Ancient Chemical Warfare

[Vindex]

Greek Fire, Poison Arrows and Scorpion Bombs: Biological Warfare in the Ancient World by Adrienne Mayor

Anyone know if this is any good (ie properly researched) or a more "popular" approach?

Thanks in advance.

[M. Demetrius]

Scorpion bombs. That could be demoralizing to get three or four of those inside your tunic.

Even more useful would be a hornet bomb. They move faster, and in all 3 dimensions. Imagine one inside your lorica seg. Yikes. Ow.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Wouldnt a scorpion, wasp or hornet bomb classify as biological warfare ?
I think that poisoning wells with cadavers and shooting diseased meat etc over walls could classify as germ warfare...

any mentioning of those in classical sources ?

M.VIB.M.

[Vindex]

Well fair enough, they are what I would call biological too and I would edit the title but I can't.

I'm more interested if the book is any good or not.

Anyone read it/got it?

Trying to track down references to Dura Europos. (Chemical)

[Jona Lendering]

Trying to track down references to Dura Europos. (Chemical)

This sums it up well.

[Vindex]

Thanks Jona. I think that article was virtually copied in Time magazine too.

Still hoping someone can do a review of the book for me though...

[Bindiji]

The subtitle of Mayor's book is "Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World"

There are many reviews, mostly positive. She starts with myths to show how the idea may have first developed an then documents numerous historical uses of toxic, germ, and chemical weapons and tactics that exploited the biological vulnerabilities of the enemy. There are many ancient Greek, Roman, and Indian sources that detail the use of bio and chem weapons, some crude and some quite sophisticated.

You can read a review at UNRV Roman History website:
http://www.unrv.com/book-review/greek-fire.php

This reviewer lists the pros and cons of Mayor's book:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greek...ekfire.htm

Naval War College review:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-...oison.html

or here
http://blogcritics.org/books/article/boo...on-arrows/

[jvrjenivs]

Adrienne Mayor did a good bit of research for this book and I would say it has a good scientific basis, although it's written in such a way that it's readable by all, even when you're not knowledgeable in the area of (bio)chemistry. It's more a historical approach as a archeological, but nevetherless worth the read for sure. At least I did enjoy reading it very much and would recommend it to anyone interested in this kind of warfare in ancient times.

[Vindex]

Cheers m'dears.

[D B Campbell]

Alex Roland (Duke University) was less impressed (Technology & Culture 46.4, 2005, pp. 878-9):

This book about chemical and biological weaponry in the ancient and classical Eurasian civilizations is Herodotean in its credulity and Thucydidean in its documentation. Like Herodotus, Adrienne Mayor appears to report every tall tale that comes to hand. Like Thucydides, she leaves many sources unidentified. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs is the result of Mayor's consultation with fifty ancient and classical authors and her sampling of the growing body of recent scholarship on her topic. She has produced a fascinating catalog of poisons, incendiaries, reptiles, insects, burning pigs, infectious diseases, and ersatz weaponry, all of which she sees as precursors of modern chemical and biological agents of warfare. Fascinating, if suspect.

The catalog and its modern relevance depend on Mayor's definitions. She addresses what she calls "toxic weaponry" but defines biological and chemical warfare as "the manipulation of the forces and elements of nature to insidiously attack or destroy an agent's biological functions" (p. 28). She further notes that "the biological-chemical weapons arsenal also comprises disabling or harmful agents created through biology, chemistry, and physics to act on the body" (p. 28). Even imagined but unrealized (and unrealizable) weapons are grist for her mill because she believes that "conscious intention" is a valid criterion for inclusion. Except for psychological weapons, it is difficult to think of any instrument of war left outside the omnium-gatherum she has invented.

...

But the many strengths of this book are diluted by Mayor's lack of discrimination. When Hannibal leaves uncooked beef for Roman soldiers to gorge themselves on, he meets her criterion for biological warfare. When Xenophon's troops get sick eating naturally poisonous honey, they are victims of yet more biological warfare. When Archimedes burns the Roman ships besieging Syracuse by reflecting sunlight off soldiers' shields, Mayor says that he is engaging in chemical warfare because he uses fire. She includes fireships for the same reason. Elephants, she claims, were "intelligent and tasteful lovers of all things beautiful" who "abhorred ugly things" (pp. 199–200). Thus they could be driven off by the presumably ugly horns of rams. This story qualifies as biological warfare in Mayor's world because animals were being used as weapons.

