, the tribe of Dan during this ordeal was thwarted twice. Dan’s first setback was the defeat at Djahy (1179 BCE) by the Egyptians.

Sea Peoples in conflict with the Egyptians in the battle of Djahy.

Sea Peoples in conflict with the Egyptians in the battle of Djahy. (Public Domain)

Their second setback was that after the defeat, their allies, the Philistines, were given land and were now the allies of Egypt. With Egyptian backing, the Philistine occupation of southern Canaan denied the tribe of Dan and that of Judah any hopes to expand. Besides the Biblical account, we can look at the Greek account regarding another people who have a similar name.

Who are the Danaan?

According to the Greeks, the Danaan were a branch of what would become the Greek people over time. In Greek mythology, the Danaan originally dwelt next to the Nile River in Egypt. Their founder was a man by the name of Danaus, who was a descendant of Io.

Zeus and Io

Zeus and Io (Public Domain)

Danaus had fifty daughters, and his brother Aegyptus had fifty sons. Aegyptus wanted to marry off his fifty sons to the daughters of Danaus. Danaus gathered his daughters and fled by ship from the marriage proposal offered by his brother, and settled in a place called Argos where they found safety among the Argives. Aegyptus, furious that Danaus had fled, gathered his fifty sons and followed suit only to be repulsed by the Argives once they landed. It is said that eventually, the daughters of Danaus married their cousins—how this happened is unknown.

According to the tale, Danaus gave his daughters daggers at the wedding feast and instructed them to kill their husbands the night of the wedding.

The Danaides kill their husbands.

The Danaides kill their husbands. (Public Domain)

The daughters agreed to this very act— all except one. Her name was Hypermnestra, she was moved by pity, and thus let her husband Lynceus live. She was the only daughter to marry and have a child within her own family, and thus by Greek law, which will discuss shortly, their child inherited not only the spoils of Aegyptus but also the spoils of Danaus.

Woodcut of 49 of the Danaids killing their husbands, while Hypermnestra tells Lynceus to flee.

Woodcut of 49 of the Danaids killing their husbands, while Hypermnestra tells Lynceus to flee. (CC BY 2.0)

What is striking about this story is that it may be three stories made into one, and possibly of Hebrew origin. Let us first begin with the names Danaus and Aegyptus.

The Possible Connection

The name Danaus, which the Danaan tribes are named after, bears a striking resemblance to the Hebrew tribe of Dan, and may possibly be associated with the tribe of Dan due to name and phonetic similarities. The name Aegyptus is of great interest also.

First, one must understand that the Pharaohs of Egypt did not use the term Egypt, it was the Greeks who called them Egypt or in Greek “Aigyptos”. However, it seems that the name Aigyptos was used in reference to the Nile country from which our story first takes place between Danaus and Aegyptus and not Egypt as a whole, which opens another possibility that will be discussed shortly. In addition, many of the near eastern kingdoms and small nations never used the name “Aigyptos” when referring to Egypt, either. instead, nations like Assyria/Babylonia used the terms “Mutsri,” “Musur,” and “Misir” when referring to Egypt, while the Hebrews referred to them as “Mitsrayim” or “Mizraim.” However, the Mycenaean Linear B text mentions the name Egypt/Egyptian twice: the first name is Misirayo, while the second in the text is Aikupitiyo — two names considered by modern scholars to mean the same thing. Both names have major differences, and yet no modern scholar can tell us why Egypt is referred to by these two vastly different renderings of the name.

The first name mentioned in the Linear B text, “Misiryo” is very similar and connected to the Semitic variations of the name already mentioned. However, it is the second name, Aikupitiyo, which is in dispute, since it has no connection to Egypt. Both names seem to be personal names that point to an identity. If Misiryo means “The Egyptian” then the name Aikupitiyo is alien to the land of Egypt and does not indicate that this person is Egyptian. Another solution to this person’s identity can be demonstrated.

Remember the story of Danaus and Aegyptus, both are said to be brothers, and both dwelt by the Nile; both could escape by sea as well, as in the case of Danaus fleeing with his fifty daughters, and evidently so could Aegyptius when he pursued Danaus. With that said, it seems plausible to suspect that both Danaus and Aegyptus lived in the land of Goshen, where the Israelites dwelt. Thus, Danaus represents the Danites, and Aegyptus represents the Israelite as a whole, including the tribe of Dan, for the name Aikupitiyo could very well be a rendering of the name “Jacob”, the father of the twelve tribes of Israel.

For further consideration, that the name Aikupitiyo is a rendering of Jacob, one must take notice that the name Jacob is “Ya’aqov” in Hebrew. In Ancient Egypt, a certain Hyksos ruler bears a very similar name, and that name is “Yakubher” also rendered as “Yak-Baal,” and “Yakeb-Baal”. Notice the similarities between the two names Aikupitiyo and Yakubher? Now compare that to the name Jacob found in New Testament Greek in the book of Matthew 1:2, that is rendered as “Iakob,” thus the plausibility that the name Aegyptus is a variation of the name Jacob found in the Bible becomes potentially clearer in our search of the Danaan identity.

Top Image: A mosaic in the Jewish Quarter representing the 12 Tribes of Israel, including the Danites (CC BY 2.0) and Philistines (Public Domain); Deriv.

By Cam Rea

References

Anonymous. The Wesleyan Sunday-School Magazine [Afterw.] the Wesleyan Methodist Sunday School Magazine. London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1873.

Cairns, Ian. Word and presence: a commentary on the book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992.

Cheyne, Thomas Kelly. Black, John Sutherland. Encyclopaedia biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary political and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1899-1903.

Davidiy, Yair. Lost Israelite Identity: The Hebrew Ancestory of Celtic Races. Shiloh-Hebron-Susia-Jerusalem: Russel-Davis Publishers, 1996.

—. The Tribes. Jerusalem: Russell-Davis, 2004.

Gabriel, Richard A. The Military History of Ancient Israel (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.

Hamilton, Edith. Mythology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1969.

Hard, Robin. he Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology: Based on H.J. Rose’s Handbook of Greek Mythology. London & New York: Routledge, 2004.

Hathom, Richmond Yancey. Greek Mythology. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1977.

Haubrich, William S. Medical meanings: a glossary of word origins. Philadelphia: American College Of Physicians, 2003.

Killebrew, Ann and Gunnar Lehmann, The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.

Pritchard, James B. The Ancient Near East Vol 1: An Anthology of Text and Pictures (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973.

Rose, Herbert Jennings. A Handbook of Greek Mythology. London: Routledge, 2005.

Salverda, John R. “The Danaans” [Online] Available at: http://ensignmessage.com/articles/the-danaans/ (accessed 3 March 2010).

