Tag: War

Posted on

The Iron Army: Assyria – Deadly and Effective Siege Machine – Part II

 

 

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.”

[Read Part I]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

Posted on

The Iron Army: Assyria – Terrifying Military of the Ancient World – Part I

 

 

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.

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.

Assyrian War Camp Relief.

Assyrian War Camp Relief. (CC BY-SA 2.0)

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

Posted on

The Military Campaigns of Tiglath-pileser III: Sieges on Kingdoms – Part 2

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.

[Read Part 1]

Menahem was a king of the northern Israelite Kingdom of Israel.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Posted on

The Military Campaigns of Tiglath-pileser III: Priest King and Conqueror – Part 1

The year is 745 BCE and much of the Middle East is about to be conquered and confiscated by the powerful Assyrian Empire under King Tiglath-pileser III.

Tiglath-pileser III is regarded as the founder of the second Assyrian Empire. Though his origins are obscure, Greek tradition claims Tiglath-pileser was originally a gardener. His real name is uncertain but some say that it may have been Pul, according to 1 Chronicles 5:26 in the Bible. The name Tiglath-pileser is one that he took once he had ascended to the throne.

And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day.

Tiglath-Pileser III: stela from the walls of his palace.

Tiglath-Pileser III: stela from the walls of his palace. (Public Domain)

Before moving on, it must be noted that the name Pul or Pulu has significant meaning, and in I Chronicles 5:26, we see the first mention of Pul and Tiglath-pileser together. It seems that even the Bible indicates that Tiglath-pileser invaded Babylon before he conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel and that the name Pul may have possibly been his real name. In the records, when Yahweh says He “stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria and the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria,” what we have here is a metonym. That is to say, two different things which represent the same thing, or the same person in this case.

Tiglath-pileser had taken the hand of Bel (Marduk the supreme god of Babylonia), and by taking Marduk’s hand, he had thus proclaimed himself the son of God in the city of Hammurabi on New Year’s, and had named himself Pul or Pulu, and was proclaimed King of Babylon. We can say that by this very act Tiglath-pileser had proclaimed himself a priest-king, or a type of Messiah. This shows that he intended to unite the military (Assyria) and spiritual powers (Babylonia) together into one nation. Pul represents the spiritual crown, and Tiglath-pileser represents the military crown.

Now some may debate this and say he took this title Pul or Pulu the year before he died. This is not true, for it is recorded twice that he took the oath; and in Babylonian tradition a king had to take Marduk’s hand every year on New Year’s to be the king of Babylonia. We also must remember that he invaded Babylonia to free them from the Syrian threat, while at the same time conquering them. However, this event came after his great conquest of the Near East in 729 BCE.

Tiglath-pileser III, an alabaster bas-relief from the king's central palace at Nimrud, Mesopotamia. The Assyrian king, identified by his conical cap with a turban wrapped around it (so-called Polos), stands (under a parasol) in his royal chariot and raises his right arm in a greeting gesture.

Tiglath-pileser III, an alabaster bas-relief from the king’s central palace at Nimrud, Mesopotamia. The Assyrian king, identified by his conical cap with a turban wrapped around it (so-called Polos), stands (under a parasol) in his royal chariot and raises his right arm in a greeting gesture. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

He must have been a charismatic man with the ability to lead, as he was able to seize the crown of Assyria and unite the chaotic factions into a single nation. He also provided a network of security and trade that would eventually expand to those under Assyria’s sphere of influence. But how did this man conquer so many nations with such ease?

Looking at the Near East from Afar

When looking at this period in Near Eastern history, all one has to do is refer to the Bible and read the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III to realize that Assyria had no outside threats. The Hittites and Egyptians were a shell of their former glory and imposed no threat to the Assyrian borders. The once mighty United Kingdom of Israel under the reign of King David and later his son Solomon were divided into two separate kingdoms after Solomon’s death. The Houses of Israel and Judah were too busy fighting amongst themselves and jockeying for outside alliances. The fragmented Syria to the northwest was not even a threat to Assyrian expansion either. As for Phoenicia, they were unstable on land and had no real standing army other than relying on mercenaries or those that volunteered. The rest of the smaller tribal groups were mere principalities or city-states similar to Phoenicia. One could easily argue that the reason the Near East was so easy to take was due to fragmentation, and thus no single nation surrounding Assyria, whether it be a kingdom, city-state, or a community of tribes, posed a real threat to Assyria.

Assyrian Soldier with Standing Shield, Soldier with Small Shield, Archer.

Assyrian Soldier with Standing Shield, Soldier with Small Shield, Archer. (Public Domain)

Tiglath-pileser III rejuvenated the Assyrian army through military reform. In the past, Assyria had relied on its provincial governors to supply the army, which was comprised of provincial militias gained from a typical workforce of the time. The only permanent army was the ‘royal guards’. What Tiglath-pileser did was reorganize the army into a permanent standing fighting force that over time progressed to become a professional army. In doing so, he gained a tighter control on his kingdom because the army was loyal to him. By these means he transformed the population into a model military society based on war and expansion made to quench the thirst of their rejuvenated philosophy, which was the worship of war.

Assyria on the Move

They were like a lion on the Serengeti; Assyria represented the lion, and the Near East was its Serengeti. Tiglath-pileser III’s first footprints outside Assyria stained the desert floor blood red.

None shall be weary nor stumble among them; none shall slumber nor sleep; neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed, nor the latchet of their shoes be broken: Whose arrows are sharp, and all their bows bent, their horses’ hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind.

To secure his holdings, Tiglath-pileser sent his new professional army to secure his empire by attacking the upstart Syrian-Urartu alliance, which posed a potential threat as it had done many times in the past. He decided to lead his forces towards the Aramaean (Syrian) tribes, with whom Assyria had had many conflicts in the past. The powerful Aramaean tribes had previously invaded the Kingdom of Babylonia from the South. They had taken the cities of Sippar and Dur-Kurigalzu, and posed a threat to the Babylonian way of life. They had also threatened to destabilize Assyria’s power, influence, and historical association with the Babylonians. The weakened state of Babylonia needed a champion.

Assyria’s hatred for the troublesome Arameans gave them reason to strike and to reestablish their rule over Babylonia. Tiglath-pileser pushed farther south for some time, winning battle after battle with his new army, and gaining ever more confidence after each engagement with the enemy. He then turned east to cross the Tigris River. While on the east side of the Tigris, he began attacking along the mountains of Elam, taking many nomadic tribes captive. He then retraced his steps, crossing back over the Tigris, and began his assault on the Aramaeans until he pushed them out of the cities of Sippar and Dur-Kurigalzu. Tiglath-pileser III continued to push south until he reached Nippur, an ancient city of Babylon, before returning home.

Assyria’s (under Ashurbanipal) brutal campaign against Elam in 647 BC is recorded in this relief.

Assyria’s (under Ashurbanipal) brutal campaign against Elam in 647 BC is recorded in this relief. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The people of Babylon looked to Tiglath-pileser III as the savior of Babylonia. This did not look good for the King of Babylon, Nabonassar. Tiglath-pileser began by setting up a new government in Babylonia and placing the kingdom under the suzerainty of Assyria. Never before had Babylonia been under the complete rule of Assyria. Thus, Nabonassar became a mere vassal king, a symbol of state and not power, while the real king remained Tiglath-pileser III, the conqueror and savior of Babylonia.

Assyrian Expansion

After securing Babylon and driving out the Aramaean raiders, Tiglath-pileser then turned his army loose on the known world.

His first campaign of aggression was against Northern Syria, which was an ally of Urartu. Urartu was a rival to Assyria and at the time was gaining much influence over the former vassals, who were becoming an increasing threat to Assyria. Because of the threat they imposed on the weakened state of Assyria, Tiglath-pileser decided it was time to take action and to restore the right of Assyria’s might. However, he did not want to take the chance of invading Urartu head on, and rightfully so.

The Kingdom of Urartu was located on a mountainous plateau located in Eastern Turkey and Armenia, and led up into the Caucasus Mountains with Lake Van in the middle of the kingdom. The Urartu region appeared to be difficult for the Assyrian army to invade, indicating that they had difficulty in conducting mountain warfare, at least for now. Tiglath-pileser understood the best way to defeat his enemy was to beat them on the open plain. He knew that he had to either conquer them, or beat them so badly that he would not have to come back later and finish the job. The Kingdom of Urartu was no joke for Assyria and Tiglath-pileser took the easier of the two roads.

Tiglath-Pileser assembled his army, crossed the Euphrates, and headed for Northern Syria, to the city of Arpad. Before he reached the city of Arpad, a coalition was already assembled to counter the Assyrians. King Sarduri II led the armies of Urartu and King Matiil led the armies of Arpad, along with many other Syrian tribal kings.

The coalition and Assyria met in furious battle. The Assyrians were victorious in the engagement and over 70,000 are said to have been slain or captured, but the numbers are most likely exaggerated.

Tiglath-pileser then turned his attention to the land of the Medes, conquering them on the Iranian plateau. From this expedition he deported 65,000 Medes and made their remaining chieftains pay homage, while incorporating the newly conquered districts into Assyrian lands. The Assyrian army continued to push farther East until they reached the Slopes of Lapis Mountains or “Mount Damavand”.

In 737 BCE Tiglath-pileser invaded the Median territory again and wiped everything out of these territories except for those Medes who lay further to the east of Mount Damavand, and it was also during this campaign that the Assyrians deported another 154,000 people from southern Mesopotamia. In addition, the Syrians also suffered before the events of 737 BCE, as the Assyrians deported 30,000 Syrians to the region of the Zagros Mountains, an area once considered Median territory in 742 BCE, and not to forget that an additional 18,000 more who were deported from the Tigris to be settled in Northern Syria. The time span for the invasion described may have been five to six years.

Tiglath-pileser III stands over an enemy, bas-relief from the Central Palace at Nimrud.

Tiglath-pileser III stands over an enemy, bas-relief from the Central Palace at Nimrud. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Pushing into Israel, Judah, and Phoenicia

In 738 Tiglath-pileser made his way west to collect tribute and to expand the growing Empire. He began his regional tour starting with what was left of the fractured kingdoms of the former Hittite empire.

