How did the Isrealites fight in ancient times?
(there was also another country called judah, if so them too).
Printable View
How did the Isrealites fight in ancient times?
(there was also another country called judah, if so them too).
Most likly like many other armies at the time, bows, chariots, slings, spears, swords and the like. I think there is an Osprey book (quite new too) detailing the specific subject you mentioned as well.
Theres a great series on the history channel about this very topic. Ancient battles of the bible. Of course there are those who claim the bible is all fiction LOL.
I wonder how those folks deal with the Mesopotamian and Egyptian sources that in part at least corroborate the general events though.
After watching that program, and taking a look at the bible and other sources, I arrived at the conclusion that the ancient Isrealis where outstanding Light Infantry with a particular penchant for special operations-just as they are today.
By what I've read their exact methods and patterns varied over time (big suprise there). Obviously back when they were still a bunch of camel-herding nomads their approach was rather different from the time they were settled down in the fertile lands of Judea, which had supported towns and cities from quite early in history, and for example possessed their own war chariot fleet.
Nomads tend to fight as light infantry (cavalry not really being aorund at that time yet) already by default, as their lifestyle is good training for such light-equipement mobility-heavy tactics. Settled farmers and city-dwellers, less mobile but more used to working side-by-side and moreover richer and needing to defend their immobile possessions, conversely have always tended more towards varying patterns combining close-order heavy infantry and "aristocratic" mobile striking arms (initially chariots, later cavalry), with the light infantry and such tending to be drawn from amongst the poorer citizens, herdsmen, highland folk and similar "peripherals" of the society.
I've read one tribe in Judea seemed to specialize in what would today be thought of as "special forces" type operations. A guess could be hazarded that these folks dwelt in harsher and more rugged conditions than was the norm in the kingdom, and thus were more inclined for "hill tribe" style sneaky hit-and-run warfare.
I've also read that the Judeans at one point had serious trouble with Bedouin raiders who fought exclusively as camel-mounted archers, and were flatly impossible for the Israelite infantry to catch. It could be deduced from this that at the time they had a serious shortage of mobile strike forces and good ranged troops - perhaps the expensive chariot arm had been run down due to financial reaons (or not yet been built up), and the realm was agrarian and urbane enough that sufficient numbers of slingers and archers (normally recruited from herdsmen and hunters in such societies) could not be found ? Dang, I should really go find the damn Osprey books on the subject.
Here's a link to the book I mentioned before. If anyone's intressted.
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...e=T0366~per=40
853-586
Didnt the Isrealis fight alot erlier then that?
Or was this the general time of all of isreals wars?
(because I remember Egypt havin isreals territory very early, maybe before isreal?)
The "Holy Land" region was much fought over already by Late Bronze Age (IIRCs ca. 1500 BC onwards), due to being neatly between Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Hittites and to boot boasting both numerous minor kingdoms and city-states of its own as well as being home to certain types of wood needed for the construction of war chariots - a strategic resource. It was also the pathway of major land trade routes between the Mediterranean and the wastelands of the interior. Most of the major "chariot empires" usually as such directly ruled these region (already due to logistical considerations), but held the local minor powers at vassalage and extracted tribute from them - and the locals duly did their best to play these superpowers against each other.
Anyway, one gets the impression the Israelites carved themelves a niche there around the time of the "Sea Peoples'" migrations or soon after (ca. 1200-1100 BC), when the whole ancient Near East was in chaos and most of the previous major powers in ruins. It would certainly seem sensible enough that they made use of the general instability of the region and the relative weakness of the "Sea Peoples" settled there after being repulsed from Egypt, and the damage that had been done to the earlier occupants in passing.
I love to read your posts Watchman, except in the backroom. :laugh4:
Thanks for the thorough analysis.
Eh, I'm pretty much just parroting what I've picked up from a couple of Osprey books on the topic as well as some other writings related to chariot warfare. They agree coherently enough on the grand scheme of things even if the specifics are debated - see the different theories regarding the "Sea Peoples" in the Wiki for example of that. :sweatdrop:
Edited
Watchman already summed it up pretty well. Some further ideas:
The Bible often underline the fact that the "Philisters" were better armored and more numerous of the Israelis. This can be explained by the their urbanization and reliance on farming one one side and on their cultural tradition and richness on the other side.
To me it seems that - propaganda aside - the lighter armed and pastoral Israelis had little hope to hold their own in a pichted battle. Guerillia warfare and skirmishing seem to have enjoyed quite a success, as well as well defended fortresses.
While the sling and the javelin were the weapons of choice for the light infantry, the noble prefered the chariot, using it as an platform for archery. Heavy infantry seemed to have be rather rare and concentrated in the urban centers and richer farmlands and fishing areas.
OA
By what I know of the Egyptian sources on the Philistines (or Peleset, as the Egyptian name reads), they apparently mainly tried to migrate into Egypt by land and at that time possessed no war chariots. As those were very expensive machines requiring quite speciaized materials and infrastructure to maintain in campaign condition, it isn't really surprising that a migrating "barbarian" people wouldn't have them along - all the more so as by most theories I've seen on the subject the groups that made up the "Sea Peoples" had figured out the aggressive swarming tactics that allowed infantry to assail chariotry and win, which of course would not be a great encouragement for using such devices yourself.
