Posts
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.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Research Update: Buffet Style
I've sat here at my computer for almost an hour now as I write a few sentences and delete them, only to do the same thing again with another topic. So instead I will change things up and give you a peak at several items, questions and research topics I am looking at.
Slavery in the Book of Mormon: Helaman 11:3 mentions how women and children were kidnapped by Gadianton robbers. Why? Was it slave labor, companionship, or trading items (like the African nations that traded slaves for guns)? This could be another example of "Sabine Women", where they steal the women to marry them. This also connects to the agrarian crisis I talked about . One of the actions that cause the crisis (described in a link below) is the importation of slaves through successful wars of conquest. These slaves then become the labor that fuels that rise of rich large landowners and displaces the small farmers that form the bulk of soldiers.
King Men Insurgency: The letter from Giddianhi in 3 Nephi 3 sounds remarkable similar to Helaman 1. Both leaders complain about their "rights of government". Both Helaman 1 and 3 Nephi 3 contain similar sounding names: Pacumeni, Pahoran, and Paanchi. And Gidgiddoni and Giddanhi. The conflict over the judgeship started the Gadianton robbers since Paanchi was set to be executed by his brother Pahoran but Kiskumen assassinated him. 3 Nephi 4 is the one of the ultimate resolutions where the Gadianton robbers are defeated in a 11 "...great and terrible...battle thereof, yea, great and terrible was the slaughter thereof, insomuch that there never was known so great a slaughter among all the people of Lehi since he left Jerusalem."
The insurgency part comes from the earlier parts of the struggle, where they operate secretly in the cities. But some 60 years later they can operate as a (almost) nation killer. In many cases this matches the classic three phase insurgency advocated by Mao Tse Dung. Daniel Peterson in Warfare in the Book of Mormon discusses the theory behind their actions. I simply wanted to suggest their political motives, stated in Helaman 1 and in Nephi 3 and suggest that many of the Gadianton robbers were from leading houses and possibly the two leaders: Giddianhi and Gidgiddoni were from the same house. The replacement leader (Zemnarihah) also sounds much like previous dissidents. 3 Nephi 1:29 says that Zoramites were the cause of some dissensions, so there is another connection.
Agrarian Crisis Update: I stated my preliminary research here I read the Book of Helaman and 3 Nephi in depth searching for the 6 major steps I described there. I did not find a neat picture. I found so much material I may have to divide it into books. I have also found a great deal about the possible motivations for the Gadianton robbers. Such as soldiers that wanted "their cut" of the economic pie, disaffected rich citizens, those that could not stay in the Church simply by "professing" loyalty(Helaman 3:33). These all flourished due to the diminishing power the Chief Judge, resulting in almost complete impotence by 3 Nephi 7. I found the wars were actually closer to home and less frequent with the Lamanites. The chief problem was an internal struggle for power among leading Nephite houses. And the government lost control over the exercise of violence. There seemed to be private wars (Helaman 4:1-2 and 5:21, predatory practices among the Nephite elite (Helaman 5:38 and 3 Nephi 1:9) and significant local autonomy as well (3 Nephi 5:23).
In short, I have to take alot of time and see if the text matches the model presented. But the difficulty in doing so suggests some similarities that stimulate thought and discussion but there is a better model to explain the social problems in the Books of Helaman and 3 Nephi.
The Land Northward: The end of Alma suggests that the land Northward became an active region in Nephite life. The 6 year ministry of Nephi suggests these lands were extensive (Helaman 7:1). The Gadianton robbers had to be cut off from the land Northward by Gidgiddoni. And after the disintegration of central power by King Jacob and his band he fled to the land Northward so he could "flatter" the people and grow in strength. (the same word, "flatter" is used to describe Paanchi's efforts which resulted in the established of the Gadiaton robbers; Helaman 1:7) In conjunction with the concept of military colonies, naval military expeditions, and these verses, there is something about the lands North that contribute to military power. At the very least the land is far enough removed from the central government to make extensive control and military expeditions difficult. I have also heard some internet chatter about comparing the extreme northern lands to the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan. The concept is intriguing and may be the "break" in external evidence that many look for.