April 24, 2017April 19, 2017

The Battle of Kadesh, a Clash of Titans (1274 BCE) – Part 2

The stage is set for a showdown between two giant armies – the Egyptians, with the greatest pharaoh of history, Ramses II, and the Hittites, with their impressive army and persuasive king, Muwatalli II. The bloody Battle of Kadesh would go down in history as the largest chariot battle ever fought!

The Egyptian Army and their Gods

The Egyptian army under Ramses II during the New Kingdom was a professional fighting force. The Egyptian army, like most, consisted of chariots, infantry, and archers. The Egyptians made sure that one man in ten was liable for military service. As for Egyptian units, they were named after their gods.

[Read Part I]

Each Egyptian division numbered 5,000 men subdivided into 250-man companies and 50-man platoons. The chariot, used by both the Egyptians and Hittites, was the tank of the ancient world and could not function properly upon the field of battle without infantry support. The Egyptian infantry provided the brunt of the main fighting body. The foot archers provided missile support. Chariots had a driver and an archer. Unlike a foot archer, the archer in the chariot was mobile and had a 360-degree platform to fire from, just like the Hittite chariots. A difference between the two armies was that the Egypt was much more suited for open warfare, unlike their Hittite counterparts.

Ramses II at the Battle of Kadesh (relief at Abu Simbel)

Ramses II at the Battle of Kadesh (relief at Abu Simbel) (Public Domain)

The size of the army Ramses led to Kadesh numbered 20,000, of which 16,000 were foot soldiers while the other 4,000 manned the chariots. There were two men to a chariot and the number of chariots the Egyptians brought to the battle was 2,000, requiring 4,000 horses, not to mention that additional horses and chariots were readily available. Unlike the Hittite chariots, which were built to taxi infantry around the battlefield, the Egyptian chariots were suited for speed and maneuverability. The Egyptians took the design of the Hyksos chariot and improved upon it by positioning the axle to the rear of the carrying platform, expanding the spokes in the wheel from four to six, and connecting the U-shaped joint to the yoke pole under the chariot was designed to slide left and right allowing the driver smooth rotation when on the move.

Hyksos chariot painting

Hyksos chariot painting (Public Domain)

The Battle of Kadesh

After many days, Ramses led his army to Usermare-Meriamon, the city of cedar. From here, he proceeded northward and arrived at the highland of Kadesh. Ramses, like his father, crossed over the channel of the Orontes, with the first division of Amon named: “Victory-of-King-Usermare-Setepnere.”

When Ramses reached the city, he states in the battle of Kadesh account:

Behold, the wretched, vanquished chief of Kheta (Hittites) had come, having gathered together all countries from the ends of the sea to the land of Kheta, which came entire: the Naharin likewise, and Arvad, Mesa, Keshkesh, Kelekesh, Luka, Kezweden, Carchemish, Ekereth, Kode, the entire land of Nuges, Mesheneth, and Kadesh. He left not a country which was not brought together with their chiefs who were with him, every man bringing his chariotry, an exceeding great multitude, without its like. They covered the mountains and the valleys; they were like grasshoppers with their multitudes. He left not silver nor gold in his land but he plundered it of all its possessions and gave to every country, in order to bring them with him to battle. Behold, the wretched, vanquished chief of Kheta, together with numerous allied countries, were stationed in battle array, concealed on the northwest of the city of Kadesh.

Statue of Ramses II at Luxor Temple

Statue of Ramses II at Luxor Temple (CC BY-SA 2.0)

While Ramses was alone with his bodyguard, the division of Amon was marching behind him. The division of Ra crossed over the river-bed on the south side of the town of Shabtuna, at the distance of an iter (assuming that 1 iter = 5,000 royal cubits = 2618 meters or 1.6 miles) from the division of Amon; the division of Ptah was on the south of the city of Aranami; and the division of Sutekh was marching upon the road.

Egyptian relief dating to Ramesses II's reign, depicting Kadesh garrisoned by Hittites and surrounded by the Orontes River.

Egyptian relief dating to Ramesses II’s reign, depicting Kadesh garrisoned by Hittites and surrounded by the Orontes River. (Public Domain)

According to the account:

Ramses had formed the first rank of all the leaders of his army, while they were on the shore in the land of the Amor. Behold, the wretched vanquished chief of Kheta (Hittites) was stationed in the midst of the infantry which was with him, and he came not out to fight, for fear of his majesty. Then he made to go the people of the chariotry, an exceedingly numerous multitude like the sand, being three people to each span. Now, they had made their combinations thus: among every three youths was one man of the vanquished of Kheta, equipped with all the weapons of battle. Lo, they had stationed them in battle array, concealed on the northwest the city of Kadesh.

The Hittite forces rushed forth from the tree line on the southern side of Kadesh, and cut right through the division of Ra, exposing the Egyptian right flank. This caused many of the Egyptian infantry and chariotry to retreat in panic and slam right into the Amon division led by Ramses, which he had halted on the north of the city of Kadesh, on the western side of the Orontes. After the Hittite chariots had punched their way through the Ra division, they swung back towards the plains of Kadesh from which they headed northeast to attack Ramses’ encampment. Even though some Hittite units were able to penetrate the camp, many were knocked off their chariots and slain by Ramses’ bodyguard. While Ramses and his men put up a valiant effort, they had to abandon the camp/fort. The Hittite soldiers had a field day looting the camp.

While the Hittites were busy looting the camp, Ramses rushed to his chariot and quickly took off without his bodyguard. It is said that when he rushed in he defeated the thousands of chariots that surrounded him:

His majesty (Ramses) halted in the rout; then he charged into the foe, the vanquished of Kheta, being alone by himself and none other with him. When his majesty went to look behind him, he found 2,500 chariotry surrounding him, in his way out, being all the youth of the wretched Kheta, together with its numerous allied countries.

Egyptian driving chariot, Crossroads of Civilization exhibit

Egyptian driving chariot, Crossroads of Civilization exhibit (CC BY 2.0); Deriv

While this is obviously dismissed as legend and exaggeration, there may be some truth to this. Understand that Ramses’ men panicked and fled. After seeing him take on the Hittites, his troops regained their courage and the remaining chariot reserves in the camp rallied and pressed on the attack. The Egyptian chariots left the east gate before turning northwest and nailed the Hittite flank that was busy looting. Ramses’ attack on the heavy Hittite chariots dislodged and threw many of them into confusion, because not only did the remaining Egyptian charioteer units rejoin the battle, so did the infantry.

Model of chariots at the Battle of Kadesh.

