The Chariot Empires
Mesopotamia
Time Frame – roughly 3100 B.C. to 600 B.C.
Politics/Economics – Instead of trying to expound on each empire and kingdom, we’re going to go for the larger view of the commonalities found in the non-Egyptian cultures of the Middle East and Asia Minor. The time frame is also rather broad, covering the beginning of the Bronze Age and written history in the area all the way to the fall of Assyria, at which point the Persians and Greeks began to dominate.
From the earliest inscriptions, these societies seem to have been true kingdoms, each ruled by a single autocratic ruler. The power of the kingdom depended largely on the sagacity, ambition, and personal energy of the king. A weak king could easily loose all of the gains of even a powerful empire. Kings were often considered to be appointed agents of the local god, but not gods themselves or even necessarily having a special relationship with a deity. The basic economy was based on agricultural output, although a vast trade network throughout the area meant that wealth could be enhanced through the selling of especially prized commodities.
Although reading the inscriptions left behind by these kingdoms leaves the impression that all were in a constant state of war, this of course is not possible, for constant warfare is extremely expensive and would drain the coffers of these primarily agricultural societies. Having said that, it is true that certain energetic rulers could sustain prolonged military campaigns through the subjugation of neighboring tribes. Those with especially fertile and extensive plains were constantly at the mercy of raiding parties. A particularly capable leader could protect his kingdom by establishing a defensible perimeter, and with time the further frontiers of that kingdom would have to be protected as well. Standing armies would need to be provided for, requiring more land to produce more surpluses. More wealth meant more threats from kingdoms even further off, leading to further increases in the size of the army and the necessity to launch preemptive strikes. The cycle of expansion, perceived or real threat, and further expansion led to the creation of some of the most powerful kingdoms of the ancient world.
Warfare – The most powerful kingdoms used the chariot as a mobile fighting platform, usually with one driver, one archer, and one shield bearer who, armed with a sword or axe, would also defend the chariot against any enemy who approached too closely. Chariots were a nearly unstoppable force on the battle field, something that the later Persians would find out to be true as well. Moving quickly to the front lines, the chariot archer could fire a quick succession of arrows, and then the chariot itself could break through the formations of infantry and scatter the soldiers. Chariot cavalry tended to come from the upper levels of society.
The vast majority of warriors were infantry, normally using the spear, arrows, and axe. Infantry were either conscripted farmers, paid foreign mercenaries, vanquished enemies, or some combination of the three depending on the economic resources available. For what little information is available, it is most likely that the soldiers were massed into a battle line, arrows and thrown weapons were launched as soon as distance permitted. If that was enough to weaken the enemy line, the chariots would move in to take advantage of the breaks. If not, the lines would close in and infantry fought hand-to-hand.
Some regional differences should be noted:
¨ Sumerians: The earliest of the great kingdoms, from which we get the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were the first to use bronze weapons, the war chariot, and the massed infantry line (perhaps even formed as a disciplined phalanx) but had no archers.
¨ Babylonians: Renowned for their skill as archers, almost all soldiers, cavalry and infantry, carried bows in battle. There is nothing to indicate that they would close in with anything like a heavy infantry. Babylon had one of the few feudal levies of the area, where land was granted in exchange for service in the army.
¨ Nubians: Never completely united in their own territory, but also never conquered by Egypt, they conducted numerous raids as loose infantry units while armed with only the bow or spear. These groups sometimes reached impressive numbers, and their skills as fighters were highly respected. Large contingents of captured Nubian soldiers were often used by the Egyptians as mercenary/slaves. But even as slaves, they were fairly well paid as guards during peacetime and irregular infantry during war.
¨ Ethiopians: More feared than the Nubians because of their tight battlefield formations. They seem to have used heavy spear and javelins, along with some archers.
¨ Arabs: Exclusively nomadic, they fought completely unarmoured and used only the bow. It seems that they fought mounted from camels, two soldiers per animal. We may assume that one guided the camel while the other fired the arrows.
¨ Israelites: While never wealthy enough to support a large standing army, they were able to summon respectfully large numbers through their use of a compulsory rotating citizen levy, with active duty for one month of the year and the other time being held as reservists. It was primarily an infantry army, mainly due to the financial inability to purchase and maintain large numbers of war horses.
Although the kopesh is often used when illustrating the ancient Israeli warrior, I have great doubts that the weapon was used to any degree outside of the Egyptian army. (Indeed, archaeologically we find the very few remnants of the kopesh only in Egyptian sites). More than a battlefield tool, the kopesh became a cultural symbol of Egyptian military might. It appears in royal reliefs, temple carvings, and funerary goods, less as a practical armament than as a badge of state power and divine kingship.
It is a difficult weapon to build, and I part ways with those who like to see a direct lineage from the plow. [false-etymology] While the plow blade looks curved, it is really a bent triangle, and very thick. It takes the same skill (very little) to make a thick bowl as it does to make a plow. That is an invented tradition — a tidy but misleading story, much like a folk-etymology in language. The resemblance of curve to curve is superficial: a plow is a horrible weapon.