Local Elites: I promised last time that I would discuss an example from Chinese history concerning local defections and a disconnect with the central government. The defection of Lu Wende to the Mongol leader opened up the Yangtze to invasion and started a "band wagon" effect for other leaders. These leaders were disconnected from the Song Court due to jealous civil bureaucrats and local parochial elites. (See War Politics and Society in Early Modern China by Peter Lorge, chapter 4) In the Book of Mormon I can see that their government was not a strong hegemonic empire like the Romans, but more of a loosely connected confederation of city states led by local elites. Thus some ruling families that may feel "outside", such as younger brothers or old Mulekite and Jaredite families would feel the need to gain greater power. Look at the dissenter Coriantumr (Helaman 1:15) and Zemnarihah (3 Nephi 4). Thus a comparison with other cultures in history, such as Chinese culture, could help us glean more information concerning Nephite culture.
So there are a few of the topics I thought about posting on. Comments and suggestions are appreciated as I try to sort through and refine the million different ideas I have.
Slavery in the Book of Mormon: Helaman 11:3 mentions how women and children were kidnapped by Gadianton robbers. Why? Was it slave labor, companionship, or trading items (like the African nations that traded slaves for guns)? This could be another example of "Sabine Women", where they steal the women to marry them. This also connects to the agrarian crisis I talked about . One of the actions that cause the crisis (described in a link below) is the importation of slaves through successful wars of conquest. These slaves then become the labor that fuels that rise of rich large landowners and displaces the small farmers that form the bulk of soldiers.
King Men Insurgency: The letter from Giddianhi in 3 Nephi 3 sounds remarkable similar to Helaman 1. Both leaders complain about their "rights of government". Both Helaman 1 and 3 Nephi 3 contain similar sounding names: Pacumeni, Pahoran, and Paanchi. And Gidgiddoni and Giddanhi. The conflict over the judgeship started the Gadianton robbers since Paanchi was set to be executed by his brother Pahoran but Kiskumen assassinated him. 3 Nephi 4 is the one of the ultimate resolutions where the Gadianton robbers are defeated in a 11 "...great and terrible...battle thereof, yea, great and terrible was the slaughter thereof, insomuch that there never was known so great a slaughter among all the people of Lehi since he left Jerusalem."
The insurgency part comes from the earlier parts of the struggle, where they operate secretly in the cities. But some 60 years later they can operate as a (almost) nation killer. In many cases this matches the classic three phase insurgency advocated by Mao Tse Dung. Daniel Peterson in Warfare in the Book of Mormon discusses the theory behind their actions. I simply wanted to suggest their political motives, stated in Helaman 1 and in Nephi 3 and suggest that many of the Gadianton robbers were from leading houses and possibly the two leaders: Giddianhi and Gidgiddoni were from the same house. The replacement leader (Zemnarihah) also sounds much like previous dissidents. 3 Nephi 1:29 says that Zoramites were the cause of some dissensions, so there is another connection.
Agrarian Crisis Update: I stated my preliminary research here I read the Book of Helaman and 3 Nephi in depth searching for the 6 major steps I described there. I did not find a neat picture. I found so much material I may have to divide it into books. I have also found a great deal about the possible motivations for the Gadianton robbers. Such as soldiers that wanted "their cut" of the economic pie, disaffected rich citizens, those that could not stay in the Church simply by "professing" loyalty(Helaman 3:33). These all flourished due to the diminishing power the Chief Judge, resulting in almost complete impotence by 3 Nephi 7. I found the wars were actually closer to home and less frequent with the Lamanites. The chief problem was an internal struggle for power among leading Nephite houses. And the government lost control over the exercise of violence. There seemed to be private wars (Helaman 4:1-2 and 5:21, predatory practices among the Nephite elite (Helaman 5:38 and 3 Nephi 1:9) and significant local autonomy as well (3 Nephi 5:23).
In short, I have to take alot of time and see if the text matches the model presented. But the difficulty in doing so suggests some similarities that stimulate thought and discussion but there is a better model to explain the social problems in the Books of Helaman and 3 Nephi.
The Land Northward: The end of Alma suggests that the land Northward became an active region in Nephite life. The 6 year ministry of Nephi suggests these lands were extensive (Helaman 7:1). The Gadianton robbers had to be cut off from the land Northward by Gidgiddoni. And after the disintegration of central power by King Jacob and his band he fled to the land Northward so he could "flatter" the people and grow in strength. (the same word, "flatter" is used to describe Paanchi's efforts which resulted in the established of the Gadiaton robbers; Helaman 1:7) In conjunction with the concept of military colonies, naval military expeditions, and these verses, there is something about the lands North that contribute to military power. At the very least the land is far enough removed from the central government to make extensive control and military expeditions difficult. I have also heard some internet chatter about comparing the extreme northern lands to the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan. The concept is intriguing and may be the "break" in external evidence that many look for.
