Posts
After examining the concept that a body of thought existed among Jaredite society, examining how that compared to other ancient societies and how that knowledge transferred to Nephite society I intend to focus on salient features on the Jaredite Art of War. The following list are brief points that stood out to this reader.
Equipment of Battle: This includes shields, breastplates, headplates, and people "clothed" for war (Ether 15:15). There is no word beyond the steel swords in Ether 7:9 about what weaponry they used. Although quickly after that, Shule regained the Kingdom (for his father). This could suggest a new innovation in weapons that allowed Shule a tactical edge in battle. Sword and shield are mentioned in Ether 15 but the phrase sounds like a literary convention. More significantly, they "marched" to battle. (see mode of combat for the importance of that point)
Building an army: It seems that the armies were only mass conscripted towards the end of Jaredite society (Ether 14:15) Although, perhaps these were extreme examples due to incessant warfare. Armies seemed to consist of ones "kinsfolk" with possible the possible addition of short term conscripts. It is tough to say for sure, but many ancient armies consisted of a few well trained regulars augmented by masses of conscripts. See my discussion of full time soldiers for more.
Causes for War: Many of the wars were started for standard reasons: money and power. Ether 10: 5 describes the benefits of ruling- taxes, women, spacious building(and silk is mentioned elsewhere). But there were two types of usurpents, the first was a member of the ruling family that sought the kingdom and if successful, placed the previous ruler in captivity. The second kind assassinated the ruler through the use of secret combinations. Ether also points out the fact that rulers were killed "while on the throne" (Ether 9:4-5). I can't put my finger on it, but it seems the juxtaposition of secret combinations v. other usurpers, and killing the King while on the throne v. keeping them captive. The secret combination suggest something that is cultural abhorrent but widespread in competition with "proper" statecraft.
Additionally, one secret combination gave a ruler "strength" (Ether 14:8). This is a confusing statement, possibly this refers to the new conscripts that were recruited through the ties of loyalty in a secret combination. The first secret combination consisted of ones "kinsfolk" (Ether 8:13), this implies that a ruler's household soldiers were the first source of the armed strength. Perhaps this ruler gained strength by getting well armed and trained retainers as replacements who could act as a solid corps of the ruler's army.
Locations and mode of Combat: Many of the battles took place on the "Plains of Agosh" and the "Valley of Gilead". (Ether 13:29-30) A weaker power would hide in the wilderness and could negate a superior power in that location. In Ether 14:3-7 Coriantumr pursued his enemy into the wilderness and had to retreat and besiege it. After being defeated in battle Coriantumr had to hide in the wilderness. But it was productive enough that he could use it for two years to gain strength.
The final battle takes place at the Waters of Ripliancum. (Ether 15:8) The water and the wilderness are not conducive to Chariot combat. Chariots were the dominant weapon form the about the 18th century B.C. until cavalry combat much later. (3rd century B.C. in China, while in Europe the Phalanx became dominant around 300 BC) The terrain mentioned favors chariot combat and exposes its implied limits. Wilderness and watery or swampy areas prevent the use of the heavy weapons of the state. The southern Chinese and Greeks knew this, which is why they employed infantry heavy forces. And the final battle of the Jaredites conform to this principle- infantry combat in terrain that is difficult for Chariot warfare.
BUT, there is not a single mention of a chariot, let alone chariot warfare in the book of Ether, and there is only one mention of a chariot in the entire Book of Mormon. Alternatively, the warfare in the Greek mainland consisted of groups of infantry meeting for brief shock battles in the plains and valleys. Thus the terrain mentioned in Ether is also condusive to infantry only combat. And giving the lack of internal evidence for chariots, and possible lack of external evidence (depending on which geographic model you subscribe to) infantry combat seems the more likely mode of battle.
Conclusion: Considering that Moroni only wrote "a hundreth part" of Ether's account, its amazing that we have an account of warfare, from how and why they were created to where and how they fought.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Nibley is still smarter than you
I ran across an interesting post the other day.
The author described how the writings of Hugh Nibley have been used and abused by "Nibleyphiles". The author makes a good point describing how a scholar becomes an artifact of his age and often becomes displaced by newer research. I agree with this point, since I hope that in 30 years my research will be engaged and then supplanted. He or she also has some obligatory nice things to say about his research.
