Military Participation Ratio and Wrong Numbers

[These are some impromptu remarks I made recently on a discussion board. As such it doesn't have a polished introduction and conclusion.]

Do wrong numbers destroy the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon?

The answer is a resounding no. I explained a few reasons why in this post about millions. But there are more. For example, Chinese writers would want to highlight how the previous dynasty lost the Mandate of Heaven, so they would inflate the size of the bad last emperor's army. Ancient historians often wrote not to tell what happened, but with a specific moral purpose. So they didn't have the same scruples about bending facts to fit their story. Brant Gardner even discussed how one set of deaths in The Book of Mormon followed a same double same double pattern. (Alma 2:19)  This could be a coincidence, or it had some sort of symbolic power. This is similar to the modern "I've told you a million times" or Jesus using the phrase "seven times seventy." So if The Book of Mormon has the same problem listing exact number for deaths on battle or the size of armies, as other historical documents this puts it in good company.

This gets even more confusing because some ancient words stood for a number and a unit. But the size of that military unit could change. Centurion means one soldier of one hundred. But by the late Roman Empire, Centuries only had 80 people. Myriad is another ancient word that have this problem. So when I see "ten thousand" listed so often in Mormon chapter 6 I start to that is a unit name and not necessarily a number. For example, by the end of the American Civil War some units in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia had only a fraction of their normal strength. (They did this out of pride because units didn't want to retire their colors and consolidate.) So if a general is listed as having "his ten thousand" there is a strong chance this refers to a unit name rather than a number. It is discussed in a bit greater detail in the first two posts here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/search?q=ten+thousand

Further, I find it odd that Mormon would begin his war of survival with 30,000 soldiers. (Mormon 2:42) But after many years of defeats, defections, and the loss of their capital city and lands, he had 7 times that number in the final battle. (Just from a logistical point of view I have a problem with this increase.) But when you look at the MPR this supposedly sudden increase in size makes more sense. The Military Participation Ratio is a formula historians use to figure out army and population sizes and other items. Basically its how many soldiers a society can muster for war. The high limit is usually 15% of the population can be mobilized for war. (Though ancient Sparta could muster about 25%.)  For example, historians estimate that the U.S. MPR for WWII was 12%. So 30,000 would be about 15% of 200,000. This is close to the number listed in the final battle. This being the number of the total population gains strength when we read Mormon 6:7. If you read it carefully it sure seems to suggest that the order of battle included women and children. Towards the end of any war a nation scrapes the bottom of the barrel to fill out their army.


So even if the numbers are exaggerated by Mormon, or translated as numbers instead of units by Smith, or if these were unit names that didn't exist at their full strength, or the total population it doesn't matter. Having a problem with numbers puts it in good historical company, and a 30,000 man army and an ethnic group numbering about a quarter million is believable. There is both internal evidence and historical precedence for each view. Keep in mind that the writers in The Book of Mormon often complained about being "almost surrounded." Alma 22:29 In Mosiah25:2-3 we read that the Nephites were only about a quarter of the population of the Lamanites. (There are other verses that suggest the Nephites were a political minority, as well as significant outside sources from Mesoamericanists that often describe a small political elite ruling a much larger population, but this is getting on another topic.) 

Book Blurb and Author Bio

My book is still in the pipeline for publication. I am extremely grateful to be published by a respected press, but it is certainly frustrating going by their time table.  So I decided to write a draft of my book blurb.  This is something similar to what will go on the back or jacket of the book.  I also included a modified version of my updated bio. 

Ancient Warfare and Modern Lessons in The Book of Mormon:

Morgan Deane, a military historian and former Marine sustains the authenticity of the text as an ancient document and shows how The Book of Mormon contains a strong and distinctive voice on military matters that should be taken seriously by modern readers and even policy makers and generals.  Through a Hugh Nibley like command of ancient societies from Mesoamerica, China, and Ancient Rome, as well as a grasp of military theory from Clausewitz to Sun-Tzu he expands on the Jaredite Civil War, the face of battle, logistics, ethno-religious conflict, and strategy.  He specifically valorizes Captain Moroni against a rise of attacks degrading his character, presents an argument for a Nephite and Mormon just war, and shows how The Book of Mormon defends the use of pre-emptive war. This is a critical volume that will help the reader understand the context and society in which the Nephites lived…and died, but also crucial in providing critical tools to evaluate modern military matters ranging from the threat of terrorism to the wisdom of military intervention. 

About the Author:

Morgan Deane has a B.A. from Southern Virginia University and an M.A. in History from Norwich University. He has presented or published papers on Napoleonic warfare, East Asian history, Book of Mormon warfare, and the American Civil War. In 2009 he separated from the military after serving 9 years as an infantry riflemen, squad leader and intelligence analyst. His research interests include the above topics, the application of military theory, and pre-modern warfare in general.

He is the author of “Forming the Formless: Sun-Tzu and the military logic of Ender Wiggins,” and “Offensive Warfare in The Book of Mormon and a Defense of the Bush Doctrine.” He has authored numerous articles for the Encyclopedias of Military Philosophy and Russia at War. Currently he teaches history at Brigham Young University-Idaho and anticipates starting a Mphil/PhD program in War Studies at Kings College London this fall.

He and his daughter Lorraine live in Las Vegas, Nevada and he currently serves as a youth sunday school teacher.

A Time of War, A Time of Peace

I found a great write up of a recent conference held by the LDS Society of National Security Practitioners.  I'm a bit frustrated I missed it.  This is something about which I've discussed in the past and I contributed a chapter to the recent volume on war and peace. I've been rather busy trying to gain entrance to the War Studies Program at Kings College London and securing funding for that, so it is likely I would have been too busy to prepare something anyway.  (Though from the summaries it looks like many people simply repeated their presentations from the Claremont conference.)   I suppose I can always try again in ten years.   :) 

Cloak and Dagger Research: The Greg Smith "Hit Piece"

I just concluded a long, intriguing, and sad read here.  This is the infamous "hit piece" written by Greg Smith about the podcast of Mormon Stories.  Shortly after this piece was pulled from publication the director the Maxwell Institute fired Daniel Peterson and others as editors of the Mormon Studies Review.  This was considered the end of FARMS, and I linked to it previously. 

I thought the article itself was good, especially the part about the Micheal Coe interview. This is mostly because I listened to that podcast, had the same impressions as Smith, and I may have inspired his parenthetical thought about how Coe didn't know about chiasmus and Dehlin had to google it in the middle of the interview. (See page 28 of Smith's article and compare to comment 46 from me.) I don't understand the hyperbolic reaction to it, and didn't see it as a "hit piece" filled with ad hominem attacks; though it was certainly critical of Dehlin.

The second article discussed the timeline and facts surrounding the suppression of his piece, and the rather intense politics associated with the direction of the review and their termination.  Ironically enough, it made me rather sad.  I research and write about The Book of Mormon because I love it.  It pains me to think my research might have entered me into some sort of gladiator pit match with other Mormons in academia.  So Smith's article described the kind of fighting that comes from the cutthroat world of academic politics, and recalled the vicious cloak and dagger  stories from The Book of Mormon.  It also made me kind of grateful I'm not yet important enough to have to avoid getting shanked by academic politics. In short, being invisible sometimes feels better than being stabbed. I'm relatively anonymous enough to go about my work and I feel blessed to have avoided a great deal of controversy in my career so far. I'm thankful for the opportunity to share my research, and to have your readership.