Local Elites: I promised last time that I would discuss an example from Chinese history concerning local defections and a disconnect with the central government. The defection of Lu Wende to the Mongol leader opened up the Yangtze to invasion and started a "band wagon" effect for other leaders. These leaders were disconnected from the Song Court due to jealous civil bureaucrats and local parochial elites. (See War Politics and Society in Early Modern China by Peter Lorge, chapter 4) In the Book of Mormon I can see that their government was not a strong hegemonic empire like the Romans, but more of a loosely connected confederation of city states led by local elites. Thus some ruling families that may feel "outside", such as younger brothers or old Mulekite and Jaredite families would feel the need to gain greater power. Look at the dissenter Coriantumr (Helaman 1:15) and Zemnarihah (3 Nephi 4). Thus a comparison with other cultures in history, such as Chinese culture, could help us glean more information concerning Nephite culture.
So there are a few of the topics I thought about posting on. Comments and suggestions are appreciated as I try to sort through and refine the million different ideas I have.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Impact of Naval Warfare
Many members of the Church of Jesus Christ are good at explicating spiritual messages from the text of the Book of Mormon. As recent talk given by Robert D. Hales as a Church Education Fireside used the concept of "high ground" that an army used for defense in Alma 47 as the basis for his over 30 minute keynote address. I was impressed at how easily the speaker and audience seemed to transition between sound military principle and useful spiritual lessons.
On a related note, my wife has recently commented that I have "ruined" her. She was recently reading a verse and thought it was about naval warfare. Of course, I don't believe I "ruined her". Instead of reading the Book of Mormon for spiritual experiences, she has started to read it "backwards". Instead of taking obvious military principles like the high ground and applying it to spiritual matters, she takes narratives that are ostensibly about religious material and finds military lessons or ideas. Thus this post points out two additional scriptures that involve naval warfare. But I also wanted to point out the need for readers of the Book of Mormon to have their minds work both ways. One of my papers mentioned the double helix of spiritual and warfare that is intertwined throughout the book. Thus we need to look at both topics, examine ideas from both directions, and have our scholarly ideas be as strong as the spiritual ideas we find.
Without further ado here is verse #1 in Alma 2:
15.And it came to pass that the Amlicites came upon the hill Amnihu, which was east of the river Sidon, which ran by the land of Zarahemla, and there they began to make war with the Nephites
My wife mentioned this verse as a possible naval invasion of Zarahemla. (I discussed the conflict and campaign here) This is completely possible. I have discussed how ancient armies would have used rivers over land due to their ease of transport and supply compared to land roots. The advancing army could have been river borne and used the hill as a convenient staging area before they attacked the city. They could have come up and over the hill by land to start the battle as well, so there is some ambiguity in the verse. If this was a river borne assault then that suggests that the Capital did not have adequate naval defenses or possibly even a navy. If the Sidon area was a wealthier city with secessionist tendencies this could have been a private army and navy against a still weak central government (This was the second year of the reign of the judges immediately after the humble reign of King Mosiah). Thus this verse does point to some possible insights into Nephite War, society, and government based upon their manner of naval warfare.
Verse #2 Alma 51:
32 And it came to pass that they did harass them, insomuch that they did slay them even until it was dark. And it came to pass that Teancum and his men did pitch their tents in the borders of the land Bountiful; and Amalickiah did pitch his tents in the borders on the beach by the seashore, and after this manner were they driven.
Upon reading this verse it dawned on me that maybe Amalickiah's army retreated to the sea shore for resupply! The British did this at Yorktown. And if we assume that the Nephite government had a smaller and part time army than their war like neighbors (see above)this would apply to their navy as well. So we can deduce that the Lamanites would have at lest local naval superiority.
It should be remembered that Alma 51 described a revolt similar to that in Alma 2. Only Moroni had to travel to their cities and "pull down their pride and nobility". So there is a possibility that the naval capacity of the Nephites were being used just downstream of Zarahemla, and not by the seashore of Bountiful through Moroni. This reinforces verse 22 that shows the Lamanites taking advantage of the Nephite contention. It also gives us tantalizing insight into Chapter 60:
16 Yea, had it not been for the war which broke out among ourselves; yea, were it not for these king-men, who caused so much bloodshed among ourselves; yea, at the time we were contending among ourselves, if we had united our strength as we hitherto have done...had they..united with us, and gone forth against our enemies...if we had gone forth against them in the strength of the Lord, we should have dispersed our enemies...