But many more points disturb me. He or she insults those who read his research as having a "fetish". And the author seems to bring up this post in response to some argument they had with somebody who quoted Nibley. The author supposedly wants to "move on" past Nibley, but what was the original point that inspired this post, did the author engage it, or just wave their hand? This is quite a problem, because in the field of warfare in the Book of Mormon, Nibley still has research which historians need to engage. Nibley's Clausewitzean analysis of war in the Book of Mormon has not been critiqued or overturned by newer research. My research into military thought within the Book of Mormon has borrowed from his methodology here and here. Likewise, his battle analysis of the war chapters in Alma has only one other rival (Sorenson) and remains the gold standard for strategic study. His research into the ideology behind the Title of Liberty is still insightful this many years later. And his research behind Jaredite warfare remains relevant to Asian studies I have done in posts such as this.
In short, Nibley's research into warfare cannot be dismissed with a wave of TT's hand. Nibley's research continues to inspire and engage people even today. (I am simply discussing military history implications since that is my speciality) Its rather arrogant to act as though you were a British Nanny in pip pipping others into what you think are appropriate areas. Its also unprofessional to write a post that is ostensibly praising somebody (Nibley) in order to slam other people (Nibleyphiles)for being insufficiently academic. (This includes the comments that the post inspired) Plus it reminds this reader of a clique in the bloggernacle and their intolerance towards those that dare think differently or use non Kosher scholars. I do agree that some people simply load their gun with Nibley facts unaware of current research, but TT's post comes off as simply an arrogant dismissal.
And until somebody can show me work that engages and supplants Nibley's Clausewitzean analysis, battle study, and other warfare research, then Hugh Nibley is still smarter than you.
The author described how the writings of Hugh Nibley have been used and abused by "Nibleyphiles". The author makes a good point describing how a scholar becomes an artifact of his age and often becomes displaced by newer research. I agree with this point, since I hope that in 30 years my research will be engaged and then supplanted. He or she also has some obligatory nice things to say about his research.
But many more points disturb me. He or she insults those who read his research as having a "fetish". And the author seems to bring up this post in response to some argument they had with somebody who quoted Nibley. The author supposedly wants to "move on" past Nibley, but what was the original point that inspired this post, did the author engage it, or just wave their hand? This is quite a problem, because in the field of warfare in the Book of Mormon, Nibley still has research which historians need to engage. Nibley's Clausewitzean analysis of war in the Book of Mormon has not been critiqued or overturned by newer research. My research into military thought within the Book of Mormon has borrowed from his methodology here and here. Likewise, his battle analysis of the war chapters in Alma has only one other rival (Sorenson) and remains the gold standard for strategic study. His research into the ideology behind the Title of Liberty is still insightful this many years later. And his research behind Jaredite warfare remains relevant to Asian studies I have done in posts such as this.
In short, Nibley's research into warfare cannot be dismissed with a wave of TT's hand. Nibley's research continues to inspire and engage people even today. (I am simply discussing military history implications since that is my speciality) Its rather arrogant to act as though you were a British Nanny in pip pipping others into what you think are appropriate areas. Its also unprofessional to write a post that is ostensibly praising somebody (Nibley) in order to slam other people (Nibleyphiles)for being insufficiently academic. (This includes the comments that the post inspired) Plus it reminds this reader of a clique in the bloggernacle and their intolerance towards those that dare think differently or use non Kosher scholars. I do agree that some people simply load their gun with Nibley facts unaware of current research, but TT's post comes off as simply an arrogant dismissal.
And until somebody can show me work that engages and supplants Nibley's Clausewitzean analysis, battle study, and other warfare research, then Hugh Nibley is still smarter than you.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Jaredite Art of War
I ran across a remarkable verse a little while ago but with all my research I could only get to it now. In the 13th Chapter of Ether we read:
15 And it came to pass that in that same year in which [the prophet 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.
16 And now Coriantumr, having studied, himself, in all the arts of war and all the cunning of the world, wherefore he gave battle unto them who sought to destroy him.
