by Eckart Frahm
The term kiṣir šarri “king’s unit” is thought to refer to the standing army. A kiṣru might consist of 1000 men, or a subdivision, always a decimal. Infantry (zūk, zukkû; raksūte) formed the backbone of the army, conscripted through the ilku‐system which applied both to the heartland and to the provinces: everyone was required to serve, perhaps seasonally, whether in civic works or in the army, or else to provide a substitute. There were three classes: light, medium (regular) and heavy. Light infantry probably included semi‐nomadic Aramaean tribesmen, notably Ituean archers and Gurrean spearmen who wore a headband rather than a helmet, and often went barefoot. They might serve as garrison troops, or carry out policing duties. In battles and sieges they are shown working in pairs. They carried swords in addition to bows or spears. Elamite archers, identifiable by a headband tied behind the head, fought among them as expert archers. Medium (“regular”) infantry, likewise armed as archers or as spearmen, wore the Assyrian pointed helmet made of bronze or bronze and iron, and various shapes of shield, but no body armor until the mid‐seventh century when a breast‐plate is seen. Heavy infantry included not only archers and spearmen but also slingers. They were trained to fight in close formation in pitched battle, in pairs in other types of combat. They often wore scale armor, boots, pointed helmets, and round shields. They probably also served as royal bodyguards. In all three categories of infantry, officers have not been identified. The term kallāpu may refer to infantrymen, but a function as sappers has also been suggested, and kallāp šipirti seems to refer to swift messengers, perhaps indicating the variety of tasks performed. Palace guards and city gate guards are sometimes distinguished, and may have been co‐opted from the regular infantry. Foreign levies drafted into the infantry can be identified by crested helmets or other characteristic headgear. The rate of marching has been estimated at 32 km per day, obviously dependent on weather and terrain.
Cavalry (ša pētḫalli) were mounted on the small horses bred in the mountains and steppes to the north of the Assyrian heartland, serving as a single group in the ninth century, but later divided into two groups: lancers (ṣāb kabābi), and archers (ṣāb qašti). Both kinds also carried a sword. Skill in cavalry was especially famous in the kingdom of Urartu, centered around Lake Van and the Araxes valley. The Urartians, expert in rearing and training those mountain ponies, served the Assyrians as equestrian advisers, and Urartian cavalry served in the Assyrian army despite the official enmity between the two countries (Dalley 1985). In the ninth century cavalrymen were seated on a leather saddlecloth, barefoot without stirrups, a round shield strapped to their back. They worked in pairs, the one shooting with bow and arrow, while his partner (ṣāb azmarî) protected him with a shield; but by the end of the Neo‐Assyrian period cavalry are shown lined up in battle formation. Horses were not shod at this date. The commander of cavalry was the rab muggi ša pētḫalli. During the reign of Esarhaddon Median tribesmen, presumably cavalry, were brought in as royal bodyguards (Liverani 1995); a generation later they took revenge on their weakened masters by smashing the tablets on which their oaths of loyalty had been inscribed. By the reign of Assurbanipal horses wore leather armor over the neck and body, and the forehead was protected by a bronze or ivory plaque, such as have been excavated as far afield as Samos. Ivory blinkers and ivory or bronze frontlets have also come to light, perhaps for ceremonial occasions. At that time riders too were protected, with metal scale armor for the upper body, and boots.
