This is the recounting of the dramatic life of the “The Golden King” and “The Lion of the North” Gustav Adolf, and the Swedish Empire during stormaktstiden – “the Great Power era”.
As Gustav II Adolf (King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden) waited in Werben, Germany, Johann Tserclaes, the Count of Tilly (Field Marshall of the Catholic League’s forces) received a message from Field Marshall Pappenheim requesting that he come to Magdeburg and aid in its defense against the Swedes. After some time, Count Tilly decided to send three cavalry regiments on a recon mission towards Werben on July 27, 1631. After a few days, Gustav received word of the cavalry advance and quickly assembled 4,000 cavalry and led them towards the enemy force and surprised them at Burgstall and Angeren on August 1, 1631. The imperial forces suffered heavy casualties and lost their baggage.
[Left] Engraving of Gustavus Adolphus (Public Domain) and [Right] portrait of Count Johann t’Serclaes von Tilly. (Public Domain)
During this engagement, Gustav himself almost became a casualty. Those who were captured provided the Swedish king with valuable information. He soon learned that Tilly was planning to attack his forces at Werben.
When news reached Tilly that the cavalry forces he had sent had been devastated, he fell into a rage. Tilly wasted no time; he mustered his forces, and pushed towards Werben with 15,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry. Tilly’s hurry towards Werben was to prevent the Swedes from fully digging themselves into a defensive position. However, when Tilly arrived, he saw that Swedes had already set up defensive fortifications, for it was standard procedure among the Swedish military to do so once they set up camp. Tilly, seeing that the element of surprise was out of the question, positioned his forces and opened fire on the Swedish camp with sixteen heavy guns, and the Swedes obliged Tilly with a volley of their own.
Illustration of the Battle of Werben, detail.(Deutsche Fotothek/CC BY-SA 3.0 de)
The first day of fighting was primarily sorties and heavy skirmishing outside the Swedish perimeter. The second day was much the same, as each side exchanged cannon fire and engaged in limited skirmishes. While Tilly was poking and prodding the Swedes, he received intelligence that a German unit within the Swedish ranks would mutiny. Tilly, understandably suspicious of the information, decided that it was something he could not ignore. Therefore, Tilly gave the order to launch a full-scale assault on the Swedish entrenchments. This would be a grave mistake. As the imperial forces advanced, they came under a well-organized concentration of artillery and musket fire. The imperial forces began to drop quickly. Sensing that any further advancement would do them no good, they retreated, but as they did so, the Swedish cavalry fell on them. Six thousand imperial forces lay dead on the field of battle, while the remaining wounded and untouched scattered.
A scene of battle and death from another engagement during the Thirty Years’ War (Battle of Fleurus, Aug 20, 1622.) (Public Domain)
Battle of Breitenfeld, Clashing Forces
After Werben, Tilly had received orders from the emperor to invade Saxony and force Elector John George to pledge his allegiance to the emperor and disband his army. John George did not answer Tilly but stalled to see what terms Gustav could offer. John George gave Tilly a negative answer but by that time Tilly’s forces had swelled to 36,000 troops who need supplies. Sensing that John George was not going to join the imperial forces, Tilly decided to move his forces into Saxony where he besieged, plundered, and raped the countryside for supplies.
By September 8, 1631, Tilly was quickly approaching Leipzig where he positioned his forces on the level terrain of Breitenfield, north of Leipzig. On the September 11, 1631, Gustav and John George came to a treaty in which Saxony would place its forces under the command of Gustav, along with one month’s pay, food, shelter. Most importantly, Saxony would make no peace with the empire.
On September 15, 1631, Gustav and John George meet, and began to maneuver around Leipzig to disrupt the imperial forces, to root out any enemy units, and to find an advantage before digging in for battle. The next day, the Swedes and their allies marched towards the city. As Gustav moved towards Leipzig, the garrison defending against the imperial forces, unaware that Gustav was on his way, surrendered to Tilly. Soon after the surrender, the imperial force began to pillage the city until news arrived that the Swedes were not far away.
Once the Swedish forces had arrived with their allies, Gustav arrayed his army that evening, and his men slept in the order in which they would march into combat. The battlefield they and the imperial forces agreed to engage upon was relatively broad, on a rolling plain north of Leipzig. It stretched for miles and was void of woods and rivers, making it ideal for two large armies to clash. The Swedish forces boasted 13,000 to 26,800 soldiers, while their Saxon allies reportedly had from 12,000 to 18,000 troops. As for field guns, numbers are disputed, as the number of cannons ranged between 51 to 100 heavy guns and every regiment each had their field guns. The same can be said for the imperial army, wherein it’s said they fielded anywhere from 27 to 36 cannons.
Battle of Breitenfeld – Initial dispositions, 17 September 1631 Swedish-Saxon forces in Blue, Catholic army in Red. (Public Domain)
Tilly deployed his imperial forces in fourteen tercio blocks (companies of men with pikes and/or firearms) in the center with his cavalry on either flank. Gustav deployed his forces in a similar fashion, with smaller units drawn up in two lines of musketeers supporting the cavalry while the infantry had the support of 42 two-man battalion guns, (even though the number of guns is uncertain). The smaller Saxon force under John George positioned to the left of the Swedish forces.
In this contemporary drawing, the Imperial formations (to the left) are deployed two companies deep, while the Swedish (to the right) are deployed just one company deep (Public Domain)
At noon, both sides exchanged artillery fire. After two hours of trying to weaken one another with a near constant barrage, Tilly gave the order to move forward. Tilly’s intention was a double envelopment. Leading the way was Tilly’s left-wing cavalry, their goal was to engage and turn the Swedish right. However, the cavalry was stopped when the Swedes extended their lines, and alternated musket fire along with countering the imperial cavalry with their own cavalry.
While the Tilly had little luck attacking the Swedish right, he did find success on the left against the Saxons and were able to disperse them by 16:00. With Tilly’s tercios advancing with the aid of the cavalry, and with the dispersal of the Saxon forces thus exposing Gustav’s left, success seemed imminent. However, the left-wing of the Swedish cavalry was able to make a counter-attack and drive Tilly’s cavalry back into their own tercios, who happened to be reorganizing after their successful assault.
With Tilly’s forces preoccupied with reformation, Gustav took advantage of the moment by extending their flank and he counter-attacked with a steady, combined concentration of shock and firepower which compressed Tilly’s forces, causing confusion. The Swedish push was so successful that they were able to reclaim the Saxon artillery and capture the imperial artillery by steadily pushing the discombobulated enemy back.
With the imperial forces well behind their initial battle line, the Swedes used the captured artillery and turned it on the imperial forces, and by 18:00, Gustav swept the remaining enemy forces off the battlefield. Gustav demonstrated that the combination of finesse and firepower were far more dominant then the cumbrous system used by the enemy.
Battle of Breitenfeld – Annihilation, 17 September 1631 Swedish forces in Blue, Catholic army in Red. (Public Domain)
Battle of Lech and A Clever Plan
After Breitenfeld, Gustav maintained success. He pushed further until he reached the Rhine, where he decided to consolidate his hold and to winter his troops. This gave time to make plans in acquiring an additional 210,000 men for his 1632 campaign, which would allow him to field six other armies and to use the rest to advance on Bavaria and possibly onto Vienna itself.
Once spring arrived, Gustav mustered his forces and began the trek towards Bavaria. However, there was a problem, once he reached the river Lech, it proved to be impassable. The reason f was that Tilly had destroyed all the bridges and had removed all the boats. Gustav quickly came up with a clever plan. He began an artillery barrage to distract Tilly while obscuring the real crossing point, which was three miles south of Rain where the Lech splits into two channels with a sizable island in the middle. It was there where the Swedes began constructing their bridge. The next day, Gustav placed 18 guns to cover the next step of the operation. With musketeers now on the island, Gustav made it lucrative by giving five months’ extra pay to those who would row across the river to the Bavarian bank. Three hundred and thirty-four Finns quickly got to work; carrying across the channel the last pieces of the prefabricated bridge. Once in place, the Swedish army still under the cover of fire, poured across the river. Tilly soon learned what was going on and sent troops to counter the Swedish advance and stop them from penetrating his camp.
A cavalry battle between 1626 and 1628 (Public Domain)
Gustav had also sent 2,000 cavalry to ford the Lech a mile or two away, near the village of Munster. As expected, once the cavalry rolled up on Tilly they struck a decisive blow to the imperial left flank at the climax of battle. As the evening hours wore on, the imperial forces wore out and retreated, leaving their guns and baggage behind— and worst of all, Tilly took a hit to his right thigh by a cannon ball, which mortally wounded him. He died from this wound two weeks later.
As for Gustav, he would continue seeing victories as he pushed on, with his only real defeat coming in September 1632 at the Battle of the Alte Veste. Finally, his day under the sun came on November 16, 1632, at Lutzen.
Battle of Lützen
Late October 1632, word reached Gustav that general Albrecht von Wallenstein had led his forces northward to meet with another Imperial force under Count Pappenheim. Their goal was to subjugate Saxony and to cut off Gustav’s supply line to the Baltic. Gustav quickly headed north. While one might think he would call on the 163,000 troops he had available, the problem was that they were scattered throughout his holdings. Gustav had to make best with the available 19,000 men on hand.
On November 10, 1632, Gustav reached Naumburg and began to fortify his camp. Wallenstein mistakenly believed the Swedes were suspending their campaign and scattered his own forces about the lands since his camp at Leipzig could not provide enough supplies.
Gustav wasted no time in mustering his troops and marched out of Naumburg in the direction of Wallenstein’s camp on November 15, 1632. Wallenstein sent an urgent message to Pappenheim to bring back his cavalry. That night both armies slept in battle formation. If Wallenstein was not ready once morning arrived, he still had a little luck from nature as a fog rolled in. This allowed him to further prepare what may have been missing due to their hasty preparation. Around late morning, Gustav formed his 18,000 troops in nearly the same battle formation as they had held at Breitenfeld.
The battle began with Gustav leading a cavalry charge towards the Imperial musketeers in a ditch. This charge, while effective in uprooting them, also cost the Swedish cavalry in many lives due to the musket fire. Driving the Imperial forces out of the ditch, the Swedish cavalry pressed on and were close to falling on the main body of infantry. However, the Imperial cavalry under Pappenheim appeared suddenly and countered the Swedish advance. The tide had shifted in favor of the Imperial forces. Nevertheless, the Swedes would regain the advantage when two musket balls mortally wounded Pappenheim. This would cause panic throughout the Imperial ranks due to Pappenheim reputation as a fine leader.
Gustavus Adolphus in the battle of Lützen. (Public Domain)
With Pappenheim out of action, the Imperial left flank began to fall apart. While this was going on, the Swedish cavalry started hitting the center of the enemy. Victory seemed to be in Gustav’s hands but nature quickly stole it away when an even heavier mist rolled in on the battlefield. With both armies nearly blind by the fog, Gustav, who had the advantage and momentum, stalled. Gustav got word that his left flank was weakening and decided to help strengthen their position; this would be the end of the great king.
Gustav, as usual, led from the front and rode so fast he left his escort behind. In doing so, an Imperial musketeer took aim and shattered Gustav’s left arm. As it was known that Gustav forwent body armor due to an old wound that plagued his shoulder, he was easily shot in the back, and wounded grievously. He fell from the saddle with one foot in the stirrup, and was dragged for some time before being able to twist free. However, once free, lay face down in the mud when a third shot rang out, this time it was the death shot as it penetrated his head.
The Imperial forces seemed to be on the verge of victory but were thwarted by the Swedes who now took revenge for the death of their king. In the end, it was a Swedish victory with a high cost. The Swedes could not pursue the fleeing Imperial forces afterwards due to having lost a third of their men and on top of that, with a dead king on their hands.
The scene shows the death of the “Lion of the North” King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden on November 6, 1632. (Public Domain)
In conclusion, Gustav’s military reforms were revolutionary and evolutionary. In other words, it was just a matter of time and a bit of tinkering that manufactured a superb military force. With combined arms, it was capable of producing a greater volley of fire and an ability to maneuver on the field of battle with speed and precision. No matter how effective Gustav’s forces were in battle, he continued to make changes. He felt all must be scrutinized for inconsistencies in order to stay one step ahead of any future foe. He is regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of all time.
Ultimately, his legacy is one of military supremacy, in effect determining the religious and political balance of power in Europe, making Sweden a Great Power and empire.
After his death, Gustavus’s wife initially kept his body and his heart. His remains (including his heart) now rest with his sarcophagus at Riddarholm Church, Stockholm, Sweden. (Public Domain)
Top Image: Deriv; Portrait of Gustav II of Sweden (Public Domain) and his death on November 6, 1632. (Public Domain).
By Cam Rea
References
Addington, Larry H. The Patterns of War though The Eighteenth Century. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990.
Boot, Max. War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today. New York: Gotham Books, 2006.
Bradford, James C. International Encyclopedia of Military History. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Brzezinski, Richard and Richard Hook. The Army of Gustavus Adolphus (1): Infantry. London: Osprey, 1991.
Curtis, Benjamin W. The Habsburgs: The History of a Dynasty. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
Dodge, Theodore Ayrault. Gustavus Adolphus. New York: Da Capo Press, 1998.
Fissel, Mark Charles and D. J. B. Trim. Amphibious Warfare 1000-1700: Commerce, State Formation and European Expansion. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Fletcher, C. R. L. Gustavus Adolphus and the Struggle of Protestantism for Existence. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890.
Frost, Robert I. The Northern Wars: War, State, and Society in Northeastern Europe, 1558-1721. Harlow, England: Longman, 2000.
Hart, B. H. Liddell. Great Captains Unveiled. New York and Washington D.C.: Da Capo Press, 1996.
Häusser, Ludwig, G. Sturge, and Wilhelm Oncken. The Period of the Reformation, 1517 to 1648. New York: American Tract Society, 1873.
Helfferich, Tryntje. The Thirty Years War: A Documentary History. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 2009.
On 9 December 1594, Gustav II Adolf was born. From the time of his birth until his coronation, his upbringing involved many lessons in politics, literature, military science, and physical development, making him physically and intellectually rounded. In 1611, his father, Charles IX of Sweden died, leaving the Swedish crown to the young Gustav who was sixteen at the time.
When Gustav was crowned king of Sweden, there was no celebration for the sixteen-year-old had inherited from his father three bloody wars against Denmark, Russia, and Poland, along with financial troubles. However, the boy king would not let these incredible challenges stop him from restoring stability to Sweden and leading his country towards military innovation and glory.
This is the recounting of the dramatic life of the “The Golden King” and “The Lion of the North” Gustav Adolf and the Swedish Empire during stormaktstiden – “the Great Power era”.
Gustav Enters the War
In 1629, the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II of Bohemia made a drastic move without consulting the electoral princes, his advisors, and the imperial diet as a whole when he announced the Edict of Restitution. This edict took 500 abbeys, two archbishoprics, and two bishoprics that had been “secularized” since 1552 by Germany princes and returned them back to the Catholic Church.
Ferdinand II of Habsburg, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, King of Hungary and Bohemia with his court dwarf. (Public Domain)
This not only threatened the Protestant princes who sized church land, but indicated how far the emperor would go with his authority at the expense of his own subjects. Ferdinand’s expanding sphere of influence not only threatened the Protestant authorities within his realm, but also Sweden, for they shared a presence on the Baltic, which eventually induced Gustav to invade Germany.
Before Gustav could set off for war against the Holy Roman Empire, he needed to calculate the costs of the war and the amount of supplies the army would need. Upon examination, the Swedish exchequer concluded that it would cost the taxpayer 2,800,000 silver dalers. While the money was being carefully calculated and banked, the spending started immediately to pay the producers to manufacture the supplies and an army to use them. To get an idea of the amount of supplies needed, an infantry regiment of 576 muskets would need 3,000 pounds of gunpowder, 2,400 pounds of lead, and 3,400 pounds of match each month while campaigning.
Early spring 1630, Gustav mustered 13,641 soldiers and placed them to a fleet consisting of 25 major warships along with 75 smaller units and transports. With troops assembled, they boarded the ships.
The Vasa, early 17th century warship, was ordered by King Adolphus and built at the Stockholm shipyard by Henrik Hybertsson – an experienced Dutch shipbuilder. Vasa was to be the mightiest warship in the world, armed with 64 guns on two gundecks. (Dennis Jarvis/CC BY-SA 2.0)
However, the winds were unfavorable, and it took the fleet a little longer than hoped to arrive. On June 25, the Swedish forces quickly disembarked at Peenemunde, which is located on the northern end of the island of Usedom, sent reconnaissance parties out, built field fortifications, and began sweeping the island clean of enemy forces. By July 4, the island was under Swedish control. With a base established, the Swedes could now receive supplies and troops and when news reached the German interior that Gustav had arrived, the Protestant powers of Europe, such as the elector Palatine and Landgrave (Duke) of Hesse-Cassel, saw opportunity arriving, as he had had much of his land stripped away by the emperor.