Model of chariots at the Battle of Kadesh. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Seeing Ramses and his forces pressing a counter-attack, Muwatalli took up his remaining forces, which were roughly 1,000 chariots. They forded the Orontes River north of Kadesh and swung south in an attempt to flank Ramses.

Illustration, The great Ramses II in the Battle of Khadesh

Illustration, The great Ramses II in the Battle of Khadesh (Public Domain)

However, Muwatalli had an unforeseen problem. As he was making his way towards Ramses’ forces, the reformed Egyptian forces (perhaps allied mercenary forces summoned by Ramses) and the third Egyptian division, the Sutekh, approaching from the south. If Muwatalli could not regain control of his men and the battle, he would soon face the hammer and anvil and it sure seemed that way, for Ramses decide to cease further pursuit of the fleeing Hittites and join up with the Sutekh division. Ramses had no worries about the fleeing Hittites, for they were between his forces and the river. Muwatalli saw that Ramses and his forces turned north towards his relief force. The Hittite relief force had no chance. They were cut down and destroyed. Muwatalli and his remaining forces fled the field of battle and headed south past Kadesh and crossed the Orontes. Of all the Egyptian divisions that fought, one arrived late to the battle and that was the Ptah division.

The Aftermath – Victory For All?

The casualties and losses at the battle of Kadesh remain unknown. As for the victor, Ramses states:

His majesty being powerful, his heart stout, none could stand before him. All his territory was ablaze with fire, and he burned every foreign country with his hot breath, his eyes savage when he saw them, and his might flared up like fore against them. He took no note of millions of foreigners, he regarded them as chaff. Then His majesty entered into the host of the Hatti enemies….and His Majesty killed the entire host of the Wretched Fallen One of Hatti, together with his great chiefs and all his brothers, as well as all the chiefs of all the countries who had come with him, their infantry and their chariotry being fallen upon their faces, one upon another, and His Majesty slaughtered and slew them in their places, they sprawling before his horse and His Majesty being along, none other with him. (Kadesh)

It is understandable that Ramses saw Kadesh as a victory. But Muwatalli also saw Kadesh as a victory. The Hittite records state, “Muwatalli took the field against the king of Egypt and the country of Amurru and…defeated the king of Egypt and the country of Amurru.”

Western outer wall: showing Qadesh battle, Temple of Ramesses II, Abydos, Egypt.

Western outer wall: showing Qadesh battle, Temple of Ramesses II, Abydos, Egypt. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

So, who won the battle? The answer is no one. Kadesh was a stalemate. But if one wants to be technical, one could argue that Egypt had a moral victory only possible due to their new military technology in charioteering. However, while the battle was a draw, Muwatalli may have been the true victor even in defeat. Muwatalli was long-term victor due to his territorial acquisition at Egypt’s expense. The reason for this is that Muwatalli was able to confiscate more land south and extend his sphere of influence further. In doing so, the Hittite sphere of influence had left Egypt only in control of Canaan.

Overall, the battle of Kadesh from a military point of view was an Egyptian victory, as they displayed for future readers Egypt’s new military technology (a new type of chariot) but one can also find the personal bravery of Ramses II. If Ramses had a “Go to Hell Plan to Survive the Next Crises”, he used it that day at Kadesh. While Muwatalli and his force were defeated, he did win in the game of “go” by using the fewest number of pieces to acquire the most amount of territory at Egypt’s expense. However one looks at it, Kadesh provided the first detailed account of a battle in recorded history. Because of this, one can learn much from this battle and compare the tactics, strategies, logistics, and international relations.

The victory at Kadesh is left to the eye of the beholder.

Top Image: Ramses II at his chariot falls upon the Nubians (CC BY 2.0)

By Cam Rea

References

Amanda H. Podany, Brotherhood of Kings: How International Relations Shaped the Ancient Near East

Brian Todd Carey, Warfare in the Ancient World

Carolyn R. Higginbotham, Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine

John Coleman Darnell and Colleen Manassa, Tutankhamun’s Armies: Battle and Conquest During Ancient Egypt’s Late Eighteenth Dynasty

Manuel Robbins, Collapse of the Bronze Age

Richard A. Gabriel , The Great Armies of Antiquity

Thomas Harrison, The Great Empires of the Ancient World

April 19, 2017April 19, 2017

The Battle of Kadesh, a Clash of Titans (1274 BCE) – Part I

Many believe Ramses II (1303-1213 BCE) is the most celebrated, powerful, and greatest pharaoh of the Egyptian Empire. It is not hard to see why. The battle of Kadesh would immortalize Ramses II in our history books.

A Patient Warrior

Ramses was born in a very successful and well trained military family. His grandfather, Ramses I and his great-grandfather, Seti, had both been commanders in the field. Ramses first taste of action began as a teenager when he accompanied his father Seti I on a military campaign against Libya.

Pharaoh Ramesses II. Statue in the Torino Museum.

Pharaoh Ramesses II. Statue in the Torino Museum. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Ramses II took the throne in 1279 BCE, and just two years into his reign a sea people known as the Sherden started attacking Egyptian cargo ships. Ramses, understanding that it was useless to go after them in the open sea with his own ships, decided to lay out a trap by placing lucrative items along strategic areas along the coast. By enticing them, he hoped to lure them in before striking. When they took the bait, Ramses forces struck and decisively defeated the enemy. This battle shows Ramses used patience and stealth as his strategic and tactical weapons—both of which he would demonstrate at the battle of Kadesh.

Kadesh was a city located in the northern Levant (Syria) near or on the Orontes River. The Battle of Kadesh is regarded as the earliest battle recorded in great detail. The battle of Kadesh pitted two great empires against each other: Egypt, led by Ramses II, and the Hittite Empire, led by Muwatalli II. The reason for this soon-to-be confrontation was due to Thutmose III’s victory over Megiddo in 1457 BCE which also included the taking of Kadesh. This gave Egypt a sphere of influence that stretched far into northern Levant and Mesopotamia, giving the Egyptians access to the lucrative trade routes.

Politicking and New Kings

A century later, the Hittite King Suppiluliuma (1344-1322) continued the honor the agreement with Egypt as to where the line was drawn. But when the king of Kadesh by the name of Shuttarna (Shutatarra) decided to attack him, Suppiluliuma had no choice but to retaliate. The result was a Hittite victory. The king and the leading citizens were sent into captivity. It is interesting that the Egyptians showed little interest. Suppiluliuma placed the defeated king’s son, Aitakkama on the throne of Kadesh. Aitakkama swore his allegiance to Suppiluliuma and became a Hittite vassal.

Statue attributed as Suppiluliuma.