Turning back south to Syria and then heading west to the city-states of Phoenicia, he subdued the citizens without a fight, collecting just about anything and everything the individual kingdoms could offer. This kept Assyria out of their lands by turning them into their vassals.

Next on the list for Assyria was the kingdom of Israel. Menahem was the king of Israel at the time when Tiglath-pileser III came upon the northern horizon of Israel. For a long time before the Assyrian threat, the Hebrew prophets Hosea, Amos, and Joel foretold the coming destruction of Israel if they did not repent of their sins and come back to Yahweh.

And Pul the king of Assyria came against the land: and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand. And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land.

Map showing Tiglath's conquests (green) and deportation of Israelites. Tiglath-Pileser III discouraged revolts against Assyrian rule with the use of forced deportations of thousands of people all over the empire.

Map showing Tiglath’s conquests (green) and deportation of Israelites. Tiglath-Pileser III discouraged revolts against Assyrian rule with the use of forced deportations of thousands of people all over the empire. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

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) to Tiglath-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.

Top Image: Deriv; Tiglath-Pileser III (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.

Posted on

The Persian War Machine: The Immortals – Part II

 

The Persian war machine made empires beforehand look miniature. The Persians were able to take the best from all over the Near East and turn it into a force that could not be defeated for many centuries to come.

[Read Part I here]

Many Guard Units

Herodotus states in 7.40 that “For before him (King) went first a thousand horsemen, chosen out of all the Persians; and after them a thousand spearmen chosen also from all the Persians, having the points of their spears turned down to the ground; and then ten sacred horses, called “Nesaian,” with the fairest possible trappings.” The thousand spearmen marched with their spears reversed, and the spear butts, which would normally have a point, were replaced with “golden pomegranates.” Herodotus refers to these men as “spear-bearers.” These men were the king’s own spear-bearers.

Furthermore, Herodotus 7.41 mentions that once the thousand horsemen passed by, they were followed by ten thousand men who “went on foot; and of these a thousand had upon their spears pomegranates of gold instead of the spikes at the butt-end, and these enclosed the others round, while the remaining nine thousand were within these and had silver pomegranates. And those also had golden pomegranates who had their spear-points turned towards the earth, while those who followed next after Xerxes had golden apples.” While the passage provided describes what appears to the famous “immortal” it appears not. A thousand had upon their spears butts ‘pomegranates of gold’, while the remaining nine thousand had ‘silver pomegranates’. Behind the ten thousand came another thousand had ‘golden apples.’ While it appears that this is not the ten thousand as some suggest, perhaps it is. In other words, the thousand spearmen who’s spear-butts had a golden pomegranate were perhaps the captains in charge of the nine thousand. But who were the “Immortals”?

The Immortals

Herodotus makes the first mention of them in Histories 7.83 stating, “these ten thousand chosen Persians the general was Hydarnes the son of Hydarnes; and these Persians were called “Immortals,” because, if any one of them made the number incomplete, being overcome either by death or disease, another man was chosen to his place, and they were never either more or fewer than ten thousand.” While Herodotus calls them by this title, they are not mentioned during the reign of Xerxes. Xenophon, who came later, does mention that Cyrus established a personal guard of ten thousand spearmen and mentioned they the guard of ten thousand was still existent when he wrote this in the 360s BCE.

Modern reenactors of the Immortals in their ceremonial dress at the 2,500-year celebration of the Persian Empire.

Modern reenactors of the Immortals in their ceremonial dress at the 2,500-year celebration of the Persian Empire. (Public Domain)

The Immortals were a fearsome army of ten thousand men that was created by Cyrus the Great to guard him, and were recruited from the lower classes of Persia to serve as the king’s personal bodyguard day and night, and wherever the king went so did they. The name Immortals comes from that whenever one of them got ill, wounded, or even died, he was replaced quickly with another man to ensure that the number stayed at ten thousand.

The Immortals were more than just mere spear-bearing infantry. In times of war, the Immortals surrounded the king while the inner core of Immortals consisted of two royal regiments; The first being infantry that carried a composite bow with a seven-foot-long spear and an akinakes (a dagger or short sword).

The second royal regiment of the Immortals was cavalry archers who carried spears and the majority of the Immortals that surrounded them were infantry. To give you a better picture of the Immortals in terms of battle formation. The front rank consisted of infantry carrying shield and spear, the spear they carried was seven feet in length, and they were the front, rear, and sides of the formation. They provide protection for the archers behind them while the cavalry likely stayed outside of the formation protecting the flanks.

Mosaic depicting Persian archers. (Pre 4th Century BC)

Mosaic depicting Persian archers. (Pre 4th Century BC) (CC BY 2.0)

Besides the Immortals, there was the cavalry. The cavalry only made up 10 percent of Cyrus’s army in the early days of his conquest while the other 90 percent of the army was infantry, or should we say foot soldiers. As time went on, Cyrus noticed the importance and the effectiveness of cavalry forces. He thus added more cavalry to his army and reduced the amount of foot soldiers to get a better ratio that was 20 percent cavalry and 80 percent infantry. The cavalry would have been mostly light and carrying only a bow, and were mainly of non-Persian ethnicity but were commanded for the most part by Persian officers. Their duty was to harass the enemy with a barrage of arrows and draw them into an attack, a hit-and-run you could say that would be annoying to any attacker.

Persian nobles formed the heavy cavalry. They were armed with two javelins, a lance made of wood and sometimes metal, and they carried an akinakes as well as a small oval shield. The armor of a heavy cavalryman was made of leather overlapped with metal disks or scales of bronze, iron, or gold, and was often colored in order to distinguish one unit from another. This must have been an impressive sight on a sunny day—unless you were the enemy.

Persian infantry varied between light and heavy. The light units carried spear and swords while their heavier counter parts carried a longer spear a shorter sword and a battle-axe. These heavier infantries wore black hoods that covered their head and much of their face. In combat, the front rank of the phalanx carried a shield made of wicker and a single spear while the ranks behind them carried no shield but had two spears on hand. Their main function was to toss the first spear over the front rank while keeping the other spear on hand for close combat. The heavier infantry, the elites, otherwise known as the Immortals, were the ones who kept silent when marching en masse. It must have been eerie for those about to receive the sword on the other end of the battlefield, when all you felt was the earth tremble slightly under your feet while an army of silence approached you from the other end. It was common for most warriors to scream and shout when in combat in order to intimidate their opponent. The immortals did the exact opposite. They killed in silence.

Charioteers

Besides the cavalry and infantry units of the Persians, there were the charioteer units. The Persian chariot was slightly higher and heaver then their Assyrian, Egyptian and Babylonian counterparts. Its wheels and axle were heavier and the platform on which the soldiers stood was much wider and carried two men. One man was to drive the heavy, cumbersome vehicle, and the passenger was a soldier, either a spearman or an archer. It took four horses to pull this chariot, which is a considerable amount of power compared to chariots pulled by two horses. To make it even more deadly, Cyrus had scythes installed on the axles, which extended two yards out from the wheel. Overall, it was a deadly machine when the opportunity presented itself on the battlefield since no charioteer, or for that matter horse, would plow into a forest of spear points and shields. It was more effective against light infantry, loose formations, and troops of undisciplined men unwilling to stand their ground in the face of combat.

Persian scythed chariots.

Persian scythed chariots. (Public Domain)

Cyrus also introduced the use of siege weapons into his ranks. Siege towers weighing in at seven tons when fully staffed and were twenty-four feet (7.3 meters) high had to be pulled by sixteen oxen. It is said that each story of the siege tower was about three stories in height, and was manned by twenty archers, giving it a total of 60 archers inside. These siege towers were also used as a command center for the Persian army and were great for surveillance due to its height.

An English siege tower, representational image.

An English siege tower, representational image. (Public Domain)

The Persians also had a special unit that used naphtha during sieges. Naphtha is similar to “Greek fire” a chemical mixture of a thinner consistency than oil. The purpose of naphtha was to burn wooden structures in combat. The Persians would use this during siege warfare by shooting flaming arrows over the enemy’s walls hoping to hit the wooden rooftops in the city thus causing a blaze that could spread throughout. Alternatively, they used it for defensive purposes by burning wooden siege equipment the enemy brought forth to the walls. In addition, the combat engineers of the Persian army were of great importance to the army. For they would move ahead of the army to repair or build roads and bridges, to dig ditches, and used pontoon boats as floats for bridges to get their massive and heavy army across.

To move this huge army was a feat in itself. The Persians, with all the ingenuity and complexity of their military system, had to have a supply line able to provide this juggernaut when on the move. The job of supplying the army was left to the commissariat. When the army was on the move, the commissariat was split into two, with one in front of the army and another in the rear. The commissariat who moved ahead of the army was tasked to look for suitable places to encamp where clean water could be found and the livestock could be grazed for a brief time before they moving on. The rear commissariat was tasked to keep the army supplied with all types of weaponry such as bows, swords, spears, arrows, armor and many other items that would be needed. Now, due to the amount of equipment the commissariat provided they would eventually run low, and in order to solve this problem the Persian king required that each satrap (governor) keep a certain amount on hand for the incoming army when it arrived to restock before the next big move.

While this small piece on the Persian military only skims the surface, understand that what Cyrus created came about with the aid of his many allies and most importantly, the trial and error of battle. Cyrus, once in power, began to formulate an army capable of adopting what was practical and functional when it came to the art of command and control on the battlefield. After his death, the Persian military maintained this, making few adjustments.

Immortals fighting Alexander's troops. Color reconstruction of the original reliefs on the Alexander Sarcophagus, in Istanbul.

Immortals fighting Alexander’s troops. Color reconstruction of the original reliefs on the Alexander Sarcophagus, in Istanbul. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Overall, the Persian army was a professional fighting force of a complex magnitude that in many ways would not be matched until the Macedonian and Roman Empires. However, with their professionalism, also came their weakness. As stated before, they were complex. The Persians, even though they could field a huge army that was disciplined, they were homogenous nor were all of them skilled in the same weapons. Persia had its own standing army that was professional but too small, while the many regions under Persian control provided a hodgepodge of military units all accustomed to their own fighting style and practice. Many of these units were light infantry such as archers and spearmen with little to no armor what so ever. The Persians relied on quantity over quality in its military ranks. It worked well for the region of the world they were in, but as time went on, they faced armies who were all about amour and standard structure, and who may have been small in comparison but undoubtedly more disciplined.

