Assyrian Army Tidbits

[Tiglath Pileser III]

Select excerpts from Karen Metz's "From Sumer to Rome".

In the 8th century B.C., when the entire Assyrian army included 150,000-200,000 men, a combat field army of 50,000 men would be equal to 5 modern American heavy divisions, or 8 Soviet field divisions.
When arrayed for battle, a field army occupied an area of 2,500 yards (almost 1.5 miles) across and 100 yards deep. After the fall of Rome, it was not until Napoloen's re-institution of conscription that armies of such a size would be mustered.

The Assyrians were the first to invent large cavalry squadrons.
A special logistics branch, the Musarkisus, was created to keep the army supplied with horses. It was able to obtain 3,000 horses a month for military use. Once again, it was not until Napoleon that such large amounts of horses would be systematically procdured for the army.

In a climate such as the Middle East, a soldier would need 3,402 calories a day and 70 grams of protein to sustain him, in addition to 9 quarts of water.

A ration of 3 pounds of wheat daily (or 150,000 pounds daily for a field army) would only provide 2,205 calories daily, insufficient for the needs of a soldier.

The "strategic mobility" of the Assyrian army, or their ability to project their military force over a given area, was 375,000 square miles. After Rome fell, no army exceeded this area until the American Civil War, when the use of railroads made troop movements easier.

In terms of efficiency of organization, no military staff (i.e. administrators, logistic officers and engineers) would reach the proficiency of the Assyrian or Roman military staffs until the German general staff of the 1870's.

The prototype of a modern soldier's equipment (helmet, body armor, boots [a particular Assyrian innovation], and backpack) was invented by ancient armies and disappeared for almost 1,000 years after the fall of the Roman Empire.

The killing power of an ancient composite bow (i.e. the accuracy, force, distance, and speed of deployment) was not matched until the introduction of the Prussian needle gun in 1871.

According to modern tests, the body armor, helmet, and shield of the Assyrians would have provided excellent protection against firearms until Napoleon. If the dispersion of field formations, inaccuracy of early firearms, and rates of fire are considered, the Assyrian soldier would have been safer on a battlefield in the 18th century than on an Ancient Near Eastern one.

Source: Richard A. Gabriel and Karen S. Metz. "From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies." New York: Greenwood Press, 1991.

[Carlton Bach]

I'm a great fan of the Assyrians, but how seriously can we take this?

Select excerpts from Karen Metz's "From Sumer to Rome".
When arrayed for battle, a field army occupied an area of 2,500 yards (almost 1.5 miles) across and 100 yards deep. After the fall of Rome, it was not until Napoloen's re-institution of conscription that armies of such a size would be mustered.

I can't speak to the area covered, but in terms of numbers I'm pretty sure the armies of the Sui, Tang and Song dynasties would beat that.

The Assyrians were the first to invent large cavalry squadrons.

How do we know that? AFAIK there is simply no source material for Central ASia, where horse riding was allegedly invented. What tells us whether the Assyrian army didn't merely copy a good thing they found across the Caucasus? They were well placed to learn from the Central Asian nomads.

A special logistics branch, the Musarkisus, was created to keep the army supplied with horses. It was able to obtain 3,000 horses a month for military use. Once again, it was not until Napoleon that such large amounts of horses would be systematically procdured for the army.

That sounds mildly counterintuitive. It's damned impressive no doubt, but given the size of some cavalry forces in history can't have been that unusual. To pull the first high number I stumbled across, it is widely thought credible that Sui Wendi led 50,000 cavalry against Goguryeo. At a similar replacement rate, that would mean a new horse per trooper every 16 months. Don't horses have shorter lifespans in war?

The "strategic mobility" of the Assyrian army, or their ability to project their military force over a given area, was 375,000 square miles. After Rome fell, no army exceeded this area until the American Civil War, when the use of railroads made troop movements easier.

How big was the Mogol Empire? I also thought the late Umayyads and early Abassids effectively controlled more territory than the Assyrians at their height.

