Army Composition and Tactics Part III

Garrisons: Alma 48:8 described small forts, or places of resort, that had earth piled up. Hugh Nibley described these (in Approach to the Book of Mormon I believe) as similar to other ancient hill forts. The location of these forts are described as being by various choke points such as river crossings and road junctures. Other garrisons are at larger cities. The quick capture of the capital in Helaman 1, and the coup described in Alma 61 suggest that some city garrisons could be quite small. We should also remember the fear of Laman and Lemeul of the 50 soldiers that Laban could command. And the boast of the Nephites in Mosiah 11:19, that 50 soldiers of their soldiers could stand against thousands. Hugh Nibley (In Lehi in the Desert) contends that 50 was often the number contained in a city garrison.

The activities of these garrisons are mostly implied. In Alma 55 some Lamanite guards are enticed into a drunken stupor. As a product of the United States military I can understand the boredom that would spur that behavior. So there is a definite amount of implied boredom. Garrisons at critical junctures would function as an advanced warning system. And maybe imply a defense in depth, where lightly fortified outer garrisons would funnel enemy advances into better defenses in the rear, and give time for the Nephites to raise the requisite forces. Although some frontiers had no early warning system (see Alma 16), and the cities on the east sea fell so quickly there is no indication of a time advantage gained, so the defense in depth was partial at best. A more appropriate function indicated in the text would be to control movement between cities. This would allow the capital to control information by placing garrisons along key road junctures. (like knowledge about the coup of the capital being contained). They could also work in conjunction with Nephite scouts/spies in observing enemy movement. Dr. Ainsworth at bookofmormonsites.org has suggested that towers could be used for look out as well. These would look roughly similar to what we now call mesoamerican stone pyramids.

The dangers of this position would include possible ruses, such as poisoned wine, enemy attempts to infiltrate the city, being cut off by enemy scouts, being killed in a coup attempt, or by a quick raid by skirmishers. (See Mosiah 11:17 for example)

Guard Duty: This does not appear to be a permanent function but simply a reassignment based on conditions- like capturing enemy prisoners. Enemies were put to labor because they were easier to guard. This seems rather odd, since taking them outside the city would seem to make it easier for them to run. There is no information concerning restraints. Alma 57:30-34 mentions a prison break of Lamanites, where an unarmed group of Lamanites simply rushed upon the sword wielding box of Nephite guards ("They broke through"). This group also met a group of spies, who see to act more like scouts. The danger from guard duty seemed to the shame from a allowing men to escape. But in Alma 57 the prison guards make it back to the main army in time to help win the fight. This event also portrays the flexible nature of the Nephite belief system. Allowing prisoners to escape could have been seen as a sign of God's displeasure, but since the prison guards were then allowed to win the fight it was seen as a blessing. This is consistent with other ancient societies.

Body Guards: As talked about in my post Homeric warfare the elites of the Nephites fought the elites of the Lamanites (Alma 2). Body guards are mentioned in this context as well. This could explain the 50 number mentioned in the garrison section. Since the agricultural nature of Nephite society would dictate a mostly part time army. The standing army would be a few professional soldiers. These could be from the military caste (see "Military Caste" in Warfare in the Book of Mormon), and would be likely commanders of detachments (like those in charge of transporting prisoners in Alma 57), as well as the bodyguards. See Mosiah 7:7,10-11,16 for more.

Their dangers are numerous. They would have to fight the elites and full time soldiers of the other side. In Alma 2:34, Alma and his bodyguards had to fight for a bridgehead across the river. In Alma 52 the body guards of Moroni had to deal with an "exceedingly fierce" opponent trying to hack their way through a trap. And they were said not to "give way", suggesting they acted like Persia Immortals- the discipline corps of an largely conscripted army. The body guards also had city security, and palace duty during times of peace. Helaman 2 describes how those guards were killed quickly after a rapid thrust of the enemy.

Conclusion: These are few of the occupations that make up the Nephite armies. This also explained the tactical options and dangers associated with them. The brevity of the text forbids definite conclusions. But the text is consistent with other ancient armies, and provides many clues that allow us to draw tentative conclusions. There is also a time difference between many of the detailed war narratives- like 400 years between the account in Alma and those in Mormon. Thus even out tentative conclusions may not apply to all of Nephite history. But we can assume that basic elements remain the same with complications arising as Nephite society became increasingly complex. This also allows us to examine the parts of Nephite armies that we can then compare to other ancient armies. As with most study of the Book of Mormon, a few tentative answers lead to more questions. I hope to hear your comments, and that you read my other posts as I attempt to answer these questions.