Cam Rea is an author and military historian. He has written numerous articles for Ancient Origins Premium and Classical Wisdom Weekly as well as several books.

Top Image:  Deriv; Faravahar carved in stone at Persepolis, Iran, (Public Domain) and Achaemenid soldiers.

By Cam Rea

References

Briant, Pierre. ‘From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire’. Publisher: Eisenbrauns; 1st English Edition edition (January 1, 2002)
Farrokh, Kaveh. ‘Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War’. Publisher: Osprey Publishing (2007)
Head, Duncan. ‘The Achaemenid Persian Army’. Publisher: Montvert (1992)
Herodotus, Histories
Strabo, The geography of Strabo.
Xenophon, Cyropaedia

Posted on

The Persian War Machine: Organization and Command – Part I

The Persian war machine made empires beforehand look miniature. The Persians were able to take the best from all over the Near East and turn it into a force that could not be defeated for many centuries to come. The article you are about to read just skims the surface of a fascinating story that largely goes unnoticed.

Organization and Command

The Persian military organization was much like that of the provinces, wherein the provinces had a degree of autonomy that filtered down to local rule, and provinces provided troops to the king when needed. Because of this, it makes it difficult to identify what is distinctively Persian when it comes to their military system.

When it comes to command, it is headed by the “king of kings” or shahanshah in Persian. On the surface, the heart of command is with the king, like Darius leading his army into Scythia, Xerxes into Greece, like Artaxerxes II fought his brother Cyrus, and Artaxerxes lead his forces against both the Phoenicians and Egypt. However, the king could not always be on campaign. The reason for this is that if the king should be away for a certain period he risks much. A king cannot rule effectively if he is absent for a long period. In doing so, he leaves the art of governance in hands of officials who cannot always be trusted and in a worst case scenario, may attempt a coup d’etat, like Darius the Great who seized the throne of Persia after the death of Cambyses II.

As demonstrated, some Persian monarchs went on campaigns, but in many cases, the trust was placed in the hands of the men trained to do so—the commanders who were specifically sent from the royal court. One such example was Mardonios, who took command of the Persian military operations in Greece after Xerxes withdrew in 479 BCE. However, if the conflict was a local affair, the provincial satrap could conduct military operations against the aggressor both foreign and domestic.

King Xerxes I of Persia from his tomb at Naqshe Rustam

King Xerxes I of Persia from his tomb at Naqshe Rustam (CC BY-SA 2.0)

With generals leading armies, comes military emblems. The use of standards was key in informing the troops who was in command and where to find him. The Persian standard was primarily displayed on the tent. The emblem of the Achaemenid’s was a golden eagle with its wings outspread. However, the image of the eagle was of less importance due to the ever present images of the sun-disc found in Achaemenid art.

Standard of Cyrus the Great

Standard of Cyrus the Great (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Faravahar, one of the best-known symbols of ancient Iran (Persia). Relief in Persepolis.

Faravahar, one of the best-known symbols of ancient Iran (Persia). Relief in Persepolis. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Recruitment

When it comes to recruiting, most were not full-time soldiers. Darius, king of Persia, calls them kara, which can mean “people-army or host.” In other words, they were the “people’s army.” In any case, they were not entirely militia nor considered levy but a reserve allowed holding land so long as they provided military service. The person in charge of the recruiting process was the satrap. Once orders filtered down from the Persian king, the satrap would pass the order down to his subordinate, which the Greeks called hyparchoi, “lieutenant-governors.” It was the duty of the lieutenant-governors to issue orders to the lower officials to seek out eligible men to fill the ranks. This was not always an easy task and one can see why when it’s understood that many of the Persian provinces were not ethnically universal. The Satrap would give such a job to lower officials who were native to the province.

For example, take the province of Parthia; it may have had four different ethnic groups. A satrap who was Median would be representing these four ethnic groups. Because of this, it was crucial that the satrap had officials of every ethnic background within his court to help orchestrate the day-to-day affairs of governance, including military recruitment and in a worst-case scenario, mustering for times of war. However, as mentioned earlier, depending on the nature of the conflict, particularly provincial, it did not require the mustering of the entire army of Persia.

When the King of Persia did give the call to war the mustering of the Persian army can be summed up in four headings. First, a body of Persian cavalry often accompanied Satraps. Second were men who provided military service for land-holdings. Third, garrisons; Garrison troops were predominantly mercenaries recruited outside the empire, think Greek. Fourth were the provincial levies and native troops, the bulk of the Persian army when on the move.

Relief of Persian soldiers, Persepolis.

Relief of Persian soldiers, Persepolis. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Training

Historical details of the military training of the ancient Persian army seem nonexistent. However, Xenophon’s Cyropaedia describes the military training process a Persian youth went through. According to Xenophon 1.2.9, a Persian male at age seventeen would undergo combat training for a length of ten years.

Now the young men in their turn would live as follows: for ten years after they are promoted from the class of boys they passed the nights, as we said before, about the government buildings. This they did for the sake of guarding the city and to develop their powers of self-control; for this time of life, it seems, demands the most watchful care. And during the day, too, they put themselves at the disposal of the authorities, if they were needed for any service to the state. Whenever it was necessary, they all remained around the public buildings. But when the king went out hunting, he took out half the garrison; and this he did many times a month. Those who went must take bow and arrows and, in addition to the quiver, a sabre or bill in its scabbard; they carried along also a light shield and two spears, one to throw, the other to use in case of necessity in a hand-to-hand encounter.

The Greek historian Herodotus in his book “The Histories 1.135,” states that they “educate their boys from five to twenty years old, and teach them only three things: riding and archery and honesty.” Strabo 15.3.18 states:

From five years of age to twenty-four they are trained to use the bow, to throw the javelin, to ride horseback, and to speak the truth; and they use as teachers of science their wisest men, who also interweave their teachings with the mythical element, thus reducing that element to a useful purpose, and rehearse both with song and without song the deeds both of the gods and of the noblest men. And these teachers wake the boys up before dawn by the sound of brazen instruments, and assemble them in one place, as though for arming themselves or for a hunt; and then they divide the boys into companies of fifty, appoint one of the sons of the king or of a satrap as leader of each company, and order them to follow their leader in a race, having marked off a distance of thirty or forty stadia.

 Furthermore in 15.3.19:

They serve in the army and hold commands from twenty to fifty years of age, both as foot-soldiers and as horsemen; and they do not approach a market-place, for they neither sell nor buy. They arm themselves with a rhomboidal wicker-shield; and besides quivers they have swords and knives; and on their heads they wear a tower-like hat; and their breastplates are made of scales of iron. The garb of the commanders consists of three-ply trousers, and of a double tunic, with sleeves, that reaches to the knees, the under garment being white and the upper vari-coloured. In summer they wear a purple or vari-coloured cloak, in winter a vari-coloured one only; and their turbans are similar to those of the Magi; and they wear a deep double shoe.

Exhibit of Achaemenid Archers

Exhibit of Achaemenid Archers (CC BY-SA 2.0)

The military machine of Cyrus the Great was not as one would think—it was not professional by any means, at least not first. Understand that the professional Persian military force would come but the nucleus of the Persian military, particularly the guardsmen, were the true professionals. This is not to say that those inhabitants of the non-Persian ethnic provinces (satrapies) like Bactria, Maka, and Sogdia, to name a few, did not have professional soldiers. Like many provinces, including Pars or Persia, they too had troops of a lesser standard and because of this, they were not seasoned and unused to command and control. Herodotus 7.223 mentions that at the battle of Thermopylae 480 BCE, the Persian officers pushed the “men to go forward against their opponents, who are lashed towards the Spartans by their officers.” Now, one can take this to mean as I had previously stated or that it was custom for officers to whip their men forward, professional or not, like the Roman centurions who carried vine-staffs.

A cenotaph to Marcus Caelius, a centurion of Legio XVIII, killed at the Battle of Teutoburger Wald. Note the prominent display of the vine staff, his sign of office.

A cenotaph to Marcus Caelius, a centurion of Legio XVIII, killed at the Battle of Teutoburger Wald. Note the prominent display of the vine staff, his sign of office. (Public Domain)

Brief Evolution

When Cyrus set out against Media he relied more on friends and kinsmen from local tribes. You could say it was the uniting of the clans and tribes only when times of trouble presented itself and when it was over, they returned to their homes and pastures. This type of force consisted of a few professionals with the vast majority being militias. The professional army that Cyrus pieced together did not come until he conquered Media and even then it would have taken some time to build a truly professional fighting force. But what one can gather from the early Persian military history is that it resembled the military structure of the once mighty Empire of Assyria. Like the Assyrians, the Persians set apart land for the professional soldiers and estates for their elite cavalrymen and even archers. Moreover, the Persians seemed to have been influenced by the Assyrians and most likely their Babylonian counterparts in the technology of siege equipment. Such examples are the battering ram, and the use of ladders to scale walls, as well as siege towers, in which they could place slingers or archers to fire upon the defenders on the wall in order to divert them, while allowing the combat engineers below to unearth the wall.

A large wheeled Assyrian battering ram with an observation turret attacks the collapsing walls of a besieged city, while archers on both sides exchange arrows. From the North-West Palace at Nimrud, about 865-860 BC.

A large wheeled Assyrian battering ram with an observation turret attacks the collapsing walls of a besieged city, while archers on both sides exchange arrows. From the North-West Palace at Nimrud, about 865-860 BC. (Public Domain)

Overall, Cyrus had a great army after the fall of Media, which would continue down through his successors. But the question is what made them great? In order to gain a full understanding of this we must take a deeper look into the military apparatus of the Persian army to see how they were able to conquer such a vast and diverse territory.

Cam Rea is an author and military historian. He has written numerous articles for Ancient Origins Premium and Classical Wisdom Weekly as well as several books.

Top Image: Deriv; Faravahar carved in stone at Persepolis, Iran, (Public Domain)and Persian archers (Public Domain)

By Cam Rea

References

Briant, Pierre. ‘From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire’. Publisher: Eisenbrauns; 1st English Edition edition (January 1, 2002)

Farrokh, Kaveh. ‘Shadows in the Desert : Ancient Persia at War’. Publisher: Osprey Publishing (2007)

Head, Duncan. ‘The Achaemenid Persian Army’. Publisher: Montvert (1992)

Herodotus, Histories

Strabo, The geography of Strabo.