According to Ye Ole Wikipedia, the Ottoman Empire in 1680 counted 2,123,562 square miles and AFAIK its army could reach every bit of it quite effectively yet.

In terms of efficiency of organization, no military staff (i.e. administrators, logistic officers and engineers) would reach the proficiency of the Assyrian or Roman military staffs until the German general staff of the 1870's.

I honestly have no idea how to measure that efficiently, but the siege of Jerusalem does not speak *that* highly of their capabilities under pressure.

The prototype of a modern soldier's equipment (helmet, body armor, boots [a particular Assyrian innovation], and backpack) was invented by ancient armies and disappeared for almost 1,000 years after the fall of the Roman Empire.

I'm not sure how that makes sense. THwe assyrians, Greeks and Romans used military equipment that made sense for their needs. Just because it looks remarkably like ours doesn't mean it was ahead of its time. Fifty years ago I'm sure most military men would have explained to you that body armour was gone from the modern battlefield for good.

The killing power of an ancient composite bow (i.e. the accuracy, force, distance, and speed of deployment) was not matched until the introduction of the Prussian needle gun in 1871.

This doesn't even make sense. The Dreyse gun had been in service since the 1840s. By 1871, it was already outclassed in terms of rate of fire, range, accuracy, reliability and stopping power by a number of other military rifles.

According to modern tests, the body armor, helmet, and shield of the Assyrians would have provided excellent protection against firearms until Napoleon. If the dispersion of field formations, inaccuracy of early firearms, and rates of fire are considered, the Assyrian soldier would have been safer on a battlefield in the 18th century than on an Ancient Near Eastern one.

Do we even have good enough archeological data on Assyrian equipment to make these claims? And even so, I doubt they would react well to 12-pdr shell.

Source: Richard A. Gabriel and Karen S. Metz. "From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies." New York: Greenwood Press, 1991.

I come away with a poor impression of that book above all. Pity - I'd love to learn more about the Assyrian army.

[Tiglath Pileser III]

I'm a great fan of the Assyrians, but how seriously can we take this?

I didn’t write the book I was merely posting exerts from it. Here’s a post from a review and an endorsement from a Professor of History.

Editorial Reviews

Review
"This is a fascinating book shedding new light on the killing power of early weapons and on the sophistication of ancient warfare. It also contains a stimulating section on the wounds caused by individual weapons, on the treatment of those wounds, and on the effect of disease in ancient armies. Although the book deals with the military history of the ancient Mediterranean, it treats many topics that are crucial for the study of military history down to modern times. All military historians will find this book useful. It is a welcome and important contribution to the history of warfare." - Arther Ferrill Professor of History University of Washington

Product Description
This in-depth work demonstrates that ancient battles rivaled those of the modern period in size, complexity, and lethality. The organization of armies of the ancient world, their performance, their military operations, and their ability to raise the art of warfare to towering heights are the focus of this carefully documented volume. An examination is made of all the major military establishments of the Bronze and Iron Ages. Pertinent evidence is gathered from a number of disciplines and integrated into a coherent whole. Corroborative evidence is drawn from modern analysis when accepting or rejecting the claims of ancient writers. Where that was lacking, the authors conducted empirical studies of ancient weapons, which led to a better understanding of how ancient battles were really fought. The book concludes with description and analysis of the armies of the ancient world placed in a modern perspective. From Sumer to Rome provides a detailed portrait of the world's earliest military establishments. A number of military innovations and developments that came to fruition in the Iron Age and that remained are traced. An empirical analysis of all the major weapons of the ancient armies is made. The factors that played dominant roles in outcomes are explored and thorough analysis of military medical care systems is provided. This book will be an excellent addition to the libraries of military historians, students of ancient warfare and weaponry, and the general reader.

About the Author

KAREN S. METZ is an academic librarian and a former medical librarian.

RICHARD A. GABRIEL is a military historian and the author of numerous books. He was Professor of History and Politics at the U.S. Army War College and Professor of Humanities and Ethics at Daniel Webster College. Among his many books are Empires At War: A Chronological Encyclopedia (Greenwood, 2005), The Great Captains of Antiquity (2001) and From Sumer To Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies (1991).

