Hebrew Warrior 900BC

[YMHoward]

I wanna be an hebrew warrior at the tail end of the period of the judges. Specifically as it says "Kol Yaitzae Tzavah - All men (but it can be translated as citizens - in other words rich and influential) who go to the legion." So basically semitic approx 2900 yrs ago.

Thanks
YMH

[Robert of Canterbury]

Pick up the relevant osprey book, it's probably a good start.
Most of the material availabe for this period is drawing on Assyrian and Egyptian triumphal monuments.

As an aside, "semitic" is a broader term than perhaps you realise. Certainly in in the historic context, Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and others are all covered by the term.

[YMHoward]

I realize this but I figured that there wouldn't be a huge difference between them given that they all use about the same level of technology, just each would have its own fashions and details peculiar to that culture.
Hope that makes enough sense.

[Bernhart von Bruck]

Greetings!

You might want to check this site before Yahoo dismantles Geocities.

http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors/

I know Norman is transferring his Red Kaganate site, but I haven't seen a new link for this one.

Tony

[Norman]

I saved the site and will bring it back up at some point on my own site:
www.srdarts.com
However, I realy had not put in anything ancient on my site anyhow.

The best source we have for this period are the Assyrian stelles some of which show the invasion of Israel.
If I was doing this sort of personna, I would just look at the Assyrian stuff we have. If you look carefully in the books of Kings you will see that Israel and Assyria were quite strongly interlinked socio-politicaly.

Once you get the overall look from the various stelles,
the armour is a girdle of "proto"-lamellar
the plates themselves are quite simple - rectangle with four holes - one in each corner, but the lacing is complex.
Thordeman's "Armour from the Battle of Wisby" (oddly enough) shows Assyrian plates and a full lacing pattern for putting them together.

...now that I'm writing this, I realy should make some up and get my kids to lace it up for a little project.

[ushumgal]

I would second what Norman and the others have said. The problem with examining the armor of Israel and Judah is that there are very few depictions of humans (iconoclastic theology), and the archaeological finds can rarely be attributed to Israelite or Judean with any certainty due to the fact that they may have been deposited by invaders. We encounter this same difficulty at all ancient sites (just look into the endless debate about Scythians and arrowhead shapes).

So, for ca. 900 BC, the best source is indeed Assyria. In particular, you want to look at the reliefs from the Northwest Palace of Assurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) at Nimrud.

The book you want is: Budge, Assyrian Sculpture in the British Museum, reign of Ashur-nasir-pal, 885-860. Long out of print, but unfortunately not yet available for free download on ETANA. This book doesn't have any from Anp II's time, but does show some later Assyrian armor. http://www.etana.org/abzu/coretext.pl?RC=20143 A good start would also be Yadin 1963, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands. This is a much more user-friendly book but very out of date and looong out of print. The Osprey Ancient Armies of the Middle East (MAA 109) has one decent picture of a drawing of a relief on p. 39 - the relief dates to Assirnasirpal II but was later modified by Tiglath-Pileser III (kings re-unsing the reliefs of other kings causes us a lot of chronology headaches...).

I do have some pics I took myself at the British Museum, but I'll have to get off my lazy hinder and find somewhere to post them (or PM me if you want me to just email them). The British Museum site has an pic of the battle scene in question, but unfortunately low res http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/warfare/ex ... p_set.html

In short, most soldiers in this period are show wearing no armor save a conical helmet (the wide belts they wear may also sometimes be metal - some examples have been found). There are, however, a small number of heavily armored soldiers, who wear conical helmets with scale or lamellar aventails (closed under the chin) and scale/lamellar coats which reach their ankles and have short sleeves. This type of armor is shown in (I think) only one scene in the Northwest Palace, though they are more common under the next king (see the Balawat Gates of Shalmaneser III), after which they seem to pretty much vanish in favor of lighter kits.