The prow of the Vasa. “During the 1961 recovery, thousands of artifacts and the remains of at least 15 people were found in and around the Vasa’s hull by marine archaeologists.” (Jorge Láscar/CC BY-SA 2.0)
On July 18, Gustav mustered 8,723 men who boarded fifty-one ships suitable to sail up the Oder River. On July 19, the Swedish forces set sail down the Oder. By noon on July 20, the Swedish forces had arrived at Stettin. Gustav ordered that part of his troops land near the Oderburg castle where he took up position, and after some deliberation with the authorities, the city of Stettin surrendered. Gustav not only established a foothold in the interior of Germany, but also gained a major economical artery.
Before pushing any further south, Gustav decided to stay put in Pomerania to strengthen his position. However, Protestant support was still lacking. Many began to view his arrival with suspicion instead of opportunity—except for one.
While Gustav remained in Stettin, the large prosperous city of Magdeburg on the Elbe River, in August 1630 rose up against imperial authority and joined Sweden. Not long after the city came under siege and asked Gustav to alleviate them. However, Gustav could do little to help. The reason for this is that if he were to rush to their assistance, he would have to lead his army though the neutral territories of Brandenburg and Saxony. Moreover, he would also have to pass though enemy territory. However, Gustav knew that Magdeburg was under siege by a small imperial force, which could hold out for some time. Of course, it could hold out for a considerable amount of time so long as Count Tilly and his powerful Catholic forces did not aid the besiegers. Magdeburg would have to wait. Gustav had other problems to deal with; the winter and supplies.
The winter of 1630-31 slowed not only the forces of Tilly but also the enemy forces stationed at Gartz and those east and west of Gustav along the coast. The reason for the stagnation of the imperial forces was due to not having the proper attire for the winter, thus causing them to stay put in their winter camps. The Swedish forces on the other had been equipped for the winter with fur-lined coats, boots, head covers, and gloves.
Kyller – It was worn by military men, mainly cavalry in the 1600s and 1700s under armor. (Livrustkammaren (The Royal Armoury)/CC BY-SA 3.0)
While the winter did not stop the Swedish troops, it did slow them down. The reason for their sluggish movement was due to logistical issues. However, logistical issues were not going to stop Gustav when he saw opportunity, as intelligence reports indicated that the imperial forces at Gartz were reduced from 6,000 men. Gustav mustered his forces and moved his troops by foot and flotilla on the unfrozen Oder River on Christmas Eve, and attacked the 4,000 imperial forces remaining at Gartz. The Swedes were victorious. However, victory came due to the garrison being undisciplined and most importantly, many had been out searching for food, thus leaving only a small force to resist.
With Gartz under Swedish control, Gustav now had a firm hold on Pomerania with the exception of a few smaller besieged garrisons. With success came issues in early 1631, for Gustav lacked the money needed to pay his troops. A man by the name of Armand Jean du Plessis, better known to us as Cardinal Richelieu, came forward and offered Gustav a proposal that would greatly help the Swedish forces continue the fight.
Cardinal Richelieu, French Money, Religion and Politics
The citizens of Sweden were poverty-stricken, and further war at their expense threatened the infrastructure of Gustav’s kingdom if the war became protracted. Furthermore, he had no allies. Denmark could have provided assistance but they remained neutral and were still viewed as untrustworthy by Gustav (even though King Christian publicly expressed friendship, it did not sway Gustav).
One would think that other Protestant kingdoms outside of Germany would have mustered their forces and pushed on into Germany. Unfortunately, many of them were already in war or coming out of a war against a powerful Catholic state. England could have helped but they had just signed a peace treaty with Spain. The Netherlands could have helped, but were busy fighting Spain. As mentioned, Denmark remained neutral; this was due to being beaten into submission and afterwards paid off to remain neutral. Inviting the Ottomans into the war was a possibility but was looked upon as an uncertainty. As for all the Protestant princes within Holy Roman Empire, they either stayed neutral, looking for ways to find peace, or sought outside help to fund their military endeavors. Because of this, the only two powers one could look to help their religious cause were France and Sweden.
France could have entered the war on the side of the Catholics. However, politics was thicker than religious similarities. Because of this, King Louis XIII of France’s chief minister Cardinal Richelieu proposed an entirely different approach. Instead of aiding the Catholic nations in their war, why not aid the Protestants? Richelieu’s thinking was politically strategic. Richelieu understood that if France were to support Emperor Ferdinand II, they would be helping to further politically and territorially suffocate themselves for the powerful House of Habsburg. The only nation and leader battle-hardened and strong enough to curtail the Catholics was King Gustav of Sweden.
Cardinal Richelieu at the Siege of La Rochelle, a result of a war between the French royal forces of Louis XIII the Huguenots of La Rochelle, at the height of the tensions between the Catholics and the Protestants in France. (Public Domain)
Richelieu approached Gustav with the proposal to enter the war with the aid of subsides. Gustav had no issue with this and greatly accepted. However, it came down to ‘name your price’. Gustav asked for six hundred thousand rixdollars (silver coinage used throughout the European continent) a year but Richelieu quickly declined, for it was too much. However, Richelieu concluded that money well spent is money well-earned and agreed to Gustav’s terms with the signing of the Treaty of Bärwalde 23 January 1631. After the parties agreed to the terms, Gustav had one more favor to ask, and that was to make the agreement public. Richelieu disagreed, but understood the circumstances at hand. By agreeing to make the treaty public, this was making a statement that showed Catholic France and Protestant Sweden were united and most importantly, the treaty itself was an invitation to the Protestant states to join the war against the Holy Roman Empire.
The Battle of Frankfurt an der Oder
Six days after signing the Treaty of Bärwalde, Gustav turned his forces back north and headed towards the fortified city of Demmin. In less than three weeks the Swedish forces had captured six towns including Demmin, which surrendered after a siege of two days. While Gustav moved with fluidity, Tilly had to turn west for a moment before swinging north. As Tilly’s forces continued pushing north, he decided to hit soft targets, like that of Swedish occupied Neu-Brandenburg, whose garrison lacked artillery and was secured by only 750 troops. Gustav was quick to respond by mustering 19,000 men to relive the city but then refrained from doing so. Gustav had the men but his cavalry was largely unpaid German mercenaries who might have proved unreliable.
Therefore, Gustav decided on a far different strategy. He decided that to relieve the city. He would have to move his forces towards Frankfurt. This would distract Tilly and disrupt his communications with the forces besieging Magdeburg. However, when Tilly got word of Gustav’s army moving towards Frankfurt it was too late. Tilly had stormed Neu-Brandenburg and sacked the town. Afterwards, Tilly moved his forces to aid in the siege at Magdeburg in hopes to end it. Unfortunately for Tilly, his forces proved too small to make a difference. To make matters worse for Tilly, Gustav on March 27 had pushed south on the Ober with a force of 14,000 troops and 200 guns, to attack Frankfurt. Gustav also knew that the garrison of Frankfurt consisted of 6,000 soldiers and capable commanders, thus it was imperative to take Frankfurt quickly.
Swedish infantry and cavalry led by the Swedish king Gustav II Adolf march through Frankfurt, 17 November 1631. Cannons firing. (Public Domain)
On March 31, Tilly pulled his forces and headed to relive Frankfurt. However, when he arrived, it was too late. On April 3, the Swedish forces stormed the city, massacred the garrison and sacked the town. Seeing that Frankfurt was lost, Tilly returned to Magdeburg. Tilly’s return was a smart move, for he would have known that Gustav’s forces lay in wait for his arrival. Tilly’s about face from Frankfurt frustrated Gustav. Seeing that Tilly would not take the bait, Gustav tried to negotiate with the electorates of Saxony and Brandenburg that would allow his forces to pass through their neutral territorial in order to reach and relieve Magdeburg of the imperial forces. Finally, on April 20, Saxony and Brandenburg gave permission. Unfortunately, it came too late, for Tilly had assaulted the city and the imperial forces who happened to be unpaid and under-fed, torched the city and killed 20,000 inhabitants. Even though this campaign between Gustav and Tilly was purely defensive maneuvering, the end was clearly a Swedish victory.
Three months later, at Werben, near the confluence of the Havel and Elbe, Gustav established his camp, while Tilly had moved into Hesse-Cassel. The reason for Gustav’s establishing himself at Werben was to keep Tilly away from that principality. Tilly chose Hesse-Cassel to provision his forces and attempted to convince the landgrave to join him. However, the langrave decided to put his support behind the Swedes and thus entered into an alliance with Gustav.
As Gustav waited in Werben, Tilly received a message from Field Marshall Pappenheim requesting that he come to Magdeburg and aid in its defense against the Swedes. After some time, Tilly decided to send three cavalry regiments on a recon mission towards Werben on July 27, 1631. After a few days, Gustav received word of the cavalry advance and quickly assembled 4,000 cavalry and led them towards the enemy force and surprised them at Burgstall and Angeren on August 1, 1631. The imperial forces suffered heavy casualties and lost their baggage.
During this engagement, Gustav himself almost became a casualty. Those who were captured provided the Swedish king with valuable information. He soon learned that Tilly was planning to attack his forces at Werben…
King Gustavus II Adolphus statue, Stockholm (CC BY-SA 2.0)—
Top Image: The victory of Gustavus Adolphus at the Battle of Breitenfeld (1631) (Public Domain)
France, embroiled in a war with England in a struggle over the French throne during the Hundred Years’ War, would find a savior who in turn was a heretic to the English. This sinner and saint was a woman by the name of Joan of Arc. While most people know that the English burned her at the stake at Vieux Marche in Rouen, most have forgotten her military adventures against the English.
The Peasant Girl
In 1412, Joan of Arc (or Jeanne d’Arc) was born in the village of Domremy located in the Duchy of Bar, France. She was the daughter of poor farmers by the names of Jacques d’ Arc and his wife Isabelle. Like the upbringing on any farm, Joan learned primarily agricultural skills. She was said to have been a hardworking and religious child.
Jeanne d’Arc, by Eugène Thirion (1876). The portrait depicts Joan of Arc’s awe upon receiving a vision from the Archangel Michael. (Public Domain)
Joan’s fame came when she claimed to hear the voice of God, which instructed her to expel the English and to have the Dauphin, Charles Valois (Crown Prince of France) crowned king of France. Incredibly, Joan would get her chance to meet with the Dauphin Charles VII when the situation changed for the worse in 1429.
In 1429, the city of Orleans, loyal to the French crown, had been under siege by the English for over a year. With Orleans heavily under attack, the uncle of Henry VI, John, Duke of Bedford and the English regent, advanced with a force towards the Duchy of Bar, which at that time was under the rule of Rene, the brother-in-law of Charles Valois.
Seeing that the English advance seemed unstoppable, the young Joan in the village of Domremy, approached the garrison commander, Robert de Baudricourt, and informed him that voices told her to rescue Orleans. She demanded that he assemble some men, provide some resources, and take her to meet with the Dauphin at Chinon. The garrison commander scoffed at the idea of a peasant girl standing before the French Royal Court and sent her away. Not dissuaded, she petitioned Baudricourt’s soldiers, and making accurate predictions about the outcomes of battles (apparently proving divine revelation), was eventually escorted to the Royal Court.
Joan arrived at Chinon on 23 February 1429. Right before Joan arrived, Charles is said to have disguised himself to see if she would be able to identify him, and to test her ‘powers’ as a prophetess, but it was to no avail, because she bowed before him, and said, “God give you a happy life, sweet King!”
Miniature from Vigiles du roi Charles VII. Joan of Arc and Charles VII, king of France. (Public Domain)
After a lengthy examination by the theologians, she was found not to be a heretic or insane. With no mental issues found, they advised Charles to let her do what the divine will had apparently commanded her to do. Charles agreed.
Before setting off to fight the English, Joan wrote a letter to English king and English Regent of France:
JESUS, MARY
King of England, render account to the King of Heaven of your royal blood. Return the keys of all the good cities which you have seized, to the Maid. She is sent by God to reclaim the royal blood, and is fully prepared to make peace, if you will give her satisfaction; that is, you must render justice, and pay back all that you have taken.
King of England, if you do not do these things, I am the commander of the military; and in whatever place I shall find your men in France, I will make them flee the country, whether they wish to or not; and if they will not obey, the Maid will have them all killed. She comes sent by the King of Heaven, body for body, to take you out of France, and the Maid promises and certifies to you that if you do not leave France she and her troops will raise a mighty outcry as has not been heard in France in a thousand years. And believe that the King of Heaven has sent her so much power that you will not be able to harm her or her brave army.
To you, archers, noble companions in arms, and all people who are before Orleans, I say to you in God’s name, go home to your own country; if you do not do so, beware of the Maid, and of the damages you will suffer. Do not attempt to remain, for you have no rights in France from God, the King of Heaven, and the Son of the Virgin Mary. It is Charles, the rightful heir, to whom God has given France, who will shortly enter Paris in a grand company. If you do not believe the news written of God and the Maid, then in whatever place we may find you, we will soon see who has the better right, God or you.
William de la Pole, Count of Suffolk, Sir John Talbot, and Thomas, Lord Scales, lieutenants of the Duke of Bedford, who calls himself regent of the King of France for the King of England, make a response, if you wish to make peace over the city of Orleans! If you do not do so, you will always recall the damages which will attend you.
Duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of France for the King of England, the Maid asks you not to make her destroy you. If you do not render her satisfaction, she and the French will perform the greatest feat ever done in the name of Christianity.
Done on the Tuesday of Holy Week (March 22, 1429). HEAR THE WORDS OF GOD AND THE MAID.
One can definitely suspect that the king of England and the English Regent of France did not take it to be cordial.
Religious War
Joan of Arc, as a symbol of god’s will to the French, had turned a generational Anglo-French battle over thrones into a religious war.
After convincing the theologians and future king of France that the divine had sent her, she was given armor to wear and a force of four thousand men were placed under her command. She set off towards Orleans soon after, carrying a white banner depicting Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and two angels.
Fortifications around Orleans at the time of the siege. English forts are depicted red, French forts depicted in blue. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
On 29 April 1429, she entered Orleans. She there met with the commander of the garrison, John, the Bastard of Orleans. Upon meeting him, she demanded that he immediately attack the English. However, John was not ready. While John was preparing with the now additional four thousand troops who accompanied Joan, Joan decided to approach and shout at the English troops. She informed them that she was the one sent by God—the “maiden”—and said to them “Begone, or I will make you go” but the English upon hearing her message, hurled insults back.
On April 30 the Orleans militia, under the command of Etienne de Vignoles, assaulted the English at the Boulevard of Saint-Pouair, but the attack proved unsuccessful. Joan called out to Sir William Glasdale at Les Tourelles stating, “Yield to God’s command.” The English replied by calling her a “cowgirl”. They made it known to Joan that if they captured her they would surely burn her. But even in their anger, they were also cautious.
On May 1, Dunois and a small band of men, along with Joan and some soldiers, left to bring the army back to Blois. During this small mission, the English did not attempt to engage the French even though they knew she was among this small army. Interestingly, the reason for not engaging the French seems to have been due to fear, for the lower English ranks feared that she had some supernatural powers and to risk taking her dead or alive was detrimental to their own wellbeing.
On May 3, the main body of Joan’s relief force arrived. She made it clear to the French soldiers and officers that God had sent her, as she rode in at the head as a priest chanted from the book of Psalms.
With Joan and 4,000 men in Orleans, the Armagnacs (Prominent Orleanists in French politics) attacked the outlying English fort of Saint Loup on May 4 and captured it. Feeling confident after the capture of Saint Loup, the French were preparing to attack the weakest English bastions on the south bank of the Loire the next day. However, despite the win, Joan decided on a temporary one-day truce to honor the Feast of the Ascension on May 5. It was during this truce that Joan wrote a letter for the English stating, “You, men of England, who have no right to this Kingdom of France, the king of Heaven orders and notifies you through me, Joan the Maiden, to leave your country; or I will produce a clash of arms to be eternally remembered. And this is the third and last time I have written to you; I shall not write anything further.”
She gave this letter to a crossbowman and he shot the letter into the English fortress of Les Tourelles. In the fortress, an archer retrieved the message and said, “Read, here is the news!” The English commander replied, “Here is news from the Armagnac whore!” Joan is said to have wept after hearing their reply.
The English Downfall
On May 6, the French set off and reached Fort Saint-Jean-le-Blanc. However, they found it empty. The Armagnacs continued to advance. The English appeared outside the fort and attempted a cavalry charge but were defeated and driven back into their stronghold.