The verse implies an extensive knowledge of war that can and was studied. V. 16 suggests that there was a written body of knowledge that constituted an "Art of War". I suppose you could orally study war, but the other book by that name, Sun-Tzu's Art of War is thought to represent the written compilation of earlier thought. (It's also worth mentioning that some historians doubt the historicity of the author and the authenticicity of the book- See Ralph Sawyer: Seven Military Classics of Ancient China) Sun Tzu's book represented a conitnuity of thought from earlier generations that could also apply to China's chaotic military situation. (The Spring and Autumn and the Warring States Period)
Chronologically the "art of war" among the Jaredites matches well with other civilzations. Sun Tzu was thought to write his work around 500BC, and as already mentioned his work was thought to be a summary of accepted military principle. Herodotus and Thucydides both wrote later than Sun Tzu in the 4th century BC. Although purely military tracts came much latter in the Western world with the writings of Frontinus (50 BC) and Vegetius (300 AD). The destruction of the Jaredites around 400 BC puts their "art of war" texts as being read between 500-400BC.
There are more interesting details though. Apparently the Nephites obtained some of these records and tried to keep them secret. In Alma 37 we read:
21 And now, I will speak unto you concerning those twenty-four plates, that ye keep them, that the mysteries and the works of darkness, and their secret works, or the secret works of those people who have been destroyed...
29 Therefore ye shall keep these secret plans of their oaths and their covenants from this people, and only their wickedness and their murders and their abominations shall ye make known unto them; and ye shall teach them to abhor such wickedness and abominations and murders; and ye shall also teach them that these people were destroyed on account of their wickedness and abominations and their murders.
This also has ancient parallel. The Six Secret Teaching of T'ai Kung were considered revolutionary and the penalty of death decreed for anybody to have a copy. Many of these texts were locked away in vaults that only the privileged could access. (Unfortunately, many of these privileged were favored generals who had the means to employ the teaching against the Emperor) In the Book of Mormon, a brief topical search shows that a secret combinations first goal was a revolution against the state. Thus Nephite rulers would be wary of the tactics described in these teachings due to moral concerns, but practical political concerns as well. They necks were literally on the line and many of the threats to Nephite political control came from people with Jaredite names: Coriantumr and Gadianton being two prominent ones. So it is possible that 1. this knowledge was held elsewhere besides the 24 plates, 2. the knowledge was recreated through inspiration and practical experience ("put into their hearts" according Helaman 6:26), or 3. these were defectors who had the access to restricted records and used what they read when they later rebelled.
Option 1 could be reflected in the social stratification of Nephite/Mulekite society. They had the wealth and knowledge to make new plates or acquire old plates. Perhaps the refugees and remnants of Jaredite took whatever they could of value (like the search party that found the 24 plates in Mosiah 21:27)and sold it to the highest bidder. And Verse 15 of Ether 13 described "many mighty men" who rose up to fight the king with "their secret combinations". Thus the revolutionary aspect and wide spread knowledge of the practice is stated plainly. Option 2 is already suggested in the Book of Mormon. Option 3 has merit though. Many of the Chief Judges were murdered despite having body guards (and/or household soldiers). Thus the assassins had access to the Chief Judge, and many of the Gadianton robbers were leading politicians and lawyers (3 Nephi 6:21), they could also have access to sensitive material (and the ability to read them- 3 Nephi 6:12). Thus all three options have merit, and suggest that the Nephite Chief Judges had many internal threats to their rule and that they had more to worry about than a simple Lamanite hit and run attack.
Conclusion: The Jaredites had an ancient tradition of warfare that was most likely codified in written form. This suggestion matches the development of other ancient cultures and augments the historicity of the Book of Mormon. This knowledge was spread through one or all of several options, and the resulting difficulty for the Nephite lineage to remain in power is evident in the events described in the Book of Mormon and the names of the leading dissidents. This also corresponds to another ancient culture, and strengthens the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
As always, I invite further comments and questions, and stress that these are preliminary research notes. I am not married to any one thesis, and a bit of "thinking out loud" is implied.
Coming soon...the specific tactics involved in this art of war.
15 And it came to pass that in that same year in which [the prophet 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.
16 And now Coriantumr, having studied, himself, in all the arts of war and all the cunning of the world, wherefore he gave battle unto them who sought to destroy him.