They were, however, presumably quite well equipped by the standards of time; I understand they used long thrusting swords similar to those of the Sherden, whom the Egyptians valued as shock troop mercenaries, made for the infantry of the period considerable use of good body armour (this was apparently a common trait among the "Sea Peoples" - among the chariot empires metal armour was night exclusively used by the chariot warriors), and probably also made good use of javelins both for "chariot hunting" and as "precursors" thrown into enemy ranks before contact (apparently another common practice among such groups). Later Biblical sources suggests they had enough familiarity with ironworking (likely picked up from the Hittites in Anatolia one way or another) for the champion Goliath to have at least an iron spearhead, a skill they doubtless had already by the time of their abortive invasion of Egypt. Chariots or no that would have put them at the forefront of military technology of the time.
By that point they were most likely also quite tough customers who'd fought and looted their way over a fair bit of Canaanite lands and most likely also smaller Egyptian garrisons; even after their defeat and subjugation by the Egyptians and later settlement (presumably as a military client-state) in what were later the Philistine Pentapolis they doubtless remained a formidable group, judging already by the fact it took the Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians to actually conquer them for good.
The Israelites apparently began butting heads with them rather shortly after both groups had settled down in the region, and as the former had only recently graduated from straight nomadism (and gotten access to proper armement manufacturing potential, not counting what they duly looted from the previous occupants in the course of their conquest) they doubtless found the Philistines a daunting foe indeed. One would logically assume a hefty application of foot-nomad hit-and-run tactics on the default condition of not getting stomped flat by the presumably on the whole rather better armed and organized Philistines on the part of the Israelites - and they may well not yet have had the practical know-how and experience for much else anyway. Those were in any case presumably succesful enough as the Israelites clearly weren't booted back into the wastelands from which they had only recently burst out of.
Once both sides got properly established in their domains something like a parity in most military matters presumably developed (and they butted heads way too often for that not to happen); it's a safe bet both developed a serviceable chariot arm (since the Bible AFAIK talks a fair bit of at least Israelite chariotry later on; although along what design lines I've no idea of - of the older designs there would already have been the light and agile Egyptian archery platform, the heavy and clumsy Hittite shock machine and the mid-weight Canaanite type to choose from, and later the big four-horse "Assyrian" terror weapon on top of those), and as sedentary and partially urbanized cultures in identical ecology would logically have developed their heavy infantry largely along same lines. Doubly so as that heavy infantry would have spent a lot of time taking on their peers over the ownership of assorted valuable pieces of real estate. The Philistines would have had a minor technological edge in their ironworking skills, but as early crude iron stuff was hardly the better of thoroughly "destruction tested" bronze gear this is unlikely to have been of great practical military significance.
Although given the prestige iron weapons AFAIK enjoyed, they would presumably have been a fairly good goodwill gift and export cash cow for the Philistine city-states.
I remember the Holy Land History Channel thing...
What it mentions was that the Israeli's fully appreciated their lack of heavy infantry, and to counter this they used light troops (both missile and lightly armored) to encourage the Philistines into rough ground where they would suddenly surround and annihilate them.
There is another series on the History channel that follows the military tradition of the Isrealites. It uses the bible as reference with corraboration from Egyptian and other sources. The episode on the Exodus as a military campaign is very interesting itself including the placement of the Israelites as a documented composition of Egyptian fighting effectives in the north, but my favorites were the chronicles of the conflicts with the Hittites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
:yes: Sounds like solid "light tribal army" approach. Do you incidentally recall the timeframe given for that ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Were there even by that point any Hittite powers around save for some lingering remnants that hadn't gotten stomped over, looted and burned during the Catastrophe...?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Well that depends on what you take as Hittite. There are a couple possibilities for who they actually were, but taking the bible as reference point they were referred to as the Hittites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I think we can safely assume they weren't fighting with the big Anatolian empire of old, anyway. The one that could take on the Egyptians at their heyday on even terms.
Which pretty much leaves the assorted little "Neo-Hittite" splinters left over when the kingdom proper got stomped over, looted and burned. There were some pretty far south in Syria I understand.
Isreali's lured their foe onto terrain of their choosing to destroy them by with light infantry right? I would assume this.
Also I would suspect the Isreali's more experienced than the nations to the east of them such as moab (its moab right?)
I dont think the Isreali's used chariots much, because everyone here is inferring that their main focus was light infantry and skirmishers.
That'd be early on, when they were still piss poor and getting set up. Later when they were being a big local power chariotry was de rigeur, as it now was for anyone with such aspirations in that part of the world around those times. The Bible doesn't have a lot of references to chariots and horsemen "just because" you know.
Light-infantry skirmishers who have to head for the rocks the second something heavy looks their way just aren't what you build empires with. Neither are they something sedentary farmers and townspeople are all that well suited for fighting as.
