Tell us about it
Would this be the appropriate board to discuss Sumerian warfare?
Blunt instruments (such as clubs, staves, maces, and hammers), pole weapons (e.g. spears and scythes), bladed weapons (like axes, knives, daggers, and sickle-swords), and ranged weapons (including javelins, throwing sticks, throwing axes, slings, bow and arrows) were all employed in war. Soldiers wore helmets composed of either copper or bronze; additionally, armor (cloaks studded in metal discs) and shields.
The first war in Sumerian recorded history was between the two city-states of Lagash and Umma (an intermittent, border war which may have lasted nearly 200 years from c. 2525 – c. 2342 BCE) as described on the Stele of the Vultures. The stele shows the king of Lagash (Eannatum r. c. 2457 – c. 2425 BCE) leading an army (consisting mainly of infantrymen). The infantrymen were primarily armed with spears, carried wooden/wicker, rectangular shields, and wore: caps (made out of leather) underneath helmets composed of either copper or one of its alloys (e.g. arsenic for arsenical bronze, or tin). Depictions of the light infantrymen show them wearing: kaunakes (short woollen mantles with tufts of feathers sown onto them and worn like unisex wraparound skirts); as well as, armor (cloaks of sheepskin on their backs studded in metal discs or plates), and no body armor protecting their torsos. The spearmen are shown arranged in what resembles the phalanx formation, which requires training and discipline; this implies that the Sumerians may have made use of professional soldiers.
The armies of the city-states could each have up to 3,600—5,400 soldiers. The organization of their armies was based on multiples of 6 (60, 120, 600, etc.) These large armies would consist of many military units. One military unit known as the nu.banda contained anywhere from 60—120 erin (conscripts, laborers, or soldiers) and may have been led by an ugula (overseer or commander). Other known units include the shublugal.
To support the main army there would be four-wheeled war wagons each with two-man crews. One crewman would be the driver and the other; a soldier (armed with a lance or battle axe). Each wagon was pulled by four Asiatic wild asses. These early wheeled vehicles functioned less effectively in combat than did the much later chariots, and some have suggested that these wagons served primarily as transports. The cabless cart was composed of a woven basket and the wheels had solid three-piece designs.
The near-constant warfare among the city-states of Sumer helped the Mesopotamians develop their military technology and techniques to a high level. Sumerian city-states were surrounded by defensive walls. The Sumerians engaged in siege warfare between their cities; but, the mudbrick walls were able to deter some foes. Soldiers would besiege cities using battering rams and sappers.
>which requires training and discipline; this implies that the Sumerians may have made use of professional soldiers.
Prolonged or perpetuated wars inevitably leads to soldiers who do their soldiering for a living. I'm really curious if the situation with all those city states were similar to Medieval Italy, guelfs vs. ghibellins times. With often inefficient mercenaries whom served one state until the other payed more, or if they ever took over a city because they grew too influential.
There were considerable differences between these city states, for example in political, governmental systems, for example Uruk vs Ur, I believe one was very centralized the other almost democratic, with a legislative body of the free citizens, who appeared in their assembly armed (free men had the right to bear arms). So in one city the troops could be the personal army of the lugal, while in the other the military service was one requirement of citizenship. I dunno if it was like that, I'm just extrapolating from scraps of infos.
I'm also wondering if they had tablets on military theory. I can imagine they had. Could be like a guide of a lugal to his son even or something.
How were early domesticated horses used by humans? I'd read that early domesticated horses were too small to ride c. 3500 BCE in Central Asia and humans did not begin using wheeled vehicles until c. 3150 BCE somewhere in Eastern Europe. The earliest depictions of ass-pulled wagons in West Asia would appear to be from c. 2450 BCE. Chariots showed up in North Africa many centuries later maybe something like c. 1650 to c. 1450 BCE. I think that stirrups and saddles, too, were a much later development.
In lots of armies horses were just a means of transportation, taxis to the battlefield, they did no cavalry charges. For example it's speculated that Harold Godwinson's Saxons fought like that. Perhaps it's a surviving tradition, or just coincident that later English knights often fought off horse, standing among the infantry, archers.