The verse implies an extensive knowledge of war that can and was studied. V. 16 suggests that there was a written body of knowledge that constituted an "Art of War". I suppose you could orally study war, but the other book by that name, Sun-Tzu's Art of War is thought to represent the written compilation of earlier thought. (It's also worth mentioning that some historians doubt the historicity of the author and the authenticicity of the book- See Ralph Sawyer: Seven Military Classics of Ancient China) Sun Tzu's book represented a conitnuity of thought from earlier generations that could also apply to China's chaotic military situation. (The Spring and Autumn and the Warring States Period)
Chronologically the "art of war" among the Jaredites matches well with other civilzations. Sun Tzu was thought to write his work around 500BC, and as already mentioned his work was thought to be a summary of accepted military principle. Herodotus and Thucydides both wrote later than Sun Tzu in the 4th century BC. Although purely military tracts came much latter in the Western world with the writings of Frontinus (50 BC) and Vegetius (300 AD). The destruction of the Jaredites around 400 BC puts their "art of war" texts as being read between 500-400BC.
There are more interesting details though. Apparently the Nephites obtained some of these records and tried to keep them secret. In Alma 37 we read:
21 And now, I will speak unto you concerning those twenty-four plates, that ye keep them, that the mysteries and the works of darkness, and their secret works, or the secret works of those people who have been destroyed...
29 Therefore ye shall keep these secret plans of their oaths and their covenants from this people, and only their wickedness and their murders and their abominations shall ye make known unto them; and ye shall teach them to abhor such wickedness and abominations and murders; and ye shall also teach them that these people were destroyed on account of their wickedness and abominations and their murders.
This also has ancient parallel. The Six Secret Teaching of T'ai Kung were considered revolutionary and the penalty of death decreed for anybody to have a copy. Many of these texts were locked away in vaults that only the privileged could access. (Unfortunately, many of these privileged were favored generals who had the means to employ the teaching against the Emperor) In the Book of Mormon, a brief topical search shows that a secret combinations first goal was a revolution against the state. Thus Nephite rulers would be wary of the tactics described in these teachings due to moral concerns, but practical political concerns as well. They necks were literally on the line and many of the threats to Nephite political control came from people with Jaredite names: Coriantumr and Gadianton being two prominent ones. So it is possible that 1. this knowledge was held elsewhere besides the 24 plates, 2. the knowledge was recreated through inspiration and practical experience ("put into their hearts" according Helaman 6:26), or 3. these were defectors who had the access to restricted records and used what they read when they later rebelled.
Option 1 could be reflected in the social stratification of Nephite/Mulekite society. They had the wealth and knowledge to make new plates or acquire old plates. Perhaps the refugees and remnants of Jaredite took whatever they could of value (like the search party that found the 24 plates in Mosiah 21:27)and sold it to the highest bidder. And Verse 15 of Ether 13 described "many mighty men" who rose up to fight the king with "their secret combinations". Thus the revolutionary aspect and wide spread knowledge of the practice is stated plainly. Option 2 is already suggested in the Book of Mormon. Option 3 has merit though. Many of the Chief Judges were murdered despite having body guards (and/or household soldiers). Thus the assassins had access to the Chief Judge, and many of the Gadianton robbers were leading politicians and lawyers (3 Nephi 6:21), they could also have access to sensitive material (and the ability to read them- 3 Nephi 6:12). Thus all three options have merit, and suggest that the Nephite Chief Judges had many internal threats to their rule and that they had more to worry about than a simple Lamanite hit and run attack.
Conclusion: The Jaredites had an ancient tradition of warfare that was most likely codified in written form. This suggestion matches the development of other ancient cultures and augments the historicity of the Book of Mormon. This knowledge was spread through one or all of several options, and the resulting difficulty for the Nephite lineage to remain in power is evident in the events described in the Book of Mormon and the names of the leading dissidents. This also corresponds to another ancient culture, and strengthens the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
As always, I invite further comments and questions, and stress that these are preliminary research notes. I am not married to any one thesis, and a bit of "thinking out loud" is implied.
Coming soon...the specific tactics involved in this art of war.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Modern Day Gadianites
I have had some good questions concerning the Gadianton robbers. The main ones concern modern day parallels. Thus I wanted to post some of my answers so more people could read them and get involved in the discussion.