The conical helmets may, in these early years of the 1st Milennium BC, be solely an Assyrian style, though later they were adopted by neighboring peoples (such as Urartians). The body armor was made from a variety of styles of scales...some are clearly conventional scale, some look very much like lamellar, and some are just...odd... The Assurnairpal soldiers seem to wear lamellar. The scales have midribs and rounded tops (though it could, of course, be a kind of inverted scale).

Now, how well all this applies to Judah and Israel is another matter. They were clearly heavily influenced by Mesopotamia (just as they were influenced by Egypt) and may have adopted Assyrian style armor for that reason, or they may have adopted it because it was effective, or they may not have adopted it at all and actually used something completely different. My suspicion is that they did use scale/lamellar armor, though as early as 900, it's anyone's guess as to what types of helmets they used. My speciality is Mesopotamia and Syria, so there may be archaeological finds I'm not aware of. But I don know that there is nothing in Yadin, so any applicable finds would have been made since 1963.

You might also want to check out Carchemish in southeast Turkey. The art there tends to be rather more crude than in Assyria, but it does show they had a different helmet style (tall like conical helmets, but with more rounded tops surmounted by Greek-style plumes).

Sorry I rambled on so long, but I hope this helps!

[Effingham]

You might also want to watch the film "King David" (starring -- ugh -- Richard Gere, and the newly-late Edward Woodward). Supposedly, they really paid attention to their historical advisors in costuming and armour. It's not a period I've studied to any great extent, but the armour all looked appropriate, and the Hittites (for example) all seemed to follow the traditional iconography of Hittite warriors, so one might assume they didn't get the Israelite stuff that far off either.

[boris_]

http://www.gci.org/bible/hist/weapons Has some good info. It looks good, but I would want to see sources for the claim of maile. One important factor is that during the judges Israel was still in the bronze age, with its neighbors ahead of it. They had very few smiths. Post judges it seems to have improved, as evidenced by the fact that kings needed armour bearers

[Konstantin the Red]

Their use of "mail" looks to be a misuse of the term. They might have been better served to say "scale."

[Matthew Amt]

Their use of "mail" looks to be a misuse of the term. They might have been better served to say "scale."

Right, earlier translations tend to use "coat of mail" or "breastplate" for words that basically meant "body armor". So you really can't use things like the King James Version of the Old Testament to make conclusions about armor typologies!

Matthew

[boris_]

Ah, I am used to the Hebrew so I forget. I was kind of hoping for a really cool find.

[Alan Hepworth]

Helmet and A mail shirt. And Saul armed David with his armour, and he put
an helmet of brass upon his head; also he armed him with a coat of mail. 39 And
David girded his sword upon his armour, and he assayed to go; for he had not
proved it.

Shield or Buckler, And of the
Gadites there separated themselves unto David into the hold to the wilderness men
of might, and men of war fit for the battle, that could handle shield and buckler

Spears, swords, axes, bows. where the weapons. although in judges you see some pretty dog gone strange weapons.
Thou art my battle axe and weapons
of war: for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy
kingdoms;
the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one
time.
He arose, and smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clave unto the sword.
And the sons of Ulam were mighty men of valour, archers, and had many sons

[YMHoward]

Alan, thanks for taking the time, but my problem when I first started looking at this was that the text isn't very specific, even if you read it in hebrew. I was looking for specifics that are just not found anywhere in the bible, especially if read in one of the many translations.

Cheers,
YMH

[Dan Howard]

There are no specifics and what we think we know is basically guesswork. All we have are ambiguous illustrations and some vague passages in the bible. Most fighters seem to have worn no armour at all apart from a helmet. Some warriors probably wore some kind of scale armour. Based on other cultures at the time, those scales would be made of rawhide or bronze. By that time, shields were starting to get smaller but I don't think we know what shape they were. There isn't a single Osprey book on this time period or earlier that is worth reading. My book is probably the best that is available but it only covers the bronze age. It covers Hurrian and Canaanite equipment fairly well. It also has a section explaining the biblical use of the word "mail".

[Dan Howard]

http://www.gci.org/bible/hist/weapons Has some good info.