Saddles for a long time were just covers and pillows strapped onto the horses back - I think even Roman saddles were little more than that. And even riding "on the fur" as we say it remained an all time classic. I read the horsemen of the slavers of the Eastern Sahel (today's Chad, Sudan, old Kanem and such kangdoms) they cut the back of the horses and they glued themselves up with the clotting blood fucking barbarians
Medieval European style of saddle were two upside-down "U"s and some stuff between them which were kinda restrictive for the horses. Steppe saddles were different with two slightly curved planks sat on each side of the spine and the parts of the saddle were connected with leather straps, it was a flexible construction.
The classic knightly saddle they used for charges and had back support is kinda late, since the classic chivalric cavalry charge was too. Early knights held their lances in their hands above their shoulder and they stabbed downward with it.
Stirrup is the product of the steppe. They were just cloth hoops, perhaps ropes for a while. I think Scythians had them first, not sure. But I don't think Romans ever adopted it. The "real" stirrup made of metal was unknown in Europe until Avars brought that in, and was adopted by the time Hungarians started to make their first incursions. Whatever the material may be it is an important piece of equipment for fighting on horseback, since the horseman has to "hug" the horse with his legs without it, but with it, he can put the weight on it, and can even lift himself up from the saddle, turn and lean more surely, etc. For horse archery it had to be revolutionary.
I forgot. Saddle is also important to hang stuff on it. Weapons, sacks, whatever.
Uh, from the top of my head.
Basically when it comes to super ancient warfare like in Sumer; I now tend to imagine hybrid tactics especially when it comes to early cavalry and naval warfare. Like for ancient Egypt; I like to imagine that navies sometimes experimented with transporting mixed with ramming, boarding, and/or fire arrows and probably messed things up for themselves frequently especially when using fire. Probably took them awhile to get things right. Probably not until the Iron Age that they began to stick with ramming the way the ancient Greeks and Romans did with their galleys, penteconters, biremes, triremes, quadriremes, quinquiremes, or whatever.
Oh right I'd forgotten of having gotten someone to translate those pages for me a few months ago:
>First mention of helmets apears on the stone relief of prince Eanatum. In burial holes of Ur, copper helmets from around 2500 bc that had some sort of leather lining inside, that evolved as protection from the earliest weapons: clubs.
>Helmets are a significant step in the evolution of army technology that effectively pushed out clubs from the battlefield. Metal head protection, gained way for another invention, a bronze axe with a hole for a stick, in a way its used in modern axes. This way the axe was secured more firmly and it was more deadly. Other weapons they used were spears and knives.
Sumeran soldiers were protected by skirts or by simple tunics made of wool from sheep or goats. On one of the reliefs, the soldiers wear tunics with hoods, ones used very frequently by sheep herders, that had metal discs sewn to them, as extra protection most probably. The shield was reinforced in places where individual boards of wood meet. Around the shield there are afew layers of lether strips. Some scientist intepret 9 metal disks as symbology for 9 soldiers in a unit.
>The ilustration depicts a soldier with a (one armed) spear and a big shield (picture right). Three thousand years that followed, had soldiers much alike.
>Example of a phalanx as its seen by historians (most likely false). To hold a spear with two hands and use a giant shield is possible only in part. So why was a big shield used then?
>Roman soldiers carried big square shields but they in fact used one handed weapons. It seems that sumerians used big shields with one handed close quarters weapons in the front lines, while the ranks behind them carried big two handed spears.
>helmets
In the graphics above their helmet looks breddy solid, and they also seem to found the ideal shape for deflecting blows too. Kudos.
>protected [...] by simple tunics made of wool from sheep or goats.
Ancient aketon/gamneson?
>phalanx
If they used something like that that implies one continuous formation in the whole length of the battlefield. No smaller tactical units (most obvious example the Roman manipulus).
Also should be wise to measure the distances between the cities.And if they had to ford the rivers to reach each other, and where were the places they could cross.