15th-century depiction of Joan of Arc leading an assault on an English fort at the siege of Orléans. (Public Domain)
With the English bottled up, the Armagnacs continued on capturing another English forts near the Les Augustins monastery. From here, the Aramagnacs held steady on the south bank of the river Loire before engaging the English fortress of Les Tourelles the following morning on May 7.
While Joan partook in many of the battles, she did so from a support role, encouraging the men, boosting morale and confidence, and she also helped many of the wounded before she was herself wounded above the breast by an arrow at Les Tourelles. She is said to have pulled the arrow out with her own hand and dressed the wound with oil. After treating her wound and getting some rest, she noticed French troops retreating from the fortress. She quickly grabbed her standard, and stormed towards the fortress. She stuck her banner into ground and shouted encouragement to the men to fight on.
Sir William Glasdale and his small English force, seeing that they could hold no longer in their earth-and-timber fortress, and after witnessing that Joan was not dead, fled the flimsy ill-constructed fort for the safer stone fortress of Les Tourelles. It was at this moment that Joan saw Glasdale fleeing and shouted to him. “Glasdale! Glasdale! Yield to the King of Heaven! You called me a whore, but I have great pity on your soul and the souls of your men!”
Whether Glasdale stopped or not is up for debate, but during the chaos around them, a French incendiary boat became wedged beneath the wooden drawbridge, causing it to catch fire. Glasdale and his men attempting to cross it to reach the safety of Les Tourelles, did not make it, for the bridge caught fire and soon weakened. The bridge could not hold the weight of the men and it disintegrated and gave way. Glasdale and the men with him went crashing into the river and drowned due to the weight of their armor.
Tables Turned
The seemingly unstoppable French advance caused the English to surrender the fortress, which resulted in a French victory that lifted the siege of Orleans. Nine days after Joan’s arrival at Orleans, the siege had collapsed. This military victory was a major turning point in the Hundred Years war.
Afterwards, more fortresses fell within the duchy causing the English to send forces to stop the advancement but they were in turn defeated. In just a few weeks, the English in the Loire valley were swept aside and Bedford, the English Regent of France, had lost much of his supplies, which greatly crippled any further English advancement for the time being.
Joan partook in many successful military operations until the English eventually captured her.
Joan of Arc and the French army marched toward the defense of Compiegne against the Burgundian army, led by John of Luxembourg, and arrived on 14 May 1430. However, on May 22, Joan went out during a sortie and surprised the Burgundians. While Joan’s attack was effective, the Burgundian forces refused defeat, rallied their forces, and defeated her men.
Joan retreated towards the gates and continued to fight, as she refused to admit defeat. This stubborn will allowed her to fall into the hands of her enemy, for the commander of the town left the gates open long enough for Joan and her forces to enter. However, seeing Joan refusing to disengage and the enemy ever so close to the entrance, the commander ordered the gate shut, sealing Joan’s fate.
Joan captured by the Burgundians at Compiègne. Mural in the Panthéon, Paris. (Public Domain)
After the Burgundians captured her, they imprisoned Joan at Beaulieu Castle at Rouen. After a lengthy imprisonment and trial, the Maiden of France was executed on 30 May 1431.
“Joan of Arc dies at the stake”, painted in 1843 by German artist Hermann Anton Stilke (1803-1860). Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg. (Public Domain)
Featured image: Detail; Joan of Arc at the Siege of Orléans by Jules Lenepveu (CC BY-SA 2.5)
By Cam Rea
References
Baumgaertner, Wm. E. A Timeline of Fifteenth Century England – 1398 to 1509. Victoria, B.C., Canada: Trafford Publishing, 2009.
Bradbury, Jim. The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare. London: Routledge, 2004.
Edmunds, Joan M. The Mission of Joan of Arc. Forest Row: Temple Lodge, 2008.
DeVries, Kelly. Joan of Arc: A Military Leader. Stroud: Sutton, 1999.
Dupuy, Trevor N., Curt Johnson, and David L. Bongard. The Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1992.
Joan of Arc. Letter to the King of England, 1429. Translated by Belle Tuten from M. Vallet de Vireville, ed. Chronique de la Pucelle, ou Chronique de Cousinot. Paris: Adolphe Delahaye, 1859, pp. 281-283. https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/joanofarc.asp
Mirabal, Laura. Joan of Arc: The Lily of France. Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse, 2010.
Pernoud, Régine, Marie-Véronique Clin, Jeremy duQuesnay Adams, and Bonnie Wheeler. Joan of Arc: Her Story. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.
Richey, Stephen W. Joan of Arc: The Warrior Saint. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2003.
Tuckey, Janet. Joan of Arc, “the Maid;”. London: M. Ward & Co, 1880.
Wagner, John A. Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2006.
While the ram attempted to smash and loosen the rocky walls, Assyrian assault teams with scaling ladders would try to breach walls. The ram, while effective, was also vulnerable to enemy defenders dropping chains to pull the battering pole aside. Because of this issue, the Assyrians deployed men who counter this by hooking the chains with iron grapples. The prophet Joel gives a description of the Assyrian wall scaling:
“They rush upon the city;
they run along the wall.
They climb into the houses;
like thieves they enter through the windows.”
Joel’s description is quite accurate. Besides reliance on battering rams to bring down the walls, they also looked to sappers.
Undermining Fortifications
Assyrian sappers (soldiers for building, demolitions, general construction) would approach the walls possibly under the cover of shield bears, the same type that protected the archers one could suspect. If they had no such protection, the Assyrian king made sure his specialized troop had the armor needed to get the job done. The sapper, particularly during the rule of Ashurnasirpal (883-859 BCE), were heavily armored and wore long padded mailed coverings along with a conical helmet with mail protecting the face and neck. Once at the walls, they would aid in helping the battering rams dislodge blocks from the wall with special flat-topped crowbars, pick axes, hoes, and drills. If the sappers could not get near the walls, they tunneled under them and prop it up with wooden supports until the hole was rather large and deep, after which they would set fire to the structure causing the foundation to weaken and collapse.
While the battering ram was effective, the Assyrians had a backup plan usually underway during the siege to aid the army if the rams failed to dislodge the walls, and that was siege towers. As these siege towers are pushed forward, archers would accompany them with the duty to pick off any enemy foe threatening to toss an incendiary weapon at the tower. Furthermore, the Assyrians placed hoses on the tower from which water poured over the leather sheets covering the wooden structure to prevent the tower from catching fire. If the water hoses failed and fire did catch, a man holding a large ladle with would extinguish the flames the best he could.
Siege Tower on the Lachish, Relief in the British Museum. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
If the battering rams breached the walls, the Assyrian infantry behind the rams would pour through the hole under the cover of their archers and slingers. The Assyrian infantry were heavy spearmen armed with long, double-bladed spears, straight swords for close combat and they carried a small shield. The armor worn by the infantryman was a conical helmet, a knee-length coat of iron mail which was lined with wool to absorb the blows from weapons and allowed heat to dissipate. To protect his legs, he wore knee-high leather boots that had iron plates attached to the shins.
Heavy-armed archers in action. Assyrian, about 700-692 BC. From Nineveh, South-West Palace. These archers, the front one of whom is beardless, possibly an enuch, are each accompanied by a soldier whose duty it is to hold the tall shield in position and guard against any enemies who come too close. (Mike Peel www.mikepeel.net/CC BY-SA 4.0)
Plunder and Refugees
Inside the city, the Assyrian infantry would slash and plunder their way through. Once the slaughter and pillaging were over, those still alive (as at Samaria, which was sacked in 721 BCE), would feed the deported refugees during the journey back into Assyria, while also being treated by physicians to keep hygiene up and disease out. Furthermore, the Assyrians provided footwear if needed, along with carts for the longer journeys for women and children. Families were not separated for the most part. The Assyrians wanted to keep the families and communities together, as well as their national identity. Assyria was not a melting pot of nations. The Assyrians wanted to preserve the identity of the deportees for social and military strength and to lessen the possible acts of rebellion.
Judean people being deported into exile after the capture of Lachish. his relief depicts a man, 2 women, and 2 (male and female) children being deported with their household belongings. (CC BY-SA 4.0)
After the people had been gathered and exported, the Assyrians, like a swarm of army ants, took the captured fortified cities, or even a villages, and would destroy and take everything. Trees that were in or around the city or village were usually cut down and the timber taken back as spoils of war. Trees such as date palms were stripped naked and then cut down, leaving only the stump behind so they could not grow again. Other trees would be uprooted and replanted back in Assyria. Farmlands also did not escape Assyrian plunder, for they too were likely stripped bare leaving the farmland as it was before planting. When Tiglath-pileser conquered most of Syria and Lebanon, he took many of the trees for his palace and as tribute:
With the keen understanding and grasp of intellect with which the Master of the gods, the prince Nudimmut (Ea) endowed me, a palace of cedar… and a portico (bit hilanni) patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, for my enjoyment, I built in Kalal (Kahi).”
A palace of cedar “Their (the palaces) doorways, of ivory, maple box-wood, mulberry, cedar… juniper, tribute of the Hittitte kings of the princes of the Aramaeans and of Chaldea, which I brought in submission to my feet through my valorous heroism. I made and I richly adorned them with tall cedar beams, whose fragrance is as good as that of the cypress tree, products of Amanus, Lebanon, and Ammanana (Anti – Lebanon) … The doorleaves of cedar and cypress, which give unbounded joy to the one entering them (and) whose odor penetrates to the heart, I bound with a sheathing of shining zahalu and (sariru) and hung (them) in the door-(ways).
People’s valuables were taken as well, apart from the things the captives needed in their day-to-day life. Even the temples’ valuables such as gold or silver were stripped. Idols in these temples were transported back to Assyria and paraded as weak gods of the conquered host; they could not compete with the gods that favored Assyria.
Once the refugees made it into the Assyrian homeland, they were sent to deportee camps before being sent to the region assigned to them. This was almost like a debriefing center. To give an example, one could look to Sargon II and the place of Dur-Sharrukin:
Peoples of the four quarters, of strange tongues and different speech, dwelling in mountains and plains…. I took as spoil at the word of Ashur my lord. I made of them one purpose, I made them take up abode therein [i.e., inside Dur-Sharrukin]. I sent natives of Assyria, competent in everything, as overseers and supervisors, to instruct them in custom and to serve the gods and the king.
After the Assyrians settled the captives in their assigned regions, the Assyrian monarch would make them feel welcome and comfortable. This was to keep any attempt of rebellion down. As the Assyrian monarch took the role as spokesman for the gods, it was his duty to accept all nations and to keep the peace within the Assyrian empire. Bustenay Oded writes well when referring to the role of the deported once they had been settled:
“..the exiled communities played a role very similar to that of the Assyrian garrisons stationed in all parts of the Assyrian empire, or to that of Assyrian citizens who were settled in conquered countries either as city dwellers, farmers, or officials. This explains the favorable treatment the deportees generally enjoyed, and the great concern shown by the Assyrian rulers for their welfare.”
After a long siege, the city of Lachish surrendered and the Assyrian army entered the city. King Sennacherib sits on his royal chair, surrounded by attendants and greets a high-ranking official. The king reviews Judean prisoners. (CC BY-SA 4.0)
In conclusion, the Assyrians were indeed the first iron army but more important than that, was the fact that they were in many ways the first professionalized fighting force that integrated and effectively used command and control along with the combined arms (conventional and specialized) apparatus to their advantage long before anyone else. While this new professional army had its way with its neighbors, they too would succumb to those seeking to make a name in the wild near east. However, unlike those who would come after, only a few could match the Assyrian fighting force in name and merit when it came to war machine known as Assyria.
Top Image: Assyrian relief of a horseman from Nimrud, now in the British Museum (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Archer, Christon I. World History of Warfare. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.
Campbell, Duncan B. Besieged: Siege Warfare in the Ancient World. Oxford: Osprey, 2006.
Carey, Brian Todd, Joshua B. Allfree, and John Cairns. Warfare in the Ancient World. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Military, 2005.
David, Richard, Barnett and Margarete Falkner. The sculptures of Aššur-nasir-apli II, 883-859 B.C., Tiglath-pileser III, 745-727 B.C. [and] Esarhaddon, 681-669 B.C., from the central and south-west palaces at Nimrud. (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1962.
Eadie, John W., “The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry” The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1/2 (1967), 161-173.
Fagan, Garrett G., and Matthew Trundle. New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Gabriel, Richard A. Great Captains of Antiquity. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2001.
Gabriel, Richard A. The Culture of War: Invention and Early Development. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.
Gabriel, Richard A. The Military History of Ancient Israel. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2003.
Soldiers’ Lives through History – The Ancient World. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2006.
Healy, Mark, and Angus McBride. The Ancient Assyrians. London: Osprey, 1991.
Kern, Paul Bentley. Ancient Siege Warfare. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999.
Nosov, K., and V. Golubev. Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons: A Fully Illustrated Guide to Siege Weapons and Tactics. Guilford, Conn: Lyons Press, 2005.
Oded, Bustenay. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979.
Rawlinson, George, Ancient Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World Vol I, (New York: Lovell, Coryell & CO, 1881.
Roberts, Janet “Centering the World”: Trees as Tribute in the Ancient Near East.” Transoxiana Journal Libre de Estudios Orientales.http://www.transoxiana.com.ar/11/roberts-near_east_trees.html (accessed August 11, 2016, 2011).
Saggs, H. W. F. The Might That Was Assyria. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984.
Vuksic, V. & Z. Grbasic, Cavalry: The History of a Fighting Elite, (London: Cassell, 1993
Before the famed Persian Empire, whose borders spanned from India to Thrace, there was another empire—the Assyrians. The Assyrian Empire, while much smaller than the future Persian Empire to come, made up for its lack of territorial mass with a well-greased, organized fighting machine.
In the book of Nahum 3:1, the prophet Nahum made it clear that Assyria was a “city of blood, full of lies, full of plunder, never without victims! The crack of whips, the clatter of wheels, galloping horses and jolting chariots! Charging cavalry, flashing swords and glittering spears!”
What made the Assyrian Empire one of the most terrifying militaries in the ancient world was that they were organized, well led, well fed, well supplied, and had the tools to crack into just about any city they so desired. When it comes to warfare, sieges dominate the vast array of Assyrian reliefs. The siege we will focus on is that of Lachish in 701 BCE.
In order to understand how the Neo-Assyrian military organization functioned one must first focus on the head of the army, the king. From there, we can gather the role of the nobility in military affairs and finally those who formed the bulk of the army.
King: Despotic Commander in Chief
Sargon II and dignitary. Palace of Sargon II at Dur Sharrukin in Assyria (now Khorsabad in Iraq), c. 716–713 BC. (Public Domain)
The Assyrian king wasn’t just directly involved with state affairs on all levels; he was the state. Every aspect of state affairs, whether international, political, military, and religious, was directly linked to him. The king was absolute, but even he had limitations. The Assyrian king, unlike the pharaoh of Egypt, was not divine but despotic. He was a mediator between the gods and his subjects through his ritual purification by both divine and human attendants. Besides the day-to-day domestic and foreign affairs dealt with by the king, he was commander and chief of the Assyrian army. Middle Assyrian inscriptions attest to this, as the Assyrian king on his coronation would swear an oath that they would lead their armies, in person, on annual campaigns of conquest to extend their borders. Even though he was the head of his army, he was a figurehead to a certain degree, for his military duties were diffused and delegated to lesser officials.
Turtānu: Leader of Armies
This lesser official, who would lead armies, was the turtanu. The turtanu was second in military command right under the king. While the king was in fact the commander in chief of the army, the real responsibility executing his majesty’s orders lay in the hands of the turtanu. Assyrian kings did participate in campaigns but when unable, the turtanu was firmly in charge. Eventually either Tiglath-Pileser III or Sargon II reorganized the office of the turtanu. In the past, one man held the position. However, this changed. Instead of having one man take charge of the military forces there was be two. One man was in charge “of the left” and the other “of the right.” While not definitive in all cases, the post of the turtanu were assigned to eunuchs. The reason for this was to limit power by ensuring that the man in charge could not pass his office down to his son through inheritance, which in turn limited the power of the office and avoided the possibility of a coup.
Army Organization and Officers
Information on the military organization of the Assyrian army is fragmented and murky. But a word of caution before proceeding: what is about to be presented is based on what is known and what can be considered from what information survives.
The Assyrians do provide some history concerning the framework of their military apparatus. During the eighth century BCE the Assyrian king could mobilize a force of between 150,000-200,000 men and in extreme cases, 1,000,000. This seems a bit farfetched but was not impossible. In times of war, the Assyrians could field between 20,000-50,000 troops, which would be the equivalent of two or five modern American divisions. Each division consisted of 120 officers. Therefore, two divisions would consist of 240 officers while five divisions consisted roughly of 416 officers. When further broken down, a squad of ten men was under the control of a noncommissioned officer. Five or twenty squads were formed into a “company” (kirsu) under the command of a “captain” (rab kisri or rab hanle). The amount of men in an Assyrian company probably was made up of five squads totaling 250 men and would take at least four of them to form a battalion. A regiment possibly consisted of and three battalions totaling 3,000 men, which seems possible based on the Urartian system, similar to that of Assyria, and it was under the command of a prefect, or what would be today the equivalent of a modern colonel. As for the size of an Assyrian division, it would seem possible that one division consisted of three if not more regiments.
