Warfare – Israel

Warfare – Canaan & Ancient Israel @ University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

Yes, it’s helpful.  But don’t get carried away with it.  Most of it describes Bronze Age equipment and organization, which was all superseded by the Iron Age technologies.
I’m sending this again b/c of the last paragraph.  It summarizes where your guys find themselves chronologically in the technology transition.  Archers were becoming much more important and in the process, diminishing the effectiveness of chariots.  You may find some useful ideas in how/why the Israelites are able to deal with the somewhat larger Aram-Damascus.
Just in general an advantage the NK MAY have had over Damascus at this time MIGHT have been better use of iron arrowheads, iron swords and spear tips and something akin to chain mail for body protection.  They would have learned these arts from the Phillistines who were the first in the area to use iron/steel weapons.  This may have been one of the reasons NK was able to thrive for a while in the midst of the “big boys”.

Warfare – Canaan & Ancient Israel @ University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

Each chariot carried two young men: a charioteer who drove the two horses and a chariot warrior who shot arrows against the enemy formations. The chariot became militarily significant when it was combined with the use of the composite bow. This bow was a longer, more sturdy and expensive version of the simple bow and had a greater range. The armies of Egypt contained thousands of chariots and their military strength enabled Pharaoh Thutmose III to capture the city of Megiddo and impose Egyptian rule over Canaan. The size of a kingdom’s chariot corps was restricted by the enormous expense and maintenance of the team of horses, the chariot itself, defensive armor for the crew (and sometimes for the horses) and the composite bows. In battle, opposing chariotries would charge against each other, firing arrows and swinging in several passes until one of the forces was heavily depleted or thrown into disorder. Alongside chariots ran footsoldiers who were lightly armored and carried lightweight throwing javelins or swords. The swords employed throughout most of the Bronze Age were long, heavy thrusting rapiers, or sickel-shaped swords for hacking.

Towards the end of the Late Bronze Age, warfare again changed with the attacks of the Sea Peoples against the eastern Mediterranean societies. It was during the period of the great catastrophe around 1200 BCE that chariot armies began to be defeated by hordes of raiders and city-sackers armed with the light javelin and slashing sword. The chariot corps of the Mycenaean and Hittite cities seem to have been unable to adapt themselves to the new changes in warfare and quickly perished. Egypt, on the other hand, was able to gather armies of infantrymen to fend off the attacking Sea Peoples and the Egyptian kingdom lived on, although it was greatly weakened. Chariots would never again serve as the main power behind a kingdom’s army, but instead were relegated to smaller, supporting roles such as flanking the enemy or chasing down a routed force. The Iron Age kingdoms in Canaan and Israel were dependent on mass infantries armed with iron swords and spears and donning shields and corselets of leather with metal scales sewn onto them. The heavy infantry were assisted by squadrons of bowmen and slingers.



Steve Abbott

Sent from my iPad

Leave a Comment