Somali Pirates:
I don't think so. Their tactics suggest a similarity to modern day pirates (see 3 Nephi 4:1). But I believe that lots of warfare back then was hit and run. (See John Welch's summary in Warfare in the Book of Mormon for a brief synopsis of every conflict) The leader of Gadianton was educated (see the letter in 3 Nephi 3) and professed he had rights to leadership similar to the aspiring Nephite leader Paanchi in Helaman 1:13. And I argue that people "defected" because the social order of the Nephites would not allow their marriage, or they wanted greater economic opportunity among the Gadianton robbers. This was from former soldiers who did not have a chance to plunder (due to lack of wars or Nephite regulations influenced by the Church), and among the noble households that wanted more political and economic freedom. (because they could no longer "fake it" and get the benefits of belonging to the state religion, Helaman 3:33) Thus like the Zoramites a little earlier, they separated from the Nephites so they could obtain wealth by the power of their hands. Compare the prayer on the Rameumptom to the goals of the Gadianton robbers and notice 3 Nephi 1:29.
The Mafia:
In some cases I think that comparison works very well. Many bandit groups in Chinese history and the mafia operated outside of the law, were based on personal loyalty and had economic motives for their existence. They operated outside the law as they do today, and they often clash with the instruments of government power as they do today. In some areas they would also serve to protect the local population and even provide local government services(like in some areas of Iraq and Somalia).
Although there are some significant differences as well. Houesecarls and warrior bands were led by men who had both civil and military power. (The King, nobles, or regional warlords) It was also considered normal and acceptable to have an armed following. In modern times however, the mafia often operates with a "face", where they operate as a leading citizen during the day (or at least pretend to), but run their "business" and armed followers at night and in secret. The state also had a police force that serves to protect the public and operated in opposition to the mafia. The households soldiers often served as the instrument of the kings power, and served as a private loyal force to check the power of other nobles and quell bandit forces. Some noble's household warriors also served to protect the local population because their was no police force.
There is also a masters thesis done by a BYU student that compares the Gadianton robbers to the Mafia. I will take a look at it sometime and see what he has to say about it too.
The Taliban:
I think the Taliban currently operating in Pakistan would be the closest comparison. It is a state within a state. It has its own hierarchy and controls some territory and has its own military force. But it does this in the same sphere as the government forces and apparatus. In places where there is weak government control the mayor of the town is really just a figure head and the local Taliban commander is in charge.
So I would compare the Gadianton Robbers to military organizations that also have state functions (like Hezbollah) but significant ability to disappear, retreat or blend in. The power of many ancient governments rested in its military. There were no such things as police for internal control and the army for external threats, it was just the army. There were some governments in Medieval China that had little control outside of the military's operational capability. (The Former Qin Dynasty comes to mind) They had to co opt local rulers, thus Nephite defections would be serious if that was the case. And they could only defeat the robbers by gathering in a central location within direct control of its governor and commander.
But the early part of the Gadianton robbers history could be loosely compared to the mafia. They were based on loyalty and had secret codes. But I would compare them more to infiltrators that layed the ground work for later action. Mao said this would be the first phase insurgency. Second phase would be to gain direct control of some areas to build infrastructure. The third phase would be a conventional campaign to seize control of the government through regular warfare. So the first phase may seem like the mafia, but it still applies more to the Taliban or other paramilitary organizations that have potential and desire for state control. The mafia never wanted state control (only enough control to influence legislation but never to govern), they wanted to control business. The Pirates are also interested in getting money, they are socially motivated (often forced into it by warlords or poverty) but are not aiming to rival governments. In fact they only exist due to a weakness in government and extreme poverty, I don't believe they exist to take over the government. The things that do compare: loyalty or personnel following, seeking wealth, operating in secret or in hiding, hit and run tactics, etc. were things associated with other ancient armies and insurgent forces. Not necessarily the same as modern day pirates, gangs, or the mafia.
Conclusion: I don't claim to have a monopoly on information, I'm doing my best to answer the questions and establish some working ideas for studying the Book of Mormon. The Gadianton robbers had as much of a state as the Zoramites, Amlicites, and Amalikites or Taliban, they were called robbers due to a change in tactics, and I think because they were successful in destroying the Nephite state.
Thanks for the comments. Comparisons can be easy to make sometimes, but it is the differences and contrasts that really stand out. I appreciate the help in the form of questions in fully analyzing the Gadianton robbers.
