War and Society of the Gadianton State

In speaking of the Gadiantion Robbers in chapter 11 of the Book of Helaman Mormon says that
33...they did visit many parts of the land, and did do great destruction unto them; yea, did kill many, and did carry away others captive into the wilderness, yea, and more especially their women and their children.

As mentioned in my previous post, this verse intrigued me. After a bit of research I have come to several conclusions:

1. When I mentioned the Sabine women from Roman history I was on the right track. Bride Kidnapping is common among many ancient cultures across the world. And the Book of Mosiah already described a clearer example of this practice. (Mosiah 20:1-5)

2. This practice is in line with many norms of ancient war. The winner of a conflict had jurisdiction over its inhabitants and usually slew the men while taking the women and children captive.

3. The first two points suggest the attempted creation of a rival state. The stealing of Lamanite women by the Priests of Noah started a new "ite" in competition with the Nephites and maybe even the Lamanites (See their attack on Ammonihah in Alma 16 for an example of the latter). And the power of the Gadianton robbers to take women and children suggest they had the basics of a state apparatus. (See 3 Nephi 3 for the educated letter from their leader and the control he had over his forces)

4. The capture of women and children could represent the need for labor of an arms industry (mining metal) or agricultural production (See Hamblin "Ancient Warfare in the Near East"). There is little direct indication of the creation of a Gadianton state, although this could be the cultural bias from Mormon rather than a reflection of the facts. Every other facet (such as the precedent set in Mosiah, the sociological implications of stealing captives, the application of rules of war mentioned in #3, and the economic implications in stealing wives discussed below) does lead to that conclusion.

5. The practice of captive brides also has several economic implications. According to the journals I read, sometimes the practice of stealing brides was simply a cover for a couple's elopement in order to satisfy cultural expectations. Many more times, the practice occurs because "the men who resort to capturing a wife are often of lower social status, because of poverty, disease, poor character or criminality. They are sometimes deterred from legitimately seeking a wife because of the payment the woman's family expects, the bride price [different from a dowry]". ( Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3 1974)

I have argued elsewhere that the increasing stratification of Nephite society led many of the have nots (or the "have not quite as much"ers) to forcibly rebel against the ruling powers, the Nephite Chief Judge and the Church, in order to equalize their share of the wealth. The abduction or absconding of Nephite daughters could be seen as the great destruction being visited upon the Nephites mentioned in v. 33. Their physical cities could be rebuilt, but the destruction of the Nephite lineage through defection to social and spiritual inferiors would be a greater insult.

And as I argued here, the increasing number of full time and landless soldiers in Nephite society would be seen as the dregs of society. Full time soldiers in the Acien Regime were on par with prostitutes and dogs (In fact businesses would have signs that read "No dogs, prostitutes or soldiers"- See Peter Paret "Makers of Modern Strategy" and John Lynn "Bayonets of the Republic") it would not be surprising that the famous soldier who scalped Zerahemnah and could give an extemporaneous sermon (Alma 44) would be replaced by a landless, uneducated (3 Nephi 6:12) robber with no loyalty to the central government.

In short,the practice of captive brides suggests additional insights into the economic motivations of the Gadianton robbers and reveals how the Nephites perceived their political enemies and social inferiors. In fact, it seems that if the Nephites defeated their enemies soundly (like the Amlicites in Alma 2) they were described as "ites" at least somewhat equal to the Nephites socially. But the increasing strength of the political enemies of the Nephite lineage and the possible defection of many parts of Nephite society to their cause results in the editorial insult by Mormon where he called them "robbers" instead of the Gadianites.

Conclusion: Helaman 11:33 suggests that the Gadianton robbers were building a state. They destroyed Nephite cities in a physical sense, but were seen by Nephites and Mormon as a threat to their families and social inferiors. The Church was unable to stem the rapacious desire for wealth among their leading houses and citizens which led to the rise of a new state filled with former soldiers whose economic situation deteriorated to the point of rebellion. Second tier nobles (the not have as much crowd) saw the growing income gap that equalled their political power gap and they allied with those disaffected full time soldiers to rebel and create a new state. This state was labelled pejoratively as robbers even though Nephite society often did the same thing only under the cover of government.

As always, I invite comment and constructive opinion as I refine my ideas and conduct more research.