Xenophon, Cyropaedia

 

 

Posted on

Cyrus the Great’s Last Campaign: Who Killed Cyrus? – Part II

According to the popular Greek historian Herodotus, Cyrus went on his last campaign to subdue the Massagetae, a tribe located in the southernmost portion of the steppe regions of modern-day Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan around 530 BCE, where he would die in battle. But did he?

The reason to question the narrative surrounding Cyrus’ death is that there are conflicting reports. Therefore, it is crucial to examine the sources of Herodotus, Ctesias, Xenophon, and Berossus to find if Cyrus really died in battle against the Massagetae.

[Read Cyrus the Great: Conquests and Death! – Part I]

Herodotus’ Account

Ten years after subduing the Babylonians in 539 BCE, Cyrus turned his attention towards the northeastern part of the empire to bring “the Massagetae under his dominion. Now the Massagetae are said to be a great and warlike nation, dwelling eastward, toward the rising of the sun, beyond the river Araxes, and opposite the Issedonians. By many they are regarded as a Scythian race.” The Araxes Herodotus mentions is not the Araxes River that runs along the countries of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran in the Caucasus, but instead the Jaxartes, which is northeast of the Oxus River, east of the Aral Sea.

Sunset over Sir-Darya river, Kazakhstan. In Ancient Greek river is called Yaxartes (Jaxartes)

Sunset over Sir-Darya river, Kazakhstan. In Ancient Greek river is called Yaxartes (Jaxartes) (Petar Milošević /CC BY-SA 3.0)

Sometime after Cyrus had subdued the Babylonians, he decided to secure his northern borders, probably due to Saka raids into the Chorasmia satrapy by building a series of forts. One such fort was called Cyropolis, and established on the Jaxartes River .

However, the raids did not stop, and why would they? Even with a series of forts built, the nomadic element would still find a way to penetrate the border undetected. Cyrus, seeing that had two options to consider, took the diplomatic approach first by sending ambassadors to Queen Tomyris, Massagetean ruler “with instructions to court her on his part, pretending that he wished to take her to wife.”

Tomyris as imagined by Castagno, 15th century.

Tomyris as imagined by Castagno, 15th century. (Public Domain)

As the Persian ambassadors crossed into Massagetae territory and approached Tomyris’ residence, she must have sent envoys of her own out to ask the Persian ambassadors as to why they had come. This was probably to check the men for weapons and question the reason for being there. After telling the Massagetae officials of their mission, it was relayed back to Tomyris. Tomyris, considering what they said, realized that it was “her kingdom, and not herself, that he courted.” Instead of hearing it from the Persian envoys, she “forbade the men to approach.” When the Persian envoys returned and informed Cyrus of her answer, he mustered his forces.

Asia in 323 BC, showing the Massagetae located in modern-day Central Asia.

Asia in 323 BC, showing the Massagetae located in modern-day Central Asia. (CC BY 3.0)

Cyrus lead his forces to the Jaxartes River, “and openly displaying his hostile intentions; set to work to construct a bridge on which his army might cross the river, and began building towers upon the boats which were to be used in the passage.” As the Persians were securing their passageways into Massagetae territory, envoys from Tomyris arrived to present Cyrus with a message which stated:

King of the Medes, cease to press this enterprise, for you cannot know if what you are doing will be of real advantage to you. Be content to rule in peace your own kingdom, and bear to see us reign over the countries that are ours to govern. As, however, I know you will not choose to hearken to this counsel, since there is nothing you less desires than peace and quietness, come now, if you are so mightily desirous of meeting the Massagetae in arms, leave your useless toil of bridge-making; let us retire three days’ march from the river bank, and do you come across with your soldiers; or, if you like better to give us battle on your side the stream, retire yourself an equal distance.

Cyrus considered this offer, called his advisors together, and made the argument before them. They all agreed to let “Tomyris cross the stream, and giving battle on Persian ground.” However not all were game to this idea. Croesus the Lydian, who was present at the meeting of the chiefs, disapproved of this advice, stating:

Now concerning the matter in hand, my judgment runs counter to the judgment of your other counselors. For if you agree to give the enemy entrance into your country, consider what risk is run! Lose the battle, and there with your whole kingdom is lost. For, assuredly, the Massagetae, if they win the fight, will not return to their homes, but will push forward against the states of your empire. Or, if you win the battle, why, then you win far less than if you were across the stream, where you might follow up your victory. For against your loss, if they defeat you on your own ground, must be set theirs in like case. Rout their army on the other side of the river, and you may push at once into the heart of their country. Moreover, were it not disgrace intolerable for Cyrus the son of Cambyses to retire before and yield ground to a woman?

Therefore, Cyrus agreed with Croesus that it would be best to face the Massagetae on their territory. Persian envoys delivered the message to Tomyris, stating “she should retire, and that he would cross the stream.” Tomyris thus moved her forces and awaited the Persian army. While he gathered his forces to cross the river, he named Cambyses II as the next king should Cyrus die.

Tomyris had her son, Spargapises lead a third of the Massagetae towards Cyrus’ forces. Cyrus left a small detachment behind with food and drink to lure the Massagetae, which they took, and then defeated the small Persian detachment and begin to eat and drink. Once the Massagetae became inebriated, the Persian forces fell on the camp and killed many, taking a few prisoners alive, including Tomyris’ son Spargapises. Spargapises, learning of what had happened, committed suicide. Tomyris, upon learning what had happened, considered the tactics of Cyrus as cowardly. Tomyris vowed revenge and Cyrus did not take heed to the warning. Cyrus pushed further into Massagetae territory where he and his forces met up with the Massagetae face to face. There are no details of the battle. One can speculate that the Massagetae won over the Persians using steppe tactics, which one would think Cyrus would have been accustomed to and able to defend against. However, whatever counter tactics Cyrus used, was all for nothing. The Massagetae won the battle, killed Cyrus, and recovered his body from the battlefield.

Queen Tomyris had the head of Cyrus cut from his body, which she dipped in blood as a symbolic act of revenge for her son, but also you could say she was giving Cyrus his fill as well. As to how much of this is truth and how much of this is fiction is up to the reader to decide. Herodotus does seem plausible in his account but he is not the only one.

"Tomyris Plunges the Head of the Dead Cyrus Into a Vessel of Blood" by Rubens.

“Tomyris Plunges the Head of the Dead Cyrus Into a Vessel of Blood” by Rubens. (Public Domain)

Ctesias’ Account

To support Herodotus’ view as to what happened to Cyrus, the fifth century BC Greek physician and historian Ctesias states the story slightly differently in books VII-IX of Persika, stating, “Cyrus marched against the Derbices, whose king was Amoraeus.” The Derbices or Derbikes according Strabo 11.8.8, 9.1, the first century BCE Greek geographer, philosopher, and historian, are said to have been located east of the Caspian Sea. Pliny indicates in his work Natural History 6.18.48 that the Derbices were on both sides of the Oxus River. However, other modern historians suggest that the Derbices were the Dyrbaians. Ctesias describes the Dyrbaians as living “to the south extending all the way to Bactria and India. Its men are blessed, wealthy, and very just, never committing any crime or killing anybody.” While this seems plausible, more is needed before making conclusions, because Ctesias is describes them as two separate tribes. However, the key words here are “Bactria and India.” As Cyrus entered Derbices territory, they attacked.

Painting of Cyrus the Great in battle

Painting of Cyrus the Great in battle (CC BY 3.0)

By placing their elephants in an ambush, the Derbikes repelled the Persian cavalry causing Cyrus himself to fall off his horse at which point an Indian –  for the Indians were fighting alongside the Derbikes and supplied their elephants –  hit Cyrus after he fell with a javelin below the hip to the bone, inflicting a fatal wound; however, Cyrus was taken up before dying and brought back to camp by his servants.  Each side lost 10,000 men in the battle.  After hearing about Cyrus, Amorges (King of Amyrgians, the Scythians (Saka) tribe) came with all speed at the head of 20,000 cavalries from the Saka; however, after hostilities resumed, Amoraeus (Amoraios, king of the Derbikes) was killed along with his two children in a major victory for the Persian and Sakidian contingent in which 30,000 Derbikes and 9,000 Persians perished.

This inscription seems to suggest that the Derbikes and Dyrbaians may be one in the same. The reason for this is that the Indians were fighting alongside the Derbikes. The Dyrbaians territory extended all the way to Bactria and India, which indicates the plausibility that they had Indian allies who could provide war elephants. If this is the case, Cyrus and his Persian army traveled much further eastward to expand his borders as opposed to Herodotus account. Furthermore, Cyrus does not die but his fell off his horse and was struck with a javelin to the hip. However, he survived only to die later and the battle itself ended up being a Persian victory. Another interesting aspect is where Cyrus fights and dies—fighting the Saka, according to Herodotus, while Ctesias tells us he was aided by them.

The Accounts of Berossus and Xenophon

Herodotus and Ctesias provide the most information concerning Cyrus battle and death. However, two other sources tell a different tale and are short.  According to the Babylonian fourth/third-century priest-chronicler Berossus, Cyrus died fighting the Dahae. According to Xenophon in his work Cyropaedia 8.7.25, Cyrus died peacefully in his own capital with directions for his burial.

Now as to my body, when I am dead, my sons, lay it away neither in gold nor in silver nor in anything else, but commit it to the earth as soon as may be. For what is more blessed than to be united with the earth, which brings forth and nourishes all things beautiful and all things good? I have always been a friend to man, and I think I should gladly now become a part of that which does him so much good.

What can be made from the account provided from Berossus is not much. Yes, Cyrus died against the Dahae or Daai. The Dahae were a Saka tribe much like the Massagetae. However, no details of the reason for war or of the battle survived, thus leaving one to wonder whether the story was similar to Herodotus’ or to that of Ctesias’. As for the account provided by Xenophon, there is no description of being wounded in battle that resulted in his death.