Source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/produc ... 55&s=books



Endorsement From Arther Ferrill (Professor of History)
University of Washington

This is a fascinating book shedding new light on the killing power of early weapons and on the sophistication of ancient warfare. It also contains a stimulating section on the wounds caused by individual weapons, on the treatment of those wounds, and on the effect of disease in ancient armies. Although the book deals with the military history of the ancient Mediterranean, it treats many topics that are crucial for the study of military history down to modern times. All military historians will find this book useful. It is a welcome and important contribution to the history of warfare.

Description: This in-depth work demonstrates that ancient battles rivaled those of the modern period in size, complexity, and lethality. The organization of armies of the ancient world, their performance, their military operations, and their ability to raise the art of warfare to towering heights are the focus of this carefully documented volume. An examination is made of all the major military establishments of the Bronze and Iron Ages. Pertinent evidence is gathered from a number of disciplines and integrated into a coherent whole. Corroborative evidence is drawn from modern analysis when accepting or rejecting the claims of ancient writers. Where that was lacking, the authors conducted empirical studies of ancient weapons, which led to a better understanding of how ancient battles were really fought. The book concludes with description and analysis of the armies of the ancient world placed in a modern perspective. From Sumer to Rome provides a detailed portrait of the world's earliest military establishments. A number of military innovations and developments that came to fruition in the Iron Age and that remained are traced. An empirical analysis of all the major weapons of the ancient armies is made. The factors that played dominant roles in outcomes are explored and thorough analysis of military medical care systems is provided. This book will be an excellent addition to the libraries of military historians, students of ancient warfare and weaponry, and the general reader.

Table of Contents:
• Introduction
• The World's First Armies
• The Military Revolution
• Weapons and Lethality
• Death, Wounds, and Injury
• Military Medical Care
• The Legacy of the Ancients
• Selected Bibliography
• Index
LC Card Number: 90-20676
LCC Class: U29
Dewey Class: 355

Source: http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/GLR%252f.aspx

How do we know that? AFAIK there is simply no source material for Central ASia, where horse riding was allegedly invented. What tells us whether the Assyrian army didn't merely copy a good thing they found across the Caucasus? They were well placed to learn from the Central Asian nomads.

Bas reliefs in the British Museum shows Assyrians hunting wild horses that were domestic to the ancient Middle East. They also show that before the 7th century a team of two Assyrian horsemen riding bare back with one steering the horses and another firing a bow and arrow or throwing a lance. This was revolutionised in the 8th century when they began to use the saddle and the lone horseman with bow and arrow and lance became a shock trooper.

How big was the Mogol Empire? I also thought the late Umayyads and early Abassids effectively controlled more territory than the Assyrians at their height.
According to Ye Ole Wikipedia, the Ottoman Empire in 1680 counted 2,123,562 square miles and AFAIK its army could reach every bit of it quite effectively yet.

I’d have to reread the book to determine how this figure was derived.

I honestly have no idea how to measure that efficiently, but the siege of Jerusalem does not speak *that* highly of their capabilities under pressure.

According to Sennacherib’s Prism Jerusalem surrendered and Hezekiah gave the Assyrian king large quantities of money as tribute, resulting in the Assyrians victoriously returning home. This explanation contradicts that in the Old Testament. However the mass death mentioned in the Old Testament has never been substantiated by any archaeological find. Let’s also remember that parts of the Old Testament are not actually considered factual and should never be used to as source material for historical evidence.

Please feel free to read the book yourself and post your opinion on it.

Regards,
David Chibo
http://www.gilgameshgames.org

[Timotheus]

According to Sennacherib’s Prism Jerusalem surrendered and Hezekiah gave the Assyrian king large quantities of money as tribute, resulting in the Assyrians victoriously returning home. This explanation contradicts that in the Old Testament. However the mass death mentioned in the Old Testament has never been substantiated by any archaeological find. Let’s also remember that parts of the Old Testament are not actually considered factual and should never be used to as source material for historical evidence.