The chariot maintained its prestige throughout the period as the royal vehicle and for top officials including the standard‐bearers of Nergal and Adad, who led the army as they had done for a millennium. The light, open‐sided chariot of the twelfth century was replaced by the ninth century with a heavier model, though the former may have continued in use, especially for hunting, its charioteers represented by the profession ša pattūte (LÚ.GAB.MEŠ). Three horses are visible on the heavy chariot, of which two were harnessed, and the third presumably a spare. An important innovation to the design of chariots, already seen in the mid‐ninth century, was to move the wheel axle from the center of the carriage box to the rear. The addition of a studded metal tyre to the outside of the wheel ensured better grip to avoid skidding and to allow a tighter turning circle. Wheels were made with six spokes for Assyrians in the ninth century, though the wheels on contemporary enemy chariots might have eight or even twelve spokes. By the reign of Tiglath‐pileser III wheels had eight spokes which became standard for the rest of the period (Littauer and Crouwel 1979). The chariot crew consisted of the nobleman‐warrior, māru damqu/mār dammaqūte (= EN.GIŠ.GIGIR?), the rein‐holder (mukīl appāte), and the “third man” (tašlīšu), who held a spiked round shield. The crew wore helmets but no body armor. Fixed to the chariot box the protome of a god is occasionally visible on bas‐reliefs; also a pair of quivers each holding up to fifty arrows, and a pair of axes. The nobleman‐warrior mainly acted as an archer, his superior elevation in battle allowing him to pick targets accurately and to direct the cohorts. By the reign of Assurbanipal the chariot had larger, heavier wheels; the crew increased from three to four men, wore scale armor as well as pointed helmets, and the horses were protected with leather armor as the cavalry horses had been earlier. Chariots were drawn by a larger breed of horses than were ridden by the cavalry. Egypt was a major source of supply, but the ultimate place of origin was Nubia, so the horses were called Kushite, as was a particular type of harness. Some horses were obtained along with foreign charioteers, some by gift exchange and tribute, but there were also specialized horse‐traders, tamkar ANŠE.KUR.RA. As many as sixteen stablemen, ša ma’assi, were at the disposal of a Kushite rein‐holder, perhaps as a top trainer. Grooms, susānu/LÚ.GIŠ.GIGIR, worked perhaps always as three per chariot team. In the reign of Sargon II the “recruitment officer” (mušarkisu) was in charge of a chariotry cohort (kiṣru) comprising 100 men, and cavalry too seems to be found in groups of 100. Foreign units began to play a major role: Sargon had a group of thirteen equestrians from Samaria whose profession “commander of teams” (rab urâte) refers in this instance to chariotry; it may refer to both chariotry and cavalry in the case of units brought in from Hamath and Carchemish (Dezsö 2006). The leader of chariotry on campaign was the rab muggi ša mugirri (Radner 2002: 12–13).
The king was accompanied by his closest associates, the ša qurubte, sometimes referred to as royal bodyguards, some drawn from the infantry. Another type of bodyguard or escort (or a type of duty performed by various types of soldier) seems to be the ša šēpē literally “he of feet,” who could be infantry, cavalry, or chariotry. Indispensable to the army were guides (rādi kibsi), and interpreters (targumannu), probably both drawn from groups of deportees. The term labbašu, literally meaning “clothed,” may refer to uniforms that reflect rank; however, non‐Assyrian levies wore their local battle‐dress; enemies are distinguished by their local dress (Wäfler 1975) and seem to be distinguished only by context. A term for an armorer has not been identified. Mules were trustworthy beasts of burden, often taken as tribute. By the time of Esarhaddon, camels had their place in the Arsenal at Nineveh, perhaps implying the existence of a camel corps. The occasional letter still refers to fire signals.
The time and place of pitched battles was perhaps always agreed in advance. Its success often resulted in the siege or capture of an important city. Chariotry and cavalry supported infantry and chased fleeing enemies. The most detailed description is of the battle at Ḫalule in Sennacherib’s reign (Grayson and Novotny 2012: 332–4). Siege warfare is the subject of several groups of bas‐relief panels, of which one of the largest shows Sennacherib’s siege of Lachish in Judah (Ussishkin 1982), an event surprisingly not mentioned in the official account of the campaign. Scaling ladders, ramps, battering rams, siege towers, flaming brands and tunneling, diverting of rivers as well as blockades to ensure eventual starvation, were all used to bring about capitulation (Figure 26.2).
Figure 26.2 Panel of bas‐relief
sculpture from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib showing the siege of Lachish and deportees leaving.
Source: Reproduced with permission of Judith Dekel, from Ussishkin 1982, Segment IV.