Statue attributed as Suppiluliuma. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

King Aitakkama probably saw the Hittites as a much greater ally, since the Egyptians did not come to the aid of his father. Aitakkama took advantage of this situation (as Egypt appeared to be weak), by making alliances with the regional kings, particularly the King Aziru of the Amurru. He did so in order to expand his own territory. It would be naive to think the Egyptians brushed it off. Rather, they felt troubled, as it threatened their trade and security.

In his teens, Pharaoh Tutankhamen saw to it to restore Egyptian supremacy in the Levant by attacking Kadesh. Once Tutankhamen had taken Kadesh, Mursili wrote to his father Suppiluliuma, “Egyptian troops and chariots came to the land of Kinza, which my father had conquered, and attacked the land of Kinza (Kadesh)”. The Hittites were facing much pressure not from just Egypt, but also from the Mittani as well, not to mention that Assyria was becoming a much stronger entity in the region. Suppiluliuma sent troops to retake Kadesh and they reported back, “they went to attack Amka (the land where Kadesh is located) and brought civilian captives, cattle and sheep back to my father.”

The Pharaoh Tutankhamen destroying his enemies

‘The Pharaoh Tutankhamen destroying his enemies’ (Public Domain)

This military intelligence report does not sound like a victory. Moreover, no victory or defeat is mentioned, which leaves one wondering. What could be said is that even though the Egyptians did retake Kadesh— at what price? In other words, even though they now controlled Kadesh how much did they really control, not only territorially but more important politically throughout the regions? Just because they controlled a crucial city did not mean they had a firm grip to ward off any contenders or catch the ears of potential allies.

The Death of Tutankhamen Spells Disaster for Empires

While the division between Egypt and the Hittites remained, the Hittite King Suppiluliuma defeated the Hurrians, and he turned to besiege Carchemish. However, as if the gods favored the Hittites, Pharoah Tutankhamen died. The boy king was now dead and his wife/half-sister Ankhesenamen (Ankhesenamun) was still alive.

Statue of an unknown Amarna-era princess. New Kingdom, Amarna period, 18th dynasty, circa 1345 BC

Statue of an unknown Amarna-era princess. New Kingdom, Amarna period, 18th dynasty, circa 1345 BC (CC BY-SA 3.0)

According to Mursili II he states, “When the people of Egypt heard of the attack on Amka, they were afraid. And since their lord Nibhururiya (Tutankhamen) had just died, the Queen of Egypt who was the king’s wife sent a messenger to my father.”

Queen Ankhesenamen’s message to Suppiluliuma stated, “My husband had died, and I have no sons, he will become my husband. I do not wish to choose a subject of mine and make him my husband…I am afraid.” Suppiluliuma was beside himself after reading such a letter: “Nothing like this has happened to me in my entire life!” This is rather strange for both parties.

On the one hand, you have Egypt that views outsiders as inferior and on the other hand, you have Suppiluliuma whose family is about to inherit the Egyptian Empire. This was hard to believe. It is understandable that Suppiluliuma was cautious—who wouldn’t be? Therefore, he decided to question the envoys who brought the letters. In doing so, he lost the keys to the Egyptian Empire, because he took far too long with the investigation. He did send a son by the name of Zannanza. However, Zannanza died en route to Egypt. Some say he was murdered. With the death of Zannanza went the unification of empires. With no deal established the tensions continued throughout the Levant.

From the time that the possible unification of empires fell through until Ramses II took the throne, Egypt did have a phase where Pharaohs Ramesses I and Seti I campaigned in Levant with success by recapturing long-lost land of the Amurru – and to do that one must control the city of Kadesh. However, much of this was lost again during this time, perhaps under the reign of Seti I. How much was ultimately lost remains unknown. What is known is that Egypt’s sphere of influence had backtracked enough to cause an alarm during Ramses II reign.

Calm before the Storm

In year four of Ramses II’s reign, he led men up the coast of the Levant where his troops were active in Byblos and Beirut. His forces never encountered the Hittites during this expedition. Afterwards, he had a stela created to commemorate the campaign in the region.

Stela of ramose. Ramesses II smites his enemies (limestone, deir el-Medineh) Representative image.

Stela of ramose. Ramesses II smites his enemies (limestone, deir el-Medineh) Representative image. (CC BY-SA 2.0)

However, Muwatalli II, king of the Hittite Empire, did not like this. Muwatalli did not see this as an act of “saber rattling” but an act of war. Even though Ramses did not break any treaties, the fact that he was willing to make his presence known so close to the Hittite sphere of influence was a cause for alarm. There is no doubt that some of the regional mini-kingdoms walked the fence between inaction and swearing allegiance to the stronger empire. Muwatalli felt that Ramses was seeking to reestablish Egyptian authority throughout the region.

It was possible—but it’s a stretch – that perhaps when Muwatalli was informed on the size of the Egyptian force, he may have felt that the Egyptians were weak and ripe for attack. In other words, if Ramses was seeking to intimidate the Hittites with the small number of troops accompanying him, maybe he was weak. In the end, it may have been all of the above, but the likely reason is that Ramses made his presence known. Therefore, Muwatalli mustered his massive army during the winter.

Muwatalli made it known that war was on and that Kadesh would be the battle location. Remember, whoever controlled the city would have an easier time conquering the Amurru region, as mentioned. The following year, Ramses began to assemble his forces throughout March and April at the city of Pi Ramasses.

A Capable Hittite Military with their Influential Leader

The army Muwatalli led was rather large for a traditional Hittite force, which was roughly between 17,000-20,000 men. This indicates that Muwatalli was a fine politician in that he was able to convince so many of his vassals to contribute to the war effort, along with making treaties of mutual assistance with the city-states of Syria.

Depiction of Muwatalli II on a relief at Sirkeli Höyük, Turkey. (Public Domain)

When it came to the Hittite army organization, they relied on a decimal system, like most. They utilized chariots that received support from the infantry, and the archers supported the infantry; All of which shared the same organizational structure with squads of ten, companies of ten squads, and battalions of ten companies. Infantry deployed for battle in companies 10 men wide and 10 men deep, with battalions standing with 100-man fronts, 10 men deep.

Hittite chariot, from an Egyptian relief.

Hittite chariot, from an Egyptian relief. (Public Domain)

When it came to the dominant aspect of the Hittite army it was its massive phalanx formation of spearmen, who were supported by archers and light infantry. Besides using horses to pull the chariots, they did use them to deliver messages during the imperial period. As for the light infantry, they also were armed with bows and were known as “troops of Sutu.” They were used for quick maneuvering. In other words, speed was essential to hit and run, ambush and reconnaissance.