Please feel free to read the book yourself and post your opinion on it.

Regards,
David Chibo
http://www.gilgameshgames.org

I would assume that no serious historian would consider any portion of the Old or New Testament to be factual unless it is heavily supported by outside physical evidence.

At least in the case of the New Testament we know the Church rewrote sections of it and removed sections during purges many times. This alone would remove all its credibility.

[Timotheus]

I'm a great fan of the Assyrians, but how seriously can we take this?

According to Ye Ole Wikipedia, the Ottoman Empire in 1680 counted 2,123,562 square miles and AFAIK its army could reach every bit of it quite effectively yet.

The semi-independence of Egypt and the various factions of North Africa would contradict this statement. Sure they could project but the amount of power versus the total size of the Ottoman Army I believe is what this author would say the difference was.

The bulk of the Ottoman army was limited to how far it could travel in 3 or 4 months from Constantinople and had to be able to make it back there before winter or it was in real trouble. This was a major factor limiting Ottoman ability to further project power into Europe and kept cities like Vienna safe. They knew they only had at worse to survive a siege of a few months before the Ottomans were forced to turn back by unhappy soldiers.

[Wander]

Unlike the Romans, whose army thought nothing of settling in and building a town wherever they were. That would have been one of the major factors in their ability to successfully project their power pretty much anywhere they could travel. I wonder when that changed.

[Eleatic Guest]

I can't speak to the area covered, but in terms of numbers I'm pretty sure the armies of the Sui, Tang and Song dynasties would beat that.

The Assyrians were the first to invent large cavalry squadrons.

It should be added that the Assyrians are indeed widely regarded as the first sedentary people to adopt cavalry from the steppe nomads. And they were, along with the peoples of Chorezm, the first to introduce heavy cavalry by equipping their riders with metal body armour. This gave them a tactical advantage over the light steppe cavalry.

[M. Demetrius]

I would assume that no serious historian would consider any portion of the Old or New Testament to be factual unless it is heavily supported by outside physical evidence.

At least in the case of the New Testament we know the Church rewrote sections of it and removed sections during purges many times. This alone would remove all its credibility.

Do you have evidence for these statements? Saying "no serious historian" is pretty presumptuous, as that would mean that any historian who DID believe would be considered "not serious". By whom?

[Timotheus]

I would assume that no serious historian would consider any portion of the Old or New Testament to be factual unless it is heavily supported by outside physical evidence.

At least in the case of the New Testament we know the Church rewrote sections of it and removed sections during purges many times. This alone would remove all its credibility.

Do you have evidence for these statements? Saying "no serious historian" is pretty presumptuous, as that would mean that any historian who DID believe would be considered "not serious". By whom?

What evidence is needed? You trying to tell me that one written source that is well documented to have been altered as the fathers of the church have wanted to deserves to be used as a valid source without collaborating evidence? :roll:


So yes I say no serious historian. Even Biblical Historians attempt to find evidence that supports the Bible so as to support their view of history.

[M. Demetrius]

Well, Timothy, that's simply not altogether true, but I guess, once again, bold statements against the Bible don't need any references or sources. It must be so, because you say it's so?

They used to say that Abraham wasn't a real person. They used to say that David the King wasn't a real person. But once they found other cultures' writings that mentioned them in the expected time period, they stopped doing that. I guess they became less serious historians, or would it be more? I don't know. I suppose it doesn't mean anything that the generally accepted mode I've heard in historical documents lies with the document, and the burden of proof lies with the detractors (except and unless the document in question is the Old or New Testament). Seems to be so, doesn't it?

Carry on, then, and pretend I didn't write you. I won't add anything else to the conversation.

[Timotheus]

Well, Timothy, that's simply not altogether true, but I guess, once again, bold statements against the Bible don't need any references or sources. It must be so, because you say it's so?

They used to say that Abraham wasn't a real person. They used to say that David the King wasn't a real person. But once they found other cultures' writings that mentioned them in the expected time period, they stopped doing that. I guess they became less serious historians, or would it be more? I don't know. I suppose it doesn't mean anything that the generally accepted mode I've heard in historical documents lies with the document, and the burden of proof lies with the detractors (except and unless the document in question is the Old or New Testament). Seems to be so, doesn't it?