The End of Cyrus

If one takes three out of the four accounts one has a possible connection. Three out of the four speak of war with a Scythian/Saka tribe. Two out of four speak of Cyrus dying in battle. One out of four says he died three days after the battle and the other account of the four speaks of a peaceful death. Only two out of the four accounts mention a name of his adversary. What can be made from this is that Cyrus either sought to expand his empire by attacking the Derbikes/Dyrbaians (if they are truly one and the same) for their riches, or truly fought the Massagetae or Dahae to protect his northeastern borders from further raids. In both cases, he was fighting a Scythian/Saka element. Overall, there is no conclusive way to know how Cyrus died. But given that three of the four accounts speak of a violent death it seems without a doubt that the famous Cyrus the Great, builder of largest empire the ancient world had yet seen, died in battle or shortly after fighting the Scythians/Saka to the northeast of his empire.

Tomb of Cyrus the Great.

Tomb of Cyrus the Great. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Top Image: Deriv; Tomb of Cyrus the Great (CC BY-SA 4.0) and Painting of Cyrus the Great in battle (CC BY-SA 3.0)

By Cam Rea

References

Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Ctesias, and Nichols, A., (2008) The Complete Fragments of Ctesias of Cnidus: Translation and Commentary with an Introduction (Diss.) University of Florida http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0022521/nichols_a.pdf

Dandamayev, Muhammad A. “Encyclopædia Iranica.” RSS. November 10, 2011. Accessed August 05, 2016. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cyrus-iii

Herodotus, Histories

Strabo, The geography of Strabo.

Xenophon, Cyropaedia

Posted on

Cyrus the Great: Conquests and Death! – Part I

 

Cyrus the Great or “Cyrus II” was King of Anshan from 559-530 BCE and known as the King of Four Corners of the world and founder of the Achaemenid Empire. Cyrus was the son of King Cambyses I of Anshan 580 to 559 BCE and his mother Mandane was the daughter of King Astyages of Media.

Illustration of relief of Cyrus the Great

Illustration of relief of Cyrus the Great (Public Domain)

In 559 BCE, Cyrus ascended the throne of Anshan. Cyrus, a vassal to King Astyages of the Umman-manda, rebelled against his grandfather Astyages in 553 BCE. With the support of several Median nobles, he marched on Ecbatana to overthrow Astyages, according to Herodotus.

Detail; Painting of king Astyages

Detail; Painting of king Astyages (Public Domain)

While lines were drawn between those supporting the new power on the block, Cyrus, and those supporting the establishment, Astyages, many of the Umman-manda forces switched sides and joined Cyrus. In a seesaw war that went on for some time, Cyrus gained the upper hand and went on to defeat the Umman-manda and take Astyages prisoner. However, this was Herodotus’ view, and one must consider other sources.

Dream Visions and Conflicting Chronicles

The Neo-Babylonian King Nabonidus, in his first year as ruler (around 556 or 555 BCE), states in his chronicle that he had a dream given to him by the god Marduk:

At the beginning of my lasting kingship they (the great gods) showed me a vision in a dream…. Marduk said to me, ‘The Umman-manda of whom thou speakest, he, his land, and the kings who go at his side, will not exist for much longer. At the beginning of the third year, Cyrus, king of Anshan, his youthful servant, will come forth. With his few forces he will rout the numerous forces of the Umman-manda. He will capture Astyages, the king of the Umman-manda, and will take him prisoner to his country.

Nabonidus, king of Babylonia.

Nabonidus, king of Babylonia. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Nabonidus had obviously received intelligence reports that Cyrus intended to rebel and declare independence from Astyages. Notice that in the inscription Nabonidus speaks of the Umman-manda as a burden to his own kingdom. However, on the flipside, his dreams were hope and fear of the unknown. Nabonidus was familiar with Astyages but Cyrus was still a mystery.

In Nabonidus seventh year, he had this to say about the conflict between Cyrus and Astyages:

[Astyages] mobilized [his army] and he marched against Cyrus, king of Anshan, to conquer…. the army rebelled against Astyages and he was taken prisoner. They handed him over to Cyrus […]. Cyrus marched toward Ecbatana, the royal city. Silver, gold, goods, property, […] which he seized as booty [from] Ecbatana, he conveyed to Ansan. The goods [and] property of the army of […].

This inscription paints a very different story than that of Herodotus. The difference is Astyages was the one who invaded Anshan to put down the rebellion, but in turn, his army rebelled and handed him over to Cyrus. However, this is not to say Herodotus is wrong. It is just the opposite as to what happened, since Herodotus says Cyrus invaded Media which is partially right—but only after the battle and imprisonment of Astyages did Cyrus march on Media to take the Umman-manda capital, Ecbatana.

Marduk and the Dragon Marduk, chief god of Babylon, with his thunderbolts destroys Tiamat the dragon of primeval chaos. Drawing from relief

Marduk and the Dragon Marduk, chief god of Babylon, with his thunderbolts destroys Tiamat the dragon of primeval chaos. Drawing from relief (Public Domain)

One must not forget that this was not the end of the war. Even though Astyages was now a prisoner, there were still three more years of bloodshed in store which would not end until around 550 BCE. During this war, Cyrus would lose three more battles before he finally gained the upper hand on the Umman-manda. The war could have ended much earlier for Cyrus had not so many men changed sides during the conflict, prolonging the war. Once the Umman-manda were defeated and vanquished, Cyrus entered Ecbatana, sat on Astyages’ throne, and proclaimed himself the new master of Asia.

War with the West

With Astyages defeated, Cyrus inherited a new problem — the western front. For it was in 585 BCE that the Umman-manda and Lydian Empire made an agreement that the boundary should be the Halys River, which is (modern day Kızılırmak River or Red River) in central Turkey. The king of Lydia at the time was Croesus.

Croesus on the pyre, Attic red-figure amphora.

Croesus on the pyre, Attic red-figure amphora. (Public Domain)

Croesus was famous for his wealth and power throughout Greece and the Near East. With his brother-in-law Astyages now defeated, Croesus saw opportunity to expand his borders in the name of avenging his brother-in-law’s death. However, before Croesus mobilized his forces, he sent an envoy bearing gifts to the oracle of Delphi.

Priestess of the Oracle at ancient Delphi, Greece.

Priestess of the Oracle at ancient Delphi, Greece. (Public Domain)

The envoy asked the oracle a question concerning what Croesus should do, and it is said the oracle turned to the men and declared:

“If Croesus attacked the Persians, he would destroy a great empire.”

The oracle suggested that Croesus should seek allies that were powerful to assist him in his war against Persia. Croesus visited the oracle again, and asked how long the Lydian empire would last. The oracle said to Croesus:

“Wait till the time shall come when a mule is monarch of Media: Then, thou delicate Lydian, away to the pebbles of Hermus: Haste, oh! Haste thee away, nor blush to behave like a coward.”

The mule that is mentioned was none other than Cyrus, for Cyrus was part royalty due to his mother being an Umman-manda princess, while his father Cambyses I was a petty vassal king.

Ultimatum

In 547/46 BCE, once Croesus got answers that he thought were in his favor, he mobilized his forces and moved beyond the Halys River and entered into the province of Cappadocia. Cyrus likely had detachments scouting the border and once the large army of Croesus came in sight, they would have quickly dispatched a messenger to Cyrus. Once Cyrus arrived with his army, he sent envoys to Croesus’ camp with a message ordering Croesus to hand Lydia over to him. If agreed, Croesus would be allowed to rule Lydia but would have to remove his crown as king and accept the title Satrap. Croesus turned down the invitation and the two armies did battle at a place called Pteria in Cappadocia. The battle took place in the month of November and Croesus was defeated. Croesus and his forces retreated across the Halys River and back into Lydian territory.

Croesus then made a terrible mistake; he decided to disperse his army for the winter, thinking Cyrus would not attack until spring. Then without warning or thought, Cyrus did the unexpected. Cyrus and his forces fell upon the Lydian men that were in the process of demobilization. They were surprised, routed, and defeated. This was a risky move for Cyrus, due to the stories of Lydia’s army being superior, and the fact that they attacked during the winter, which can be rough. Cyrus probably sent spies throughout Lydia and received vital intelligence that the Lydian forces were demobilizing for the winter, thus making them easy targets. Cyrus understood the risk of waiting for spring to challenge them on their home turf.

Once the Lydian forces were routed, Croesus fled to Sardis where he took refuge. His supposed allies sent no troops and instead many of the provinces in Lydia defected over to Cyrus. Cyrus knew that there was no time to waste, and he pursed Croesus to Sardis, besieged the city, and on the fourteenth day, the city fell. It was during this time that Sparta sent forces to help Croesus, but on hearing that Sardis had fallen, turned back. Word that Sardis fell sent a shock wave through the Near East and is said to have been as great a shock as when the news of Nineveh fell in 612 BCE. In addition, the Chronicle of Nabonidus also mentions the fall of Lydia:

In the month of Nisan, King Cyrus of Persia mustered his army and crossed the Tigris downstream from Arbela and, in the month of Iyyar, [march]ed on Ly[dia]. He put its king to death, seized its possessions, [and] set up his own garrison [there]. After that, the king and his garrison resided there.

The conquest of Lydia as a whole was far from over, for there were still many Greek city-states angered about the situation and wanted the same terms that Cyrus gave to Croesus before the battle of Pteria. Cyrus said no, for he had other issues on his mind, and the revolts began once he had left for Ecbatana.

To suppress the revolts in Asia Minor, Cyrus sent a man by the name Mazares back with some troops to squash the rebellions and enslave those involved. Mazares did just that for some time until he died of unknown causes. The next person to take his place and keep the rebellions down was Harpagus. Harpagus put the final stamp on the rebellious situation in Asia-minor and placed Persian garrisons in the areas affected to secure the peace. However, it was not easy, for it took four years before Persian rule could be established among the populace.

Cyrus’ Eastern and Babylonian Campaigns

As the pacification of Anatolia continued, Cyrus turned his attention to the east. Herodotus tells us Cyrus had the Bactrians and Sacae on his mind and does speak of many minor campaigns but decided that they were not worth mentioning in detail due to their insignificant nature. Even though Herodotus is vague using terms such as Sacae and Bactrians, it is possible to piece together what may have happened in speculative detail. The reason could be that the various Saka and Bactrian tribes may have been a part of the Umman-manda Empire but were quite possibly just tributary states with no direct ties; and when the Umman-manda Empire fell to Cyrus, they stopped paying tribute and became more or less hostile to the new rule.

