Amalickiah’s flight to the
Lamanites and subsequent intrigue that won him the Lamanite throne and war
against the Nephites seemed a bit too easy.
Everybody in the account seemed to do exactly what he wanted. But upon closer examination of the scriptures
the reader can see that Amalickiah’s arguments were based in mutual self-interest
and often justified his actions using the rhetoric of peace.
One of these arguments is listed in
the text. After one of Amlickiah’s servants killed the king in verse 27 it
reads: And it came to pass that
Amalickiah commanded this his armies should march forth and see what had happened
to the king; and when the had come to the spot, and found the king lying in his
gore, Amalickiah pretended to be wroth, and said: Whosoever loved the king, let
him go forth, and pursue his servants that they may be slain.
By killing the king, letting the
army see his fake grief, and placing blame on the king’s servants Amalickiah
strengthened his loyalty among the army, and his credentials as a “bold”
Lamanite. (Alma 54:24)
He also removed the only witnesses that might foil his plan and cast blame on
him. So in this case Amalickiah presumably enticed his servants by offering him
a better position in the future king’s household. Amalickiah used the fear and
self-preservation of the murdered king’s servants to cast the blame on them and
he used the natural loyalty of the soldiers to their king to win their hearts.
This example is towards the end of the story, but an analysis of the rest of
the account shows similarly manipulated emotions.
In verse one Amalickiah and a small
group of men fled from Moroni to the land of Nephi and the Lamanites. The small group probably consisted of his
personal household and fellow elites but maybe included military specialists as
well. They likely followed Amalickiah
because of promises of future wealth and success and when they arrived the text
says they “stirred up” the Lamanites. Many of his arguments were most likely
different versions of events seen in scriptures that Amalickiah embellished or
twisted to promote his interest and make it appear in the interest of the
Lamanites to go to war. His argument
might have been that the Nephites expelled them and they fled for their lives
because they were a peace faction that had tried to prevent the rise of
dangerous men like Moroni, and they tried to prevent some of the policies that
Nephite elites wanted to implement. Alma
51:13 recorded how many king-men refused to take up arms when the Lamanites
attacked. Even modern commenters
suggested that Moroni’s execution of the king-men and compelling them to fight
was a “war crime.” So
anciently Amalickiah could have claimed some sort of objection based on real
(or more likely feigned or politically convenient) claims of friendship and
brotherhood to the Lamanites. Alma 61:8
described the coup by the king-men that entered into a treaty of friendship
with the Lamanites. So again, the scriptures contain evidence that the king-men
and Amalickiah might have promoted themselves as a peace party professing
friendship with the Lamanites.
Amalickiah also could have stirred the Lamanites towards war over news
of a pre-emptive invasion. While he
could have made up any number of plans and there was no way for the Lamanite
king to verify it, a short time after Amalickiah’s flight Moroni pre-emptively
attacked and expelled the Lamanites in the East and West wilderness. (Alma
50:7-9) Moroni also rallied the people
around his Title of Liberty and mustered the army against Amalickiah and his
men. Amalickiah and his followers could
have viewed this as mob like and excessively militant action that infringed on
their rights. Certainly Amalickiah would
have relayed Moroni’s actions in chapter 46 in the most sinister terms possible
to the Lamanite king. Perhaps the king was inflamed enough by this news to
declare war. Or Amlickiah could have
convinced him that a quick strike at Ammonihah, their target chosen in chapter
49 because of the easy attack a
generation earlier, (Alma 16:2) could blunt some of Moroni and the
government’s militancy. He might have added that the bloodshed from a quick
strike would be less than the bloodshed from a later war after the Nephites had
gained more power.
But the
Lamanite soldiers were reluctant to obey the king’s command. In verse three Amalickiah gained control of
the part of the army which remained loyal to the king. As we later see, those
who disobeyed the king’s command were not simply rebellious soldiers, but a full-fledged
rebel faction with an anointed king. (v.5-6) But why did the king appoint Amalickiah? Amalickiah and his men obviously had more
knowledge of Nephite territory so they would be natural leaders while attacking
the Nephites. (Alma 48:5) But that advantage became a disadvantage in
unfamiliar Lamanite territory. The
“place of arms” (Alma 47:5) to which the rebel Lamanites fled was roughly ten
miles from the capital city,
so terrain wasn’t likely an issue. The
real advantage lay in the added social capital and elites that Amalickiah
brought. He had the above knowledge of
(maybe exaggerated) Nephite militancy.
He had military skills evidenced by he and his brother’s later
leadership of the entire Lamanite army and war effort, and they escaped
Moroni’s pursuit. (Alma 46:32-33)
Brant Gardner argued that an
earlier king sent Ammon to the waters of Seebus because he was an outsider and
a wild card that could affect the balance of power between rival houses. The king couldn’t punish those who pillaged
his flocks because they were protected by rival elites and maybe even the
king’s relatives. But he had to maintain his power so he killed his servants
for failing to protect his flocks. Ammon on the other hand, did not have those
restraints, so the king placed him in a difficult situation to see what he
could do and maybe solve the king’s problems.
Amalickiah could have fulfilled the same role for the current king. In a
budding civil war he was an outside force. He could have succeeded in his mission
and earned the king a united and more powerful army. If Amalickiah suppressed the revolt heavy
handedly, killed the wrong people such as those with powerful connections, or
made the wrong enemies (remember that one man tried to kill Ammon in revenge at
the king’s house [Alma 19:22]), he could act as the king’s scape goat. The king
might have even used one of his
servants to slay Amalickiah. So we see
how Amalickiah used the king to gain command of an army, but the king likely
used Amalickiah as well.