Unlike the Egyptians, which shall be discussed shortly, the Hittite infantry was much more flexible when it came to arms and equipment and tactical deployment. Understand that the Hittite warrior traversed and fought on Anatolian terrain that was rough, mountainous, and wooded. The commanders of these men understood what was and what was not needed when it came to weapons and armor due to the terrain and the enemy they were about to engage. If something changed among the enemy ranks, the commanders were able to reequip what men he thought would not only benefit from but also be most effective with weapons when confronting the enemy in question.

Map of Syria in the second millennium BC, showing the location of Kadesh (Qadesh)

Map of Syria in the second millennium BC, showing the location of Kadesh (Qadesh). (Public Domain)

As noted, the size of the army Muwatalli led to Kadesh is suggested to have numbered roughly between 17,000-20,000 soldiers. However, some propose that Muwatalli led a much large force, numbering as great as 50,000. While this is possible, it is unlikely. Hittite chariots required three men to a chariot. If the Hittites had between 2,500-3,700 chariots at Kadesh then the number of men required to operate those chariots was 9,000-11,000 along with 5,000-7,400 horses.

Battle chariot, Carchemish, 9th century BC; Late Hittite style with Assyrian influence.

Battle chariot, Carchemish, 9th century BC; Late Hittite style with Assyrian influence. (CC BY 2.0)

If the numbers are correct, then Muwatalli had something between 9-11k foot soldiers. It seems difficult to believe, but understand that the Hittite chariots, unlike the Egyptian chariots, were not built for speed and maneuverability. Rather, they served as a battlefield taxi for mobile infantry, like a modern day armored personnel carrier. They had four spokes instead of six like the Egyptians. In addition, the axle was placed in the middle of the chariot in order to compensate for the weight of men which drastically reduced its speed.

This impressive force would be matched against he who is regarded as the greatest and most powerful pharaoh of the Egyptian Empire; Ramesses II and his professional fighting force.

Top Image: Relief, Ramses II among the Gods – Abydos 1275 BC (CC BY 2.0)

By Cam Rea

References

Amanda H. Podany, Brotherhood of Kings: How International Relations Shaped the Ancient Near East

Brian Todd Carey, Warfare in the Ancient World

Carolyn R. Higginbotham, Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine

John Coleman Darnell and Colleen Manassa, Tutankhamun’s Armies: Battle and Conquest During Ancient Egypt’s Late Eighteenth Dynasty

Manuel Robbins, Collapse of the Bronze Age

Richard A. Gabriel , The Great Armies of Antiquity

Thomas Harrison, The Great Empires of the Ancient World

April 11, 2017April 19, 2017

Naval Battle of Salamis (480 BCE) ‘The Harder the Salami the Better!’

On 29 September 480 BCE, the Battle of Salamis was fought between the Greek city-states – who were seeking an empire of their own – and the already established undisputed heavyweight champion of the known world – who needs no introduction – the Persian Empire! Better known as the Achaemenid Empire in the academic world in case you were wondering and I think you are?

According to that guy named Herodotus, who is still being debated about before the undergraduate academic committee, mentions that 371–378 Greek and 900-1207 Persian ships took part in this mass royal rumble. Themistocles, that political populist over achiever, was an Athenian admiral of the navy. He decided to bamboozle the Persians into thinking they were best buds and the Persians were hooked. Afterwards, he ordered his slave to go to the Persians and tell them that the Greek allies had abandoned their position with their tail between their legs. The Persians were giddy and entered the straits between Salamis and the mainland.

On the morning of 29 September, the Persians crept across the narrow strait. Xerxes, being the great leader he was, watched from afar, like a guy in the back of a Grindhouse theater on 42nd Street in New York City. Understand that naval warfare before this shindig took place consisted of boats ramming into each other at high speeds like a bumper boat competition at the local fair that came around once a year or at the established rundown Fun Parks. It was nothing more than an ancient version of demolition derby that goes bound the barnyard rules of rural America. Once a boat had been successfully penetrated, the process of drowning took place, of course, some likely knew how to swim but that’s another matter for another story. Once nightfall arrived, the Persians lost a third of their bumper boats during the competition and called it quits. Persia’s strategic position had not improved, causing Xerxes to pullout and recall his army, which had reached the Isthmus.
While not a major defeat, it was a setback, one that caused Xerxes many countless nights contemplating and boasting of the should’ve, would’ve, and could’ve scenarios. It was another victory for the Greeks in their march to be more like Persia.

Let’s take a look at those Lecture Hall Totals:

We have 371-378 Greek Allied ships (shame on you Herodotus, you need to work on your arithmetic skills) 900-1207 Persian ships according to the ancients who tend to exaggerate a bit. Modern egghead estimates are still being hammered away day in night and tend to suggest only 300-600 ships took place in the beating.
We have 40 Greeks ships totaled.
We have 200-300 Persians ships totaled.
Body count unknown.
Unknown amounts of blood.
Unknowable amounts of severed limbs.
Chick commanding five Persian vessels (Give a round of applause to Artemisia I of Caria).
No breasts.
No beasts.
Heads roll.
Arms roll.
All action.
Ship slamming fu.
Boarding party fu.
Bodies floating (Thinking of you, Ariabignes) fu.
Swords, daggers, arrows, and splintered pieces of wood to the torso fu.

Two and a half beers!
Cam Rea says check it out.

For more on the story, check out these sources:
Herodotus and the Persian Wars
Ephorus, Universal History
Lazenby, JF. The Defence of Greece 490–479 BC.
Green, Peter. The Year of Salamis, 480–479 B.C.
Burn, A.R., “Persia and the Greeks” in The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenid Periods, Ilya Gershevitch, ed.
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War
300: Rise of an Empire 9film) in case you didn’t already know!

By Cam Rea

April 7, 2017April 3, 2017

Eannatum: The First Conqueror? Part II

The city of Lagash was located northwest of the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers and east of the city Uruk. Lagash was a fertile area, with irrigation canals feeding its crops via the Shatt al-Gharraf channel that filtered in water from the rivers. Lagash grew bountiful crops due to fertile land and its location made it a prime economic powerhouse when it came to commerce, all due to the waterways. Commercial competition with other city-states was healthy. However, like all city-states, there comes a time when hostility rises and the need to settle disputes requires war.

Fragment of Eannatum's Stele of the Vultures

Fragment of Eannatum’s Stele of the Vultures (Sting/CC BY-SA 3.0)

Eannatum’s tour of Elam, Urua, and Umma paid off. He controlled provinces and regions rich with resources. He had metal to produce weapons and fertile fields to grow food—both of which were used to feed and arm his forces. Eannatum was far from finished. With an increase in resource-rich lands came an increase in manpower to replenish and increase the size of his ranks. Eannatum was drunk with power and looked west to quench his thirst.