However, one must not overlook the Behistun Inscription, for Darius in 520 BCE mentions Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chrorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandara, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, and Maka as having been areas conquered by Cyrus between 546-540 BCE. If so, then the Behistun Inscription helps us piece together the information Herodotus is reluctant to give in detail.

Behistun Inscription, describing conquests of Darius the Great in Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian languages. These reliefs and texts are engraved in a cliff on Mount Behistun (present Kermanshah Province, Iran).

Behistun Inscription, describing conquests of Darius the Great in Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian languages. These reliefs and texts are engraved in a cliff on Mount Behistun (present Kermanshah Province, Iran). (Public Domain)

Cyrus’ next campaign was directed towards the Kingdom of Babylon around 539 BCE, but it has also been suggested to have taken place a few years before. His reason for invading Babylonia may have been the ineffectiveness of its ruler Nabonidus, who neglected the primary god of Babylonia known as Marduk. Also it did not help that Nabonidus moved to Teima in Arabia quite unexpectedly and decided to stay there for ten years while his son Belshazzar ruled the kingdom. With an ineffective ruler reigning over the Babylonian Kingdom, it became more desirable to Cyrus while the people of Babylonia wanted a new ruler. Nabonidus did return from Teima around 543 BCE due to the Persian threat. However, it seems too late, for the people of Babylonia were more interested in Cyrus as being their king. He and his forces invaded the Babylonian Kingdom:

In the month of Tesrit, Cyrus having joined battle with the army of Akkad at Upu on the [bank] of the Tigris, the people of Akkad fell back. He pillaged and massacred the population. The fourteenth, Sippar was taken without struggle. Nabonidus fled. The sixteenth, Governor Ugbaru of Gutium and the army of Cyrus made their entrance into Babylon without fighting. Later, having returned, Nabonidus was taken in Babylon. Until the end of the month, the shield-(carriers) of Gutium encircled the gates of the Esagila, but there was no interruption (of rites) of any kind in the Esagila or in any other temple and no (festival) date was missed. In the month of Arahsamnu, the third day, Cyrus entered Babylon. (Drinking) straws (?) were filled up before him. Peace reigned in the city; Cyrus decreed peace for all Babylon. He installed Gubaru as governor of (all) the governors in Babylon.

Cyrus’ first battle against the Babylonians at Upu/Opis was of great significance, for the city of Opis was on the banks of the Tigris River, and by taking Opis/Upu Cyrus had flanked the Median wall that stretched to Sippar, which was on the banks of the Euphrates River but also controlled part of the wall. It was not until the next day that Cyrus took the city of Sippar without a fight and thus was now in full control of the Median wall. The very wall that was intended to keep out the Cimmerians, Scythians, and any other undesirable barbarians was now in their hands.

Mosaic depicting Persian archers. (Pre 4th Century BC)

Mosaic depicting Persian archers. (Pre 4th Century BC) (CC BY 2.0)

With the Median/Umman-manda wall now out of the way, Cyrus then began his march towards Babylon. On October 12, Ugbaru, Governor of Gutium, entered Babylonia without a fight and arrested King Nabonidus of Babylonia who had earlier fled Sippar. Nabonidus was exiled to the region of Carmania. According to Xenophon, this Ugbaru, also known as Gobryas, was in charge of a vast amount of territory for the Babylonians. When Cyrus invaded, Ugbaru/Gobryas reconsidered and switched sides, joining Cyrus’ army, which he most likely guided during the invasion and battle at Opis/Upu. Now Cyrus himself would have entered the city on October 29 to restore the festivals and proclaim peace to all Babylon. But was this what truly happened?

It’s been speculated that the city may have put up a temporary fight. In 1970, Paul-Richard Berger identified a fragment as being a part of the Cyrus Cylinder, which was a part of the Yale Babylonian Collection. This fragment mentions Cyrus restoring the city’s inner walls and moats among other things within Babylon. It becomes possible that the Persian forces may have conducted siege warfare for a short time. Now this is not to say Cyrus was not a peace-loving man. However, one should be careful, for Cyrus also was a propagandist, doing everything he could to restore the gods of the city to gain the respect of the people. An example of this would be his son Cambyses II. Cambyses observed the New Year’s rite on March 24, 538 BCE during which he was humiliated by religious symbolism. In other words, the high priest of Marduk grabbed him by the ear, forcing him to kneel! Cambyses is then to have said:

“I have not sinned, O Lord of the Lands. I have not destroyed Babylon, nor damaged the Esagila, nor neglected the temple rites.”

Then the high priest of Marduk slapped Cambyses’ cheek! As tears flowed down his face, the god was pleased and thus concluded the ritual.

 

Top Image: Deriv; Tomb of Cyrus the Great (CC BY-SA 4.0) and modern recreation of relief of Cyrus II (CC BY-SA 3.0)

By Cam Rea

References

Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Ctesias, and Nichols, A., (2008) The Complete Fragments of Ctesias of Cnidus: Translation and Commentary with an Introduction (Diss.) University of Florida http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0022521/nichols_a.pdf

Dandamayev, Muhammad A. “Encyclopædia Iranica.” RSS. November 10, 2011. Accessed August 05, 2016. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cyrus-iii

Herodotus, Histories

Strabo, The geography of Strabo.

Xenophon, Cyropaedia

Posted on

The Hunnic War Machine: Horsemen of the Steppe – Part II

The fifth century politician and bishop Sidonius Apollinaris, wrote an interesting description on the horsemanship of the Huns, stating, “You would think the limbs of man and beast were born together, so firmly does the rider always stick to the horse.” Such were the abilities of the horsemen of the steppe – an integral part of the success of the Hunnic Invasion and the creation of an empire.

[Read Part 1: The Hunnic War Machine]

Hunnic Horsemen

Being that the majority of the Hunnic cavalry consisted of light horse archers led by petty nobles and their followers, their attire would have been light. The sixth century scholar Procopius states that the Hunnic warrior/herdsman wore “loosely woven” garments. Ammianus, much earlier, describes the dress of the Huns stating:

“They dress in linen cloth or in the skins of field-mice sewn together, and they wear the same clothing indoors and out. But when they have once put their necks into a faded tunic, it is not taken off or changed until by long wear and tear it has been reduced to rags and fallen from them bit by bit. They cover their heads with round caps and protect their hairy legs with goatskins; their shoes are formed upon no lasts, and so prevent their walking with free step.”

Being that the vast majority of Huns wore meager garments, their armor was not much better. In other words, do not expect the poorer Huns to be decked out in armor like the nobles or the wealthy. The type of armor worn would have been scale (sewn on) or lamellar (linked plates) armor reaching to the waist or knee. Hunnic armor also appears to have been sleeveless in some accounts. According to Procopius, he states:

“He came to be surrounded by twelve of the enemy, who carried spears. And they all struck him at once with their spears. But his thorax with-stood the other blows, which therefore did not hurt him much; but one of the Goths succeeded in hitting him from behind, at a place where his body was uncovered, above the armpit, right close to the shoulder, and smote the youth, though not with a mortal blow.”

While the Hunnic warrior could withstand a series of hits to the chest, his armpits were exposed, which indicates that his armor was sleeveless. Another interesting aspect is that the word thorax is used. This may suggest that the armor was not a breastplate but a metal shirt or scale-mail jacket, which protects all sides of the body and is sleeveless. The fourth century panegyric, Pacatus, Sidonius, and Procopius, all mention that the Hunnic horse archers wore iron cuirasses. While most Hunnic horsemen wore meager armor, those lucky enough to serve alongside Rome were decked out. Fifth century Latin poet, Flavius Merobaudes, mentions that Huns serving the Roman general Aetius wore “belts, quivers, horse, bits, helmets, and the armor, studded with precious stones, were gilded.

‘This fine and rare set of horse trappings is decorated with stones in beaded settings- a style Hunnish metalworkers favored. Fourth century. The large piece is a chamfron, which was worn on the horse's head above the eyes. This one is ornamental rather than defensive and indicated the wealth and power of the horse's owner.’

‘This fine and rare set of horse trappings is decorated with stones in beaded settings- a style Hunnish metalworkers favored. Fourth century. The large piece is a chamfron, which was worn on the horse’s head above the eyes. This one is ornamental rather than defensive and indicated the wealth and power of the horse’s owner.’  (Public Domain)

However, some of the Hunnic armor worn may have been Roman. Other Huns, not associated with Aetius, may have donned gilt Persian armor. Understand that the vast majority of Huns were not emblazoned in armor from head to toe, most wore meager amounts while the few nobles and wealthy Huns could afford the luxury of armor.

An example of lamellar armor, a Japanese cuirass.

An example of lamellar armor, a Japanese cuirass. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

One such luxury was the helmet. Huns serving under the Romans were provided helmets. The majority of Huns not serving Rome donned felt or soft leather caps. Reason for this is that many of the so-called Hunnic graves are absent of such an item. Hunnic noblemen and the wealthy could afford a helmet, which could be passed down from generation to generation. The type of helmet the Huns would have worn under the Romans is called a spangenhelm. The spangenhelm is a conical helmet consisting of four to six sections, reinforced by bands over the joins. Most had large cheek pieces, neck guard and a nose piece. The origin of the helmets is said to be of Sassanid origin, which was later adopted by the Romans during the late third early fourth century.

A surviving Spangenhelm, sixth century, Vienna.

A surviving Spangenhelm, sixth century, Vienna. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The Huns also used a shield. Unfortunately, like most items pertaining to the Huns, it remains elusive. The Hunnic shield would have been small, as a large shield would have been cumbersome to utilize on horseback. The type of small shield used would have been as the ones used by other steppe nomads, and since no shield has been discovered, it is suggested that the shield was made of wicker covered in leather.

As for swords, it is disputed whether the vast majority of Huns carried them. The Hunnic swords likely varied, as some were like that of the Sarmatians and Goths, which was long, straight, and designed for slashing. However, in the 10th century, Latin Germanic epic poem founded on German popular tradition called Waltharius, the hero Walther “arms himself in the Hunnish fashion… with a double-edge long sword belted to his left hip … and a single-edged half-sword at his right.” While the poem is fictional, it provides and indicates that some Huns wore a long sword, spatha, and a single-edged half-sword, semispatha, like that of the Sassanid noblemen who are regularly depicted wearing the same type of swords in this fashion.

