Henry the V, Hummers, and the Book of Mormon

“Why don't you "pray" to know if some purported history has Henry V going into battle at Agincourt in a Hummer is TRUE?? Are you so certain that new evidence (for Hummers several centuries ago) won't come forth to change the thinking of experts? How limited is THAT kind of thinking??  In other words, you haven't been paying attention: the BOM is FULL OF ANACHRONISMS, just as bad as Henry riding in a Hummer.”[1]

This is fairly typical of the kind of mockery that critics heap upon the Book of Mormon.  But I’ve been going through storage that includes hundreds of books. So I recently read several about the Hundred Years War. This was a conflict between England and France that, naturally, lasted on and off for 100 years. It started in the 1337 with Edward III trying to expand England’s holdings and independence in Southwestern France.  They quickly won several outstanding victories including ones at Poitiers and Crecy. Agincourt was another outstanding victory in 1415 that ensured the French would continue to try and avenge their loss.  Shakespeare’s Henry V immortalized the conflict by embellishing items like the St. Crispin’s Day speech. This includes the famous line, “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.” This period witnessed the rise and murder of Joan of Arc as well. The conflict ended in 1453 when the more widespread use of cannons ousted the English from their fortifications.  This was also the same year as the invention of the printing press and the fall of Constantinople.    

So naturally it sounds ridiculous to think that Henry the V had hummers. At first I thought about it facetiously.  If one of the soldiers was humming on a wagon, to the point that he was nicknamed "the hummer" then it wouldn't be an anachronism. It would be somewhat weird, but not laughably outrageous as the critics imply.   But then I remembered there was a prominent group in England called the Lollards. Some think the word comes from the Dutch for mumbling or English for singing softly, similar to the word lullaby. This described a group of people that followed the heresies of John Wycliffe.  I looked a little deeper, and the Gesta, a medieval chronicle and one of the earliest sources for the battle, discussed Agincourt in the same space as the Lollards.  So the idea of people who hum, or hummers, at the battle of Agincourt might not invite derision.

I know this author meant the vehicle, but the funny thing about language is that one word can have many different variations and mean various things. If somebody is unfamiliar with the language, unfamiliar with the history, and the text has no clarifying passages, they might think that hummer meant the vehicle, which is something they could laugh at and mock; but it could really mean another thing that actually enhances our understanding of the text. Just like hummer could mean the anachronistic vehicle, or it could be another term for a Lollard. A chariot in the Book of Mormon could mean what you see in Ben-Hur, but it could actually mean a carried sedan or litter accompanied by a ceremonial war animal. The first invites derisions since common knowledge assumes they didn’t have the wheel.[2] But the second actually enhances our understanding of the text, and helps us overcome faulty assumptions.

I should add that in order for critics use of the hummer to work, they have to do what critics usually do- insist upon one and only one meaning of a word. So hummer can only mean the vehicle. But language doesn't work like that. If I walked into a British bar and asked for a football game, they would not show RGIII and the Redskins. It wouldn't be called a bar either, but it would be a pub. When asked for a football game they would show what Americans would call soccer. So one word can contain multiple meanings for people who speak the same language in the same era. The same word can mean many things especially when working with two different languages from different eras as translation texts are, and as the Book of Mormon purports to be.

The reader can identify the exact meaning of terms if there are passages that provide context. Unfortunately, terms like chariot in the Book of Mormon don't have the clarifying context that this critic provided for hummer. He started calling it the “internal combustion kind” of hummer. But when the word chariot is used within the text, there are no discussions of wheels, no discussion of how exactly it was used, what the animal associated with it was used for, what it looked like and so forth. In fact, there are only several mentions of chariot in the entire text outside of the Isaiah chapters. Alma 18: 9, 10 and Alma 20:6 says that horses and chariots were made ready.  3 Nephi 3:22 said that the people took their chariots to their appointed meeting place. 

So critics insist that chariot has to mean the Ben-Hur kind. Even though a reader who strips away the assumptions gained from popular knowledge would not know what exactly was being described. When a person studies the passages context a new picture emerges. Mesoamerican Kings were often carried on a sedan. The word chariot actually means several different words in Hebrew, including litter or sedan. Mesoamerican kings also travelled to war with a ceremonial animal designated as a war token.[3]  So stripping away our assumptions of what the text should mean, it is just as likely that the term chariot refers to a carried sedan used by elites for transportation, accompanied by a battle beast or ceremonial war animal.[4]  This enhances the text since 3 Nephi 3:22 actually described a massive preparation of the Nephites for battle.