I am thinking this wish for "uniting" includes the naval forces available to many of the capital cities north of Zarahemla. But instead of uniting with the central government the government had to use their own forces to subdue them. Thus most of the naval forces (since the capital was fighting the capital parts) were engaged elsewhere and Amalickiah could safely camp on the sea shore and receive resupply from his naval forces.
Conclusion:
This explores several scriptures that imply naval warfare, trasport, and supply. These verses are also surprisingly consistent in describing the impact of that Naval warfare had on Nephite government (private navies used to overthrow government), society (increased wealth allowed private armies/navies of "king men"), and war strategy (lack of navy at the capital and eastern sea shore hurt Nephites but helped the King Men and Lamanites, a navy was also needed to subdue the King men). These are just a few ideas I have concerning the needed explication of military ideas from the Book of Mormon.
In the future I plan to examine the defection of critical navies with Chinese history, and connect this to the Malay Model for Book of Mormon geography. Thank you for reading, and a special thank you to Mormon Heretic at mormonmatters.org for his help with links. As always I look forward to your comments.
On a related note, my wife has recently commented that I have "ruined" her. She was recently reading a verse and thought it was about naval warfare. Of course, I don't believe I "ruined her". Instead of reading the Book of Mormon for spiritual experiences, she has started to read it "backwards". Instead of taking obvious military principles like the high ground and applying it to spiritual matters, she takes narratives that are ostensibly about religious material and finds military lessons or ideas. Thus this post points out two additional scriptures that involve naval warfare. But I also wanted to point out the need for readers of the Book of Mormon to have their minds work both ways. One of my papers mentioned the double helix of spiritual and warfare that is intertwined throughout the book. Thus we need to look at both topics, examine ideas from both directions, and have our scholarly ideas be as strong as the spiritual ideas we find.
Without further ado here is verse #1 in Alma 2:
15.And it came to pass that the Amlicites came upon the hill Amnihu, which was east of the river Sidon, which ran by the land of Zarahemla, and there they began to make war with the Nephites
My wife mentioned this verse as a possible naval invasion of Zarahemla. (I discussed the conflict and campaign here) This is completely possible. I have discussed how ancient armies would have used rivers over land due to their ease of transport and supply compared to land roots. The advancing army could have been river borne and used the hill as a convenient staging area before they attacked the city. They could have come up and over the hill by land to start the battle as well, so there is some ambiguity in the verse. If this was a river borne assault then that suggests that the Capital did not have adequate naval defenses or possibly even a navy. If the Sidon area was a wealthier city with secessionist tendencies this could have been a private army and navy against a still weak central government (This was the second year of the reign of the judges immediately after the humble reign of King Mosiah). Thus this verse does point to some possible insights into Nephite War, society, and government based upon their manner of naval warfare.
Verse #2 Alma 51:
32 And it came to pass that they did harass them, insomuch that they did slay them even until it was dark. And it came to pass that Teancum and his men did pitch their tents in the borders of the land Bountiful; and Amalickiah did pitch his tents in the borders on the beach by the seashore, and after this manner were they driven.
Upon reading this verse it dawned on me that maybe Amalickiah's army retreated to the sea shore for resupply! The British did this at Yorktown. And if we assume that the Nephite government had a smaller and part time army than their war like neighbors (see above)this would apply to their navy as well. So we can deduce that the Lamanites would have at lest local naval superiority.
It should be remembered that Alma 51 described a revolt similar to that in Alma 2. Only Moroni had to travel to their cities and "pull down their pride and nobility". So there is a possibility that the naval capacity of the Nephites were being used just downstream of Zarahemla, and not by the seashore of Bountiful through Moroni. This reinforces verse 22 that shows the Lamanites taking advantage of the Nephite contention. It also gives us tantalizing insight into Chapter 60:
16 Yea, had it not been for the war which broke out among ourselves; yea, were it not for these king-men, who caused so much bloodshed among ourselves; yea, at the time we were contending among ourselves, if we had united our strength as we hitherto have done...had they..united with us, and gone forth against our enemies...if we had gone forth against them in the strength of the Lord, we should have dispersed our enemies...