By the time of Sargon, they had become a truly iron army. Sargon reorganized and integrated the fighting force, starting with the conventional units such as infantry, chariots, cavalry, and siege machinery. Next were specialized units to aid support to the conventional, such as scouts, engineers, intelligence officers, and sappers (soldiers for building, demolitions, general construction). To support and supply such an army with the amount of iron needed, Sargon constructed a single weapons room called Dur-Sharrukin (Fort Sargon) which contained 200 tons of weapons and body armor.
Plan of Dur-Sharrukin, 1867. Victor Place excavated Khorsabad (Iraq) from 1852 to 1855. The Palace of Sargon is represented at North East. (Public Domain)
Reconstructed model of Palace of Sargon at Khorsabad, 1905. (Public Domain)
Soldiers and Engines of War
The Assyrian military consisted of four main units: cavalry, charioteers, infantry, and archers.
When it came to mobility, the Assyrians relied on charioteers like most Near Eastern nations. However, during the reign of Ashurbanipal II in the ninth century BCE, reliefs depict the Assyrians as already having cavalry but in small numbers; they were light by standard and their only function was to ward off other horse archer units during an engagement. What the Assyrians did to combat this was to take regular foot archers and place them on horseback. The Assyrians now had their own version of a horse archer, but the problem was they wore little or no armor. This made the Assyrian horse archer vulnerable to attacks from other horse archers better armored and trained in the rudiments of archery from horseback.
Ashurbanipal II meets a high official after a successful battle. (Public Domain)
Tiglath-pileser III took note of what is already in use pertaining to his own force and admired what could be adopted and improved upon into his own cavalry units. Tiglath-pileser invested in developing better cavalry units whereas their enemies later on (such as the Cimmerians and Scythians) continued to evolve into much better fighting forces that adapted to the natural conditions and to the conduct of their enemies— in other words, to improvise, adapt, overcome.
After conquering a portion of western Media, Tiglath-pileser incorporated Median cavalry into his own army and from then on, effectively changed the nature of the Assyrian cavalry from charioteer teams to mounted warriors armed with bow and spear. The days of the chariot as master of the battlefield were nearing an end but were not yet over. Over time, the Assyrian army had three types of cavalry. The first type was light cavalry, which consisted of Medes and other nomads who were quick and who primarily used the bow and javelin. Next were the Assyrian heavy archers. This unit consisted of men in heavy scale body armor. Finally, the heavy cavalrymen were fully armored and designed for fighting heavy infantry. However, the Assyrian use of heavy cavalry for shock is uncertain. Cavalry under Tiglath-pileser III on through to Sargon II seem to be primarily skirmishers. There is, however, cavalry depicted during the time of Sargon II on reliefs which are shown to be carrying spears and charging into battle, which may suggest the evolution of the Assyrian shock cavalry was well underway. Tiglath-pileser III and his successors loved the new cavalry so much that they replaced most of the chariot units with elite cavalry units over time. To put this into perspective, the king, his nobles, and the warrior elite were the only ones permitted to use the chariot.
Assyrian artwork from ninth century BC at British Museum. (CC BY 2.0)
Assyrian infantry can be divided into three types: spearmen, archers, and slingers. Spearmen were well armored and are the foundation of the Assyrian army. Their primary function was to provide defense and offense. When on the defensive it was the spearmen’s job to support the skirmishing and cavalry units, to maneuver around them and find targets that could be softened up, which would take pressure off the lines and allow the infantry to go on the offensive. These Spearmen were armed with a shield, spear, and a dagger or short sword.
Assyrian Soldier with Standing Shield, Soldier with Small Shield, Archer. (Public Domain)
Archers were also well armored and used a recurve bow. In some reliefs, Assyrian archers are accompanied by a shield bearer who provided protection as the archer discharged his arrow. Archers in battle were usually placed in front of the heavy infantry ranks to shower arrows down upon the enemy before retreating behind the spearmen once the enemy was too close for comfort. Assyrian archers in the reliefs also appear to be wearing short swords as well.
Another skirmishing unit utilized to harass the enemy was slingers. Slingers, as their name applies, slung well-rounded rocks at the enemy. While the distance was not as great as an archer, the power generated upon release caused tremendous damage as it was meant to crush, unlike the arrow, which was used to pierce. Slingers, like archers, would be out in front of the spearmen harassing the enemy infantry or, engaging the enemy skirmishing detachments.
Sling Stones, Tel Lachish, 701 BCE. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
However, Assyrian horse archers and those carrying javelins could and did act as skirmishing detachments who could, with the right covering fire from the archers, could quickly ride up on the enemy lines, whether infantry or skirmishers, and discharge their projectiles before riding off.
The Siege of Lachish will be our Example
Once they set up camp outside their intended target, the Assyrian military force, when arrayed, occupied roughly an area of 2,500 yards across and 100 yards deep. The supplies for such a force would have been massive. The number of calories and amount of water a single Assyrian soldier would need to function comes to 3,402 calories a day and nine quarts of water. This does not include the amount of food needed to feed the pack animals haul the equipment. Once the Assyrian army was finally in place before the walls of an enemy city, the consuming and waste began and the need to finish the job quickly set in.
So how did the Assyrians deploy for a siege? An Assyrian siege begins with a messenger. According to 2 Kings 18:17-37 they would send a messenger to deliver the ultimatum, which was ‘surrender or die’. However, it seems most cities chose to fight than give in to the attacker.
Once the Assyrian army had isolated the city, they would begin to construct siege works on the spot. At the siege of Lachish in 701 BCE, Sennacherib’s siege crew deployed prefabricated battering rams, which required assembly on the spot. While the construction of siege engines was underway, the Assyrian infantry would begin to build earthen ramps leading to the weakest point in the city walls. The men building the ramps were likely under the protection of Assyrian archers and slingers.
Assyrian archers during a siege would push forward, wearing a long coat of mail and carrying a man-sized reed shield with a bent back to protect him from enemy fire. The Archer would carry an Assyrian composite bow, which required two to string. These heavy bowmen could easily get into position and pelt the enemy on the walls, thus negating interference with the men below who were constructing the siege ramps.
The same goes for the Assyrian slingers, who also were good at harassing the enemy with projectiles as the ramp drew closer to the city walls as they could hit high-angled targets who hid behind the parapets.
Assyrian attack on a town with archers and a wheeled battering ram, 865–860 BC. (Public Domain)
Chariots were deployed as light mobile artillery that could aid in hitting targets on the walls. In one sense, they were a great addition to keeping the defenders from firing back too often, for each volley the archers and slingers could fire, the charioteer archers could deliver another volley and quickly get out of harm’s way.
After the earthen ramps were finished, teams of infantry, aided with the protection of archers to cover their approach, began to push the heavy siege machines forward into position. One such siege engine that was very effective against enemy fortification was the Assyrian battering ram. During the siege of Lachish, King Sennacherib (704-681 BCE) deployed several battering rams simultaneously towards the weakest points of the walls. One of the big differences when comparing these rams with those of the past is that Sennacherib had the battering pole extended. This allowed a greater degree of reach and leverage. When looking at the reliefs depicting the siege of Lachish, one will notice archers atop the device as it moves forward. There are two likely reasons for this. First, as the battering ram is moved forward, enemy along the wall could possibly throw an incendiary device, which could cause the ram to catch fire. Placing archers atop the vehicle allows them to pick off those wishing to set the ram a blaze. The second reason is to protect the infantry moving behind the ram.
Assyrian troops attacking a besieged city using a battering ram on a siege ramp. Enemy archers are returning fire. Headless corpses lie at the foot of the city walls. (Public Domain)
While the ram attempted to smash and loosen the rocky walls, Assyrian assault teams with scaling ladders would try to breach walls. The ram, while effective, was also vulnerable to enemy defenders dropping chains to pull the battering pole aside. Because of this issue, the Assyrians deployed men who counter this by hooking the chains with iron grapples. The prophet Joel gives a description of the Assyrian wall scaling:
They charge like warriors;
they scale walls like soldiers.
They all march in line,
not swerving from their course.
They do not jostle each other;
each marches straight ahead.
They plunge through defenses
without breaking ranks.
They rush upon the city;
they run along the wall.
They climb into the houses;
like thieves they enter through the windows. – Joel 2:7-9.
Top Image: Assyrian relief of horsemen with spears. Bodies fly in their wake. From Nimrud, now in the British Museum (CC BY-SA 3.0)
By Cam Rea
References
Archer, Christon I. World History of Warfare. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.
Campbell, Duncan B. Besieged: Siege Warfare in the Ancient World. Oxford: Osprey, 2006.
Carey, Brian Todd, Joshua B. Allfree, and John Cairns. Warfare in the Ancient World. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Military, 2005.
David, Richard, Barnett and Margarete Falkner. The sculptures of Aššur-nasir-apli II, 883-859 B.C., Tiglath-pileser III, 745-727 B.C. [and] Esarhaddon, 681-669 B.C., from the central and south-west palaces at Nimrud. (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1962.
Eadie, John W., “The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry” The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1/2 (1967), 161-173.
Fagan, Garrett G., and Matthew Trundle. New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Gabriel, Richard A. Great Captains of Antiquity. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2001.
Gabriel, Richard A. The Culture of War: Invention and Early Development. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.
Gabriel, Richard A. The Military History of Ancient Israel. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2003.
Soldiers’ Lives through History – The Ancient World. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2006.
Healy, Mark, and Angus McBride. The Ancient Assyrians. London: Osprey, 1991.
Kern, Paul Bentley. Ancient Siege Warfare. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999.
Nosov, K., and V. Golubev. Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons: A Fully Illustrated Guide to Siege Weapons and Tactics. Guilford, Conn: Lyons Press, 2005.
Oded, Bustenay. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979.
Rawlinson, George, Ancient Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World Vol I, (New York: Lovell, Coryell & CO, 1881.
Roberts, Janet “Centering the World”: Trees as Tribute in the Ancient Near East.” Transoxiana Journal Libre de Estudios Orientales.http://www.transoxiana.com.ar/11/roberts-near_east_trees.html (accessed August 11, 2016, 2011).
Saggs, H. W. F. The Might That Was Assyria. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984.
Vuksic, V. & Z. Grbasic, Cavalry: The History of a Fighting Elite, (London: Cassell, 1993
Sir John Hawkwood was born into a life on the English countryside that was business and rebellion. From an early age, he sought power and influence outside of England’s borders. He showed off his battle skills in the Hundred Years War and won a knighthood from England’s king.
Hawkwood the man was indeed an interesting character: a brilliant tactician, and an equally brilliant politician, but in his life, he would terrorize Italy with armies and bands of mercenaries, amass a great fortune, and cement his place in history as the most famous Anglo-Italian mercenary.
Engraving representing John Hawkwood. (Public Domain)
Beginnings of Business
Hawkwood was born around 1320, in the parish of Hinckford, Essex, which is located in the north-central region of the county. Essex County was known for its farming and sheep; it had a thriving business sector that produced cloth and exported raw wool. Essex also produced anti-authoritarianism. In 1381, the people revolted against the crown in a large social uprising. The county of Essex in the 14th century was indeed a business class society that did not take well to authority. This attitude harbored by the locals may have influenced the young Hawkwood early on in his life.
John was the youngest child of Gilbert de Hawkwood, but he shared the same name as his older brother. John’s social situation is contrary to what past historians claimed, said to have come from a low ranking family, and was himself a poor soldier later on in his life. This, however, is not true, for John grew up in a wealthy business family. His father was supposedly a tanner who owned land, and even had a maidservant to take care of the day-to-day chores around the house.
In 1340, John’s father died. The will Gilbert left behind divided the share each child of his received. The elder John got the largest of the share and stayed at home to run the business, while the younger John left home with his share.
Hawkwood The Military Man
The younger John Hawkwood took his share and moved to London. Once Hawkwood made it to London, he worked as a tailor or a tailor in training, an apprentice. However true this story is about Hawkwood working and training to be a tailor remains in dispute. It is also said that tailors during this period were looked down upon in terms of serving in the military. However, it did not stop Hawkwood, for when Edward III began to recruit men for his army (which he planned on taking to France in order to claim the French throne), Hawkwood tossed the needle for the sword and joined the army along with his neighbors back home – one of whom happened to be John de Vere, his lord back in Essex, and wealthy families such as the Listons, Coggeshales and Bourchiers.
John de Vere assembled an army of 40 men-at-arms, 10 knights, 29 esquires and 30 mounted archers to serve Edward III. Wool was provided to the men as pay; a total 56 sacks of wool was to be brought with them. As for Hawkwood’s role in John de Vere’s army, this remains uncertain. However, it is said that he may have started in 1342 as an archer.
Hawkwood and the Hundred Years War
He may have had humble beginnings in the army, but Hawkwood’s ambitious goal was to one day retire to these lands and that goal would start with the battle of Crecy in 1346.
Battle of Crécy between the English and French in the Hundred Years’ War. 15th century. (Public Domain)
Hawkwood’s archery skills are said to have started when Edward banned games such as football, cricket, hockey, cockfighting and so on. King Edward wanted his men to focus on archery, particularly using the English longbow. Hawkwood must have been a good pupil when it came to master the bow, for at the battle of Crecy in 1346, he held the rank of captain on the battlefield and commanded a company of 250 archers led by de Vere. After the battle of Crecy in 1346, Hawkwood seems to have disappeared.
Village sign at Crécy-en-Ponthieu, Picardy commemorating the Battle of Crécy, 26 August 1346. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Between Crecy and the battle of Poitiers, Hawkwood appears to be only mentioned twice, but in a negative light, so it seems. The first known record tells us he and another beat a man almost to death in a place called Finchingfield in 1350, and then he committed theft a year later. Hawkwood’s life outside the military seemed to be like that on the battlefield. In other words, Hawkwood was broke and in need of booty.
These two unflattering events are all that is known about Hawkwood outside the military, for he again disappears in the historical record and it is speculated that he returned to France and rejoined de Vere’s forces and maybe even married one of de Vere’s daughters. Nevertheless, Hawkwood’s case will always have speculation, but one can gather that he did return to France, was married, did have a daughter, and is recorded to have been at the battle of Poitiers in 1356.
In 1356, at the Battle of Poitiers, Hawkwood is said to have distinguished himself in the field of battle by winning his spurs. In other words, John Hawkwood was not just John Hawkwood anymore; he was Sir John Hawkwood, for the spurs he won made him a knight. The recommendation of knighthood that be awarded to Hawkwood was by the Earl of Oxford. After Poitiers, Hawkwood was involved in the raids on Gascony province, particularly raiding the city of Pau. Nevertheless, all well ends well or so we think, for in 1360, the treaty of Brétigny was signed between England and France, thus ending the Hundred Years War in theory.
A few historians mention Hawkwood’s status by the end of the war. The historian Philip Morant from Essex says that Hawkwood was “the poorest of knight,” while Froissart calls him “a poor knight.” Overall, Hawkwood was rich in title, but lacked the wealth to be noble. This is where his life as a mercenary was about to begin.
Hawkwood the Mercenary
John Hawkwood had only two options in his life; return home as a commoner, or stay in France and become a mercenary. This second option was preferred, as he could make money that would help him climb the ladder of nobility and service.
In 1360, Hawkwood joined up as a freebooter or mercenary group that was called “Les Tart-Venus”, which means ‘Late-Comers’. Men in positions like John Hawkwood were allowed to stay in France and conduct war. The reason is that once Edward III signed the Brétigny Treaty, he gave the order for his men to pull out of France and return to English soil. However, Edward III allowed raids to take place in France unofficially. The reason Edward allowed this was to see if he could gain a much greater deal from the French king. So how did the English soldiers stay? According to medieval author Jean Froissart, King Edward had high-ranking men encourage those seeking to return home to stay in France and continue on their destructive path—and why not? If the English soldiers returned home, they returned to nothing, for they were at the moment unemployed. However, if they turned to face the French countryside, they would soon notice that money was abundant and opportunity for warfare never-ending. All these men had to do was claim no country, as was the case of Hawkwood.
The Great Company and Heaven over Money
In December 1360, Hawkwood and his men arrived at, and captured the French town of Pont-Saint-Esprit, along with the help of other mercenaries, and together they became known as “The Great Company.”