A siege might be prolonged for more than a year: Sennacherib besieged Babylon for more than fifteen months, and Assurbanipal besieged the same city for twenty‐two months. It is doubtful whether there were specialist soldiers for the work: no specific terms of profession have been identified, so maybe the infantry could act as required. Likewise when the cutting of new roads through mountains was needed, the general soldiery may have worked with co‐opted local labor. A few texts describe how persuasion was used to encourage submission during a siege. Withdrawal from an unsuccessful siege is marked by a standard episode of cutting down trees in the vicinity (Cole 1997).
In the mid‐seventh century the empire was at its greatest extent. The policy of massive punishment seems to have altered, as retribution against rebels became more selective; some deliberate damage was restricted and in part symbolic (Crouch 2009). Deportees were allowed to leave together with their families and some possessions, at least in some instances, and were free to lead their own lives in a new place, as Sargon emphasizes in his inscriptions, affirming that they were allowed to continue in their own professions, and were counted as Assyrians (Oded 1978). Under such conditions their co‐operation and loyalty would often be reliable, at least while Assyria was strong. Booty was officially listed while goods were brought out of temples and palaces. Fine objects were sometimes dedicated in Assyrian temples. Officers rewarded their men for loyalty and bravery with bracelets, presumably made of a precious metal: a bas‐relief shows a bearded officer with pointed Assyrian helmet, quiver, sword, and boots putting a bracelet on the wrist of a barefoot infantryman who wears a crested helmet (Postgate 1994). There is minimal evidence that land, the so‐called bow‐fief (bēt qašti), was granted by the king with the requirement to outfit and support an archer, a system much better attested in Babylonia in later periods.
Provincial governors were assigned from the top rank of the Assyrian elite. Some of them may have been close relatives of the king, or eunuchs, depending on the understanding of ša rēšē/LÚ.SAG and the significance of beardlessness. They levied troops, sometimes led campaigns, and negotiated with foreign rulers, in addition to non‐military duties. Above all, they corresponded regularly with the king. Their titles are honorific: Chief Cupbearer (rab šāqê), Vizier (sukkallu), Palace Herald (nāgir ekalli), Chief Treasurer (masennu), and others (Mattila 2000).
For conscription, substitution, and exemption, census lists were drawn up. Lists of various types of soldier, present or absent; lists of incoming horses with a description of color; lists of those present at banquets with their specific wine ration – all these types of text show an efficient administration at work.
The king was ostensibly the leader of all campaigns, and certainly took part on some occasions (Figure 26.3). The patron deity of warfare to whose influence he explicitly referred in texts was Ištar, perhaps always implying Ištar of Arbela, and her prophecies often encouraged the king (Parpola 1997; Nissinen 1998). Although the king’s participation has sometimes been doubted, Sargon II was certainly killed in battle. Royal annals rarely name leaders other than the king, but occasionally other members of the king’s family are named; Sammu‐ramat, wife of Shalmaneser III and mother of Adad‐nirari III was exceptional for taking part in a campaign with her son and having her own first‐person account added to his (Grayson 1996: 205).
Figure 26.3 Panel of bas‐relief sculpture from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib showing Sennacherib on his throne at the siege of Lachish, Nubian soldiers submitting, and war‐chariot with eight‐spoked wheel.
Source: Reproduced with permission of Judith Dekel, from Ussishkin 1982, Segment VI.
As age and exhaustion took their toll, a long‐lived king might delegate leadership to one of his commanders, as Shalmaneser III did, naming his turtānu Dayyan‐Aššur in his stead. Sargon II named his brother Sîn‐aḫu‐uṣur as co‐leader in a campaign to Urartu (Thureau‐Dangin 1912: line 132).
Bas‐reliefs show that temporary military camps were carefully designed with tents and collapsible furniture (see Figure 26.1). Chariots could be dismantled and carried on foot. To enable men and baggage to cross soft ground in wet weather, interlocking planks could be fitted and laid down. Rivers could be crossed with rafts or temporary pontoons. Military training included loading horses on to small boats, and swimming.