With Eannatum’s eastern flank secured, the west was ripe for the taking.

Goddess Nisaba with an inscription of Entemena, ruler of Lagash (2430 BC)

Goddess Nisaba with an inscription of Entemena, ruler of Lagash (2430 BC) (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Grabbing up Valuable Resources

The king led his forces to the city-state of Uruk. Uruk was important for a number of reasons – the first of which is that it sat along the Euphrates River and not far from the Persian Gulf, making it a valuable trading city by both land and sea. Second, Uruk’s population was rather large and prosperous, and surrounded by fertile fields, making it desirable in terms of supplying the army with food and swelling the ranks with additional troops.

With Uruk conquered, Ur came next and its armies were put to the sword. Ur was also a valuable trading center and offered a strategic location near the mouth of the Euphrates River that led into the Persian Gulf. Unlike the lands of Elam, the only thing put to the sword in both Uruk and Ur was the military forces sent out to oppose the armies of Lagash. Uruk and Ur were valuable, providing much for an army on the march.

Lugal-kisal-si, king of Uruk

Lugal-kisal-si, king of Uruk (Public Domain)

Uruk and Ur were also important for their strategic positions. To the east were the other various city-states like the one that just conquered them—Lagash; to the north were more city-states of various sizes, and to the south was the Persian Gulf which was used for importing and exporting resources. Imports that came up the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and exports that flowed down the rivers and out to the sea made their way to far distant lands. To the west lay a great desert that in and of itself was a natural barrier against any unwanted intruders. Three natural barriers, the Zagros Mountains to the east, the desert to the west, and the Persian Gulf to the south, surrounded Eannatum’s empire. Eannatum’s only true threat came from the north.

The ancient cities of Sumer.

The ancient cities of Sumer. (CC BY 3.0)

Pushing into the North – Zuzu Fights Back

After the southern portion of Sumer was conquered, Eannatum began his march north. His campaign towards the north involved Elam again, as the city-state of Mishime was conquered. It is possible that the city of Mishime was conquered during his first campaign, and the reason may be due to rebellion, in hopes other Elamite city-states would join in the fight to break free from Lagash control. After Elam, Eannatum made his way north, eyeing a prize-worthy, religious target known as Kish.

However, before he could make his way to Kish, Zuzu, the king of Akshak, had had enough of Eannatum’s war-making and went out to confront the man who wished to own the world. Zuzu and his forces made their way towards Lagash, where Eannatum’s forces routed them. Zuzu was killed in combat and Akshak taken and incorporated into Eannatum’s ever increasing empire. With Akshak conquered, Eannatum marched into Kish with ease. Eannatum, confident in his power, decided to take the title “King of Kish.” The title King of Kish means much more than being the overlord of Kish, rather the title implies that whoever has the title is also King of Sumer.

Copper spearhead from lance, engraved with the image of a lion and inscribed ‘Lugal… King of Kish’. Between 2800 and 2600 BCE.

Copper spearhead from lance, engraved with the image of a lion and inscribed ‘Lugal… King of Kish’. Between 2800 and 2600 BCE. (CC BY-ND 2.0)

King of Kish, King of Sumer, King of the World

You would think that Eannatum would have been happy with his conquests since he was the king of Sumer. However, it is said war is the health of the state and it rang true for Eannatum. Soon after Eannatum had taken over and centralized all of Sumer under his sole authority, city-states outside the sphere of Sumer were looking rather pleasing for the taking, like Mari. Mari was located on the western bank of the Euphrates in what is today the country of Syria. However, Mari during the time of Eannatum was not entirely Sumerian, but a mix of Sumerians and Amorites. What made Mari pleasing to Eannatum’s eyes was the strategically important fact that Mari laid at the divide between the Sumerian cities of lower Mesopotamia and the northern cities of Syria. Remember, Sumer had not the abundance of building materials such as timber and stone as northern Syria did. Therefore, Mari could quench Sumer’s thirst for such materials, thus making it a prime target to be conquered and its positions confiscated—which Eannatum did soon after unifying Sumer.

The Standard of Ur mosaic is made of red limestone, bitumen, lapis lazuli, and shell, depicts peacetime, from the royal tombs of Ur. (Public Domain)

What is Seen and What is Unseen: The Illusory Economy

Eannatum’s rise to power was anything but peaceful. One could say it all started with Lagash’s neighbor Umma over a property dispute dealing with the Shatt al-Gharraf waterway and the fertile fields of Guedena long before Eannatum’s rise to power. What turned out deadly was decided peacefully. Of course, there was a bit of religious bias as whom the gods favored the most between the belligerent cities. Even though a god-inspired deal did stop the war and promote peace for the time being, it also allowed the Umma to rest and eventually take up the sword again.

When Eannatum came to power, Umma was on his mind and evidently much more. He must have known for a fact through military intelligence that Umma and Elam were weak. With such information, he quickly assembled and likely increased the rank and file of his forces. Eannatum thrust his forces into a series of bloody conflicts. With each battle came conquest and confiscation of the various city-states. Money, resources, and people poured into Eannatum’s coffers, ever increasing with further conquests. War was good business for Eannatum, for war engulfed his economy. His war economy, you could argue, was “military Keynesianism” in which Lagash used military spending to increase economic growth. In other words, every city conquered and the property confiscated allowed Eannatum to increase military spending, thus giving the impression that his empire was economically strong due to the amount of resources he controlled.

Many of the resources needed during the time of war were likely allocated from private use to military use, which caused a chain reaction of ills, such as higher taxes to pay for the bloated war deficits, which in turn increased conscription and affected many lives. Also, consider the destruction of property via conscription. In other words, many of the young and middle-aged men conscripted would have to leave their property. The loss of labor was a loss in products and revenue. With both losses came the possibility of losing the property by way of state confiscation. In addition, consider the trade restriction throughout the war. City-states that enjoyed a healthy trade relationship with other city-states were severed from gaining or delivering the resources needed or desired between the two.

Eannatum: The Father of the War economy and Globalization?

Another aspect to consider is that when Eannatum was on his “conquest of the known world tour” he may have started what we term today as “globalization.” The economic dimension he created by way of war took various city-state economies, which were different to various degrees, and centralized them under his rule. How much of a negative impact it had after his grand adventure is unknown, but prosperity likely increased after a while.

The political dimension under Eannatum’s rule seems to have somewhat stayed the same among the city-states except for one aspect, Sumer was now united for the first time, and under a king. The cultural dimension was unaffected for the most part, unless you were from Elam I would suppose, since Elam was hated by Sumer. The Elamites may have been frowned upon while they lived under Sumerian/Lagash rule, but their resources were loved.