Hawkwood had a much bigger prize in mind, however: the town of Avignon. Avignon was the capital where the Pope, himself lived. Hawkwood saw Avignon as prime pickings, for if the Pope lived there then money was there, for the money that flowed to and from the Papacy was linked with all the major kingdoms of Christendom. Hawkwood and many others saw a great investment in harassing Pope Innocent.
The city of Avignon was surrounded and cut off by the various bands of mercenaries, including Hawkwood’s men. The city had no way of getting food, and the population was slowly beginning to starve, not to mention that the plague was back in France again. The Pope was all but powerless. He ordered the mercenaries to disperse and go home, but the mercenaries said no, so the Pope excommunicated them, but the mercenaries could care less. This left Pope Innocent with one last option. He announced a crusade to come and defeat the mercenaries that surround Avignon.
The Pope was able to summon seven thousand men to go and besiege Pont-Saint-Esprit in early February 1361. However, it failed, and Froissart mentions that the reason why the crusaders lifted the siege on Pont-Saint-Esprit was due to not being paid. The Pope had promised Heaven over money.
Despite the ‘heavenly’ offer, many of the crusaders packed up and returned home while others went over to the “Free or Great Company Side.” Because of this, the Pope and the cardinals debated as to what to do with the mercenaries. In the end, they summoned for a man by the name of Marquis of Monferrato. Monferrato was the Imperial Vicar of Piedmont as well as Lord of Turin. It was his job to hire the mercenaries and to take them back to Northern Italy to fight against Milan. Thus, the Pope paid Monferrato a huge sum of money to decontaminate the land around Avignon of plague, but also to fight Milan. Hawkwood signed up.
It is recorded that Hawkwood was sending money back home to his older brother John to make the investments for him, which in turn made the family wealthy, even during the plague years, which seemingly did not hinder their economic growth. This could be true, for the Pope is said to have paid one hundred thousand florins to the companies: thirty thousand went to the men, while Monferrato paid the men sixty thousand more florins to hire them. This would have given each man 15 florins apiece, maybe more, for the men in charge of the bands, like Hawkwood, may have been paid more due to rank, but it is not known for certain.
White Company
Hawkwood returned to France in 1361 to fight the French as a part of the Great Company. Hawkwood finally returned and stayed permanently in Italy with a group of Anglo-German mercenaries called ‘condottieri’, effectively ‘contractors’.
Bartolomeo d’Alviano, a Condottieri. (Public Domain)
A man named Albert Sterz led the condottieri until December 1363. Hawkwood took over the condottieri band of Pisa and reorganize them into the famous English mercenaries, called “White Company.” From then on Hawkwood’s fame grew ever-increasingly due to his men’s military professionalism as seasoned veterans.
In 1365, a man named Egidio Albornoz approached Hawkwood with a war chest of 200,000 florins provided by the Pope. The payment was intended for Hawkwood to attack the Visconti who had been molesting church lands in central Italy for some time. He took the battlefield and did well until he began to lose to Visconti, and Hawkwood made the decision to retreat to the castle of San Mariano.
Modern photograph of San Mariano, Perugia, Umbria, Italy. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Hawkwood and his men held out for some time, but due to thirst, they begged for peace. The besiegers led by Albert Sterz (who was once Hawkwood’s friend), knew that it was better to keep these men alive than to kill them, for they were worth money—not as prisoners, but rather as mercenaries. In the end, 2024 men surrendered and all their belongings they had with them was given over as booty to Albert Sterz.
Sterz had won the day and was showered with glory from the people of Perugia. However, Sterz was about to betray everything he had achieved with the Perugian’s. Hawkwood and his men were now in prison, but that was not going to last long. Hawkwood managed to escape along with many of his knights. How Hawkwood did it remains unknown, but when Sterz had found out, he pursued Hawkwood. Hawkwood and his men were on the run looking for money to pay for the men locked up in Perugian prisons. Sterz chased Hawkwood relentlessly until he had to give up. The only problem was that Hawkwood not only escaped Sterz’s grasp, he was now in the arms of the city of Genoa, which happened to seat the most powerful rulers in Italy.
Wealth and Prestige: Glory Days!
Sir John Hawkwood arrived in Milan with open arms to a man named Bernabo. He was the leader of Milan, or co-leader with his brother Galeazzo. Bernabo was a military man who led his men with the sword. So why did Bernabo want Hawkwood to lead his army? He needed an insurance policy.
Bernabo was eyeing some lands to the south and he needed Hawkwood to lead an army as its general, unofficially, and at the same time mentor a person by the name of Telemachus. Both men rode out of Milan with the newly-created “Army of Saint George” numbering ten thousand in October of 1365.
Their destination was the lands of Siena, where they burned and looted for over twenty miles. They also torched Santa Colomba, Marmoraia, Buonconvento, Roccastrada, Berardenga, and the abbey of San Galgano. In addition, Hawkwood defeated a militia raised by Siena, captured its leader, and ransomed him for 10,000 florins. Later Hawkwood changed his mind and brought the ransom down to 500 florins. Hawkwood left the company of Saint George in 1366.
Hawkwood served the duke of Milan again from 1368 to 1372 and then for the Pope from 1372-1377. Hawkwood’s service to the Pope was one of wealth and prestige, for the mercenary extorted a large sum of money from the raids he conducted on Tuscany, which resulted in about 130,000 florins in 1375.
An Ambassador by the name of Peruzzi wanted the people of Florence to rise up against this marauder, but they would not listen and instead gave Hawkwood an annual pension of 1,200 a year with no taxes attached. One can safely say that Hawkwood bled the bank nearly dry in Florence, sparking one of the most famous wars in Italian history, the “War of the Eight Saints.”
Hawkwood not only made more money and gained some lands in Romagna, but he was also unfortunately involved in the atrocity of killing civilian populations of Faenza and Cesena. Overall, the war allowed Hawkwood to take advantage of the Pope’s money. Florence had paid him an enormous amount of money and now the Pope had to pay up to show his support.
After the war, Hawkwood served the Republic of Florence in 1377, but not exclusively. His contract was to command an army of 800 lances and 500 archers for one year. Hawkwood and his men received a double payment each month, making Hawkwood’s share 3,200 florins every month, while each lance got 42 florins, and his archers received anywhere between 16 and 28 florins. Besides his annual pay, Hawkwood sold the entire city of Faenza for 50,000 or 60,000 florins. The mercenary from Essex was making money hand over fist.
Fresco of Italian soldiers from 1467. (Public Domain)
With all the wealth and prestige gained by his mixed bag of adventures, Hawkwood was presented another prize— Donnina Visconti, the illegitimate daughter of Bernabo, Duke of Milan. Bernabo gave Hawkwood even more in estates and money as well as gifts of jewelry. The wedding was just more than the union of two peoples in holy matrimony; it was a political union, in which Bernabo now had the most powerful man in Italy in his hip pocket through marital ties. Hawkwood was beyond rich for he owned lands throughout Italy, received a huge pension, along with the money he made by raiding and extorting the various provinces in Italy, including the Vatican.
Hawkwood continued his bold ways throughout Italy, for after the wedding he extorted money out of the Bolognese. He then attacked Faenze, the city that he had sold two months earlier!
In 1381, Hawkwood got a request to be King Richard II of England’s ambassador to the Roman court. However, one of his biggest victories came at the battle of Castagnaro in 1387, in which he showed why the use of longbow and dismounted knights in English fighting tactics won the day, but more than that, it was a series of battles that made Sir John Hawkwood a name to be remembered. Nevertheless, all good things must end, and for Hawkwood, so did life. At the height of his power and wealth, he died of a stroke in 1394.
Sir John Hawkwood, however you take him, was a king among mercenaries.
Featured image: Detail of Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood by Paolo Uccello (1436). (CC BY-SA 3.0)
By Cam Rea
References
Bradbury, Jim. The Routledge companion to medieval warfare. New York: Routledge, 2007.
Caferro, William. John Hawkwood: an English mercenary in fourteenth-century Italy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.
Froissart, Jean. The Chronicles. London: MacMillian and Co, 1895.
Leader, Temple John. Sir John Hawkwood: Story of a Condottiere. London: Urwin, 1880.
Saunders, Frances Stonor. The Devil’s Broker: Seeking Gold, God, and Glory in Fourteenth-Century Italy. New York: Harper Perennial, 2006.
Villalon, L. J. Andrew, and Donald J Kagay. The Hundred Years War: (Part II) Different Vistas (History of Warfare). Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2008.
Wagner, John A. Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. New York: Greenwood Press, 2006.
During the reign of King Solomon, it is said Israel for the first time was at peace with most of its neighbors, according to the Bible. Moreover, peace allowed the United Kingdom of Israel to flourish in commercial activity as well as exploration. This was attributed to Solomon’s nature. Unlike his father King David, who was a man of war, Solomon was believed to be the exact opposite; Solomon was a man of rest or peace, at least when it came to foreign policy. (I Chr 22:7-9)
He was all about building and enterprise, as well as building trustworthy relationships with those around him, such as with his father’s friend King Hiram of Tyre. (I Kings 5.1) King Hiram of Tyre was a Phoenician; the name ‘Phoenician’ was a term the Greeks would use to indicate the people dwelling in what is today the country of Lebanon. During the reigns of David and Solomon, the Phoenicians were known for their trade and the establishment of colonies throughout the Mediterranean Sea and possibly beyond.
Phoenician ship Carved on the face of a sarcophagus. 2nd century AD. (Elie plus/CC BY SA 3.0)
The United Kingdom of Israel and the city-states of Phoenicia were not only allies but also joint allies in the realm of economics, from here on out and in greater magnitude than before.
Wealthy Lands Unknown
This relationship between the two peoples began after David captured Jerusalem, Hiram “sent envoys to David, along with cedar logs and carpenters and stonemasons, and they built a palace for David.”(2 Sam 5:11) This indicates that before David captured Jerusalem, he was already in a political and economic alliance with Hiram. From this moment, Israel and Phoenicia invested into each other.
Painting illustrating David, King of Israel. (Public Domain)
The Israelites, along with the Phoenicians had already established trade routes in the Mediterranean Sea; Solomon wanted to expand the routes by building a naval port on the Red Sea at a place called Ezion-geber in the land of Edom. It was here at Ezion-geber that Hiram sent his shipbuilders to construct a merchant fleet for King Solomon, which would be manned by Phoenician sailors and most likely Hebrew ones as well.
The Via Maris (purple), King’s Highway (red), and other ancient Levantine trade routes, c. 1300 BCE. (CC BY SA 3.0)
Once established, they set off from Ezion-geber towards faraway lands looking to establish new trade routes and to procure new items of commercial interest from the locals. Among such faraway lands mentioned is a place called Ophir (the true location of which has never been determined). Once the ships returned from Ophir, items like gold, valuable almug trees, and precious stones were unloaded off the ships. (I Kings 9:26-28; 10:11) Another land mentioned in the Bible is a place called Tarshish.
Tarshish is of great interest, for it is said to have taken three years to go to and to come back from in total. The ships that went to Tarshish, were made at Ezion-geber, and most likely were launched from there, and made their way back to Ezion-geber or even to one of the cities along the coast of Israel or Phoenicia.
Once they came from Tarshish, such stock and items as gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks were delivered. As to where Tarshish is truly located, it is unknown, but the name is of interest, for the name, ‘Tarshish’ is also the name of a patriarch in the tribe of Benjamin. It could be possible that Tarshish is named after that clan, and it could be possible that portions of the clan were in charge of Tarshish hence the name. (I Kings 10:22; I Ch 7:10)
Rich Arabia
Trade with Arabia was said to be another moneymaker for Solomon. This trade route focused primarily to the south of Israel, and become more significant after the arrival of Queen Sheba.
The Bible makes it clear in the book of I Kings that Sheba wanted to meet this wise man named Solomon. So she sweetened the deal and arrived with a camel trade full of spices, gold, precious stones, and all that was in her heart. Because of this connection, many stories about the two have been speculated upon for generations, but have ultimately remained a mystery. But the meeting, according to the Bible, indicates another economical connection for Solomon’s kingdom.
Not only did Sheba bring in a new trade route to Solomon’s coffers, the word of the event most likely went out beyond the borders of Israel, for then the merchants of Arabia brought spices and even the kings of Arabia all beckoned for trade and wisdom. (I Kings 10:1-10, 13, 15) Moreover, it may well be possible that a connection with the Indian subcontinent was established.
The Copper King
The copper mines were another commodity that were used for building and trade as well. During the time of Solomon, copper was in great abundance, but no evidence of copper mines in use during the 10th century BCE have ever been found through archeological research. However, there may be an answer to this question as to why Solomon is sometimes referred to as the “copper king.”
Solomon was possessed of wealth and wisdom, according to the Bible. (Public Domain)
Solomon’s father, King David was said by biblical records to have hoarded vast amounts of copper through his conquest and possible trade with the Phoenicians. (I Ch 18:8; 22: 3, 14) The Phoenicians during the time of the reigns of David and Solomon mined vast amounts of various metals from their colonies during this period, particularly from the British Isles. So, to say Solomon had no mines is true to a certain extent, but the Bible and historical chronicles suggest that Solomon got his copper from the vast amount collected by David and from the trade with the Phoenicians and their various colonies throughout. Thus, it is partially correct in referring to Solomon as a “copper king”, but must be understood from what you have just read that such a title was due to the vast amounts that were used, especially and presumably for the building of a temple in Jerusalem among other things.
Horses and Chariots
Solomon is also said to have had a fancy for buying horses and chariots with all the wealth he had gained. Solomon bought an abundance of horses from a place called Cilicia as well as chariots from Egypt. (I King 10:28-29) The description from the verse suggests that Israel was not in the manufacturing business of chariots, and thus depended on others to build them for them at a hefty price.
In addition, the reason why Solomon spent money on horses from Cilicia is that they are considered the finest of the region. The same goes for Egypt when it came to the chariot. Why not have the best of both worlds, when you have the money to afford it—especially Solomon who had a vast amount of money, due to trade and commerce.
With such a massive amount of wealth built up, Solomon needed a fighting force that was well equipped, with only the best money could afford in order to protect all that he had gained, whether it was threatened by a foreign or domestic threat.
Because of the lucrative deals and military practicality of the chariot, Solomon continued to buy, and in doing so fortified Israel, for “He built up Lower Beth Horon, Baalath, and Tadmor in the desert, within his land, as well as all his store cities and the towns for his chariots and for his horses—whatever he desired to build in Jerusalem, in Lebanon and throughout all the territory he ruled.” (1 Kings 9:17-19).
Egyptian horses and chariots: Ramses II fighting in a chariot at the Battle of Kadesh with two archers, one with the reins tied around his waist to free both hands. Relief from Abu Simbel. (Public Domain)
Solomon, who established Israel’s first charioteer corps, according to I Kings 9:22, greatly expanded it to include 1,400 chariots along with 12,000 horses, which were housed in 4,000 stalls stationed in chariot cities. (1 Kings 10:26).
While the Bible provides historians and scholars with information about how many chariots were under Solomon, it says little of the manufacturer. Many point to I Kings 10:29, which mentions Egypt as the manufacturer of Solomon’s war chariots. While this is true, it might also be considered somewhat false. Yes, Solomon did purchase chariots from Egypt for 600 shekels of silver, but they were not war chariots.
When reading the verse, the Hebrew term used for chariot is merkaba. The merkaba was a luxury display chariot equipped with costly steeds, built for kings, princes, and nobility. The Bible also mentions Absalom and Adonijah as possessing this fine vehicle. (2 Sam 8:11; 1 Kings 1:5). So why was Solomon buying these luxury chariots? The answer is he was making money. What Solomon was probably doing was buying fabulous chariots from Egypt and selling them to the Hittite and Aramean elites.
Legendary Riches
With wealth acquired from foreign trade and good relations with their neighbors, so was created a standing fighting force that could protect the peace of Israel and its majesty. Not only was it believed that Solomon prospered, but also so did the people of Israel.
According to biblical accounts, Solomon had set up a large system of administration in order to execute his plan of action for the nation of Israel. Many heads were selected to look over trade and commerce as well as the spiritual side of things. One would need a large business body to make sure every shekel was accounted for, and to be given to those who labor, and a fraction taken from those who trade. (I Kings 4: 1-19)
In addition, many military men were selected to look over the military operations in order to secure the borders of Israel, and with the advancement in prosperity, the army only got bigger. (I Kings 9:22-23) It is said even the common person felt good about the situation, and once again, in the book of I Kings, we notice that the Israelites as a whole were eating and drinking and being merry as one, with no problems or concerns. (I Kings 4:20, 25)
As time goes on, one notices later on the book of I Kings that Israel seemed to become even richer, with a greater magnitude on material goods and feasting. (I Kings 10:21, 27). Along with this prosperity, to the people of Israel came a population boom as well. Some suggest that maybe Israel doubled in size to about 800,000 people from the time of Saul due to the economic wealth showered unto them. With such wealth came more births due to increased income. Even foreigners may have contributed to the overall population boom of Israel during the time of Solomon. With so much money in hand and with a growing population one would think that security was needed during these times of economic expansion throughout the Holy Land.