It is relying on scholarship that is at least half a century out of date and it is layering on top of that a literal interpretation of the bible that makes no sense at all when considered rationally. There are snippets that give us useful info however, such as the mention of an armour bearer, which tells us that at least some fighters had armour and servants to help them don it before a battle.

[Alan Hepworth]

Pray tell Mr Howard why The Literal interpretation of scripture makes no sense in this case? The bible clearly lays out every story refered to in the artical. The ox Goad, the jawbone. Consider David's Mighties. All of which preformed "rationally" impossible Acts. Killing 800 men in a field by yourself is generally not advised. if you want to stay alive.

I would say that articele is not nearly as complet as it could be but It brings up many good points. The Egyptian and Philistine influence on Israel's weapons should be considered. And we see they wore Scale mail armour. We know what kind of helmet they wore. and the general shape of their weapons. The bible provides the frame, its up to archeology and imagination to fill in the rest.

[Dan Howard]

Pray tell Mr Howard why The Literal interpretation of scripture makes no sense in this case? The bible clearly lays out every story refered to in the artical. The ox Goad, the jawbone. Consider David's Mighties. All of which preformed "rationally" impossible Acts. Killing 800 men in a field by yourself is generally not advised. if you want to stay alive.

Not advised? Nobody can singlehandedly kill eight hundred men with a spear, or six hundred men with an ox goad, or a thousand men with a donkey jawbone (regardless of whether it is fresh or not). A rational person would conclude that, if these events occurred at all, then they did not occur in the manner described in the bible.

You can also ignore everything that the article says about iron and bronze; it was shown to be complete bollocks decades ago. Everything it says about the swords of the time is also rubbish.

The bible provides the frame, its up to archeology and imagination to fill in the rest

Absolutely not. Archaeology provides the frame. At best, all the the bible and other texts can do is help us try and explain the context of that archaeology. It is sloppy scholarship to come to a conclusion first (e.g. based on a subjective interpretation of a single text) and then go looking for pieces of evidence that agree with that conclusion.

[Alan Hepworth]

I would argue vehemently with you except that is not the intent of this thread. Good Day mister Howard

[Robert of Canterbury]

Hi Alan,
the intent of these threads is to argue vehemently, but you do need to back up your argument with something other than 'quoth the bible, Q.E.D.'

[boris_]

Helmet and A mail shirt. And Saul armed David with his armour, and he put
an helmet of brass upon his head; also he armed him with a coat of mail. 39 And
David girded his sword upon his armour, and he assayed to go; for he had not
proved it.

Shield or Buckler, And of the
Gadites there separated themselves unto David into the hold to the wilderness men
of might, and men of war fit for the battle, that could handle shield and buckler

Spears, swords, axes, bows. where the weapons. although in judges you see some pretty dog gone strange weapons.
Thou art my battle axe and weapons
of war: for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy
kingdoms;
the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one
time.
He arose, and smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clave unto the sword.
And the sons of Ulam were mighty men of valour, archers, and had many sons

Mind posting the hebrew or at least the chapter and verse. A lot of these seem mighty odd, mainly buckler, and coat of mail (unless we say meail means some kind of armor, like bronze scale)>
One weapon common weapon is a one edged sword, since it is worth mention that Ehud Ben Geyra made a double edge sword. The medieval (and possibly earlier) commentators mention that the sword would double as a sickle. I imagine to be something like this http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/11.166.1

[Dan Howard]

I don't have any training in Hebrew - I've just looked up lexicions but apparently the word "mail" in biblical translations really just means "armour". One word that is used is shiryan, which just means "armour". I think it is derived from the same source as the Arraphian sariam and Assyrian siriyâm. Then there is zonowth which I think refers to military equipment in general, not just armour. Apparently the word qasqeseth is used a few times to describe fish scales and once in Samuel 17:5 to specifically refer to scale armour.

There were dozens of different types of straight double-edged swords around at the time. They are nothing unusual.