In short, when a critic attacks the Book of Mormon by using such obvious anachronisms such as hummers at the Battle of Agincourt, or chariots in Mesoamerica, a person should study the language, history, and any clarifying passages to better understand the text. Because you might find out that Henry V did take hummers to battle.   

---

[1] CARM Discussion Board. Father JD October 10^th 2013, http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?164084-Breaking-News-and-Established-History&p=4839148#post4839148 (Accessed, October 12^th, 2013.)

[2] John Sorenson, though,  has discussed extensive evidence for the wheel in pre Columbian Mesoamerica.  John Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book, 2013) 350-356.

[3] See Lintel 2 of temple 1 at Tikal.

[4] Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007) 4:287-288.

Book Review: Mormon's Codex

Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book by John Sorenson is the culmination of his lifetime of research into the Book of Mormon. Sorenson uses the correspondence methodology, used by Biblical scholars like William Dever, to place the Book of Mormon into Mesoamerican history. (7) Using extensive, and some would say, exhaustive, research Sorenson has admirably succeeded in his goal.

Paradigms don’t change in a day, but I find it hard to believe that many of the academic articles of faith concerning Mesoamerica remain after this.  For example, Sorenson summarizes and then caps previous research concerning pre Columbian contact with plants, diseases, and oceanic travel that make it hard for anybody to question the occurrence of diffusionist events.

His book is divided into three sections.  The first details his methodologically paradigms. These include such things as where to look for correspondences.  This was one hundred pages that went by surprisingly fast; and a preliminary review of that section is found here: http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2013/09/welcome-to-orientation-mormons-codex.html

The second section examines correspondences by topic.  And the third part examines correspondences from archaeology and history.  While this reviewer has read the entire book, with a specialty in military history I will focus on chapter 18 and the warfare correspondences listed therein. I will highlight the material that caught my eye, the way it interacts with my research, and humbly, a few points he may have missed.     

Finding Evidence of Battles

As I said here, evidence for battles is notoriously hard to find.  I even mentioned the Battle of Hasting in previous discussions.  So I nodded vigorously when Sorenson quoted Dr. William Rathje’s description of archaeologists digging at Hastings, one of the most studied battles in history, and finding a few teeth instead of the trove of weapon and armor. (383, fn 9) Of course this won’t stop critics from leveling the same charge to dig at Cumorah for an easily findable cache of weapons and armor, but it reinforces the idea that this book is a must read for those that wish to study the Book of Mormon.

War Chiefs

 Sorenson described how the Yuctan Maya called their local chiefs batabs, which the Spanish translated as Capitan, or Captain in English. (395)  The term nacom is translated as war chief. (395-396) There were many words that Smith could have used for leadership positions, but captain and chief captain seemed particularly poignant based on these Mayan terms. 

Sons

Sorenson described how the Quiche rulers of highland Guatamela conceptualized their soldiers as “sons.” (396) This is very interesting and something I noted in preliminary research in two other places. The Chinese also used familial conceptualization.  In their case it was designed to instill discipline in raw troops. In Confucian society each member of society had a duty to abide by the proper forms of conduct (li). So a ruler had to be a good ruler, a father a good father, a son a good son, and so on. So calling recruits sons would instill the same sense of obedience they likely learned growing up, and would enhance the authority of a new commander.  Abiding by the proper forms of conduct also induced greater power in the soldiers.

Finally, the military theorists that advocated these policies lived during the Warring States period. Armies increased in size, so this was an additional attempt to instill discipline in armies that were growing bigger.  Since this is the first period in Nephite history that recorded multiple armies in multiple theatres, it would make since that new soldiers, and a new commander, would adopt a father son relationship. So I think Sorenson touched upon something that is far stronger than he realized.

Numbers

I’ve discussed numbers in several places. Sorenson repeated a few of the points I made concerning the unreliable and often inflated numbers.  But he added important evidence from several Mesoamerian groups that could form large armies.  The Quiche force that fought the Spanish numbered about 232,000. (397) Almost exactly the amount listed by Mormon.  The Aztecs raised 400,000 for a routine campaign.  Another Aztec army reprorted 700,000 men.  The one I enjoyed the most was a Tultec war that witnessed 5,600,000 deaths. (398) I enjoyed reading this numbers a great deal, as I’ve often argued that ancient realms could field and kill large numbers and even millions of people, and I plan on incorporating this evidence into my discussion of numbers in the future.