Numbers of troops in battle grew ever higher as the Assyrian empire expanded. Armies in the hundreds of thousands are recorded; the numbers are not necessarily unreliable if one takes into account copying errors, upgrading, and compilation (De Odorico 1995). Round decimal numbers may be based on units of 1000 or 100 men. Victories were emphasized, but a defeat early in Sargon’s reign was officially recorded (Grayson 1981). By the seventh century if not earlier, triumphal ceremonies included a procession travelling from Nineveh to Arbela and on to Ashur, display of trophies, composition of a new epic, dramatic performance of a battle, and feasting to music (Villard 2008).
The most detailed account of a campaign is given by the letter in which Sargon reported to the Assyrian gods his campaign of 712 which set off from Nimrud against the Urartians. It includes preparatory road‐building, ethnographic detail, an epic‐style itinerary, favorable astronomical omens, and a list of booty (Thureau‐Dangin 1912).
Nimrud was the main center for military organization, where Shalmaneser III had built an Arsenal, the ekal māšarte, a huge building complex with defensive towers and enormous courtyards in the lower city, designed for “the preparation of camp equipment, mustering stallions, chariots, harness, equipment of war and all kinds of booty from enemies.” It continued in use through subsequent reigns (Oates and Oates 2001: chapter 5). Sennacherib and Esarhaddon built another such Arsenal at Nineveh.
Several possible reforms of the army have been detected. Tiglath‐pileser III may have incorporated foreign troops into the standing army at least to a far greater proportion than before. A particular group of deportees called šaglûte formed a unit of chariotry within the royal unit. Sargon II appears to have split the single post of the turtānu into two: the turtānu of the left and the turtānu of the right. He may also have relegated chariotry to a ceremonial role while making cavalry the superior force. Under Sennacherib there may have been a reform that gave the queen (or queen mother) and the crown prince control over specific regiments, with land‐holdings in support. At that time the rab ša rēšē appears to play a dominant role. All these suggestions are questionable because sources from the different reigns are uneven, but there is no doubt that the army changed in many ways over the centuries.
References
Borger, R. 1957–71. “Gottesbrief,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 3, 575–6.
Charpin, D. 2004. “Nomades et sédentaires dans l’armée de Mari au temps de Yaḫdun‐Lim,” Amurru 3, 83–94.
Cole, S. 1997. “The Destruction of Orchards in Assyrian Warfare,” in: S. Parpola and R. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo‐Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki: The Neo‐Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 29–40.
Crouch, C. 2009. War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
Dalley, S. 1985. “Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Armies of Tiglath‐Pileser III and Sargon II,” Iraq 47, 31–48.
De Backer, F. 2013. L’art du siège néo‐assyrien, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 61, Leiden and Boston: Brill.
De Odorico, M. 1995. The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, SAAS 3, Helsinki: The Neo‐Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Dezsö, T. 2006. “The Reconstruction of the Neo‐Assyrian Army as Depicted on Assyrian Palace Reliefs, 745–612 BC,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica 57, 87–130.
Dezsö, T. 2012. The Assyri
an Army I: The Structure of the Neo‐Assyrian Army: 1: Infantry, Budapest: Eötvös University Press.
Durand, J.‐M. 1988. “Les textes prophétiques,” Archives Royales de Mari 26/1, 377–452.
Durand, J.‐M. 1997–2000. Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, Littératures anciennes du Proche‐Orient vols. 1–3, Paris: Cerf.
Eidem, J. and Laessøe, J. 2001. The Shemshara Archives, vol. 1: The Letters, Copenhagen: Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.
Eph’al, I. 2009. The City Besieged: Siege and its Manifestations in the Ancient Near East, Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Grayson, A.K. 1981. “Portion of Inscribed Stela of Sargon II, King of Assyria,” in: O. Muscarella (ed.), Ladders from Heaven, Toronto: Toronto University Press, no. 82.
Grayson, A.K. 1987. Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennium BC, RIMA 1, Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Grayson, A.K. 1996. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858–745 BC), RIMA 3, Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Grayson, A.K. and Novotny, J. 2014. The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria, RINAP 3/2, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Kessler, K. 1997. “Royal Roads and other Questions of the Neo‐Assyrian Communication System,” in: S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo‐Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki: The Neo‐Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 129–36.
Lambert, W.G. 2007. Babylonian Oracle Questions, Mesopotamian Civilizations 13, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