The weapon in the MET is a khopesh and it doesn't have anything to do with a sickle. The outside edge is sharpened, not the inside. One look at the grip should tell people which way it is held. The weapon evolved from the epsilon axe, not a farming implement, and it went out of use a couple of centuries before Saul was born.

[Konstantin the Red]

Archaeology isn't there to make a bad Christian out of Alan Hepworth, or anybody else. That's by no means its purpose, and isn't its effect.

Welcome and well come, Alan, if you ever come back to this thread.

[Dan Howard]

Why is a person a "bad Christian" if they don't believe that the bible is the literal word of god? If archaeology contradicts something in the bible, why is a person a "bad Christian" if they are inclined to believe the archaeology over the book?

[Wolf]

i can't reenact Hebrew. I'm not "cut" out for it lol. bad joke bad joke

[Alan Hepworth]

References? Certainly. I must admit to being enitirly ignorant of Hebrew (and greek). But I am well versed in the history of that time.
1 Samuel 17:38-39 , 1 chronicles 12:8, Jeremiah 51:20, 2 Samuel 23:8-10, 1 chronicles 8:40.

When it say buckler AND shield (in the same passage no less) I am inclined to believe that is what the translators meant. I may not be a buckler as a medieval European would understand it. but It would have been close. And I do believe Believe when it says mail it means scale. as that is what was used at the time by all the nations around.

Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. 5 And he had an helmet of brass
upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat
was five thousand shekels of brass. 6 And he had greaves of brass upon his legs,
and a target of brass between his shoulders. 7 And the staff of his spear was like a
weaver's beam; and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and one
bearing a shield went before him
We see here earlier in Samuel 17 Another refrence to "mail" and it says made of brass, so probaly scale . I think it is safe to say scale armour. We see this supported by history in what we know the other nations wore. the Assyrians, even right in to the Romans.
Ringlet mail (as far As I know) wasnot introduced until many years after the fall of Rome.

[Alan Hepworth]

I must admit ignorance to any shapes swords and shields would have taken. I am familiar with the scimitar shape most history books show. but have not done any research. and as too shields I am entirely ignorant being unable to find any historical references in drawings. And the bible and history books just say "shield".

As I Am intending to also use this as my persona in The SCA I am watching this thread very closely.

Mr Howard you You mentioned straight DOUBLE EDGED swords in this time period. I had never heard that. and thought this came in later with the Romans and Greeks and spring forging and differential tempering. Could you quote some sources as so I can do that research?

[Dan Howard]

The earliest double edged swords date to 3300BC. By the end of the Bronze Age there are dozens and dozens of different types. The Naue II seems to have been the most successful design.

If you want a reference then get a hold of my book. It covers the latest research and is fully cited.
http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Bronze-A ... nt/p/3272/

[Dan Howard]

References? Certainly. I must admit to being enitirly ignorant of Hebrew (and greek). But I am well versed in the history of that time.
1 Samuel 17:38-39 , 1 chronicles 12:8, Jeremiah 51:20, 2 Samuel 23:8-10, 1 chronicles 8:40.

When it say buckler AND shield (in the same passage no less) I am inclined to believe that is what the translators meant. I may not be a buckler as a medieval European would understand it. but It would have been close. And I do believe Believe when it says mail it means scale. as that is what was used at the time by all the nations around.

You can't use English translations for this type of study. As far as I can tell there is no Hebrew word that specifically translates as "buckler" so we'd need to see the passage in its original language. Perhaps Boris could help us out.

Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. 5 And he had an helmet of brass
upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat
was five thousand shekels of brass. 6 And he had greaves of brass upon his legs,
and a target of brass between his shoulders. 7 And the staff of his spear was like a
weaver's beam; and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and one
bearing a shield went before him
We see here earlier in Samuel 17 Another refrence to "mail" and it says made of brass, so probaly scale . I think it is safe to say scale armour. We see this supported by history in what we know the other nations wore. the Assyrians, even right in to the Romans.