The author is no less credulous in evaluating modern sources. She reports without skepticism a seventeenth-century account of a Chinese general who taught monkeys to use firearms. She reports that during the 1989 invasion of Panama, United States forces "apparently" tested a laser gun that incinerates people. She considers it relevant that rats and mice, animals purportedly used in antiquity to spread disease and eat the enemy's leather equipment, are used in modern laboratories to help develop biological weapons. The logical connection between the two activities is not explained.

Mayor quotes material without citation and instances abound in which she offers no evidence for her assertions or cites dubious evidence. She takes ancient accounts as literally true. She sometimes qualifies her assertions with expressions such as "could describe," "might serve," "it was rumored," and "there were allegations." Such rhetorical evasions are presented as evidence that chemical and biological warfare has been around since the beginning of recorded history.

It should be added that Mayor's book presents more than enough solid evidence to make that case. By gilding the lily, she lost an opportunity to evaluate the evidence critically and explore some of the significant issues raised by her compendium. Are these the weapons of the weak? Of barbarians? Why is poison the most universally deplored of weapons? How often do poisoners succumb to their own devices? Are these weapons deplorable because they are hidden and deceitful? May chemical and biological weapons be justifiably employed in defense? Instead of a serious analysis of such larger issues, Mayor has given us an unreliable catalog of the inventive and unconventional ways in which ancient and classical warriors undertook to maim and kill their fellow humans.

(Not sure if we're allowed to quote in extenso. I left out a paragraph in the middle, just in case. :wink: )

[Vindex]

Thank you Duncan.

I've started reading my copy and even without that review felt it to be a little "Herodotian" in nature.

Her notes, however, are well referenced so I can look up the orignal sources and discount the number of references to the US Congressional papers!

[philsidnell]

I have actually read it and enjoyed it, though some bits do have to be taken with a big pinch of salt (no doubt included in there somewhere as a sodium-based chemical weapon - perhaps for the Romans sowing it into the ploughed-over ruins of Carthage). Yes, her definitions are somewhat hazy, but it gives some fascinating and amusing starting points for further investigation. It's a good little book to dip into for fun.

Phil Sidnell

[philsidnell]

Oh, and I enjoy Herodotus too.

Phil Sidnell

[Gaius Colletti]

Trying to track down references to Dura Europos. (Chemical)

This sums it up well.

Excellent little article Jona, I have always wanted to learn more on Dura, but could never find a great article like that

[D B Campbell]

Trying to track down references to Dura Europos. (Chemical)

This sums it up well.

Apologies for resurrecting this old thread. Moi/Vindex just reminded us about it.

In my opinion, Judith Weingarten (the blogger in question) is right to question Simon James' "chemical warfare" theory, but for the wrong reasons.

(1) She thinks that, if the Persians had used chemical warfare here, we would have evidence that they also used it elsewhere. (Think how fortuitous the discovery of Dura-Europos was!) And, furthermore, the Romans would have adopted it, too. (Think how sparse our late Roman sources are.)

(2) She thinks that the dead Sassanid in the Roman countermine couldn't possibly have been so stupid as to light a fire with sulphur crystals right under his nose. But he was certainly stupid enough to linger too long in a collapsing siege mine, otherwise his body wouldn't still be lying there. (It's worth noting that this Persian doesn't actually play the part that Judith Weingarten supposes in Simon James' gassing scenario -- James actually alleges that the gas was created far away in the Persian tunnel, underneath Tower 19, and drifted up into the Roman countermine.

(3) She thinks that Simon James is wrong to say that the Romans wouldn't have blocked their own tunnel, because any tunnel builder would be "oddly negligent if they did not have blocking materials to hand". James' theory certainly requires the countermine to have remained open. But Du Mesnil's own report shows that the countermine had been blocked -- whether deliberately or accidentally cannot be said. We don't need to appeal to Judith Weingarten's opinion of what the defenders ought to have been doing. We can look at Du Mesnil's own sketch and description to see that the tunnel had caved in.

In the end, she appears to endorse the original excavator's theory -- correctly, in my view -- but then hedges her bets by saying that "it could have been entirely unexpected that the gas released by the fire turned poisonous and killed the Sasanian officer as well as the 20 men hovering near the blocked exit".

You can't really have your cake and eat it, Judith. A blocked tunnel means no draught to carry Simon James' hypothetical fumes up into the Roman countermine. A blocked tunnel means that the Persians had no need to gather Roman bodies and stack them as a barrier.