The blade on the kopesh is both partly curved and straight, and comparatively thin and long. This is a weapon that requires a high degree of specialized skill to produce, and the Egyptians would seem to have produced them in mass quantities. It is a poor weapon for single combat, but excellent for a line of soldiers in a mass formation. I also disagree with those who see the kopesh as a slashing weapon. A true slashing blade carries its curve on the outside of the swing, allowing the edge to glide across the target in a long slice. The kopesh, like the later kukri of the Gurkha, curves inward, which pulls the target into the blade and concentrates the strike into a forward chop. This diminishes its slicing power but makes it a brutally effective chopping sword. But you must stand very close to your opponent.
The Canaanites had neither the military organization to put such a weapon to effective use, nor the wealth to employ a dedicated team of highly trained specialists to build and maintain such weapons. It is far more likely that they used the straight broad shortsword found throughout the rest of the world at the time. The shortsword is both cut and thrust weapon, far less expensive to produce, and is more resilient to damage in battle.
Egypt
Time Frame – aprox 3000 BC to 30 BC
Politics/Economics – Although the history of Ancient Egypt went through many dramatic changes during the 3000 years until its fall to Rome, the many dynasties did share some overarching similarities. First, a sustained shift to urban, rather than rural, forms of living. Secondly was the creation of substantial agricultural surplus due in large part to the bounty of the Nile valley. This provided wealth which allowed it to also thrive as a trading and war power. Lastly, the creation of the pharaoh. Although several societies developed systems of power based on the idea of a god/king, a pharaoh was not only a divine being but also “the high priest of all temples”. As such, all religious activity, public and private, was directed through his person. He was the earthly mediator for all things secular and sacred. Combined with the wealth and military might, he had a power within the country far greater than any emperor.
That isn’t to say that all was harmonious during those three thousand years. Many dynasties lost power through both foreign conquest and civil wars. But even though several pharaohs were usurped and even brutally murdered, the presumption that pharaohic culture would continue was never questioned. Each new ruler took on the title and power of the conquered kingdom, leaving the political and religious bureaucracy largely intact. And it was that higher conservative and efficient bureaucracy that largely kept the empire prosperous.
Two periods in ancient Egypt’s history are particularly noteworthy for theatre. The New Kingdom (1540 BC to 1070 BC) was Egypt at the height of power, establishing itself as a nearly indomitable empire. It also was the period of greatest construction and highest achievement in art. When shows are set in “Ancient Egypt”, this era is usually chosen. The glory of the prior classical period was reestablished during this time of domestic peace and tremendous wealth, when the great pyramids were already a thousand years old.
The reign of the Ptolemys (332 BC to 30 BC) was another era of rebuilding former glory. But these kings were all descendants of one of Alexander the Great’s generals, so the influence was heavily Greek. Although most of the external trappings remain the same, the artwork and culture become increasingly Hellenistic. It is important to note that by the time of Cleopatra’s rule, the society had lost most of its regional power. The kingdom that remained for another three hundred years under direct Roman rule was nothing but a shadow of the superpower it once was.
Fashion/Manners – It seems that the more we know about ancient Egypt, the less we know about how people acted. More and more information is unearthed every year as to daily activities, but we cannot tell how they moved, how they stood, or how they treated each other.
The temple and papyrus drawings that remain are apparently not attempts at realism, but rely on certain artistic conventions. The same conventions lasted some three thousand years. For instance, we see a drawing of a pharaoh holding the hair of a kneeling prisoner with the left hand, while an axe is held high with right. Obviously this king is shown in the moment before an execution. But we cannot assume that this king actually performed that action, for the same drawing appears at the end of many chronicles of victorious battles thousands of years before. On yet another pictorial representation, the same pose is shown of another pharaoh about to behead a prisoner – while single-handedly driving a chariot. Sometimes the same image is included in a specific commemoration of a military victory, with the same accompanying description of victorious carnage, even though in actuality a peace treaty had been negotiated before a battle even took place. (It is interesting to note that this same artistic convention also appears in the art of several of Egypt’s neighbors, and is even seen in the carvings on Central American Mayan pyramids – a half a world away!)
What can be gleaned from these drawings is what they considered to be not important. Although we see images of enemy prisoners kneeling before the pharaoh, regular servants are seen standing fully upright, without even a lowering of the head. There would seem to be no tradition of bowing before the king at every occasion, as would later develop in both Europe and Asia. Also, whenever the pharaoh and his family are shown seated or reclined they are extraordinarily relaxed, shoulders rounded and completely without a trace of trying to appear “royal”. When standing, the posture of all figures is shown to be “casually proud”, in that the shoulders are straight but with none of the self-consciousness seen in Greek or Roman statuary.