Somali Pirates:
I don't think so. Their tactics suggest a similarity to modern day pirates (see 3 Nephi 4:1). But I believe that lots of warfare back then was hit and run. (See John Welch's summary in Warfare in the Book of Mormon for a brief synopsis of every conflict) The leader of Gadianton was educated (see the letter in 3 Nephi 3) and professed he had rights to leadership similar to the aspiring Nephite leader Paanchi in Helaman 1:13. And I argue that people "defected" because the social order of the Nephites would not allow their marriage, or they wanted greater economic opportunity among the Gadianton robbers. This was from former soldiers who did not have a chance to plunder (due to lack of wars or Nephite regulations influenced by the Church), and among the noble households that wanted more political and economic freedom. (because they could no longer "fake it" and get the benefits of belonging to the state religion, Helaman 3:33) Thus like the Zoramites a little earlier, they separated from the Nephites so they could obtain wealth by the power of their hands. Compare the prayer on the Rameumptom to the goals of the Gadianton robbers and notice 3 Nephi 1:29.
The Mafia:
In some cases I think that comparison works very well. Many bandit groups in Chinese history and the mafia operated outside of the law, were based on personal loyalty and had economic motives for their existence. They operated outside the law as they do today, and they often clash with the instruments of government power as they do today. In some areas they would also serve to protect the local population and even provide local government services(like in some areas of Iraq and Somalia).
Although there are some significant differences as well. Houesecarls and warrior bands were led by men who had both civil and military power. (The King, nobles, or regional warlords) It was also considered normal and acceptable to have an armed following. In modern times however, the mafia often operates with a "face", where they operate as a leading citizen during the day (or at least pretend to), but run their "business" and armed followers at night and in secret. The state also had a police force that serves to protect the public and operated in opposition to the mafia. The households soldiers often served as the instrument of the kings power, and served as a private loyal force to check the power of other nobles and quell bandit forces. Some noble's household warriors also served to protect the local population because their was no police force.
There is also a masters thesis done by a BYU student that compares the Gadianton robbers to the Mafia. I will take a look at it sometime and see what he has to say about it too.
The Taliban:
I think the Taliban currently operating in Pakistan would be the closest comparison. It is a state within a state. It has its own hierarchy and controls some territory and has its own military force. But it does this in the same sphere as the government forces and apparatus. In places where there is weak government control the mayor of the town is really just a figure head and the local Taliban commander is in charge.
So I would compare the Gadianton Robbers to military organizations that also have state functions (like Hezbollah) but significant ability to disappear, retreat or blend in. The power of many ancient governments rested in its military. There were no such things as police for internal control and the army for external threats, it was just the army. There were some governments in Medieval China that had little control outside of the military's operational capability. (The Former Qin Dynasty comes to mind) They had to co opt local rulers, thus Nephite defections would be serious if that was the case. And they could only defeat the robbers by gathering in a central location within direct control of its governor and commander.
But the early part of the Gadianton robbers history could be loosely compared to the mafia. They were based on loyalty and had secret codes. But I would compare them more to infiltrators that layed the ground work for later action. Mao said this would be the first phase insurgency. Second phase would be to gain direct control of some areas to build infrastructure. The third phase would be a conventional campaign to seize control of the government through regular warfare. So the first phase may seem like the mafia, but it still applies more to the Taliban or other paramilitary organizations that have potential and desire for state control. The mafia never wanted state control (only enough control to influence legislation but never to govern), they wanted to control business. The Pirates are also interested in getting money, they are socially motivated (often forced into it by warlords or poverty) but are not aiming to rival governments. In fact they only exist due to a weakness in government and extreme poverty, I don't believe they exist to take over the government. The things that do compare: loyalty or personnel following, seeking wealth, operating in secret or in hiding, hit and run tactics, etc. were things associated with other ancient armies and insurgent forces. Not necessarily the same as modern day pirates, gangs, or the mafia.
Conclusion: I don't claim to have a monopoly on information, I'm doing my best to answer the questions and establish some working ideas for studying the Book of Mormon. The Gadianton robbers had as much of a state as the Zoramites, Amlicites, and Amalikites or Taliban, they were called robbers due to a change in tactics, and I think because they were successful in destroying the Nephite state.
Thanks for the comments. Comparisons can be easy to make sometimes, but it is the differences and contrasts that really stand out. I appreciate the help in the form of questions in fully analyzing the Gadianton robbers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)