Army Composition and Tactics, Part II

Skirmishers: My classification is based largely on mission and not by armament. There is no indication that the BoM distinguishes between skirmishers and heavy infantry. The most in depth description of Nephite armor comes from the activities of Moroni in making the Title of Liberty (Alma 46:13). As mentioned in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, and Mesocamerican books like Aztec Warfare, the elites normally wore more armor (and more colorful armor) than the average soldier. Thus I classified the skirmishers based on their tactics. Teancum was commanded to "seek opportunity to scourge" the Lamanites in that quarter of the land. (Alma 52:10). Thus when he marched passed a city Brant Gardner assumes that they were aiming to destroy farm land around the city, prompting the Lamanites to exit the city and attack. And the Lamanites began to "sally forth" from the cities, indicating a different policy than turtling in their fortresses. (Alma 56: 26-29) Earlier in the chapter there is also an indication that fighting for the city was different than defending the city. By day the Nephites skirmished with their lamanite counter parts, and by night they fortified the city. When Helaman's reinforcements arrived the skirmishers reported back to the commander who then ordered a retreat to their fortifications.

Thus the two examples (Teancum's maneuvers ,and the operations around Judea) suggest that cities were a base of operations from which raids were conducted against opposing farmland. Commanders also sent "feelers" out to probe enemy the strength of enemy defenses, and the defenders would sent out forces to screen and prevent the collection of enemy intelligence. Thus, skirmishers acted as quick attack forces and a supplement for the scouts and spies employed.

Heavy Infantry: This is a tough category. As mentioned before, there is no indication of a difference in armor between the leaders and the mass of the army. However, other ancient societies and mesoamerican societies did have that division. There is also Western Way of War baggage in classifying something as heavy infantry. According to Victor David Hanson, the Greeks developed and enshrined the concept of heavy infantry allowing Greek, Roman, and later Western forces a decisive advantage in combat. Combined with the penchant for shock battle (exemplified by Alexander the Great according to Hanson), the heavy infantry would literally run over their enemies on their way to victory. While "others" would focus on maneuver, intrigue and ruses to attain victory. Thus the Nephites possessing heavy infantry would suggest a break down in the distinctiveness of the Western Way of War.

The Book of Mormon mentions one battle in particular that can help us determine the nature of Nephite warfare. After a Lamanite force was surrounded "they did fight like dragons...yea, for they did smite in two many of their head-plates, and they did pierce many of their breastplates, and they did smite off many of their arms; and thus the Lamanites did smite in their fierce anger." (Alma 43:44) But the Lamanites did not have the same armor that they did later in the war. So there is indication of a decisive clash and armor among the Nephites. The enemies commanders complaint in the peace discussion suggest that the armor was new and perhaps the Nephites had their own hoplite revolution. (see the post titled Homeric Warfare) However, the fact that the armies could disengage for a lengthy offer of peace from Moroni suggest a great deal of continuing ritualization in Nephite society. (Alma 44) Also, Alma 44:8-15 describes some of the weapons that heavy infantry would carry: sword, cimeter, and bow.

Thus a final verdict is difficult to describe. The Nephite used enough armor to classify as heavy infantry (at least the elites did). There is a lack of evidence if the use of armor was widespread enough to classify an entire band of warriors as heavy infantry. The participation of entire armies in shock battle, and the chaotic nature of the scrum suggest a distinction by function between skirmishers and heavy infantry.
Alma 52:31-38 says that:
Moroni being in their course of march, therefore Jacob was determined to slay them and cut his way through to the city of Mulek. But behold, Moroni and his men were more powerful; therefore they did not give way before the Lamanites. And it came to pass that they fought on both hands with exceeding fury; and there were many slain on both sides; yea, and Moroni was wounded and Jacob was killed.

The Battle of Mulek and others like the First Battle of Zarahemla (Alma 43-44) suggest that the Nephites participated in decisive shock battle between heavily armored and armed infantry forces. The impact of that fact on the Western Way of War must wait for another post. The impact on the average soldier must have been immense. In the BoM we read of severed arms, severed heads, blood drinking, human sacrifice, slavery, being burned alive, starvation, cannibalism and sexual exploitation.

The heavy infantry and the forces in shock battle faced those punishments upon a loss, and many of those in the pursuit of victory. The skirmishers could often survive upon their mobility (think Monty Python: run away!!!), the heavy infantry often could not due to the need to defend fixed objects and the often defensive nature of their conflicts.

Coming soon: garrisons, prison guards, and body guards.

Army Composition and tactics, Part I

In my second post, titled "the past and the future", I discussed the tactical options that many commentators overlook, and how we can examine the face of battle by examining these things. My purpose is two fold: First, I want to show that the Book of Mormon text adequately describes the various functions and contains snippets of detail that provide solid evidence for its ancient origin. Second, I wish to examine those pieces of data to provide a better picture of the composition and activities of an ancient army, which I hope will help other war historians.

These goals involve a two step process and necessarily entails a certain amount of skepticism, since the brevity of the text allows for often nothing more than implications. And we can then deduct what tasks the average soldier would be required of the soldier to achieve the description in the text.

Here are some of the options that I have come up with:

Courier: Letters are exchanged between military commanders (Alma 52:10), between commanders and the central government(Alma 59:1-3), commanders and the local government (Alma 58:4), and the leaders of separate nations (Alma 54). There is also "requests" to fight in certain places (Alma 52:20), or diplomatic negotiations (Alma 57:1-3). Of note is that in some places the courier had to travel past the capital with a letter containing a question about the capital. (Alma 58:34) Since a coup at the capital was partially the cause of the letter, the fact that a courier could travel from one side of the land to the other suggests a significant amount of information control in the Capital by the usurpers. It could suggest a degree of interference imposed on those couriers as well, and connotes physical dangers with the job above the basic requirement to move fast.