Compare Egyptian art with that of some of their contemporaries. Assyrian, Babylonian, and Sumerian depictions of kings and warriors frequently emphasize physical strength alongside political power, as though bodily prowess validated the right to rule. This is a conceit common across time and geography: the leader must be shown as both ruler and warrior. In contrast, Egyptian art rarely stresses the musculature or raw power of the pharaoh. Instead, the ruler is shown in idealized, timeless poses—youthful, serene, perfectly proportioned—his authority conveyed through symbolism, scale, and divine association rather than overt displays of physical might.
To better understand this distinction, we can compare other cultures. In societies where the loyalty of the nobility or even the common people was less secure (for example, medieval Japan or medieval Europe), elaborate rituals and visual proofs of personal strength reinforced obedience to the ruler. In Egypt, by contrast, legitimacy rested on cosmic order (Ma’at) and divine sanction. This may help explain why pharaohs are depicted as calm embodiments of order rather than as intimidating warrior-athletes. The familiar “smiting pose” proclaimed victory, but its function was ritual and symbolic, not a flex of personal brawn.
It follows that those movie scenes with courtiers groveling abjectly at the feet of the pharaoh are probably misleading. Egyptian rulers, secure in the cosmic inevitability of their place, had less need to demand constant outward shows of submission. Their power was made visible not through gestures of intimidation but through the serene imagery of divinely guaranteed rule.
Civilian Conflict – We really have nothing which tells us anything about civilian interaction, but isn’t it fascinating to note that in the period artwork no civilian is ever shown using, much less wearing, a weapon? The tight control of the ruling power may not only have tightly clamped down on representations of individual discord, but may also have had an effect on the actions themselves. Although thievery and other forms of social disruption had to have occurred (otherwise why hire Nubian guards to patrol the open marketplaces?) it is possible that within the urban areas taking justice into your own hands was fairly uncommon.
Warfare – The army of Egypt was largely an infantry army, although by the late New Kingdom there was also a significant cavalry contingent. The cavalry, as for all Middle East Bronze Age cultures, was the chariot, not a mounted rider on a horse. Therefore the chariot provided Egypt with the equivalent of a light cavalry. The bulk of the fighting was performed by heavy infantry – armed during the later periods with the kopesh but far more commonly with the small axe (daggers are found, but in small numbers). Additional weapons included the javelin, light wooden shields, and archers to provide covering fire, or to take out lightly armored forces. The archery contingent, providing a light infantry role, was not arrayed near the heavy infantry, but kept at a distance, forming a natural reserve. Egyptian bows were notoriously weak compared to those of their neighbors.
The consensus has been that Egyptian battlefield formations were rigidly controlled, and that soldiers were drilled to fight in near machine-like precision. But this assumption comes from viewing tomb paintings – not a reliable source of realistic practice.
All young males were required to serve a two year military service, but only the best prospects were actually recruited after a short period of training and testing. A military career provided significant possibilities of advancement, for able soldiers and administrators were promoted regardless of the status of their birth. The pharaoh himself led the army into battle, and was supposed to be expert in handling the chariot and in firing the bow. Some artwork show him driving the chariot and firing the bow at once – not terribly likely. Most chariots had two people on it. A driver would wear a shield, protecting the left (blind) side of the archer. The chariot would be driven directly to the front line, charge the infantry, fire the bow a few times, then turn to the right for an escape back to safety, keeping the shield towards the enemy.
Large contingents of mercenary soldiers, especially from the Nubian kingdom, were employed, and these foreign troops were allowed to use their own weapons, mainly spears and large shields, and fight in their own style, although controlled by an Egyptian general.
No sheaths are seen on any drawings, and none have been found in any archeological digs. We may surmise that weapons were carted to the battlefield en mass and distributed to soldiers only when battle appeared to be imminent. It is safe to assume that the long daggers, swords, and small axes were simply never worn. Even archers had no arrow quivers, but merely marched into battle with a good bunch of loose arrows held in the right hand and the bow held in the left. That is clear from many tomb and obelisk drawings. But did the archers transfer the arrows to the left hand, holding both the bow and the extra arrows in one hand as they fired? Or did they stick the arrows into the ground near their feet in the medieval style? We just don’t know.
Weapons available – The very stability and continuity of the Pharaonic bureaucracy also made it susceptible to a systemic rigidity. They were very slow to adopt the chariot, doing so only after coming out of a long period of Hyksos domination. They were likewise very resistant to replacing their bronze weapons with iron, although they certainly had the wealth to be able to purchase what they could not produce. They only began to produce full swords after the nearly disastrous confrontation with waves of immigrants collectively known as the “Sea People”. But even then the swords were still made out of heavy bronze and the military planners were never able to effectively incorporate them into Egyptian battle tactics.
There is some evidence that at least a few soldiers wore a short knife either tucked into the fold of fabric at the waist or strapped onto the left forearm without a sheath, but these seem to be personal items, not part of the issued weaponry.