Battle formations on a fragment of the Stele of the Vultures

Battle formations on a fragment of the Stele of the Vultures (CC BY-SA 3.0)

This leads us to the ideological dimension. What was once normal, (as in being a collection of free city-states who worked together in a loose confederation) was now under a ‘new normal’ of unification through force under a single ruler. From a military perspective, Eannatum’s conquest likely had an impact on the future of warfare. Consider that with each conquest, Eannatum and his officers and men learned new methods of warfare given city-states sacked and those, like the Elamites they conquered. With each new city-state or foreign nation placed under their thumb, new military resources were acquired like additional weapons and information pertaining to those even farther away.

Furthermore, by acquiring tin to go along with the rich copper mines, weapons could be produced on a greater scale, especially the number of artisans, such as blacksmiths who could produce such weapons of war, which were not always easy to come by, since blacksmithing was not exactly widespread profession on a massive scale. By controlling the Mesopotamian region and Elam, Eannatum could draw on the professions of the many craftsmen throughout his empire to produce arms and armor and to improve upon technology. However, Eannatum’s effect on Mesopotamia did have a drawback; when Eannatum’s empire fell apart a new one would arise. Those who held power, like Sargon of Akkad much later, saw the possibility of controlling Mesopotamia and took it upon themselves to proclaim the region as theirs.

Therefore, what is seen is a man who conquered and united Sumer into a single powerhouse—but what is unseen is the amount the war cost in lives and property, not to mention that Eannatum’s actions also changed the military and political landscape along with the future of authority to come. While it is tempting to suggest that Eannatum was indeed the father of the war economy and globalization, he is not. Rather, he was just the first to unite the two using force on a grand scale. Yes, many leaders before him who held considerably less power also used the economy to support wars. But Eannatum introduced and took advantage of this demon by centralizing his power on all fronts to ensure victory through forceful servitude.

Top Image: ‘Mask of Warka’, marble head from Uruk, ancient city of Sumer (Public Domain) and battle formations on a fragment of the Stele of the Vultures (CC BY-SA 3.0);Deriv.

By Cam Rea

References

Quincy Wright, A Study of War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965)

Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963)

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

Jane McIntosh, Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspectives (Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2005)

Martin Sicker, The Pre-Islamic Middle East (Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2000)

Jack M. Sasson, Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2006)

Amnon Altman, Tracing the Earliest Recorded Concepts of International Law: The Ancient Near East 2500-330 BCE (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012)

Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995)

S. H. Hooke, Middle Eastern Mythology (New York: Penguin Books, 1963)

Jeremy A. Black, The literature of ancient Sumer (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2004)

Sing C. Chew, World Ecological Degradation: Accumulation, Urbanization, and Deforestation 3000 B.C. – 2000 A.D. (Walnut Greek: AltaMira Press, 2001)

Lloyd Weeks, “Metallurgy,” in A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, ed.

April 3, 2017April 3, 2017

Eannatum: The First Conqueror? Part I

Between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, lies a land known as Mesopotamia. It was here that men found suitable land, which they pierced, ripped, and seeded. Once the seeds took root, civilization was born. Lagash, like other city-states of its time, shared control over resources and social actives between the palace and temple. The temple controlled a great amount of land and exerted a powerful influence over the people. The palace authority controlled as much if not more land than the temple. This was fine until later on, when the palace was able to wield an even greater influence over the people.

Map showing Lagash located near the shoreline of the gulf

Map showing Lagash located near the shoreline of the gulf. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

In doing so, the king was able to amalgamate the palace with the temple, in which the king saw himself as god’s own representative on earth. If god chose the king, then the temple must obey. This placed the temple in a predicament. However, this does not mean there would never be strife again between the palace and temple authorities. So long as they existed side by side, the desire to control and hold a monopoly over the other’s institution was desirable, especially if one wished to control the masses.

Relief of Ur-Nanshe, King of Lagash and grandfather of Eannatum. Early Dynastic III (2550–2500 BC). (Public Domain)

The First Conqueror?

Enter Eannatum, King of Lagash (c. 2455-2425 BCE), who established the first Mesopotamian empire in history through constant warring. But how did Eannatum achieve this, how did he create the first verifiable empire in history?

Eannatum, son of King Akurgal of Lagash ascended the throne due to his father getting into a bit of a squabble with his northwestern neighbors the city-state of Umma. Eannatum’s spat with the city-state of Umma led him on a quest for dominance in the region, which would ultimately ruin his empire.

A War For Water

Eannatum, upon receiving his power, understood that Lagash security relied on its water supply from the Shatt al-Gharraf. However, his neighbor, the city-state of Umma, also bordered this very channel on the western bank. The chief cause of hostility is unknown, according to some historians. However, it seems obvious that the conflict was over water.

Water is a precious resource and was especially so in Mesopotamia. Water could make or break kingdoms and alliances. Umma held this one strategic advantage over Lagash. Cutting the water supply to the city would hinder crop growth in their region thus causing domestic food shortages and trade issues via waterway, effectively crippling the commerce in Lagash and sending prices upward on all commodities. This, in turn, would cause the locals to either fight or pack-up and seek greener pastures.

Conflict between Lagash and Umma was common. Enmetena, son of Eannatum II and nephew of the famed conqueror Eannatum I, records the history of this conflict on a cone known as the “Enmetena Cone.” The first war between the two powers was over the fertile fields of the Guedena. Enlil, king of all the lands, father of all the gods, by his righteous command, for Ningirsu and Shara, demarcated the (border) ground. Mesalim, king of Kish, by the command of Ishtaran, laid the measuring line upon it, and on that place, he erected a stele.

One of the oldest diplomatic documents known, on a clay nail, by King Entemena, c 2400 BC.

One of the oldest diplomatic documents known, on a clay nail, by King Entemena, c 2400 BC. (Public Domain)

Kings and Gods of War

The inscription is an entanglement of religion and the state. Enlil was the main Sumerian god. Therefore, Enlil is the judge, jury, and executioner. Enlil is the god who fixes the boundaries and terrestrial estates of the lesser gods. His will cannot be changed and his decisions final, regardless of divine assembly. However, each city-state has a patron god. The god Ningirsu represented the city of Lagash. The god Shara represented the city of Umma.

Lagash made the argument that the borders were already set in place and Enlil was in favor of them retaining control over Guedena. Umma saw it differently. Therefore, a mediator was needed to settle the dispute. That mediator was Mesalim, king of Kish. The title “King of Kish” means “King of the world or King of Kings.” Mesalim was the supreme overseer of the Sumerian lands, which was the civilized world to these people. Mesalim’s decision was final regardless of the moral argument.