Solomon’s Temple
Due to the expansion and trade with foreign relations that Solomon and his father beforehand had set up, the money that was accrued is believed to have led to the creation of the first Temple in Jerusalem. According to biblical accounts, this is the greatest creation Solomon had built during his reign.
The Hebrew Bible says that the First Temple was built in 957 BCE by King Solomon, but destroyed by Babylonians in 586 BCE. The above is Herod’s Temple (or the second temple said to be built atop the first) as imagined in the Holyland Model of Jerusalem. (Public Domain)
In an artistic representation, King Solomon dedicates the Temple at Jerusalem (painting by James Tissot or follower, c. 1896–1902) (Public Domain)
However, there was other public works created as well. The cities of Hazor, Jerusalem, Megiddo, and Gezer, were said to be all revised and updated. In addition, there were a number of new cities built throughout Israel, which functioned as military posts for both horse and chariot. Overall, Solomon had bought and built Israel up into an economic powerhouse.
Heavy Taxes, Slavery and the fall of Solomon and Israel
However, even Solomon with all his wealth and power was reputed to be burdened by money problems. The income gained could not keep up with the cost, and Solomon had to do something; that something was called heavy taxation.
Twelve districts were set up for taxation by oversight including the Canaanite city-states. (I Kings 4:7-19) Nevertheless, things got even worse, for now forced labor was upon the people—but not the Israelites, it was focused on non-Israelites (Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites), and these became corvée workers, conscripts and slaves.
Now due to amount of money owed to others by Solomon, he had to do something that would cut the costs, and forced labor was a sure way to get your men to work for only food. (I Kings 9:2-22) The next biggest blow to Solomon was the need for money so badly that he was forced to sell some of his own territory to make ends meet. Solomon sold a number of towns along the coast to the King of Tyre. It must have been the lowest point for Solomon.
In conclusion, it is believed that Solomon was born in a debt free family and society that his father created beforehand. Moreover, if there was any debt it seemingly did not burden the people. Solomon’s reputed wisdom brought traffic of great wealth and great adventure for his nation and those around him. His vast networks of trade, whether by sea-lanes that crisscross the Mediterranean or along the Via Maris and King’s Highway trade routes leading to Mesopotamia, allowed many building projects to commence and expansion of the military due to the influx of wealth.
However, due to the massive building projects and unpopular policies he is said to have undertaken came the burdening of debt and despair. Solomon, with all his wisdom, was not wise enough to stop his own self, once he started.
Solomon’s early reign may have been as described in 1 Kings 4:20-21:
The people of Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand on the seashore; they ate, they drank and they were happy. And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These countries brought tribute and were Solomon’s subjects all his life.
Once centralization began to kick in so did the needs of the state, such as taxes in monetary form or in the form of corvée labor or slavery to pay for the military and public works. This burden is indicated in 1 Kings 12:11 by Solomon’s son King Rehoboam when he stated, “My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.”
These continued unpopular policies caused Israel to go from prosperity to debt. If the civilian population suffered greatly and was placed in debt, it is without a doubt that corruption and abuse from the bureaucratic officials also added to the fire and weakness of the Solomonic state, which naturally would filter down to the military ranks.
Because of this, internal conflicts led to the fracturing of Israel’s sphere of influence and Israel itself, for when Solomon died, tribes revolted and the Kingdom of Israel split into two, with the Kingdom of Israel to the north and the Kingdom of Judah to the south. While this split seems beneficial in curtailing the powers that be, it did not. Instead, both Israelite kingdoms would continue the same old sins that caused the once united kingdom to fracture.
While it would be easy to blame the rise and fall of Israel wealth and power on Solomon, it would not be completely fair. If anyone might be also responsible for the fall of Israel, it was the Israelite chieftains seeking an authority to prosper from as Samuel had warned against, and as mentioned in 1 Samuel 8:10-18.
Featured image: The Visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon (Public Domain)
By Cam Rea
References
Albright, William. The Biblical period from Abraham to Ezra. New York: Harper & Row , 1963.
Beitzel, Barry J. Biblica: The Bible Atlas – A Social and Historical Journey Through the Lands of the Bible. London: New Holland Publishers Ltd , 2007.
Collins, Steven M. Israel’s Lost Empires. Royal Oaks, MI: Bible Blessings, 2002.
—. The Origins and Empire of Ancient Israel. Royal Oaks, MI: Bible Blessings, 2002.
Keller, Werner. The Bible As History. New York: Bantam Books, 1982.
Version, King James. Holy Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997.
Pure gold precipitate produced by the aqua regia refining process Public Domain
I came across a quote by Herodotus awhile back on Classical Wisdom Weekly’s facebook page. The main theme was “giant gold-digging ants.” Sounds fanciful, right? Well, behind every myth is a general truth. I think we all can agree on that. Herodotus states in The Histories book 3.102:
Besides these, there are Indians of another tribe, who border on the city of Caspatyrus, and the country of Pactyica; these people dwell northward of all the rest of the Indians, and follow nearly the same mode of life as the Bactrians. They are more warlike than any of the other tribes, and from them the men are sent forth who go to procure the gold. For it is in this part of India that the sandy desert lies. Here, in this desert, there live amid the sand great ants, in size somewhat less than dogs, but bigger than foxes. The Persian king has a number of them, which have been caught by the hunters in the land whereof we are speaking. Those ants make their dwellings under ground, and like the Hellene ants, which they very much resemble in shape, throw up sand-heaps as they burrow. Now the sand which they throw up is full of gold.1
Understand that Herodotus had never been to India or anywhere nearby. One would think that even Herodotus would have been skeptical of the supposed giant gold-digging ants. However, I could be wrong?
There may be truth to this story after all, no, not the giant ants, but men who may have looked like ants. They were not ants but Saka (Scythians) Tigraxauda.
The name Saka Tigraxauda also Tigra-Khaud is said to mean “Saka that wore pointed caps.” The name Tigra-Khaud is a corrupt form of the Sanskrit rendering of “Tigra-kakud.” When translated, Tigra-kakud means, “pointed projection,” which is a metaphor for horns. In the northern India province of Kashmir, it was said that unnatural sized ants “Tigra-kakud” dug for gold. This proved only to be Saka wearing a horned headdress as they dug for gold and attacked anyone who intruded on them like army ants. However, this description of the Saka wearing pointed hats is generic for most Saka wore pointed hats to some degree.2 The location of the Saka Tigraxauda was east of the Caspian Sea and found between the provinces of Hyrcania and Chorasmia.3 The Saka Tigraxauda are also suggested to have been none other than the Massagetae, even though not everyone agrees that they were.4
Scythian warriors, drawn after figures on an electrum cup from the Kul-Oba kurgan burial near Kerch, Crimea. The warrior on the right strings his bow, bracing it behind his knee; note the typical pointed hood, long jacket with fur or fleece trimming at the edges, decorated trousers, and short boots tied at the ankle. Scythians apparently wore their hair long and loose, and all adult men apparently bearded. The gorytos appears clearly on the left hip of the bare-headed spearman. The shield of the central figure may be made of plain leather over a wooden or wicker base. (Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg) Public Domain
However, another explanation comes from Herodotus once again. In book 3 passage 102-105, Herodotus mentions that the ants in question were slightly smaller than a dog but bigger than a fox. French ethnologist Michael Peissel suggests that the creature Herodotus called an ant was probably a Himalayan marmot that can be found on the Deosai Plateau in Gilgit-Baltistan province in modern-day Pakistan. The reason for this claim is that when Peissel interviews the Minaro tribe who lived on the Deosai Plateau. The Minaro informed him that they, like their ancestors, had been collecting gold dust from the marmots that bring it to the surface when they are burrowing.5
Himalayan marmot in central Asia. CC BY-SA 3.0
In conclusion, the gold-digging ants were either Saka or marmots. While both are a possibility, the Himalayan marmot may very well be the fabled ant known for gold digging.
If you wish to read a fictional about giant ants, please check out H.G. Wells’s book, “Empire of the Ants.” Check out the 1977 film if you wish. Not bad.
By Cam Rea
Notes
1. Herodotus, The Histories, 3. 102.
2. Swami Parmeshwaranand, Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Vedic Terms Vol. 2 Vol. 2. (New Delhi: Sarup & Sons, 2000), 455.
3. Guive Mirfendereski. “The Saka Nomenclature: A Persian appraisal” http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Scythian/saka_nomenclature.htm
4. David Christian, A History of Russia, Central Asia, and Mongolia (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1998), 130-131.
5. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/25/world/himalayas-offer-clue-to-legend-of-gold-digging-ants.html ; See also Michel Peissel, “The Ants’ Gold: The Discovery of the Greek El Dorado in the Himalayas”. Collins, 1984.
Arsaces’ historic invasion of Parthia was a process.
Before Arsaces I, King and founder of the Arsacid dynasty, and his brother, Tiridates captured Parthia, they appeared to be residing in the province previous to the appointment of Andragoras as satrap, or governor. Andragoras gained this position due to Arsaces and Tiridates killing the last two previous satraps by the names of Pherekles and Agathokles.
Information concerning the death of Pherekles by Arsaces is scant. Greek historian Arrian of Nicomedia states it was “to avenge an insult offered to one of them.” This insult provoked a rebellion, which led to the death of the satrap. While nothing more is provided, this small amount of info says much.
Roman, Seleucid, and Parthian Empires in 200 BC. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
During this period, Arsaces probably controlled the Kopet Dagh mountain range running east-west across the northern edge of the Iranian plateau that bordered the Seleucid province of Parthia. Being in such close proximity, it would not be unreasonable to think that Arsaces’ sphere of influence extended somewhat into the province of Parthia. If so, Arsaces possibly held a considerable amount of influence among the locals, who may have provided him with tribute for his protection services.
Furthermore, in both attacks on the province of Parthia, it would not be unreasonable to assume that Arsaces confiscated some territory within the Parthian satrapy.
View on the Kopetdag mountains from the Ahal plain, Turkmenistan. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
As mentioned, an insult caused Arsaces to strike, but the type of insult is unknown, leaving one to speculate.
Afterwards, Arsaces and his military wing fled back to the Kopet Dagh mountain range. While Arsaces traversed his holdings, the Seleucid king, Antiochus II Theos, appointed a new satrap to the province by the name of Agathokles.
Seeing that the situation on the ground in Parthia was still unstable, Arsaces decided to invade again and violently remove the satrap from power. One could suggest that this attack on Parthia was nothing more than a raid. However, there is no mention of a raid. Instead, Arsaces went straight for the satrap.
With the sudden death of Agathokles, Antiochus II appointed a new satrap by the name of Andragoras.
Coin of Andragoras, a Seleucid satrap of Parthia and later independent ruler of the region. (Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://www.cngcoins.com /CC BY-SA 3.0)
Andragoras is said to possibly be Persian, his original old Persian name being Narisanka. Information regarding Andragoras before his arrival to govern Parthia is limited. What is possible and speculative is that he served as a functionary during the reign of Antiochus I. If so, he would have possibly continued in this role for a period under Antiochus II. Shortly after his appointment, Andragoras found himself defending his seat of power against the same unwanted guests.
WHO WAS ARSACES?
The origins of King Arsaces, the man who would give birth to the ancient Arsacid Dynasty, remain elusive. Information is scant. The oldest known source is Strabo. Strabo, a Greek historian, states, “that Arsaces derives his origin from the Scythians, whereas others say that he was a Bactrian.” Justin, a Latin historian, states that Arsaces was “a man of uncertain origin.” It is evident that Strabo and Justin are unsure of Arsaces origins. While Justin makes no mention of Arsaces ethnicity, Strabo does to a point. In order to uncover precisely who Arsaces was and his possible origins, one must first examine the name Arsaces and the tribe from which he came.
The name Arsaces may or may not have been his real name or, possibly, a throne name, taken by all the descendants who held the same status. Chronicler Syncellus, who relied on the fragments of historian Arrian’s Parthika, mentions that Arsaces was a descendent of the Persian king Artaxerxes II. Syncellus’ information concerning the relationship comes from the fifth century BCE Greek physician and historian Ctesias.
Ctesias was the physician of King Artaxerxes II of Persia, and he compiled a history of Assyria and Persia called Persica during his stay. Ctesias mentions that Artaxerxes’ name before his ascent to the throne was Arsaces, “the king’s son, who afterward changed his name to Artaxerxes.” Moreover, Artaxerxes’ grandfather was king Artaxerxes I, whose name was rendered as Arshak/Arsaces, Babylonian Arshu.
Besides Arrian’s claim that the Arsacids were descendants of the Achaemenid Dynasty, there is a possibility that the two dynasties were medically related due to the presence of a rare disease known as neurofibromatosis. This physical deformity might have been seen as a sign that they were part of a ‘chosen’ few.
The Greek historian Plutarch, speaks of a deformity that King Artaxerxes I “was surnamed Longimanus, because his right hand was longer than his left.” Artaxerxes suffered from a disease called unilateral upper limb gigantism, which is associated with, but not strictly to, neurofibromatosis. Neurofibromatosis is rare and, according to researcher Hutan Ashrafian, “causes include congenital diseases, such as Proteus syndrome, Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber syndrome, neurofibromatosis, and macrodystrophia lipomatosa. They can also be acquired in cancers and lymphoedema.” Ashrafian makes the case that Neurofibromatosis may have been the cause of Artaxerxes’ deformity.
When it comes to the Parthian kings, Don Todman notes, “The nodule is first seen in the coins of Mithridates II (123–88BC) beneath the left eye and in the image of Orodes II (57–38BC) and in succeeding kings, including Phraates IV (38–2BC), the son of Orodes II. They appear on the faces of many but not all of the subsequent kings up to Vologases I (51BC–AD78) and Vardases II (55–AD58).”
Todman rules out the many other possibilities and further adds, “Neurofibromatosis, however, has a high degree of penetrance and autosomal dominant inheritance.” Todman concludes, “The lesions in the Parthian Kings is speculative” and that the “appearance of the nodule is consistent with Neurofibromatosis and the occurrence over multiple generations also accords with this hypothesis.” Therefore, the Arsacid dynasty may have used their genetic defect to strengthen their claim as the rightful heirs of the Persian Empire.
The name Arsaces is a Greek rendering of his Old Persian name Arshak, also rendered as Arsak, Asaac, or Asaak. The name Arsaces/Arshak suggests that he was of Saka/Scythian origin. This is due to the “Sac” or “Shak” found in his name. The Ar in Arshak quite possibly could mean Aryan in the Scythian language. In the Pahlavi dialect, the language of the Parthians, the word “Aryan” rendered as “Eran.” The “Er” in Pahlavi is said to mean “noble” or “warrior” and the suffix “an” attached to “Er” represents the relation. Thus, the name Eran can mean, “The noble race” or “the warrior race” along those lines.
MONEY TALKS
Another interesting aspect is one coin in particular that bears Arsaces’ image, but on the reverse of the coin, it has the Aramaic inscription of krny, translated as “Karen” or “Quren”. This is where the debate comes in. Either krny means “Commander-in-Chief,” or it is in reference to one of the powerful Parthian clans known as the House of Karen. The coin also bears his name ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ, translating as “Arsaces”. It seems to be the only coin of his minted like this.
Coin of Arsaces I of Parthia. The reverse shows a seated archer carrying a bow. A Greek inscription on the right reads ΑΡΣΑΚ[ΟΥ] (from the outside). The inscription below the bow is in Aramaic. (Public Domain)
One could read this coin to mean that Arsaces is from the House of Karen. However, other coins of Arsaces do not mention this but mention his name and title in Greek, not Aramaic.
The readings of these other coins say ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ, translating as “Arsaces the Autocrat”. Both are plausible. If one considers Karen or Quren to mean “Commander-in-Chief,” it would be understandable for some coins bear the Greek inscription “Autocrat.” It would be true that an autocrat would be a commander-in-chief, for an autocrat is a ruler who holds unlimited power and is answerable to no other person, even though the possibility of the coin that says Karen and Arsaces may indicate a connection to the House of Karen.
Therefore, it seems plausible that ‘Karen’ found on the reverse of the coin is meant for the Aramaic speaking population at the time, in Parthia proper, indicating his authority rather than the house from which he came.
Other coins minted at the same time or later bear no Aramaic, but Greek instead. This is understandable, since Greek was the business and administrative language of the populace.
WHO WERE THE APARNI?
The name Aparni/Parni is Latin, while the Greeks referred to them as Aparnoi/Parnoi. However, there is a bit of dispute among historians over the names. Some historians believe the names are incorrect due to the Greek and Latin translations. The correct renderings could be Sparnoi, Apartanes, Eparns and Asparians. Since the names and translations are in dispute, we shall call them Aparni for now to avoid confusion.