In verse 13 Amalickiah presented
the rebel general king, Lehonti, the rebel general king, with a rather
attractive offer. Amalickiah desired him to come down [from the mountain] with his army
in the night-time, and surround those men in their camps over whom the king had
given him command, and that he [Amalickiah] would deliver them up into
Lehonti’s hands, if he would make him (Amalickiah) a second leader over the
whole army.
Mormon summarized this offer in a
way that made it sound too good to be true. But Amalickiah’s argument probably
sounded different. Amalickiah could
argue that the king placed him between a rock and a hard place. On the one
hand, the king forcing him to lead Lamanites into battle against other
Lamanites. But Lehonti had the high
ground, possibly controlled the source of their obsidian weapons at the place
of arms, and possessed greater numbers. So Amalickiah had to obey the orders of
the king to attack, but was likely to fail. His attack would result in
Lamanites killed on each side, with the result that whomever won the civil war
would be in a weaker position to resist Nephite aggression. Amalickiah’s offer instead made it so nobody
would have to fight. Lehonti would win after a brilliant attacking move.
Amalickiah would save his army, and like Ceasar’s pardon of Brutus, Lehonti
would appear to have king like magnanimity and appoint Amalickiah as the second
in command. Lehonti likely had a
practical need for Amalickiah’s martial skills, and the knowledge of Nephite
plans would give him additional leverage to win the people; as Lehonti could
use Amalickiah’s knowledge of supposed (or real) Nephite attacks to presnt
himself as a defender of his people against Nephite aggression. This agreement
saved Lamanite lives by uniting the armies without bloodshed and both
commanders benefitted. Amalickiah,
knowing that he was perhaps expendable to the king, extricated himself from the
need for a costly and likely fatal frontal assault. Lehonti appeared as a strong conteder for the
throne by uniting the army without bloodshed and appearing conciliatory between
the two factions.
In verse 15, Amalickiah schemed to
gain strengthen the loyalty of his soldiers.
The latter awoke and found themselves surrounded by Lehonti, and begged
Amalickiah to save them. According to
the above agreement he did so. Armies
were largely based on personal bonds of loyalty, so it was important for a
leader to gain that trust. As an outsider, and maybe even seen as expendable by
his rank and file soldiers, the increased loyalty helped Amalickiah, even as
Amalickiah fulfilled his part of the agreement to help Lehonti and save the
lives of soldiers in both armies. He continued to build loyalty with the
theatre surrounding the murder of the king discussed above in verse 27. In each case Amalickiah further convinced the
soldiers that Amalickiah had their best interests at heart. As with any ancient
army commander, he had the trust of their soldiers that he would lead them to victory
and plunder. Amalickiah in turn gained
by having an army more closely bound to him.
Verse 33 presented one of the most
intriguing items after Amalickiah gained complete control of the army: Therefore, when the queen had received [word
of the King’s death] she sent unto Amalickiah, desiring him that he would spare
the people of the city; and she also desired him that he should come in unto
her; and she also desired him that he should bring witnesses with him to
testify concerning the death of the king.
If the queen requested that he
spare the people of the city it suggests that the Lamanite army could have
sacked the city. Anciently, plunder acted as one of the few reliable ways for
an army to get paid, and often acted as a bonus for the success of a
campaign. Like the faceoff between
Amalickiah and Lehonti’s army, perhaps the queen still had military force and
the inclination to oppose Amalickiah. But
then the queen requested, or possibly ordered, that Amalickiah bring witnesses
of the king’s murder. And the next verse says that the witnesses “satisfied”
the queen. Hearing testimony suggests some sort of legal procedure. So it’s
possible that this served as part of the ritual surrounding a coronation, or
more theatre to cover the naked ambition of two joint rulers. The unexpected
death of a sovereign often resulted in a mad scramble for power. The queen
could easily use her position, and networks of elites to control the capital
and remain in power. Amalickiah, in contrast, could use the army as a platform
to control the countryside and seize the capital by force. With rival bases of
political power, a desire to “spare the people of the city” likely represented
a coded political message to end the still simmering power struggle.
The queen remained in power; and with Amalickiah she had a partner just as
powerful, if not more so, than her late husband. Amalickiah gained by keeping
control of the army and possessing a stronger claim to the throne. Not to
mention he shared bed with what appears to be the Cleopatra of the Book of Mormon.
Amalickiah probably assumed the
throne claiming he was from the peace faction of the Nephites. The king-men associated with him often
opposed the Nephite conflict with the Lamanites, and they could claim to oppose
Moroni’s aggressive promotion of the Title of Liberty and pre-emptive war.
Amalickiah could claim that he prevented bloodshed in a nascent civil war as a
servant of the king fighting Lehonti, and as a leader of the united army
opposing the widowed queen. He spread
the city upon his ascension, and likely promised to protect his new subjects
from Nephite encroachment. Of course, modern readers get a version of the story
from Mormon. But every story has more
than one side and a careful reading and analysis of Amalickiah’s story suggests
he achieved so much because spoke in terms of mutual self-interest, and he
often justified his actions using the rhetoric of peace.