Inscription: "Ur-Namma, king of Ur, king of Sumer and Akkad, the one who built the temple of Enlil”. Foundation figure, c. 2075 BCE

Inscription: “Ur-Namma, king of Ur, king of Sumer and Akkad, the one who built the temple of Enlil”. Foundation figure, c. 2075 BCE (CC BY 2.0) “ The figure depicts the king carrying a basket containing the mud to make the temple’s bricks. The first brick was modeled by the king himself, who is represented in the occupation considered the lowliest in Mesopotamia–‘carrying the basket’–for in the presence of the gods the king was a humble servant.”

Mesalim’s final decision was to build a trench along with a levee on either side to separate the two territories. Finally, a stele was erected at the border indicating his decision. However, the decision made by Mesalim favored Lagash more so than Umma over the water rights and the fertile fields of the Guedena. The reason for this decision is unknown. However, could it be possible that Lagash was more powerful than Umma?

According to Mesalim, Enlil favored the stronger of the two. However, all gods aside, Mesalim likely chose Lagash because Lagash had a much stronger economy; this would provide the means to afford a strong military and could provide more to the loosely knit confederation of the Sumerian city-states in a time of crisis than Umma could. Therefore, in essence, the King of Kish picked the winners and losers of Sumer.

Victory Granted – But to Whom?

This was not the end of the border dispute between the two city-states. Later, Ush, ruler of Umma, marched to the border, smashed Mesalim’s stele, and advanced into Lagash territory. Ush proceeded with his forces to seize the fertile fields of Guedena. Ush would be defeated from any further advance by an unknown Lagash king.

The Sumerian inscriptions state that “Ningirsu, the hero of Enlil, by his just command, made war upon Umma. At the command of Enlil, his great net ensnared them. He erected their burial mound on the plain in that place.” The victory was granted to the patron god of the city of Lagash. The reason there is no mention of the Lagash king of the time is that Enmetena, son of Eannatum and the great-grandson of Ur-Nanshe, wrote the story.

Ur-Nashe was the founder of the dynasty from which Enmetena came from. The man who defeated Ush had to be none other than Lugal-sha-engur, the predecessor of King Ur-Nanshe. So why would Enmetena not mention Lugal-sha-engur’s victory over Ush? Simple, Enmetena was not interested in giving thanks or glory to a dynasty that was not his own.

Vase dedicated by Entemena, king of Lagash, to Ningirsu. Silver and copper, ca. 2400 BC. Found in Telloh, ancient city of Girsu.

Vase dedicated by Entemena, king of Lagash, to Ningirsu. Silver and copper, ca. 2400 BC. Found in Telloh, ancient city of Girsu. (Public Domain)

Eannatum the Conqueror

One would think that Eannatum’s military campaign early in his reign would have begun by attacking Umma. However, the “Boulder Inscription” suggests otherwise. Instead of going straight for Umma, he turned his attentions to the troublesome Elamites, and he “conquered Elam” and ripped up their “burial mounds.” After subjugating Elam, he turned his forces towards the city-state of Urua, which he quickly conquered—and of course, ripped apart their burial mounds. The city-state of Umma, his archenemy, was next on his hit list, and they too suffered the same fate. After Umma, he defeated the city-states of Uruk, Ur, and Kiutu. Iriaz was destroyed and its ruler put to the sword. Mishime suffered destruction and Arua was obliterated. After some time, Zuzu, the king of Akshak, rose up, challenged Eannatum, and he was obliterated. However, Eannatum was not finished, as he turned his attentions towards the city-states of Kish, Akshak, and Mari, which were all defeated. However, a question remains, why did Eannatum conquer the city-states mentioned and what were his motives?

Eannatum’s Hit List

Why did Eannatum’s tour start with Elam? The Elamites were a troublesome hill people. In many ways, they were still partly nomadic at the time. In other words, they had moved past being hunter-gatherers and had established a civilization like those living in Mesopotamia. However, they still clung to nomadic methods of warfare such as raiding. An example is the destruction of Ur, which came much later. The actions of this event are found in The Lament of Ur, which states, “Enlil brought down the Elamites, the enemy, from the highlands … Fire approached Ninmarki in the shrine of Gu-aba. Large boats were carrying off its silver and lapis lazuli.” This type of pillage-and-run tactic likely became monotonous to those living nearest to them.

One would think that Eannatum would have dealt with Umma first. They were, after all, the archenemy of Lagash, and due to their weakness, they would have made a prime target. However, Eannatum saw an economic opportunity. He was confident that his military forces could protect Lagash while the main body was sent to conquer and confiscate the lands of Elam. Elam was a much bigger prize than Umma. Eannatum’s conquest of Elam gave him the resources needed to provide an army on the march. The lands of Elam were rich in timber, precious metals, and stone. Of these resources, one sticks out as the major factor in Eannatum’s conquest of Elam: tin. Elam had tin mines that dotted the Zagros Mountains. Moreover, there were valuable trade routes that ran through Elam from the east. Not only did Elam produce its own tin, (although how much they produced is uncertain), but also the mining and transportation of tin went beyond the Iranian plateau. Tin was rarer than copper during these times and rarely used as a pure metal. Without tin to accompany the copper, the manufacturing of bronze weapons was impossible.

The city-state of Urua was next. The location of Urua was located in the northwestern Iranian province of Khuzistan, which means Urua was within the vicinity of Elam. The importance of conquering Urua was due to its strategic location. Urua is located on the Susiana plain, which controls the passage that leads into what would be later the southern portion of Babylonia.

Umma was next on Eannatum hit list. As mentioned, Umma held a strategic advantage over Lagash due to Shatt al-Gharraf waterway, which bordered Umma. By conquering Umma, Lagash would have sole control over the waterway that filtered in water from the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Furthermore, Lagash would safely and securely control the fertile fields of Guedena.

Eannatum’s tour of Elam, Urua, and Umma paid off. Eannatum controlled provinces and regions rich with resources. He had metal to produce weapons and fertile fields to grow food—both of which were used to feed and arm his forces. Eannatum was far from finished. With an increase in resource-rich lands came an increase in manpower to replenish and increase the size of his ranks. Eannatum was drunk with power and looked west to quench his thirst.

With Eannatum’s eastern flank secured, the west was ripe for the taking.

Top Image: Statue of Gudea, prince of Lagash (long after King Eannatum) neo-Sumerian period, 2120 BC (Public Domain) and a fragment of the Stele of the Vultures (CC BY-SA 3.0);Deriv.