Isreali warfare

[Boyar Son]

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 )

So later on they are great charioteers?

[ShadeHonestus]

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 )

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[ShadeHonestus]

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.

[Boyar Son]

Woah !!

I'm asking the questions here, not debating it. I want to know more about this and this place beat all else.

[Watchman]

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.

[Oleander Ardens]

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.