Roman cavalry reenactor wearing a replica spatha

Roman cavalry reenactor wearing a replica spatha (CC BY 2.0)

Another side arm the Huns used was the lasso. The lasso was widely used by many steppe nomads like the Scythians and Sarmatians to name a few. Ammianus speaks of the Hun lasso and states “while the enemy are guarding against wounds from the sabre-thrusts, they throw strips of cloth plaited into nooses over their opponents and so entangle them that they fetter their limbs and take from them the power of riding or walking.”

As for heavy horsemen, the Huns had few and mostly relied on those they conquered and incorporated into their own military apparatus. The tribes that aided heavy cavalry to the Huns were the Sarmatians, Alans, and Goths. With heavy cavalry, accompanying the Hunnic horse archers, the Huns had a well-defined military capable of delivering mobility and shock to the enemy on the field of battle.

Bow and Arrow

The primary weapon of the Hunnic horse archer was the composite bow. The Hunnic reflex bow was made of wood, horn, and sinew. The ears of the bow had seven bone plaques, while the handle had three, two on the side one on its top.

The foundation of the bow was made of wood. The type of wood used could have been maple, yew, poplar or ash. When the tree of choice had been selected, the bowyer would choose to use the heartwood of the tree instead of the growing outer layer or sapwood.

Scythians shooting with composite bows, fourth century BCE.

Scythians shooting with composite bows, fourth century BCE. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

After the selecting and fashioning the wood into shape, a layer of sinew is applied. Sinew gives the bow its penetrating power. Once the sinew is applied, the bow would be bellied with horn, which provides compressive strength and on release of the arrow, the bone brings the bow back to original position like a coil. To keep this complex weapon together, glue made from boiled animal hide was used. These multiple layers of bone made the bow quite stiff and powerful upon release.

The Hunnic bow was between 130-160 centimeters long or between four and five feet in length. Unlike other steppe bows, the length of the Hunnic bow was not ideal for use by a horse archer. The ancient Scythian bow was 80 centimeters or (2.6 feet) in length, making it ideal for horse archery, even though some were found to be 127 centimeters or (4.2 feet) in length. The Huns got around this by making the bow asymmetrical. Its upper half was slightly longer than the lower. The reason for the lower half being shorter was so as not to poke the horse in the neck. Another reason why the Huns extended the length of the bow was to produce more power. Upon release, the Hunnic horse archers could effectively hit an unarmored opponent at 150 to 200 meters or (492-656 feet), and an armored opponent at 75 to 100 meters or (246-328 feet).

A modern reconstruction of an historical composite bow.

A modern reconstruction of an historical composite bow. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The type of bowstring used also varied. The string for the bow must not be too heavy or light nor stretch easily. The materials used could have been from twisted gut, sinew, horsehair, vines, and even silk. The Hunnic horse archer probably had a variety of bowstrings on hand for various climate conditions. Horsehair strings were best suited for colder climates, whereas sinew absorbed moisture, making them less desirable due to stretching.

The Huns used a variety of arrowheads. One type was a large leaf-shaped and the other a large three-bladed iron arrowhead. The Huns are also said to have used “sharp bone” according to Ammianus. They are said to have fixed bone balls behind the tips called “whistlers”, which produce a terrifying sound for psychological effect. When placing the arrowhead on the shaft, the Huns and other eastern steppe peoples did not socket it into place like the Scythians and Sarmatians did. Instead, the Hunnic arrowheads had a tang, which was sunk into the arrow shaft. The possible reason for this is that it was easier to produce arrowheads with tangs than socketed. Later on western steppe tribes adopted the eastern tang style.

The type of arrow shafts possibly used was cane, reed, birch, cornel, rose-willow, hornbeam, and ash. Reed may have been the preferred material to use for it would travel further and easier to produce. The feathers used in fletching would generally have been from either ducks or geese. The number of feathers attached to the shaft was between two and four. The feathers provided aerodynamic stabilization for the flight of the arrow.

Ancient Greek bronze leaf-shaped, trefoil and triangular arrowheads.

Ancient Greek bronze leaf-shaped, trefoil and triangular arrowheads. (Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://www.cngcoins.com / CC BY-SA 3.0)

The Huns carried a broad shaped bow case, which hung on the left side, and an hour glassed shape quiver or tube-like on the right side, which had a flap. The materials used to construct these cases were made of leather, bark or wood. Upon firing the arrow, the Hun would place the arrow on the right side of the bow. The archer would draw the bowstring with three fingers with the thumb locked under the first three fingers and protected by a ring of bone, horn, ivory or even stone.

An Empire of Conquest

In conclusion, the Hunnic war machine was like that of any other nomadic steppe tribe but with a twist. The twist is the Huns could do it better. Whereas the Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans and many others could only do little in terms of conquest and confiscation, their goals to expand beyond the steppe frontier was never considered, even when they were united. This is not to say that they did not take the plunge into the civilized sedentary world. They did, but in small strikes and fast retreats from those who posed a challenge. The Huns, like the others mentioned, became powerful enough to challenge the various steppe tribes and absorbed them through conquest. While the Huns initially were still not united, their appetite for conquest and confiscation could not be quenched and was a shared goal among them. Even when the Huns pushed out the Goths, they still found plunder by joining with the Romans. Once Attila came on the scene with his brother Bleda, the brothers were able to negotiate and coerce the tribes to coalesce as one. Therefore, the Huns were the first true nomadic empire to establish itself before the civilized world.

But their world was not long term, as the Hunnic economy was based on war and extortion with no lasting goal. In the end, the Hunnic war machine that set foot in Europe, before mighty Roman and the fractured Barbarians, would soon disappear, but the carcass of the machine remained to be absorbed by those affected, to be restudied and implemented to make their (Romans and Barbarians) armies much more effective on the battlefield.

Sculpture of Attila the Hun

Sculpture of Attila the Hun (Public Domain)

Top Image: Attila and his Hordes (Public Domain)

By Cam Rea

Posted on

Subutai: Dog of War — Silent, Insatiable and Remorseless, Part II

Invasion of Central Europe: Battle of Liegnitz (1241)

Subutai planned the invasion of Central Europe with precision. This military expedition into Europe placed Subutai into the annals of great military leaders.

After beating down many of the Russian principalities, Subutai sent spies into Poland, Hungary, and even as far as to Austria. He was able to put together a dossier after gathering vital intelligence on the various kingdoms throughout Eastern Europe. Even though Subutai made the plans, his was under the command of Batu Khan.

Medieval Chinese drawing of young Batu Khan (14th century).

Medieval Chinese drawing of young Batu Khan (14th century). (Public Domain)

While Batu Khan was the leader of this expedition, Subutai, Kadan Kahn, Orda Kahn, Baidar, and a slew of others were the muscle behind the plans. Subutai’s mission was to attack Central Europe by spearheading into Hungary. Kadan’s forces would punch north into Poland.

Subutai. Medieval Chinese drawing.

Subutai. Medieval Chinese drawing. (Public Domain)

Baidar led two Mongol tumans of soldiers westward into Silesia. The object was to destroy their European opponents before they could unite. Duke Henry II of Silesia on 5 April 1241 at Liegnitz was waiting for a force of 50,000 Bohemians under King Wenceslas. The Mongols were in the right place at the right time before the remaining forces could unite with Duke Henry. The Duke’s army was 25,000 strong consisting of Poles, Germans, Teutonic knights, Hospitallers, and Knights Templars. However, much of Henry’s army consisted of poorly trained, inexperienced levies. Can you image Bavarian gold miners fighting a battle for you?

Mongol Heavy Cavalry

Mongol Heavy Cavalry (Public Domain)

Duke Henry’s army assembled themselves in a formation that was typical at the time for European armies. Heavy cavalry was the strike force looking to make the decisive blow to the enemy when the enemy showed weakness, while the infantry played only a supporting role protecting the rear. Henry’s formation is understandable and expected, but what Henry did not understand was the Mongol art of war. The Mongols used a tactic known as mangudai or feigned retreat. They would pretend to flee only to ambush those chasing after them.

The Mongols laid in wait for the Poles to make their move, as they did not want to give away their ruse. The Polish begin by charging the Mongols, hoping to engage them; however, the Mongol cavalry surrounded them and showered them with arrows.

Arrows in the snow, from Genghis Khan: The Exhibition.

Arrows in the snow, from Genghis Khan: The Exhibition. (CC BY-SA 2.0)

The Polish quickly pulled back. They then made a second attempt at the Mongols with two cavalry units charging ahead. The Mongols quickly fled, acting as if they were scared. This fake retreat by the Mongols encouraged the knights to continue, moving deeper and becoming more frustrated while trying to engage the enemy—but the Mongols would not cooperate. Instead, the charging knights realized they were in a trap. It was too late.

The Mongols surrounded the Europeans on three sides and began to shower their enemy with arrows and smoke bombs, separating the cavalry force sent in by Duke Henry from his main army. Once the dividing of Henry’s troops had been accomplished, the Mongol heavy cavalry rode down and cut to pieces the European infantry, ultimately winning the battle. Duke Henry was also killed. His head became an ornament on the tip of the spear.

Battle of Legnica (Legnitz) 1241.

Battle of Legnica (Legnitz) 1241. (Public Domain)

Battle of Sajo River (or Mohi) (1241)

The Battle of Liegnitz took place a mere few days before the battle of Sajo River.

On the day of the battle, many European men died in the fighting including Duke Henry of Silesia. Once word got out that the Mongols had defeated Duke Henry, King Bela of Hungary was left to confront the Mongols with roughly around 80,000 men.

King Bela’s army was very much similar to Duke Henry’s, which consisted of heavy cavalry, infantry, and a number of mercenaries consisting of nomadic light cavalry. Bela’s army was huge, and one that could, if applied tactically, go toe to toe with just about any fighting force thrown at it. However, this fighting force was Mongols: smart thinkers who looked ahead and planned methodically.

A Mongol melee in the 13th century.