Carry on, then, and pretend I didn't write you. I won't add anything else to the conversation.

That is called suplemental sources. Which is exactly what I said is needed. I don't care what the source is really if its not supported by independent then at best you look at it as possible. You do not automaticall say its good.

In addition the idea that some parts of the bible have in some manner been supported does not make the whole book acceptable as proof. But then I can see where you are going. I bet you also think the Romans killed more Christians than anyone else.

I said it once I will say it again. The Bible is a book, a very old book. There have been wars over what will be included in that book. At times the book has said different things than it says today. Entire sections have been removed and entire peoples have been forcefully converted. Do not try to tell me its a historically accurate text that we can take word for word as accurate.

The mere fact that the "Donation of Constantine" exists shows that the church is not above bold faced lies and as such anything coming from the church should require extra scrutiny.

You know what. This conversation is over. Obviously you are a "believer" and as such you operate by different rules when it comes to Christianity and the Bible, and requirements to be considered evidence is one of them. Good luck to you.

[Carlton Bach]

I honestly have no idea how to measure that efficiently, but the siege of Jerusalem does not speak *that* highly of their capabilities under pressure.

According to Sennacherib’s Prism Jerusalem surrendered and Hezekiah gave the Assyrian king large quantities of money as tribute, resulting in the Assyrians victoriously returning home. This explanation contradicts that in the Old Testament. However the mass death mentioned in the Old Testament has never been substantiated by any archaeological find. Let’s also remember that parts of the Old Testament are not actually considered factual and should never be used to as source material for historical evidence.

AFAIK we have three separate accounts of what happened (Herodotus, the OT and the Sennacherib inscription), the first two of which masy belong to the same tradition. The picture is full of holes, of course, but the fact remains that for all of the tribute received, Sennacherib does not claim to have conquered the city. To my mind that at least supports the idea that something went wrong, because the text fits the description of a lengthy siege and the long list of tribute nicely overshadows the fact that Jerusale was not despoiled, like most of the other cities mentioned (the same goes for the Phoenician cities, BTW - wonder why).

Please feel free to read the book yourself and post your opinion on it.

It looked a bit pricey, but I just found I can ILL it, so I certainly will. If the authors know what they are talking about in their period, they can easily be forgiven a bit of exaggeration in relation to later times.

[Tiglath Pileser III]

AFAIK we have three separate accounts of what happened (Herodotus, the OT and the Sennacherib inscription), the first two of which masy belong to the same tradition. The picture is full of holes, of course, but the fact remains that for all of the tribute received, Sennacherib does not claim to have conquered the city. To my mind that at least supports the idea that something went wrong, because the text fits the description of a lengthy siege and the long list of tribute nicely overshadows the fact that Jerusale was not despoiled, like most of the other cities mentioned (the same goes for the Phoenician cities, BTW - wonder why).

Sennacherib didn't conqer the city precisely because he received tribute from Hezzekiah and Jerusalem's temple and treasury. The Assyrian Kings didn't go out conquering for sport they enforced the then world order by conquering cities and kingdoms that rebelled but also allowing leaders who repented to buy their freedom by paying the tribute that had been withheld. I am not discounting the fact that Sennacherib's rule was very unstable and he was constantly putting down rebellions and in the interest of efficiency may have allowed Hezzekiah to remain after paying tribute insteado f making an example of him.

Regards,
David Chibo
http://www,gilgameshgames.org

[Eleatic Guest]

How did the Assyrian army cross rivers? Did they built bridges of boats, apart from their well known use of inflated animal bladders for individual crossing?

[Tiglath Pileser III]

Not even a river could stop the well-equipped Assyrians. If the river could not be crossed on foot, they would construct boats or bridges to cross the river with. The bridges were most commonly boat bridges, bridges formed by tying a number of boats together across the river with planks on top to make a footway or even a road for the chariots to pass over (Saggs, 244).