The Aparni were a branch of the Dahae confederacy (central Asia, modern Turkmenistan), possibly a family clan of the tribe, and were said to have lived along the river Ochus, southeast of the Caspian Sea. What one can gather from the scant information provided is that the name Aparni may be incorrect, but the fact that they lived along the river Ochus and were a part of the Dahae confederacy remains undisputed.
Strabo is the only one who provides both tribe and ethnicity. Strabo states that Arsaces, “with some of the Däae (I mean the Aparnians, as they were called, nomads who lived along the Ochus), invaded Parthia and conquered it.” The Däae Strabo mentions are the Dahae. The first mention of the Dahae is found in Xerxes’ daiva inscription and they are described as a people he subdued during his reign. Nothing more follows. Herodotus was the next to mention the Dahae (Daans) and placed them among the tribes of the Persian nation:
“Now the Persian nation is made up of many tribes. Those which Cyrus assembled and persuaded to revolt from the Medes were the principal ones on which all the others are dependent. […]The rest of the Persian tribes are the following: the Panthialaeans, the Derusiaeans, the Germanians, who are engaged in husbandry; the Daans, the Mardians, the Dropicans, and the Sagartians, who are nomads.”
Relief of Cyrus II of Persia. (Siamax/CC BY-SA 3.0)
What else one can gather from this passage by Herodotus is that Cyrus was well aware of them before Xerxes. Herodotus account of the Dahae among the tribes of the Persian nation may have been “meant in a political, rather than an ethnic or linguistic sense, their Scythian identity poses no problem” as D. T. Potts mentions. While Herodotus provides little concerning their location, Strabo does.
Strabo provides three geographical accounts:
Those nomads (Dahae, however, who live along the coast on the left as one sails into the Caspian Sea are by the writers of today called Däae, I mean, those who are surnamed Aparni; then, in front of them, intervenes a desert country; and next comes Hyrcania, where the Caspian resembles an open sea to the point where it borders on the Median and Armenian mountains.
The Däae, some of them are called Aparni, some Xanthii, and some Pissuri. Now of these the Aparni are situated closest to Hyrcania and the part of the sea that borders on it, but the remainder extend even as far as the country that stretches parallel to Aria.
The Aparnian Däae were emigrants from the Däae above Lake Maeotis, who are called Xandii or Parii. But the view is not altogether accepted that the Däae are a part of the Scythians who live about Maeotis (Sea of Azov).
Ptolemy places the Dahae between “the regions of Margiana adjoining the River Oxus.” What Strabo and Ptolemy are indicating is that the Dahae traverse a rather large region that expands from the Black Sea to the Aral Sea and from Central Asia to Northern Iran.
Therefore, from the sources examined, it seems evident, that Arsaces was indeed of Saka/Scythian origin and was associated with the Dahae tribe. Whether Arsaces was a decedent of the ancient kings of Persia seeking to reclaim and restore the once mighty Persian Empire will remain unknown. While the possibility is considerable, the connection remains uncertain.
ARSACES’ INVASION OF BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
It would be naive to suggest that the fundamental cause of the Aparni invasion is clouded in mystery, impossible to answer, or cannot be determined. As mentioned earlier, Arrian states the invasion was “to avenge an insult offered to one of them.” While Arrian is probably correct, Strabo may have the answer. Therefore, in order to understand why Arsaces raided and eventually conquered Parthia, we must first look to Bactria.
Historians tend to agree that the passages of Strabo indicate that the invasion of Parthia was due to Diodotus’ victory over Arsaces, which in turn, caused Arsaces to flee into neighboring Parthia. However, Strabo’s passage is rather silent concerning an actual battle that took place. Some look to Strabo as an indicator of this victory over Arsaces, in which Arsaces was “in flight from the enlarged power of Diodotus.” This passage also does not directly say that Diodotus defeated Arsaces, but it hints at the possibility that there was conflict. But what kind of conflict needs to be answered.
What seems overlooked is what Arsaces did best, raiding. The first clue comes from Justin. Justin speaks of Arsaces as being, “accustomed to live by plunder and depredations.” Strabo also mentions this and states:
“These people agreed to pay a tribute on condition of having permission to overrun the country at stated times, and to carry away the plunder. But when these incursions became more frequent than the agreement allowed, war ensued, afterwards peace was made, and then again war was renewed. Such is the kind of life which the other Nomads also lead, continually attacking their neighbors, and then making peace with them.”
It is no question that Arsaces made his living by pillaging. But, according to Strabo, the pillaging taking place was against those who did not pay tribute.
In order to understand why Arsaces I, King and founder of the Arsacid dynasty raided and eventually conquered Parthia, we must first look to Bactria.
It is no question that Arsaces made his living by pillaging. But, according to Strabo, the pillaging taking place was against those who did not pay tribute.
As mentioned, it seems evident that Arsaces’ “flight from the enlarged power of Diodotus” could indicate two possibilities.
The first proposal is that Arsaces continued pillaging Bactrian villages and caravans along the trade routes. Because of this, Diodotus, who held a considerable amount of power, confronted Arsaces and drove him out.
The second proposal could be that Diodotus either met Arsaces or sent an envoy to make a quasi-peace treaty to receive temporary peace by providing tribute. Remember, Strabo mentions, “Such is the kind of life which the other Nomads also lead, continually attacking their neighbors, and then making peace with them.”
Either Arsaces’ periodic raiding ended with force or tribute, or perhaps a combination of both. But given the passages of historians Strabo and Justin, it would seem that Arsaces was confronted, did not engage militarily, but realized that the military forces of Bactria were a far stronger. Arsaces turned his forces around and headed back into his lands. While at Kopet Dagh, Arsaces received news that Andragoras, satrap (governor) of Parthia, had broken away.
Leaving the Empire
It would be hard to believe that Andragoras was unaware of the vulnerability he placed himself in by separating from the empire. Andragoras declared independence after receiving news of the unexpected death of Antiochus II, Greek king of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire, in Ephesus. The satrap knew that the death of his king would lead to succession uncertainty and a potential war for the throne. Therefore, Andragoras detached himself from the empire until he felt comfortable enough to rejoin the fold.
Coin of Andragoras, the last Seleucid satrap of Parthia. He proclaimed independence around 250 BC. (Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://www.cngcoins.com /CC BY-SA 3.0)
However, Andragoras may have felt secure enough to declare independence knowing that Diodotus had driven out the Aparni. While Andragoras was unaware of what was taking place north of Parthia, Arsaces was well aware after presumably gaining intelligence on the situation from his spies and possibly from merchants. The news Arsaces received was favorable; the military forces under the command of Andragoras was weak and the Seleucid Empire was busy fighting other rivals.
Arsaces mustered his forces and “invaded Parthia with a band of marauders, overthrew Andragoras, the governor, and, after putting him to death, took upon himself the government of the country. Not long after, too, he made himself master of Hyrcania, and thus, invested with authority over two nations.”
After establishing his capital at Nisa or Asaak, Arsaces was fully aware that if he wanted to hold his newly conquered, lucrative provinces, he must build up his military strength and so “raised a large army, through fear of Seleucus and Diodotus, king of the Bactrians.”
Diodotus I Soter, leader of the Bactrians. (PHGCOM /CC BY-SA 3.0)
Arsaces knew that when the king of the Seleucids, Seleucus II, finished fighting in the west, he would make the trip east to recover former lands. Arsaces also feared his eastern neighbor Bactria, for even though Diodotus drove him from his territory, there was a chance Diodotus would invade.
Ancient site at Nisa, Turkmenistan. (Ljuba brank /CC BY-SA 3.0)
Unbeknownst to Arsaces was that Diodotus could do little outside his own satrapy. The reason for this was that if he were to enter the Parthian satrapy, he would be potentially incurring the suspicion of Seleucus II, which could lead to armed conflict. Because of this, Diodotus stayed put. Of course, this would imply that Diodotus was still loyal to the Seleucid crown. Perhaps he still was, at least to point. There is no doubt that Diodotus was slowly separating himself from the Seleucid fold during the reign of Antiochus II. But once Antiochus II died, Diodotus followed the lead of Andragoras of Parthia and declared independence shortly during the reign of Seleucus II.
SHIFTING POLITICS AND MILITARY MANEUVERS
It is possible that Diodotus not only bought off Arsaces, but also used him against Andragoras. However, this is unlikely. The probable reason as to why Diodotus did not left a finger was that not only did he fear the full force of the Seleucid Empire, but also he had not the military forces nor resources to invade, unhinge, confiscate, and hold onto Parthia and Hyrcania. However, one can also presume that Arsaces was just as ignorant of the military strength of Bactria, even after he increased his forces. But it was necessary for Arsaces to increase his military strength as he prepared for the possibility of a two-front war.
Therefore, Diodotus may have viewed Andragoras as a threat rather than an ally, because once Andragoras reunited with the Seleucid Empire, Diodotus feared that Seleucus II would mount a new campaign to recover the province of Bactria. One can assume that Diodotus welcomed the Aparni conquest of Parthia and Hyrcania. In this sense, Arsaces’ conquest of Parthia acted as a buffer between Bactria and the Seleucids, thus creating a potential ally for Diodotus since both kingdoms now had a common enemy.
A Parthian stucco relief of an infantryman, from the walls of Zahhak Castle, East Azarbaijan Province, Iran. (CC BY-SA 2.5)
Even though not written, Diodotus may have wanted to establish a peace treaty with Arsaces. However, Diodotus died before the establishment of such a treaty in 238 BCE. With Diodotus dead, his son, Diodotus II, quickly accepted a peace treaty with Arsaces. Justin mentions this and states, “Soon after, relieved by the death of Diodotus, Arsaces made peace and concluded an alliance with his son, also by the name of Diodotus.”
Arsaces reaching out to Diodotus II to agree to a peace treaty was paramount in allowing Arsaces to concentrate the bulk of his military forces in preparation for the Seleucid invasion. Moreover, even though the agreement between the two was a peace treaty, one can presume that the treaty was also an alliance, which would be crucial in assisting in the defense of their territories from King Seleucus II, who would eventually be on his way.
SELEUCUS’ ATTEMPT TO RETAKE FORMER LANDS
Before Seleucus II set out to retake the provinces of Parthia-Hyrcania and Bactria, he had to deal with another situation at home, which involved his brother, Antiochus Hierax. Antiochus Hierax had rebelled against his brother Seleucus in Asia-minor. This war between the two lasted from 239-236 BCE. Hierax’s decisive victory over Seleucus at Ancyra (modern Ankara, Turkey) sometime between 240-237 BCE sealed the deal, but it would not be until 236 BCE when Seleucus surrendered all of Asia-minor north of the Taurus Mountains to Hierax.
Coin of Seleucus II. Reverse shows Apollo leaning on a tripod. (Public Domain)
Seleucus’ loss of Asia-minor to his brother and the costly loss of territory to Ptolemy III during the Third Syrian War (246-241 BCE) undermined the unity of the empire. One can see why the eastern provinces broke away and declared independence. The continuous conflict, whether within the royal court or on the field of battle, kept the empire in constant uncertainty to the point that one either broke away and survived, or crashed and was left to an uncertain fate.
Seleucus knew that even though he might have been weak he could not afford more territorial losses. Further losses would destabilize the empire and encourage more breakaways, which in turn would entice his neighbors, like Ptolemaic Egypt, to gobble up more territory abundant with resources and the trade routes that passed through them.
With heavy losses in men, resources and territory, Seleucus took a gamble and decided to mobilize his forces for an eastern anabasis in hopes of retaking control of the crucial provinces of Parthia-Hyrcania.
Hyrcania and Parthia, and the section of the Royal Road noted by Herodotus. (CC BY-SA 2.5)
The reason for this is that when Arsaces conquered the provinces in question, he also captured the city of Hekatompylos, which lay astride the Royal Road linking Babylon and Seleucia on the Tigris to Bactria, and finally to India. Arsaces’ control over a portion of the Royal Road not only gave Arsaces control over the commercial traffic but also allowed the Parthians to intercept messages go to or coming from between the Seleucid and Bactrian kings.
Seleucus’ undertaking such an endeavor was both reckless and understandable. The reckless aspect of was that he quickly assembled his forces after suffering early defeats by Ptolemy III and Antiochus Hierax. Seleucus’ hasty military operation to recover former lands was a recipe for disaster. Either Seleucus was overconfident, desperate, or a combination of both.
The understandable aspect was his ambition to recover former lands, to exploit vital resources, and retake the trade routes that linked east with west back under the Seleucid umbrella, since most of the valuables enjoyed by the Greeks were coming through the eastern portions of the empire. If those provinces no longer belonged to the empire, the flow of wealth diminished.
The date of Seleucus’ anabasis is uncertain but possibly occurred between 236 and 229 BCE. But understand, there was not one invasion of Parthia but two.
WAR AND PEACE
Arsaces lay in his capital of Nisa, enjoying his newly conquered territory — but he was no fool. He understood that one day the Seleucid king would march east to recover former lands.
When word arrived that Seleucus was on his way, Arsaces quickly assembled his men and fled into the desert, taking up refuge with another nomadic tribe known as the Apasiacae, who were an offshoot of the Massagetae Scythians.
When Seleucus entered Parthia, he met with little resistance, one can presume, and reconquered his former provinces. As for how long he stayed in Parthia, this is unknown but it must not have been long, for shortly after entering Parthia, Seleucus was “recalled into Asia Minor by new disturbances.”
After some years had passed, Seleucus assembled another army and invaded Parthia a second time and was met with force. The outcome was an Arsacid victory. However, no detail of the battle exists. Moreover, it is possible that Diodotus II aided Arsaces in his victory over Seleucus. However, as mentioned already, details of the battle are silent, but there is an interesting passage written by Athenaeus in his Deipnosophists that speaks of Seleucus and “how he came against Media, and warred against Arsaces, and was taken prisoner by the barbarian, and how be remained a long time in captivity to Arsaces, being treated like a king.”
Frontispiece to the 1657 edition of the Deipnosophists, edited by Isaac Casaubon, in Greek and Latin. (Public Domain)
Athenaeus’ reference came from Posidonius (135-51 BCE). A further backing of Seleucus’ imprisonment is due to coins. Earlier coins that portray Seleucus before the invasion of Parthia depict a clean-shaven and well-kept Seleucus, while the later coins depict him with a beard like that of the Parthians. According to Polybius, “Seleucus surnamed Callinicus (glorious victory) or Pogon (bearded).” The coins depicting Seleucus and Polybius passage inform that Seleucus adopted the two epithets before and after capture. How long Seleucus remained in Parthia is unknown, but it is evident that he was freed and died sometime around 226/5 BCE.
How long Seleucus II was imprisoned will continue to be disputed, but what is known is that the Parthians, possibly aided by the Bactrians under Diodotus II, defeated Seleucus. He had no other choice but to lick his wounds and sign a treaty that recognized the authority of Arsaces as the rightful ruler of an independent Parthia not subject to Seleucid rule. The historian Justin says, “The Parthians observe the day on which it was gained with great solemnity, as the date of the commencement of their liberty.” How the Parthians observed their independence day is unknown, as well are the remaining years of Arsaces’ reign.
LONG LOST BROTHER
There is one issue, not yet addressed: Arsaces’ brother, Tiridates. Photius and Syncellus provide the only two sources that mention Tiridates.
A depiction of what is believed to be Tiridates I (Public Domain)
However, their accounts of Arsaces and Tiridates are amalgamated with older stories. One being that of King Darius I of Persia, while the other is similar to the founding of Rome. Photius says, “These two brothers, with five accomplices, slew Pherecles.” Seven men partook in the assassination of Pherecles (Andragoras) when you include Arsaces and Tiridates involvement. This is similar to the account of Darius who seized the Persian throne with the help from six others when they slew the imposter named Gaumata.
Syncellus says, “After two years Arsaces was killed, and his brother Teridates succeeded him as king, for 37 years.” Syncellus’ account is similar to the story and Romulus’ murder of Remus. Moreover, even Justin mentions the memory of Romulus as in a memorable comparison to Arsaces’ foundation of the Arsacid Dynasty:
“Thus Arsaces, having at once acquired and established a kingdom, and having become no less memorable among the Parthians than Cyrus among the Persians, Alexander among the Macedonians, or Romulus among the Romans, died at a mature old age”
Unlike Syncellus, Justin is a much older source that does not mention Arsaces dying at an early age. Moreover, Justin does not mention that Arsaces had a brother. What Justin does indicate is that Arsaces lived to be a ripe old age. If one were to take Syncellus’ account as true, what memory would the Parthian people have of a man who reigned for two years?