I am thinking this wish for "uniting" includes the naval forces available to many of the capital cities north of Zarahemla. But instead of uniting with the central government the government had to use their own forces to subdue them. Thus most of the naval forces (since the capital was fighting the capital parts) were engaged elsewhere and Amalickiah could safely camp on the sea shore and receive resupply from his naval forces.
Conclusion:
This explores several scriptures that imply naval warfare, trasport, and supply. These verses are also surprisingly consistent in describing the impact of that Naval warfare had on Nephite government (private navies used to overthrow government), society (increased wealth allowed private armies/navies of "king men"), and war strategy (lack of navy at the capital and eastern sea shore hurt Nephites but helped the King Men and Lamanites, a navy was also needed to subdue the King men). These are just a few ideas I have concerning the needed explication of military ideas from the Book of Mormon.
In the future I plan to examine the defection of critical navies with Chinese history, and connect this to the Malay Model for Book of Mormon geography. Thank you for reading, and a special thank you to Mormon Heretic at mormonmatters.org for his help with links. As always I look forward to your comments.
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Household and War Bands in the Book of Mormon
Reading the end of Ether 13, I found several instances of war bands and an emphasis on the household.
15 And it came to pass that in that same year in which [Ether] was cast out from among the people there began to be a great war among the people, for there were many who rose up, who were mighty men, and sought to destroy Coriantumr by their secret plans of wickedness, of which hath been spoken...
20 And in the second year the word of the Lord came to Ether, that he should go and prophesy unto Coriantumr that, if he would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his kingdom and spare the people—
21 Otherwise they should be destroyed, and all his household save it were himself...
22 And it came to pass that Coriantumr repented not, neither his household, neither the people; and the wars ceased not...
25 Now there began to be a war upon all the face of the land, every man with his band fighting for that which he desired.
Verse 22 in particular points to the a difference between the leader, his "household", and the people. Using historical examples and other examples from the Book of Mormon, we can speculate what these war bands and households consisted of. In Anglo Norman Warfare ed. by Matthew Strickland, we learn that Housecarls (from the Old Norse meaning house man or house servant) served as "a unique, closely knit organisation of professional warriors who served the Kings of England...and became the spearhead of the English army" (pg. 2). For an example of this in literature think of Beowulf's personal band of followers that went to fight the dragon with him; and Wagliff's speech condemning those warriors that ran away after they had been generously supplied with weapons and armor from Beowulf.
In Asian society we read that local elites often attracted peasants. Since their power sharing agreements with the Emperor often allowed them a great amount of local autonomy they could provide a tax free place for peasants to live. Also, towards the end of a disintegrating dynasty the local elites were the only forces that could protect the peasants. (The often distant central government being unable or unwilling to provide security against internal and external threats) Thus the local magnates became very powerful, and could increasingly field their own armies, finally leading to conflict with the Emperor and regional warlordism. Also, many bandit forces quickly grew in size due to smaller leaders pledging their loyalty to seemingly stronger bandits. (See David Graff "Medieval Chinese Warfare 300-900" and Peter Lorge "War Politics and Society in Early Modern China 900-1795")
In Richard Gabriel's "A Military History of Israel" we learn that King David also had a band of followers personally loyal to him. During part of his career he served as a mercenary for the Phillistine leaders and his band of followers depended on him for their economic wealth, and formed his elite bodyguard after his accenscion to the throne.
Thus we see that economics, personal relations and politics intersect in the formation of Households and War Bands. The salient features include: 1. The use of personal retainers as bodyguards and elite force. 2. The loss of central control over military force and the rise of centrifugal military power and leaders 3. The increasing focus on plunder as opposed to faithful government service. 4. The warriors also follow a strong and charismatic leader founded upon tribal or personal loyalty.
We find much of the above in the Book of Mormon. Due to the delphic nature of the text we cannot say for certain. But I have already shown that Kings had a personal retinue of bodyguards.(1) Verse 15 from Ether 13 describes how many "combinations" opposed the King. These could be mercenaries that abandoned the King for more promising leaders. They also suggest the rise of strong leaders that are not loyal to the King. (2) While the King held onto many of his followers through a chance to plunder the "households" or "war bands" of the enemy. (3) I have also shown that the rise of Gadianton robbers in Nephite Society could also follow from out of work soldiers who see more booty in the service of "combinations" than serving the King or the Nephite government. They could also find more attractive service in the company of rich landowners ("King Men") than they could serving in distant outposts under a government that opposed the single minded focus on acquiring wealth.(See "Military Causes for the Problems in the Book of Helaman" on this blog) And the most important evidence is the "bands of men" that fought the King all across Jaredite lands, and the many separate mentions of household in the Book of Ether; suggesting a group of people tied to a ruler based on bonds of loyalty, that would likely serve as warriors.(4)
Thus the Book of Mormon, sparse as it is in describing military matters, accurately describes the salient features of ancient societies concerning households and war bands. I am done moving, but not with my two jobs. I look forward to hearing from you and hope to continue my research.