Prearranged Battle

The Mayans often scheduled their battles according to anticipated astronomical phenomena. The final battle would have been 1000 years after a significant date like the arrival of Lehi in the New World.  Sorenon also cited the prearranged battle with the Amlicites. I touched upon the Amlicite example; though I added a thought that perhaps it was prearranged only because the rival cities were close to one another similar to Richmond and Washington during the U.S. Civil War, and there was little other strategy besides attacking the opposing capital that made guessing about this battle rather easy. 

Camp Followers

Sorenson discussed the camp followers that normally accompany an army using Alma 56:28 among other verses.  (420) Alma 56:28 talked about supplied being delivered for soldiers and their families, which inspired a paper and now book chapter.  So I agree, but there are more implications than Sorenson listed. Since they didn’t carry armor and weapons they could carry more food and provide much needed logistical support.  Bringing along their women and families increased the moral of soldiers.  Moroni also invoked a support of their wives and families in the title of liberty, so this could have been a psychological prop for the soldiers. If the Nephites were defeated their families in the nearby city would be the first to die so it would inspire them to fight harder.

I also suggested that this could have been a military colony.  Some critics have argued that the war chapters represent an anachronistic standing army, but this could be an attempt to move soldiers into the area on a long term basis without keeping them active. As a military colony they would have gone back to farming with their families around the city when the war ended, but would be available for additional duty pending renewed conflict. So the presence of wives and children could mean a great deal more than simply telling us about the organization of the army. 

Battle Standard

Sorenson discussed a battle standard attached to an army’s leader.  But surprisingly he only spends a short paragraph on this. (421)  David Freidel described how Mayan armies also used a battle standard.[1] Friedel described it as a standard that represented and was infused with the power of deity. So in addition to an army losing because of the death of their war chief, the perceived loss of divine favor would also compel their retreat. On top of that, some monuments in Mesoamerica were ritually destroyed upon defeat, with some figures actually having holes in the back where standards could be placed when they were thrown down.[2] (Compare to Alma 51:20)

Conclusion

Sorenson’s research displayed impressive depth and scope, and I couldn’t help but remember the quote about critics losing the battle without knowing it. Sorenson also called this a “benchmark for future researchers.” (xvii)  So in many cases his benchmarks validated the research I had already done, and left the door open for me to dig deeper using my specialized knowledge of military history.  I’m grateful to have additional research and sources which enhance my study and I highly recommend his book for those that wish to study the Book of Mormon. 

 

---

[1] David Friedel,  "May Warfare: Myth and Reality." California State East Bay University Resources. http://maya.csuhayward.edu/yaxuna/papershome.html (accessed January 2008,). This link no longer works.  

[2] Golden, Charles, “The Politics of Warfare in the Usumacinata Basin: La Pasadita and the Realm of the Bird Jaguar.” In Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare, edited by Travis Stanton Kathryn Brown, 293-301. Balitmore: Little Field Publishing, 2003.(43) My research notes are a bit unclear, I will continue to look at this one.

Sun-Tzu, The Book of Mormon, and Translation

So I had a great idea for a post that had been stewing for a long time. (In fact, it had been so long it took me about 20 minutes to unbury and find my notes.)  It was about the martial legacy of Gideon in the Book of Mormon. But I realized I had been wasting far too much time on a discussion board in rather pointless arguments with critics. So I decided to try a little experiment.  I wondered how much more productive I could be if I focused on the most important things first.  So I ignored that discussion board and a few hours, 10 pages, and 3,000 words later I had something much longer than a blog post. It turned out so well I'm now polishing "Gideon's Legacy" for submission as a journal article. 

As a result though, I didn't have the blog post I had intended. I did however, find an excellent post about Sunzi and the translation of the Book of Mormon.  Since I'm familiar with and published about both texts I thought he made some very interesting points.  I hope you enjoy his thoughts and thanks for visiting.

Research Roundup

I had quite an exciting couple of weeks while on vacation, so I thought I would give you the update on what is going on. 