The sources that mention Tiridates are not in error, rather Syncellus is more likely in error suggesting that Arsaces reigned for two years and was murdered by his own brother. There is no doubt that Arsaces did have a brother by the name of Tiridates, but proof of that brother remind elusive until 1955, when an interesting Ostracon (pottery or stone piece with script), no. 2638 was found at the former Parthian capital of Nisa. However, the photos taken remained unknown to the world until 1986, when archaeologist S.D. Loginov (Institute of History, Turkmenistan Academy of Sciences) found them among the South-Turkmenistan archive.
Ostrakon of Cimon, an Athenian statesman, showing his name (as “Kimon [son] of Miltiades”) Representational image only. (CC BY-SA 2.5)
Once the inscriptions were translated, they gave a completely different picture of the Arsacid genealogy: ‘rsk MLK’ BRY BR[Y ZY pryp]tk BRY ‘HY BR[Y ZY] ‘rsk. When translated into English it reads, “Year 157, Arsak king, grandson Friyapatak’a. son of the nephew of Arsak’a.” The year 157 does not mean 157 BCE; rather it means 157 of the Arsacid era, which would be our 91 BCE.
Notice that three names or three kings are mentioned; the first being Arsaces, the next being his son Arsaces II, and the third, Friyapatak’a, who renamed himself Arsaces III once he ascended the throne. Notice as well that there is no mentioning of a Tiridates. This does not mean that Tiridates never existed, but what it does indicate is that Tiridates was never a king. Moreover, Friyapatak’a may in fact be Tiridates’ grandson, which would make him the great-nephew of Arsaces I.
After the imprisonment and release of Seleucus II, Arsaces’ rule over Parthia remained peaceful up until his death in 211 BCE. Afterwards, his son Arsaces II inherited the throne and a new threat as well.
Seleucus II died before Arsaces. He is said to have fallen from his horse around 226/5 BCE. Seleucus III inherited his father’s throne, only to be murdered after a short reign of three years, in 223 BCE. The person next up for the job was Antiochus III, the younger brother of Seleucus III. The future was in his hands.
Top Image: A rock-carved relief of Mithridates I of Parthia (r. c. 171–138 BC), seen riding on horseback. The Parthian rulers used the ancient Iranian art of Rock relief to mark the foundation of their new empire. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Bottom Image: The silver drachma of Arsaces I of Parthia (r. c. 247–211 BC) (Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://www.cngcoins.com / CC BY-SA 3.0) and the Parthian fortress of Nisa (Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0)
By Cam Rea
References
Arrian. Parthica, original Greek and English translation in F.A. Lepper, Trajan’s Parthian War. London: Oxford University Press, 1948.
Ashrafian, Hutan. “Limb gigantism, neurofibromatosis and royal heredity in the Ancient World 2500 years ago: Achaemenids and Parthians.” Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery Volume 64, Issue 4 , 2011: 557.
Athenaeus of Naucratis, translated by Charles Duke Yonge. The Deipnosophists, or, Banquet of the learned of Athenaeus, Volume 1. Oxford: Henry G. Bohn, 1854.
Bivar, A. D. H. The Personalities of Mithra in Archaeology and Literature. New York: Bibliotheca Persica Press, 1998.
Charax, Isidore of. Parthian Stations.
Ctesias, and Jan P. Stronk. Ctesias’ Persian history. Düsseldorf: Wellem, 2010.
Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh and Sarah Stewart. The Age of the Parthians The Idea of Iran Volume II. London: I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd, 2007.
Frye, Richard. The Heritage of Persia. New York: New York: New American Library; New English Library, 1966.
Gankovskiĭ, IUriĭ Vladimirovich. The Peoples of Pakistan: An Ethnic History. Lahore: People’s Pub. House, 1971.
Grainger, John D. The Rise of the Seleukid Empire (323-223 BC): Seleukos I to Seleukos III. Barnsley: Pen & Sword , 2014.
Green, Peter. Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age. University of California Press, 1993.
Herodotus. The Histories.
Holt, Frank Lee. Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bactria . Berkeley Calif: Univ. of California Press, 1999.
Justinus, Marcus Janianus. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, Trans. John Selby Watson. London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Convent Garden, 1853.
Lerner, Jeffery D. The Impact of Seleucid Decline on the Eastern Plateau. Stuttgart: Steiner , 1999.
Polybius. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. translator. London, New York. Macmillan. 1889. Reprint Bloomington 1962. Histories. London, New York. : Macmillan. Reprint Bloomington, 1889. 1962.
Potts, D.T. Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Ptolemy. Geography.
Sachs, A. “Achaemenid Royal Names in Babylonian Astronomical Texts.” American Journal of Ancient History 4, 1979: 131.
Sidky, H. The Greek Kingdom of Bactria: From Alexander to Eucratides the Great. Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 2000.
Syncellus. In Roos, A. G. (ed.), Flavii Arriani quae exstant omnia. v.2. Scripta minora et fragmenta. Adiectae sunt tres tabulae geographicae et fragmentum Papyri 1284 Societatis Italianae. Leipzig: Teubner, 1967.
Todman, Don. “Warts and the Kings of Parthia: An Ancient Representation of Hereditary Neurofibromatosis Depicted in Coins.” Journal Of The History Of The Neurosciences 17, no. 2, April 2008: 141-146.
Wilson, N. G. Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece . New York: Routledge, 2006.
The storm was on the horizon and it was time to pay financially, for King Menahem gave a thousand talents of silver (about 37 tons, or 34 metric tons, of silver) toTiglath-pileser by extracting 50 shekels from each wealthy man. An enormous 60,000 citizens of wealth gave up their money to the Assyrian coffers. This makes one wonder how many poor people in turn had to repay those wealthy citizens for their lost monies.
After receiving his tribute, Tiglath-pileser left the outskirts of Israel, leaving the kingdom intact and still in the hands of Menahem. One can only speculate if this was a one-time tribute deal, or it was performed multiple times, year after year. In either case, Menahem had just made his kingdom look impotent before the king of Assyria.
Menahem was a king of the northern Israelite Kingdom of Israel. (Public Domain)
King Menahem remained on the throne six more years before he died. His son Pekahiah took the throne and reigned for only two years before he was murdered inside the palace by Pekah and 50 Gileadites in Samaria (II Kings 15:23-26). It seems Pekah murdered Pekahiah because he had continued to let Assyria dominate Israel. This made the people of Israel mad, and the result was a murdered king by a man of the military. The prophet Hosea mentions many reasons as to why Israel acted the way it and these four verses sum up the situation well.
They have set up kings, but not by me:
they have made princes, and I knew it not:
of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.
I know Ephraim, and Israel is not hid from me: for now, O Ephraim, thou committest whoredom, and Israel is defiled.
I have seen an horrible thing in the house of Israel: there is the whoredom of Ephraim, Israel is defiled.
Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou hast gone a whoring from thy God, thou hast loved a reward upon every cornfloor.
Israel was in a state of revolt both politically and spiritually and there is no way out for them, except the way of the sword:
They are all hot as an oven, and have devoured their judges; all their kings are fallen: there is none among them that calleth unto me.– Hosea 7:7
King Pekah quickly made an alliance with King Rezin of Damascus. This move indicated that Pekah was cutting the Assyrian yoke from Israel’s neck. Pekah also went to the Edomites and the Philistines for their support of a joint coalition to stop Tiglath-pileser from further expansion into their respective territories. In a way, this alliance was really an attempt to counter-balance the Assyrian power to the east. Pekah may have sent emissaries to King Jotham at the time, asking him to join the alliance against Assyria, but we have no word of it, and one can only speculate.
It seems that Jotham would have known of this alliance but decided not to join it, and probably for good reason. Jotham may have questioned why fight two enemies when I can easily just face one? There was no telling what Israel and Syria had in store, for Judah was not popular with either Israel or Syria. This might be the reason for the attack on Judah by King Pekah and King Rezin.
When King Jotham died, his son Ahaz took the throne but, unlike his father, it’s written Yahweh considered King Ahaz an evil king for worshipping ‘other’ gods (he even passed his own children through the fire to Baal). Israel and Syria then invaded Judah, most likely to set up a puppet King. The man whom they wanted in power was the son of Tabeal; he was possibly also a Syrian (Isaiah 7:6). If the placing of this ‘king’ were accomplished it would give the family of Tabeal reason to join them, and to unify in the war against Assyria. This invasion into Judah by the combined forces of Israel and Syria is discussed in the books of II King 16:5-6 & II Chronicles 28:5-9.
King Rezin of Syria attacked Judah first. As King Rezin was moving his forces south, he began pillaging the local villages on his way and most likely destroyed or occupied the garrisons on the eastern borders of Judah. He also took captives until he reached Elath on the Gulf of Aqaba, an area connected to the Red Sea. The King’s Highway ran through Elath.
King’s Highway (red), and other ancient Levantine trade routes, c. 1300 BCE (CC BY-SA 3.0)
The King’s Highway, in ancient times, started from Heliopolis, Egypt. The road continued through Elath and progressed forward, hugging the borders of eastern Judah and Israel. It then climbed its way up to Damascus and from there went on to Resafa, located on the upper Euphrates. This was a tactical military highway mentioned in the book of Numbers 20:17 & 21:22, and King Rezin now controlled it. This meant that the king of Syria could now deploy his forces up and down the eastern borders of Israel and Judah and allowed King Rezin the upper hand over Judah, in tactical terms.
While King Rezin battled, King Ahaz of Judah most likely assembled his forces and sent them against the Syrian attacker to retake the city of Elath. Nevertheless, the forces of King Ahaz came under attack from the forces of King Pekah of Israel who possibly also had the use of Syrian forces. In that engagement, the forces of King Pekah killed 120,000 men of Judah (men of King Ahaz) in one day and captured 200,000. The capture of 200,000 people was most likely over time, and not in one day as some may speculate and even suggest (II Chronicles 28:6).
After the battle, King Ahaz returned to Jerusalem to seal up the gates and prepare for a siege. But before this happened, it was most likely that he immediately sent messengers with treasure from the house of the Lord, as a gift to the king of Assyria. By doing this, he had just made the kingdom of Judah a vassal of the Assyrian Empire (II Kings 16:7-8). King Ahaz had ignored the prophet Isaiah and ignored the warnings about trusting Assyria for help. Ahaz had just created a bigger burden than that which was outside Jerusalem’s gate besieging the city. The forces of Israel and Syria besieged the city of Jerusalem. It is unknown as to how long the siege of Jerusalem lasted, but we know that it could not have taken long, for II Chronicles 28:20 mentions that the Tiglath-pileser was on his way.
Assyrian troops attacking a besieged city using a battering ram on a siege ramp. Enemy archers are returning fire. Headless corpses lie at the foot of the city walls. (Public Domain)
Shortly after the siege lifted, two more enemies of the Syrian-Israelite alliance came forth for their share. In II Chronicles 28:17-19, the Edomites came to pillage and take captives in the surrounding countryside of Judah while the invading Philistines took many cities and villages. The event stripped Judah naked and left it to rot in the sun.
In II Chronicles 28:5 & 28:9, mentions the captives which Syria and Israel took back to their kingdoms. What is interesting is that II Chronicles 28:5 & 28:9 describe a brief scenario regarding the siege of Jerusalem, which was lifted in haste due to the Assyrian war machine approaching fast to the kingdoms of Israel and Syria. Kings Pekah and Rezin meanwhile had returned quickly to their capitals with their spoils and captives to prepare their defenses.
Damascus
Around 734 BCE, Tiglath-pileser III was at the head of his army when they entered Syria on their way to besiege Damascus (II Kings 16:9). King Rezin of Syria and his army would meet the Assyrian forces head on.
Assyrian attack on a town with archers and a wheeled battering ram, 865–860 BC. (Public Domain)
Details about the battle are unknown, but what is known is that King Rezin almost lost his life in the battle and quickly fled back to Damascus with remnants of his army. Once the gates were shut, the siege was on. This event mentioned by Tiglath-pileser on his inscriptions state:
That one (Rezin of Damascus) fled alone to save his life— and like a mouse he entered the gate of his city. His nobles I captured alive with my own hands, and hanged them on stakes and let his land gaze on them. 45 soldiers of my camp— I selected, and like a bird in a cage I shut him up. His gardens and— plantations without number I cut down, not one escaped—.
Tiglath-pileser boasts that he destroyed 591 cities in Syria and took many captive back into Assyria, with the possibility of the inclusion of Jews that were previously taken captive by King Rezin when he invaded Judah and besieged Jerusalem along with King Pekah of Israel. Tiglath-pileser says:
Hadaru the house of the father of Rezin of Syria where he was born, I besieged, I captured… captives I carried off. 16 districts of Syria I destroyed like mounds left by a flood.
The siege took two years to complete, and it is most likely that during the siege Tiglath-pileser assembled and sent his forces to the regions conspiring against Assyria. It is uncertain if he stayed with his army at the siege of Damascus, spearheaded the invasion into Israel, or attacked along the coastline of Palestine. We do know that two Assyrian armies were sent to subdue and incorporate the regions hostile to Assyria. From Damascus, the Assyrian army forked out like a snake’s tongue.
Assyrian chariot with charioteer and archer protected from enemy attack by shield bearers. Assyrian relief from Nineveh. Alabaster relief, made about 650 BC. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
To the Coast!
While part of the Assyrian army was busy fighting in Syria, Tiglath-pileser sent another army to spearhead an attack and subdue the every-so-often rebellious Phoenician cities, along with the Philistines on the coastline of the Levant. The Assyrians captured the cities of Sumer, Arka, Byblos, and Sidon. Next was Tyre, forcing them to pay tribute, and give part of their population over as captives. The Assyrian army continued to march south, sacking Accho and burning it to ashes. Next was Dor, a port city of the tribe of Manasseh (Joshua 17:11), then Aphek a city belonging to the tribe of Asher (Joshua 19:30-31). The Assyrian army also destroyed the Philistine cities of Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Gaza, and continued until it reached the river El Arish that borders Egypt. Tiglath-pileser mentions “Hanno of Gaza fled before my weapons.”
Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia c. 1450 BC (Public Domain)
It seems that by taking the coastline, the Assyrians were cutting Israel off from their Phoenician allies, preventing them from fleeing by across water. This coastal takeover by Assyria almost certainly had an economic impact. Many Phoenician cities along with the Israelite cities on the coast were destroyed or occupied by the invading force. Because of Assyrian depredations, many of the surrounding nations (whether free or vassal to Assyria) now depended on Assyria for their economic prosperity as well as military security.After Tiglath-pileser campaign through the Levant was finished, he headed home. In 727 BCE, Tiglath-pileser died at his grand palace in Nineveh. His son Ulylaya would succeed him and his throne name would be Shalmaneser V. Tiglath-pileser came from obscure origins but his impact upon the reconstruction of Assyria was paramount on both domestic and foreign affairs and his ability to lead men into battle demonstrated his charisma and leadership both on and off the battlefield. Overall, Tiglath-pileser was a capable general and king who is sometimes forgotten in the annals of military history.
Illustration of an Assyrian High Priest and an Assyrian King. (Public Domain)
Top Image: Deriv; Head of winged bull, 9th c. BC, Assyrian (Public Domain) and bronze relief decorated the gate at the palace of the Assyrian ruler Shalmanesar III (Public Domain)
By Cam Rea
References
Caiger, Stephen L., Bible and Spade: An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology.
Gordon, Cyrus H., The Ancient Near East.
Mackenzie, Donald A., Myths of Babylonia and Assyria.
Redford, Donald B., Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times.
Roaf, Michael, Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East.
Rogers, Robert William, A History of Babylonia and Assyria: Volume Two.
Roux, Georges, Ancient Iraq.
Sayce, Assyria: its Princes, Priests, and People.
Stern, Ephraim, Archeology of the land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian periods, 732-332 BCE Vol II.
Sykes, Percy, A History of Persia.
Yalichev, Serge, Mercenaries of the Ancient World.
![[Left] Engraving of Gustavus Adolphus (Public Domain) and [Right] portrait of Count Johann t'Serclaes von Tilly. (Public Domain)](https://i0.wp.com/members.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/Gustavus-Adolphus-and-Count-Johann.jpg?w=525&ssl=1)
![Coin of Arsaces I of Parthia. The reverse shows a seated archer carrying a bow. A Greek inscription on the right reads ΑΡΣΑΚ[ΟΥ] (from the outside). The inscription below the bow is in Aramaic.](https://i0.wp.com/members.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/Arsaces-I-of-Parthia.jpg?w=525&ssl=1)
![Ostrakon of Cimon, an Athenian statesman, showing his name (as "Kimon [son] of Miltiades") Representational image only.](https://i0.wp.com/members.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/Ostrakon-of-Cimon.jpg?w=525&ssl=1)
._Ausschnitt_aus,_K%C3%B6niglich_Schwedisches_Feldlager_vor_der_Stadt,_1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