15 And it came to pass that in that same year in which [Ether] was cast out from among the people there began to be a great war among the people, for there were many who rose up, who were mighty men, and sought to destroy Coriantumr by their secret plans of wickedness, of which hath been spoken...
20 And in the second year the word of the Lord came to Ether, that he should go and prophesy unto Coriantumr that, if he would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his kingdom and spare the people—
21 Otherwise they should be destroyed, and all his household save it were himself...
22 And it came to pass that Coriantumr repented not, neither his household, neither the people; and the wars ceased not...
25 Now there began to be a war upon all the face of the land, every man with his band fighting for that which he desired.
Verse 22 in particular points to the a difference between the leader, his "household", and the people. Using historical examples and other examples from the Book of Mormon, we can speculate what these war bands and households consisted of. In Anglo Norman Warfare ed. by Matthew Strickland, we learn that Housecarls (from the Old Norse meaning house man or house servant) served as "a unique, closely knit organisation of professional warriors who served the Kings of England...and became the spearhead of the English army" (pg. 2). For an example of this in literature think of Beowulf's personal band of followers that went to fight the dragon with him; and Wagliff's speech condemning those warriors that ran away after they had been generously supplied with weapons and armor from Beowulf.
In Asian society we read that local elites often attracted peasants. Since their power sharing agreements with the Emperor often allowed them a great amount of local autonomy they could provide a tax free place for peasants to live. Also, towards the end of a disintegrating dynasty the local elites were the only forces that could protect the peasants. (The often distant central government being unable or unwilling to provide security against internal and external threats) Thus the local magnates became very powerful, and could increasingly field their own armies, finally leading to conflict with the Emperor and regional warlordism. Also, many bandit forces quickly grew in size due to smaller leaders pledging their loyalty to seemingly stronger bandits. (See David Graff "Medieval Chinese Warfare 300-900" and Peter Lorge "War Politics and Society in Early Modern China 900-1795")
In Richard Gabriel's "A Military History of Israel" we learn that King David also had a band of followers personally loyal to him. During part of his career he served as a mercenary for the Phillistine leaders and his band of followers depended on him for their economic wealth, and formed his elite bodyguard after his accenscion to the throne.
Thus we see that economics, personal relations and politics intersect in the formation of Households and War Bands. The salient features include: 1. The use of personal retainers as bodyguards and elite force. 2. The loss of central control over military force and the rise of centrifugal military power and leaders 3. The increasing focus on plunder as opposed to faithful government service. 4. The warriors also follow a strong and charismatic leader founded upon tribal or personal loyalty.
We find much of the above in the Book of Mormon. Due to the delphic nature of the text we cannot say for certain. But I have already shown that Kings had a personal retinue of bodyguards.(1) Verse 15 from Ether 13 describes how many "combinations" opposed the King. These could be mercenaries that abandoned the King for more promising leaders. They also suggest the rise of strong leaders that are not loyal to the King. (2) While the King held onto many of his followers through a chance to plunder the "households" or "war bands" of the enemy. (3) I have also shown that the rise of Gadianton robbers in Nephite Society could also follow from out of work soldiers who see more booty in the service of "combinations" than serving the King or the Nephite government. They could also find more attractive service in the company of rich landowners ("King Men") than they could serving in distant outposts under a government that opposed the single minded focus on acquiring wealth.(See "Military Causes for the Problems in the Book of Helaman" on this blog) And the most important evidence is the "bands of men" that fought the King all across Jaredite lands, and the many separate mentions of household in the Book of Ether; suggesting a group of people tied to a ruler based on bonds of loyalty, that would likely serve as warriors.(4)
Thus the Book of Mormon, sparse as it is in describing military matters, accurately describes the salient features of ancient societies concerning households and war bands. I am done moving, but not with my two jobs. I look forward to hearing from you and hope to continue my research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)