His armour was made of bronze, not brass. AFAIK no copper alloy armour has been identified as being made of brass until the Roman period. "Mail" has been incorrectly associated with any kind of metal armour since before the Victorian period. During the time in question solid plate cuirasses have been found in the archaeological record and so has scale armour so Goliath could have been wearing either, but scale seems more likely IMO.

A shekel could be anywhere between 9 and 17 grams so his armour is supposed to have weighed somewhere between 45 kg and 85 kg. Even the low figure is unrealistic; the heaviest scale sariams weighed less than 30 kg and these were only worn by charioteers. Infantry armour was lighter. I suppose if you use the above translation and Goliath really WAS over nine feet tall then his armour could conceivably have weighed 45 kg. But the Greek Old Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls both say that Goliath was only four cubits and a span tall, which is a more reasonable 6'9". Personally I think that the DSS version is the closest we have to the original text.

Ringlet mail (as far As I know) wasnot introduced until many years after the fall of Rome.

The earliest examples of mail are Celtic and date to the third century BC. The Romans adopted it a century later. It saw continuous use for the next two thousand years. This might help.
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

[MJBlazek]

I find this discussion fascinating.
You have one side using Archeology, and the other siting Biblical passages that he (and millions of others) belive to be verbatim accounts.

[RandallMoffett]

MJ,

Since that is how most reenactors do this with medieval art over anything else to form their ideas on the period why should that be a big surprise in this case? They use what is around them and familiar.

RPM

[MJBlazek]

I didn't say I was surprised.
I said I was fascineted. I have never seen it so clearly argued in such ways before

[Dan Howard]

I find this discussion fascinating.
You have one side using Archeology, and the other siting Biblical passages that he (and millions of others) belive to be verbatim accounts.

Which makes no sense whatsoever. There are at least four versions of the bible that have been used for modern translations - Hebrew Bible, Greek Old Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Josephus. They were all written centuries after the original texts and they all contradict each other. Which one do you want to chose to be the "word of god"?

[MJBlazek]

Oh don't get me wrong. I am totally on the side of archeology in this aspect.

[Alan Hepworth]

I believe that the KJV is the inspired inerrant word of the One true and living God. I do indeed believe and read these passages, as such. "verbatim" And intend to build a persona, around them, yalls information, is in fact very helpful to me. because the bible is rather vague on the shape the armor takes. I am studying shields and helmets. and have decided to use and Assyrian like helmet, and a large round double strap shield, and a round spiked buckler. want some input on these things, what yall think, or if yall have better ideas.

Also the Textus Receptus is the inspired word in the original languages. but knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is not necessary for a proper and correct understanding of The Word.

In other words Goliath was Six cubits and a span. Roughly 9'6" Meaning 85-170 Lbs of armour would be nothing. considering our modern warriors carry that much equipment now in armour and weapons. and they are 1/2 or 2/3 his size. and Shamgar killed 600 men with what amounts to a pointy stick.

Any References I make to Greek or Hebrew are from Strong's Exhaustive concordance.

[Dan Howard]

I believe that the KJV is the inspired inerrant word of the One true and living God.

Which one? The original was published in 1611 and there have been three revisions of the KJV since then incorporating more than 100,000 changes.

In other words Goliath was Six cubits and a span. Roughly 9'6"

It is physically impossible for Goliath to have been 9'6". The tallest people in the world tend to top out at less than nine feet and at these heights they have debilitating physical ailments that prevent them from fighting in a battle. Why is Goliath six cubits tall and not four? The Dead Sea Scrolls says 4 cubits and that is the oldest version of the bible we have.

If the KJV bible is an exact inerrant translation then you have no choice but to acknowledge that Goliath and lots of other fighters wore mail armour and not scale. You could even build a case supporting it. Start with Josephus' account of David being confronted by a Philistine wearing a thôraka halusidôton [5.7.299], which translates as "armour wrought in chain fashion". It sounds more like mail to me rather than scale armour. Then you can produce all of the medieval illustrations showing biblical characters wearing mail armour. We could even include some photos of historical mail armour made from brass.