Ancient Warfare: Strategies, Technologies, and Tactics of Early Combat

By Fouad Sabry

What is Ancient Warfare

Ancient warfare is war that was conducted from the beginning of recorded history to the end of the ancient period. The difference between prehistoric and ancient warfare is more organization oriented than technology oriented. The development of first city-states, and then empires, allowed warfare to change dramatically. Beginning in Mesopotamia, states produced sufficient agricultural surplus. This allowed full-time ruling elites and military commanders to emerge. While the bulk of military forces were still farmers, the society could portion off each year. Thus, organized armies developed for the first time. These new armies were able to help states grow in size and become increasingly centralized.

How you will benefit

(I) Insights, and validations about the following topics:

Chapter 1: Ancient Warfare

Chapter 2: Cavalry

Chapter 3: Hoplite

Chapter 4: Trireme

Chapter 5: Cataphract

Chapter 6: Peltast

Chapter 7: Phalanx

Chapter 8: Ancient Macedonian army

Chapter 9: Military of the Sasanian Empire

Chapter 10: Ancient Greek warfare

(II) Answering the public top questions about ancient warfare.

Who this book is for

Professionals, undergraduate and graduate students, enthusiasts, hobbyists, and those who want to go beyond basic knowledge or information for any kind of Ancient Warfare.

• Language: English
• Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable
• Release date: May 31, 2024

Book preview

Chapter 1: Ancient warfare

Between the beginning of written history and the end of the ancient period, there was warfare. Prehistoric and ancient warfare differed more in terms of organization than in terms of technology. Warfare underwent a significant change as city-states and subsequently empires developed. States started producing enough agricultural surplus in Mesopotamia. This facilitated the rise of the ruling class and military leaders. The society may partake off each year while the majority of the military troops were still farmers. As a result, the first organized armies began to form. States were able to expand in size and centralize more as a result of these new armies.

The fall of Rome in 476 AD, the conflicts of the Eastern Roman Empire on its frontiers with Southwestern Asia and North Africa, and the start of the Muslim conquests in the 7th century are frequently considered to mark the end of antiquity in Europe and the Near East. In China, it can alternatively be viewed as the beginning of the Tang dynasty in 618 AD and the end of the expanding role of mounted warriors required to combat the always escalating northern menace. The decline of the Gupta Empire in India in the sixth century marks the end of the ancient era there, and the Muslim conquests there began in the eighth century. The establishment of feudalism during the Kamakura period in the 12th and 13th centuries is seen in Japan as the end of the old era.

Bows and spears, the same weapons that had been devised in prehistoric periods for hunting, continued to be the mainstay of early ancient armies. The discoveries at the Nataruk archaeological site in Turkana, Kenya, have been regarded as proof of intergroup conflict and warfare in antiquity, Early armies in Egypt and China both used a massed infantry force equipped with bows and spears. Due in part to the lack of the camel saddle and stirrup at this time, infantry warfare was the most common type of conflict. Ranged and shock troops would be used at this time, with shock infantry either charging to break through the enemy line or holding their own. In an ideal scenario, these forces would be united, confronting the opponent with the choice of grouping the forces and making them susceptible to ranged attacks and dispersing them and making them susceptible to shock. This equilibrium would later shift when technology enabled for the active participation of chariots, cavalry, and artillery on the battlefield.

It is impossible to distinguish clearly between ancient and medieval warfare. Late Antiquity saw the introduction of many of the defining elements of medieval combat, most notably heavy cavalry and siege weapons like the trebuchet. The main division within the ancient period occurs at the start of the Iron Age with the introduction of cavalry (resulting in the decline of chariot warfare), naval warfare (Sea Peoples), and the development of a ferrous metallurgy-based industry that allowed for the mass production of metal weapons and, as a result, the equipping of large standing armies. The Neo-Assyrian Empire was the first military power to benefit from these advancements, achieving a level of centralized authority previously unheard of and becoming the first global power to encompass the whole Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt).