PhD Program

That's right! The first morning of my vacation I got into the MPhil/PhD research program in War Studies at King's College London. The school is in London but it is also a "blended learning" program which will allow me to continue to teach and live here in Las Vegas. I will travel there at certain points and complete the research and writing of my thesis on my own.[1] The British PhD is different in that I won't complete any coursework or work as a teaching assistant, I simply have to complete the research and writing.


This presents several challenges since the hiring committees here in America might not be as willing to hire somebody without the teaching experience and broad fields of study. But I think that my years of teaching experience, and the many different classes I've taught will mitigate that fear. My study in London on a Chinese topic will provide the ability to organize study abroad programs on several continents.  My friend with a graduate degree from a British school also says that the overseas degree is "sexy" and still desired, so I think I'll be okay despite the differences in the course of study to gain the degree.


And I also have to worry about funding for the program. There is little internal funding available to cover tuition, though there is some for conference travel and research. I have also found several programs that will assist in money for travel and research. Through some or all of the following such as obtaining funding from my employers, the VA (or GI Bill), the Nibley Fellowship, Fullbright Fellowship, additional student loans, or personal funding I should be able to pay for it. If you know of any sources that may be of use please let me know. Of course I have come this far by trusting in God- I never thought I would gain entry into one of the top graduate programs in the world- and I'm confident that a solution will present itself.


I will be studying the military history of the Jiangxi Soviet. Founded in 1927 and abandoned by 1934 in the Long March, this area witnessed the early leadership of Mao Zedong and Zhu De in their Communist insurgency against the Nationalist government. It will determine the degree to which Mao deserves his status as a brilliant strategist. Since the two leaders were often conflated into one person called Zhu Mao, I seek to study both the strategic and tactical planning as well as the execution of Soviet military operations to better determine the merits of their respective leadership. Finally, since the doctrine of People’s War affects the local population I seek to examine the impact of Soviet military operations on the people of the Jianxi Soviet.[2] Of course, insurgency is also a "sexy" topic in military history and with the public, the rising status of China makes this timely as well.  Scholars have also said that this period is "more or less wide open."  Moreover, I was stunned to find out that many of the sources I need are translated into English. So even though I've been studying Chinese for years, I don't have to rely on it as much as I thought.

Ender's Game

The day I got back from vacation my article on Sunzi and the military logic of Ender Wiggin was published and a copy was sitting on my doorstep.[3] I wrote the article towards the end of 2011 and did edits during the middle of 2012, so it is good to see it out there in time for the movie.  Even though I have "arrived" in a sense, it is still humbling to see my name in print.

Russia at War and Military Philosophers 

While on vacation I received an email from ABC-CLIO press that asked me to update my address and which gave me the publication dates for the two encyclopedias.  I wrote three articles for the various books: The first on the Chinese military philosopher Qi Jiquang from the late 16th century.  The next two were on the Chinese Soviet Border Conflict of 1969, and the Ussuri River Skirmish.  Again, it is humbling to be involved in a quality publication. And since these are reference volumes bought by schools, in a sense I can say I "wrote the book" on subject. 

Warfare 2.0

This volume is a collection of essays on the Book of Mormon from various military historians and interested individuals I have come across.  It is slightly smaller than I envisioned but I am very excited to hear back from the Interpreter.  Again, I am humbled by so many great people that contribute to the project and look forward to seeing the final form it takes.

Ancient Warfare and Modern Lessons

This is my personal effort on warfare in the Book of Mormon. Since the email agreeing to publish my manuscript, I still haven't heard anything back from the editor at Kofford Books. But as you can see above, the publication process often takes a long time so I'm waiting patiently for them to get to my manuscript. Ironically, it looks like I will have two of the chapters in that book published elsewhere by the time it hits bookshelves.[4]

Thanks for reading.  As I talked about the insurgent medium, publishing in more established venues takes much longer and requires much more work. As a result I don't always publish as much here but I appreciate your reading support a great deal.



 ****Notes****
1. The PhD dissertation in England is called a thesis.  This will most likely be conducted at the Hoover Library located at Stanford. They have an excellent collection on East Asia there and a huge collection of microfilmed records that I need.
2. I can send a copy of my research prospectus upon request. It is about 5 pages that summarizes the question, existing books, and sources I will use.  Reading it gets me excited for my research. 
3. The only review so far complained that my essay is like a Chinese buffet, which I found annoying. 
4.  It is ironic because several presses rejected the book and one reviewer slammed my book in harsh terms. Yet I've managed to publish large parts of it including the controversial defense of preemptive war.