A Mongol melee in the 13th century. (Public Domain)

The Mongols choose a site called Mohi, which was on a plain. The reason for this location choice was to better maneuver their cavalry force while having a forest protecting their flanks. The Mongols quickly crossed over the Sajo River and rode a few miles ahead to make camp at that location. King Bela arrived nearby and set up camp, sending a small unit ahead to guard the far side of the bridge.

The Mongols decided that it would be best to divide their forces, sending 30,000 up north under the command of Subutai. Subutai gave the order for a bridge to be built that crossed over the River Sajo to the Hungarian side.

Batu began his attack early at dawn on 11 April with 40,000 troops at his aid. They attacked the bridge, but this proved dangerous, unless the bridge could be flushed of the European forces stationed there.

Batu gave the order for the catapults to be brought up, which hurled bombs of various sorts and made raucous sounds, which were used against the European forces to cause a panic. Once the European forces fled from the bridge, Batu was able to cross and control the bridge and establish a foothold on Bela’s side.

Nevertheless, Bela gave the order for his cavalry to charge the Mongol cavalry, for the Mongol cavalry had the river to their back, thus walling themselves in somewhat, until Subutai arrived from the north to flank Bela’s army. In doing so, it freed up Batu forces to engage Bela’s forces. The Mongols in turn devastated Bela’s camp.

After several hours of fighting the Mongols allowed a gap in their lines big enough to allow European forces to escape by any means necessary.  It was a bad idea to attempt escape, for the men had become a flood of panic and confusion. Nevertheless, the fate of the men fleeing was a deadly one. The Mongols cut down 60,000 men in a 30-mile (48 km) stretch back to Pest. King Bela escaped the butchery, most likely a changed man.

Battle of Mohi 1241 between Hungarians and Mongols.

Battle of Mohi 1241 between Hungarians and Mongols. (Public Domain)

Once Hungary was clear of any foe left to challenge them, the Mongols knew that it was time to complete the mission and conquer the rest of Hungary. However, although it seemed the fate was sealed for the Hungarians, chance saved the Hungarians: a significant death. The Mongol Khan Ogotai died in December 1241, and Batu was forced to leave in order to elect a new Khan, as was their custom.

The Nine Principles of War

The Mongols demonstrated the Nine Principles of War at both Liegnitz and Sajo by massing their forces on a concentrated position at the right time and place.

The Mongol objective was clear and decisive as to whom they would hit, like clockwork, in order to gain the advantage.

The Mongol offensive was a strike force that could now exploit the enemy and retain enemies to do their will—all by the use of psychological maneuver.

Surprise in the Mongol offensive was crucial in order to disrupt the enemy to thrown him off balance. This allowed the Mongol economy of force to concentrate all secondary units on primary targets, to achieve a much greater position than his enemy did. This allowed the Mongols to maneuver their enemy into a fixed position for the beating.

Mongol flexibility and cunningness was crucial to this endeavor. Unity of command under the Mongols was by one Batu Khan. However, Batu was flexible in his unity of command in order to gain the best out of his officers, such as with Subutai.

Because of the Mongol effectiveness in chaos and confusion, it allowed for a great sense of security on their behalf. The Mongol army could create an atmosphere of safety to ensure that their troops always had the advantage over the enemy. With security safely applied, the objective of simplicity was greatly understood in order to execute any order without asking twice.

The reason why both Duke Henry and King Bela lost the battles was due to a lack of combined arms or a lack of understanding how to utilize them in a time of war. However, this may be unfair to those who died. Nevertheless, from what we have read, we can see why they lost: a lack of good troops with experience, the feeling of over confidence and superiority, and most important, a lack of understanding of their enemy’s way of warfare.

Béla IV flees from Mohi

Béla IV flees from Mohi (Public Domain)

The End of the European Theater

The Mongol onslaught into Europe would halt when on 11 December 1241 when the great Mongol leader Ogedei Khan died.

Portrait of Ögedei Khan (the 14th century). The Chinese annotation reads: Third son of Genghis Khan, also known as Emperor Qaγan. He eliminated the Jin, his west expedition read central European. He reigned for 13 years, temple name Taizong.

Portrait of Ögedei Khan (the 14th century). The Chinese annotation reads: Third son of Genghis Khan, also known as Emperor Qaγan. He eliminated the Jin, his west expedition read central European. He reigned for 13 years, temple name Taizong. (Public Domain)

With his death, it was mandatory that all Mongol military expeditions stop and the Mongol princes were required to return to the capital of Karakorum to elect a new Khan. It was during this event that Subutai had been drawing up plans for the invasion of the Holy Roman Empire, but the man in charge of the European theater, Batu Khan, had to rush back since he was a prince.

Batu Khan on the throne. Batu Khan was a Mongol ruler and founder of the Golden Horde. Batu was a son of Jochi and grandson of Genghis Khan.

Batu Khan on the throne. Batu Khan was a Mongol ruler and founder of the Golden Horde. Batu was a son of Jochi and grandson of Genghis Khan. (Public Domain)

It took three years before a new khan was elected and the man elected was Guyuk, and Guyuk had no interest in Batu. With a feud now in the works, any further military operations into Europe had ceased for the time being. With Subutai’s ambitions to advance further into Europe dashed, he received new military operations to conduct, particularly at the Song Dynasty during 1246-47.

The Legacy of Subutai

In 1247, a Franciscan monk by the name of Plano Carpini visited the Mongol court. In his letters, he mentioned that Subutai was still alive and in his early seventies. Carpini also went on to state that Subutai was held in high regards among the court, and referred to him as “Subutai the Unfailing.”

Carpini wrote, “He was a soldier without weakness.” Carpini is just one of the few sources available that speak of the man’s personality. The Muslims, for instance, saw him as “silent, insatiable, and remorseless.” The Russians said he was “extremely disciplined.” The Chinese had a much more revealing description. They looked upon Subutai in high esteem, and he was a great warrior. When Subutai passed, the Chinese bestowed an honorary title on him, proclaiming Subutai King of Honan (Hunan Province). The reason for this title was that Subutai captured the province from the Chin. He was also awarded the title of “faithful and steady.”

In 1248, Subutai returned to Karkorum after a successful campaign and retired. After Subutai left court, he is said to have removed the badges of rank from his yurt and spent the remainder of his days tending to his herds and watching over his grandchildren, particularly his grandson, Achu, and he sharpened his warrior skills.

Some say he went home near the Tuul River, others say he died alone in a tent, while others say he moved further west near the Danube River to be near his son, Uriangkatai, who was in the service of Batu army, serving as an officer. If so, Subutai would spend the remainder of his days living within the territory of the Golden Horde.

It is said he had grown tired of the court, and rightfully so. Subutai grew nauseous of the political squabbling of the Mongol princes, particularly that of Batu and Kuyuk that went on long after Ogedai’s death. By 1248, the once-great Mongol Empire established by Genghis Khan was still great, but fractures created after the death of Ogedei in 1241 continued to grow and further separate the empire from its foundation.

In the end, the historical records provide little information when it comes to the generalship of Subutai. Furthermore, this piece cannot relate the grand scope of all of the battles and wars he part took in, but instead provide a rare glimpse into the man called Subutai.

If one wants to know how accomplished this man was as a general on his Eurasian tour, then consider the words of Sir Basil Liddell-Hart, as he states that Subutai from China to the Danube “had conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles.” As military historian Richard Gabriel further comments, and rightfully speaks of Subutai’s achievements, they’re described as “a record of accomplishment literally unsurpassed by any of the great generals who had gone before him.”

Unfortunately, Subutai has long been overlooked, especially in military circles, but now his successes on the battlefield have become known for all to see and decipher.

After he retired, Subutai died two years later at the age of 72. Even though Subutai was dead, his sons and their descendants continued to serve one Khan after another for the next three decades.

Subutai is thus remembered in The Secret History of the Mongols:

“They are the Four Dogs of Temujin. They have foreheads of brass, their jaws are like scissors, their tongues like piercing awls, their heads are iron, their whipping tails swords . . . In the day of battle, they devour enemy flesh. Behold, they are now unleashed, and they slobber at the mouth with glee. These four dogs are Jebe, and Kublai, Jelme, and Subotai.”

Featured image: Deriv; A Mongolian Cavalry recreation, from Genghis Khan: The Exhibition (CC BY-SA 2.0) , A Mongol melee in the 13th century. (Public Domain)

By Cam Rea

(Read Part I: Subutai: Dog of War — Sophisticated Military Strategist Behind Genghis Khan’s Conquering Empire)

References

Bevin, Alexander. How Great Generals Win. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2002.

Carey, Brian Todd, Allfree, Joshua B and Cairns John. Warfare in the Medieval World. Barnsley, UK: Pen and Sword, 2009.

Chambers, James. The Devil’s Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe. Edison, NJ: Castle Books, 2003.

Craughwell, Thomas J. The Rise and Fall of the Second Largest Empire in the World: How 88 Years of Mongol Domination Reshaped the World from the Pacific to the Mediterranean Sea. Gloucester, Maine: Fair Winds Press, 2010.

Crompton, Samuel Willard. 100 Military Leaders Who Shaped World History. San Mateo, CA: Bluewood Books, 1999.

Cummins, Joseph. History’s Great Untold Stories: The Larger Than Life Characters and Dramatic Events That Changed the World. Washington DC: National Geographic, 2007.

Curtin, Jeremiah. The Mongols A History. Boston: DA CAPO PRESS, 2003.

Dupuy, Trevor N. Johnson, Curt. Bongard, David L. The Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography.New York: Castle Books, 1995.

Edwards, Sean J. Swarming on the Battlefield” Past, Present, and Future. Santa Monica: Rand Coporation, 2000.

Gabriel, Richard A. Subotai the Valiant: Genghis Khan’s Greatest General. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2004.

Hart, B. H. Liddell. Great Captains Unveiled. New York and Washington D.C.: Da Capo Press, 1996.

Hartog, Leo De. Genghis Khan: Conqueror of the World. London, New York: Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2004.

Kennedy, Hugh. Mongols, Huns & Vikings. London: Cassell, 2002.

Turnbull, Stephen. Genghis Khan & the Mongol Conquests 1190-1400. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2001.

Tzu, Sun, Griffith, B. Samuel (translator). The Art Of War. London: Oxford University Press, 1963.