The ability to mobilize quickly became increasingly important as nations grew in size because central rule could not be maintained if uprisings could not be put down quickly. The chariot, which was first employed in the Middle East starting around 1800 BC, was the first solution to this problem. They initially enabled for quick travel over the Middle East's comparatively flat terrain when drawn by oxen and donkeys. The chariots were lightweight enough to glide across rivers with ease. Horses were quickly able to pull chariots thanks to advancements in training techniques, potentially as early as 2100 BC, and their increased speed and power made chariots even more effective. The fundamental restriction of the employment of chariots was geography; while relatively mobile on flat, hard, open ground, it was exceedingly difficult to cross more challenging terrain, such as rocky ground, even sparse trees or bushes, minor ravines or streams, or marsh. Chariots and later cavalry were less agile on such terrain than regular foot infantry.

In the second millennium BC, the chariot was the most important weapon in the Ancient Near East since it was so effective in both transportation and combat. Two men would typically operate a chariot; one would be a bowman who would fire at the opposing forces while the other would steer it. Chariots were eventually made to accommodate up to five warriors. The Shang dynasty in China made chariots their main weapon, enabling them to unify a sizable region.

The comparison between chariots and modern tanks in terms of the function they played in shock attacks on the battlefield is debatable. The chariot's main benefit to bowmen was the tactical mobility it gave them. In order to maintain command and control throughout the conflict and to ensure everyone's safety, ancient generals preferred to deploy their infantry in a closely packed formation. However, a group of chariots could stand far away and shoot arrows at the infantrymen's heads. Any efforts to charge the chariots could be readily avoided because to their speed. The benefit of mutual protection would be lost if an infantry unit dispersed to lessen the damage from arrows, and the charioteers would be able to easily overtake them.

Chariots were therefore a tactical problem for any army facing them, making them an essential part of ancient armies. But because of their complexity, they needed to be maintained by skilled craftsmen. Chariots became costly to own as a result. When chariots were privately held by members of a community, a warrior class of experts and a feudal system were more likely to develop (The Iliad by Homer is an example of this). Where chariots were owned by the public, like in the New Egyptian Kingdom, they contributed to the upkeep and establishment of a powerful central authority. The Fight of Kadesh in 1274 BC, which featured perhaps 5,000 chariots, was the biggest chariot battle ever fought and marked the apex of chariot use.

On the basis of evidence from paintings in the Cyclades and ship models created throughout the Aegean, it is possible to date the beginning of naval combat in the ancient world to the Mediterranean in the third millennium BC. This calls into doubt the idea that naval weaponry hadn't been produced at this period and that infantry engagements were instead conducted using maneuvering tactics and strategy.

There aren't many ancient naval advancements that can compare to the efficiency, strategy, and all-around effectiveness of a warship in the Trireme type. In Homer's The Iliad, a longship-style ship is originally described as a way of transporting armed men and supplies to areas of combat across the oceans.

These enormous battleships' manned crews would have been exceedingly impressive, but reports on the actual manpower differ from source to source. A Greek writer named Herodotus of Halicarnassus wrote in the fourth century BC that these Triremes would have at least 200 men manning every station. The assumption that these ships would be extremely crowded with little room for anything other than operational functions was reassured by the fact that these oarsmen below deck would sit on thwarts and keep their personal storage goods beneath them.

There is disagreement over the precise capabilities of these Greek triremes in combat. There are numerous tales that set the groundwork for the equipment used and the tactics these ships employed in battle. Beyond the transportation of troops and supplies, the advantages of ramming techniques would be the principal tactical applications of Greek triremes. Greek Trireme advancements and innovations changed with time, particularly in regards to ramming techniques. These ships were designed by naval architects at the time to be as effective and destructive as possible. This would maintain the same number of manpower, i.e., maintain the same amount of rowing power while reducing the length of the ship to concentrate the ramming strength while maintaining the same speed and agility. This new philosophy of warfare and naval tactics would turn out to be wise for the Trireme's broad military applications, and it quickly became the main combative approach for both the Greek navy and other navies.

As autonomous powers like Egypt and even the Persian Empire adopted the design of these ships and used them for their own military purposes, the Greek Trireme quickly became the standard warship throughout the Mediterranean. One of the main draws of the Greek design was its capacity for effective ramming as well as its reasonable speed over long distances. The journey of the Athenian naval commander Iphicrates through hostile waters is described in one account by the soldier and historian Xenophon of Athens, along with the tactic he employed and the sheer sailing prowess of the Trireme.