Then what did they use? their chariots couldnt match other super powers?!?
Everyones telling me they defeated others with light infantry, and I find that hard to believe or they've wouldve been conquered, they must've had something to counter philistine superiority. (I know somebody's gonna say "they won with God right now:shame: :whip: )
So later on they are great charioteers?
From what I remember, and I could be horribly wrong, that most of their pivotal battles were fought at the disadvantage, but for their use of geography and the use of time and distance, manuevor strategically.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
What great powers ? There were none left at that point. The Sea Peoples and assorted other troubles had seen to that; about the only one of the old "big names" still in some shape was Egypt, and it was having major nomad trouble from the surrounding deserts, famine, internal disturbances, and was rapidly sliding down to serious decline. The rest were pretty much smoking ruins on which assorted barbarians were now busily building their houses, and what had not been pillaged more likely than not was now the personal mini-kingdom of the local garrison commander.
Big names on the rise would include the likes of Urartia and Assyria, but those were far away.
Now get your chronology straight. When the Israelites were still dirt poor recently reformed nomads who'd just taken over some Canaanite prime estate they would not have had much resources or military tradition to field much more than light spearmen and various sorts of skirmishers. This somewhat unimpressive lot then had to engage in some clever tactics and use of terrain to keep neighbouring resurgent Canaanites and the newly established Philistines, both rather better equipped and versed in directly confrontational type of shock warfare, from booting them back into the desert to herd camels.
Once they'd weathered that and turned into a reasonably strong and secure kingdom (a political and organisational developement pretty much directly in response to the external threats - in fact quite similarly Assyrian pressure coalesced the mountain tribes of Armenia into the kingdom of Urartia), and gotten their economy and trade and industry running, they could - and had to - start wielding better-equipped and heavier troops. Around the same time their neighbours would be variously recovering from the chaos and distruptions and invasions of the Catastrophe and generally likewise getting their act together, and duly begin deploying likewise more formidable forces as economy and resources allowed. Such would also have been necessary to seriously contest the well-garrisoned and fortified cities that commanded territory in the region; poor nomads may have been able to overrun the stricken settlements of Judea in the anarchy of the Catastrophe, but it was a whole different ballgame to try to take the centers that sprang up in the aftermath.
And that meant chariots as well. Decent cavalry was still centuries ahead and would come from the north and east, from the Urartians and their steppe neighbours and the Assyrians who regularly fought them. The only proper mobile striking arm around was a contraption of wood pulled by a couple of horses, as had been manufactured and used in the region already for almost a millenia. The things and their technicians cost like the dickies and the warriors to crew them were a handful to train and manage, but if you wanted to do serious war you pretty much had to have them. The things wouldn't go out of fashion before the Persians, were still in use in India when Alexander led his army there, and used the Carthaginians until meeting Pyrrhus' war elephants in Sicily gave them a better idea for the shock-distruption role.
Coincidentally enough that which I referred to as being on the History Channel was televised earlier today. I think its a total of 2 separate 2 hour episodes the title being Bible Battles.
Woah !!
I'm asking the questions here, not debating it. I want to know more about this and this place beat all else.
I understand the Bible claims the Israelites had a full-blown standing army including a fair bit of cavalry and chariotry already by Solomon's reign (around 1000 BC). That'd be within a century or two of their most likely date of appereance in the region. Taken at face value that would presumably mean they wasted no time getting the trade routes going and fields growing, and indeed it's apparently theoretized most of their wars with the Philistines were over the control of overland trade routes.
Until the Assyrians finally got around to briefly overrunning the place (and were fairly shortly replaced by the Babylonians, who in turn fell to the Persians) I've read the politics of the region were a horribly complicated soap opera of all the little kingdoms (such as the two Israelite ones), city-state confederations (such as the Philistines or the Tyre-led Phoenicians), minor tribes and greater foreign powers (chiefly Egypt, occasionally Assyria or Babylon) endlessly forming and dissolving alliances with and against each others. One gets the impression there were a few too many communities jockeying for power and wealth in too cramped a geographical area, with nobody strong enough to clearly secure ascendancy over the others.
Indeed rather as it had been when the Egyptians and Hittites played tug-of-war with the previous slew of little statelets in the same region.
There are surprising little "big" battles mentioned in the bible, especially against before the large kingdoms of wider mesopotamia attacked the region. I guess that a lot of raiding and waylaying went on, while decisive engagements in the open field were indeed rare. The weaker would usually fall back to defend the hillforts and small cities - siegewarfare was immensly important back than, as one can see with all those descriptions and depictions.
A proper siege would put also a good deal of economic strain on a small alliance or a small kingdom, so that a strategical retreat would very often enable the weaker to live on. Slings and javelins are great weapons in sieges, and for the defender armor is less important than for the attacker so that plenty of light infantery with plenty of missiles would have worked very well against assaulters with limited siegecraft. So a hillfort was usually a safe heaven, and a good base for the policy of the small war...
Chariots must have been excellent for a swift response, considering their speed and the readiness of their noble owners. Ideal to track down and harry enemy raiders.