I’ve been trying to go through the entire thing, but I
haven’t made it through yet. I have found some great material that reinforces
what I’ve said about insurgency before and provides insights into the
Book of Mormon generally.
Amminaus
Marcellinus was a late Roman historian that provides valuable insight and
as Hugh Nibley said, when we come to expect an outrageous collection of potpourri
we instead find confirming context.
14.2.1-2: For the Isaurians too, whose way it is
now to keep the peace and now put everything in turmoil by sudden raids, abandoned their occasional secret plundering expeditions and, as impunity stimulated for the
worse their growing boldness, broke
out in a serious war. For a long time they had been inflaming their warlike spirits by restless outbreaks, but they
were now especially exasperated, as they declared, by the indignity of some of
their associates, who had been taken prisoner, having been thrown to beasts of
prey in the shows of the amphitheatre at Iconium, a town of Pisidia—an outrage without precedent.
And, in the words of Cicero, as even wild animals, when warned by hunger,
generally return to the place where they were once fed, so they all, swooping like a whirlwind down from
their steep and rugged mountains,
made for the districts near the sea; and hiding themselves there in pathless
lurking-places and defiles as the dark nights were coming on-the moon being
still crescent and so not shining with full brilliance—they watched the
sailors….[then attacked] and since their natural
ferocity was fired by greed, they spared no one, even of those who
surrendered, but massacred them all and without resistance carried off the
cargoes, led either by their value or by their usefulness.
The key comparisons are in bold. This list could get quite
long but just a brief look includes “being stirred up to anger” (Helaman 11:
24) and the next verse was “murder and plunder…done from wilderness and secret
places” (11:25). They, or their lambskins, were died in blood being great and
terrible and recalls wild beasts (3rd Nephi 4:7). Speaking of beasts
Gildas described mountain insurgents as a hive of bees (1.26). They used their
tough terrain to hide and defeat Nephite armies: “sally forth from the hills,
and out of the mountains, and the wilderness, and their strongholds,” (3rd
Nephi 4:1). (More on the Nephite army’s defeat below) “Get gain” (Helaman 7:21)
is repeated frequently throughout the books of Helaman and 3rd Nephi
speaking to their greed.
The most interesting part might be the outrage that stoked
them to war. It’s not very popular to say it, (I’ve been called a
Marxist Schmuck
for doing so) but a critical reading suggests that Nephite misrule gave the
robbers legitimate complaints.
From my 2016 FAIR presentation:
There is evidence that the Gaidnaton Robbers were really just seeking
land reform. At the end of this phase of conflict in 3 Nephi 6:3, the peace
treaty specifically included distribution of land. It reads that Nephite
leaders granted unto those robbers who had entered into a covenant to keep the
peace… “lands, according to their numbers, that they might have, with their
labors, wherewith to subsist upon; and thus they did establish peace in all the
land.” That’s a rather odd peace treaty. If we take a straight forward reading
of the text, the Gadianton Robbers revolt for no good reason beyond being
influenced by the devil, and having a lust for money and mayhem. After many
years of battle and devastation they caused, when they are finally defeated in
epic battle they got…more land? And the next verse described the “equity and
justice” of the peace (3 Nephi 6:4), which at least infers that those qualities
were lacking in Nephite laws and might have inspired the insurgency in the
first place.
Moving back to Amminaus:
14:2.5-6 Anger at [the slaughter of their people by the
robbers] aroused the [Roman] soldiers quartered in the numerous towns and
fortresses which lie near those regions, and each division strove to the best
of its power to check the marauders as they ranged more widely, now in solid
bodies, sometimes even in isolated bands. But the soldiers were defeated by
their strength and numbers; for since the Isaurians were born and brought up
amid the steep and winding defiles of the mountains, they bounded over them as
if they were a smooth and level plain, attacking the enemy with missiles from a
distance and terrifying them with savage howls.
And sometimes our infantry in pursuing them were forced to scale lofty slopes, and when they lost their footing, even if they reached the very summits by catching hold of underbrush or briars, the narrow and pathless tracts allowed them neither to take order of battle nor with mighty effort to keep a firm footing; and while the enemy, running here and there, tore off and hurled down masses of rock from above, they made their perilous way down over steep slopes; or if, compelled by dire necessity, they made a brave fight, they were overwhelmed by falling boulders of enormous weight.
In addition to reinforcing the view of the Isaurians as a
scary other and the ethno centric stereotypes we see about Lamanites from the
Nephites in the Book of Mormon, I think this is simply a more detailed version
of the defeat of the Nephites in Helaman 11:27-30:
Now behold, these robbers did make great havoc, yea, even great
destruction among the people of Nephi, and also among the people of the
Lamanites. And it came to pass that it was expedient that there should be a
stop put to this work of destruction; therefore they sent an army of strong men
into the wilderness and upon the mountains to search out this band of robbers,
and to destroy them. But behold, it came to pass that in that same year they
were driven back even into their own lands… And it came to pass in the
commencement of the eighty and first year they did go forth again against this
band of robbers, and did destroy many; and they were also visited with much
destruction.
The
Book of Mormon
doesn’t say explicitly say this but the defeat recorded above implies it and
the history Ammianus’ record provides the likely details. If I were asked to comment
on terrain in general I would have suggested that rough mountain terrain would
prohibit the deployment of broad military fronts, and mountain dwellers with
specialized weapons (slings and boulders), as well as sure footing would
prevail. In fact, in discussing the effects of Moroni’s reforms on the Nephites
after he passed away as a national hero, I suggested that their heavy armor was
a negative in fighting these bands. As I
summarized
on page 112:
It gave [the Nephites] a tactical advantage in some areas,
but also made them more susceptible to fatigue and the hit and run tactics of
their enemies. This cost them strategic mobility which allowed robbers to
flourish in more inhospitable regions. The heavier infantry may have inspired
the hit and run tactics and mountain hideouts of the insurgents. The greater
logistical need of the heavy infantry couple with their inability to operate in
rough terrain led to an increase of banditry in the land.
14.2.7: Therefore extreme caution was shown after that, and
when the marauders began to make for the mountain heights, the soldiers yielded
to the unfavourable position. When, however, the Isaurians could be found on
level ground, as constantly happened, they were allowed neither to stretch out
their right arms nor poise their weapons, of which each carried two or three,
but they were slaughtered like defenceless sheep
As I just wrote,
heavy infantry is great on the plains and gives the counter insurgent forces a
tactical advantage. The Romans gained the advantage by luring them out on level
ground, and the Nephites won their climatic battles against the Gadianton
Robbers by doing the same thing.
Conclusion:
This has been a brief overview of what I see as a typical
insurgency found in a few short verses from a late Roman historian. The
Isurians were viewed as a barbaric and ferocious other, who subsisted on
plunder, with complaints against the central government. They were excellent in
the mountains and could defeat armies there but when they tried to plunder in
the plains they could be caught and defeated.
On a larger point, this once again shows that my writings
about insurgency in the Book of Mormon
are not radical revisions for those who know history and military history.
Heavy infantry has trouble in the mountains, ancient historians depict other
ethnic groups negatively, states have trouble extending control in difficult
terrain, rebellious groups can cause problems but often don’t have the state
apparatus (taxes, agriculture, military) to overthrow the central government.
The Book of Mormon fits comfortably
within the context of an ancient insurgency and we need to the read the book
with the same critical eye that we read other ancient histories.