He continued on his route while also making all the required preparations for action, initially leaving his main sails behind as though he were anticipating an engagement. Additionally, he utilized his tiny [boat] sails sparingly even in a following breeze, preferring to move forward with an oar [instead, perhaps, of utilizing main sails and boat sails when the wind was favorable]. As a result, he increased his men's physical fitness and increased the speed of his ships..

The Greek trireme is used effectively and conveniently in this first-person narrative. The trireme was successful across all kinds of empires and civilizations in the Mediterranean by maximizing its speed through rough and hostile seas while also applying unique military strategy to secure the most wise and effective outcome. Later, during the Persian Wars, the trireme would play a crucial role in naval warfare for both the Greeks and the Persian Empire. It would also serve as the model for the Roman Navy's first design.

Large-scale naval operations were first seen during the Persian Wars, including integrated land-sea operations as well as sophisticated fleet confrontations with dozens of triremes on each side. The oceans were off-limits to ships in the ancient world; they could only navigate the relatively calm waters of seas and rivers. Nearly usually deployed as support for land armies, ships were frequently necessary for supplying them. They hardly ever ventured out on their own. Naval galleys, which only had short-range armaments, would frequently try to ram their opponents with their strengthened bows in an effort to damage or sink the opposing warships. This practice frequently resulted in the two ships becoming connected, which started a boarding battle. A decisive naval combat, like the Battle of Lade, in which a Persian navy annihilated a Greek navy, was only infrequently fought.

Ancient strategy was largely centered on two main objectives: persuading the opponent that continuing the conflict would be more expensive than yielding, and maximizing the benefits of the conflict.

In most cases, subduing the enemy's army on the battlefield was required. After the enemy force had been routed, the fear of a siege, the killing of civilians, or other such events frequently brought the adversary to the negotiating table. However, there are various ways to achieve this objective. Burning the enemy's fields would compel a decision between a pitched battle and surrender. Similar options included waiting an adversary out until their army had to dissolve due to the start of the harvest season or running out of money to hire mercenaries. These laws of warfare were broken during the unusual battles of antiquity. One such uncommon example is the Peloponnesian War's Spartan and Athenian unwillingness to accept capitulation despite many years of conflict and the threat of financial ruin, as well as the Roman refusal to surrender following the Battle of Cannae.

Simple financial gain was a more individualized war objective. As was the case with the raiding culture of the Gallic tribes, this gain was frequently monetary. However, the gain can be political, as successful military leaders were frequently rewarded with government positions. These tactics frequently defy contemporary common sense and go against what is beneficial for the warring powers.

Effective strategies varied significantly based on:

The army's size

Unit types

Terrain

The weather

Positional advantage

Skill level

Individual battle experience

Individual morale

Armament (quantity and quality)

The spear, the atlatl with a light javelin or comparable projectile, the bow and arrow, the sling, polearms like the spear, falx, and javelin, and hand-to-hand weapons like swords, spears, clubs, maces, axes, and knives were examples of ancient weaponry. During sieges, battering rams, siege towers, and catapults were employed.

Through their burial customs, the Ancient Greeks left behind several examples of their weapons. The rapier-like swords discovered in Mycenean tombs were described in Arms and Armour of the Greeks as being fragile due to their length and slim designs. The horned and cruciform forms of swords made their debuts during the Bronze Age. The moniker horned sword refers to the handguard's horn-like appearance, and it was the weapon of choice for cutting blows. The right-angle rounded handguards and flanged hilt of the Minoan dagger served as the basis for the cruciform sword. Spears remained the weapon of choice for thrusting strikes throughout the Palace Period, but it gained a socketed base. The function of the bow and arrow changed during this new era as well, going from being tools for hunting to complete weapons. The use of weapons evolved as Greek society advanced, and by the Late Period of Mycenae, they had shrunk and were better suited to work settings than to combat.

Instead of having a strong infantry, Macedon was historically recognized for having a powerful cavalry. The Sarissophori were created under Alexander's rule, which was exclusive to his reign. The Macedonian infantry, made up of the lower and peasant classes, developed into a new and distinct branch of the military that was distinct from the hoplite, even if the cavalry was more visible. In addition to the army's usage of slings and bronze bullets with either Philip's or his generals' names etched on them, these warriors were also armed with enormous pikes known as sarissas. The Macedonians employed an arrow-firing catapult