Alma 54:4 suggests that the courier was a dedicated position (At least dedicated until the return trip was finished). There is no word on what material this was written on and if that matched Mesoamerican trends. Given the warm climate, any paper records would be transitory. But, the fact that Mormon is quoting from this letter over 400 years later suggests letters were in another material or the Nephite's had depository for paper as well as metal records.

Spies: This section is related to the notion of information control associated with the previous section. It seems the army included numerous spies. Ross Hassig (Aztec Warfare) shows that merchants and refugees were one type of human intelligence. The text in Alma 52 and 57 suggest that the term spy refers more to "scouts." When the scouts/spies were cut off the Lamanite armies fell victim to tactical battle ruses. Alma 50:30-31 suggests that Moroni was willing to trust and exploit human intelligence, similar to the harlot at Jericho for Joshua.

From the text there is a good deal of evidence suggesting that spies associated with the army were more like scouts. And often faced the chance of being killed by counter intelligence, and subject to being "cut off" by the enemy.

Labor: Alma 56:16 mentions fighting valiantly by day and toiling by night to maintain the city. This implies a last ditch effort to fortify the city and an effort to keep the city, or keep the enemy away from the city. The scene could involve fighting around their limited fortifications, and then trying to raise them high enough during the night to repeat Alma 49. Alma 53:7 suggests than the entire army could be used for food harvest and distribution. This may seem one of the safer occupations, but the stronger soldiers would also be required to perform labor and the labor was often military related and done under the threat of attack.

Coming up soon: Skirmishers,heavy infantry, prison guards, Garrisons, and Body Guards.

Homeric warfare

This post will discuss what kind of "scrum" Nephite battles consisted of. The first version consists of a relatively bloodless combat similar to the battles described in the Illiad. The second involves greater participation and greater casualties evocative of shock battle.

In the Illiad, Homer describes a type of warfare that consisted of battle between elites. This involved relatively few people in that battle, which is one reason why the siege could go for ten years. It was also highly ritualized and one on one. Other societies have had similar conventions. European knights during the middle ages, the individual combat of the Samurai, and the Flower Wars of the Aztecs all have similar features to this style of combat.

Around the 6th century B.C. the Greeks went through what is called the "Hoplite Revolution". This revolution moved away from individual combat into a more egalitarian combat featuring the phalanx formation. (See: Harry Sidebottom's "A Very Short Introduction to Ancient Warfare") This type of combat stressed duty and discipline ("Staying in formation") more than individual heroics ("how many kills can I get").

An example of this shift is found in Virgil's Epic poem The Aeneid. In this poem, the Latin hero Turnus had penetrated the gate of the Greek colony. If he had opened the gate, i.e. shown the discipline of leader, the Latins would have won the battle. Fueled by the heroic impulse however, Turnus sought individual glory and fought and lost on his own. Thus by the time of the Pax Romana, Western society had thoroughly embraced the concept of discipline and subordinated the Achilles like tendency for individual glory. (See Victor David Hanson's Carnage and Culture chapter 8 for more)

In the Book of Mormon, it does not explicitly describe individual combat. In Alma 2:29-33, the Chief judge contended one on one with the apostate leader, and the Lamanite leader, then his bodyguards contended with the enemy king's bodyguards. There is also a whiff of editorial attack here, as the Lamanite King fled and allowed his bodyguards to cover his retreat. But the battle also described the attempt at gaining a beach head on the other side of the river, implying a vicious scrum. Thus the evidence is mixed for what type that episode describes.

The Book of Mosiah described small armies. And a situation where the people advanced without weapons, and with their women in front in order to dissuade an enemy attack.(Mosiah, 19:14-15; 20:24-25) This may describe a bloodless, individual and small scale combat. But the people were in a tributary relationship, so that may have skewed the conduct of war from the norm in other parts of the Book of Mormon. Plus, chapter 20 of Mosiah also suggests a violent war ("fought like lions for their pray" v. 10-11) and the people of Limhi seemed to ambush their foes ("laid wait in the fields and forests" v. 8). These both suggest a departure away from a style of combat which focuses on epic one on one duels for the glory of the hero, and a relatively bloodless encounter. And perhaps most damning, v. 12 mentions how the King was found wounded among the dead bodies. If there was a Homeric duel between the King and the general, there would be no mention of "finding" the body, it would have been obvious to the winner of the duel that he won and the body would be right in front of him.

These are just a few examples of the discussion that needs to take place concerning the method of battle described in the Book of Mormon. There is contradictory evidence, but more in favor of egalitarian and violent combat opposed to ritualistic individual combat. Finding out what the Book of Mormon says will help us develop contrasts and deeper understanding of other ancient cultures and literature, and it should help shape the current debate among Mesoamerican scholars concerning the nature of Battle.