In order to provide a fuller context for details in Daniel and throughout the Old Testament, it behooves us to understand the basic elements of ancient warfare, and it's place in ancient societies.
The fundamental element of any king or other ruler is the task of warlord. If there weren't some sort of threat to the tribe, there'd be no reason at all to give anyone emergency power. However, once the warlord is chosen, and the threat is handled, some how things are never the same. Over time, particularly with success in defending against threats, the office becomes rather permanent, as well as the emergency powers. Sounds familiar, no?
When the office of warlord slips over into actual rule as king, the growth of the realm naturally requires full time bodyguards, as well as other lieutenants. These must be generally freed from regular labor, so there is a "leisure class" which is able to pursue military training and so forth as full time warriors. As the warlord becomes king, the warriors become nobility. As things improve economically, the nobility become wealthier. As they are better fed, they are naturally larger. However, selection of competent warriors usually results in that class being somewhat healthier in the first place.
Semitic culture and customs require the separation between noble and peasant be a small one. Many nobles arise as much from the fortunes of being the first born of a clan as from warrior talents. At some point, these warriors actually have to justify their place by leading into battle. The peasants are conscripted en masse, and most of them are expected to be capable of using the ancient weapons available. They are hardly as skillful or as well equipped as the warriors, but often receive some peace-time training at least, as well as provided some weapons.
The warriors lead into battle quite literally. In the most primitive of societies, the attack was generally single file, with the commander in front. Surviving combat repeatedly means you keep your command position, obviously. In later times, these men would lead a formation behind them. Tactics advanced to the point where simply keeping your formation together in ranks was pretty much a victory in itself, not to mention the most effective way to do battle in melee conditions.
Even within the Nation of Israel, there was a perception one went into battle with full courage only because God was with you. It was the general assumption of all Semite races. If you trusted in your god, you held your formation. If you fled, your god had abandoned you. During the Conquest, we see such phrases used often. If the Lord was with them, they won. It was not a matter of mass slaughter, though it might turn out that way. It was a matter of getting your enemy to break ranks and flee. Most all victories were essentially psychological. Most defeated enemies followed the rules and capitulated, at least for a time.
Thus, the phrase "greatest warrior" or "mightiest men" was more about leadership than physical size and power. While the latter was often true, it was beside the point. I scrawny runt with skill, speed and lots of courage was also a "mighty man." His battle success naturally got the king's attention, and the fellow got promoted. If he charged fearlessly into enemy formations, mowing down a path, there was a tendency for the conscripts in formation behind him to follow through. If he fell, they were quite likely to run. Warriors who survived repeated battles were chosen by God, de facto. Thus, they were the leaders.
Some ancient empires found ways to gain distinct advantages over this standard situation. The Hittites were the first to mass-produce iron weapons, a clear advantage over bronze, wood and such. The Assyrians simply massed more troops than anybody else. Babylon seems to have given their conscripts better training and weapons, so they were much more like full-time warriors across the board. A formation of warriors beats a formation of part-time conscripts any day. In all these cultures, it was a mixture of things which made one a combat leader. As above, it included noble birth, combat experience and success, but there seems to have been some actual leadership training, too. In Israel, a man who got training usually got it from a father or other close male relative. He might get some attention and be promoted from the conscripts, but training was iffy at best.
The other distinct advantage in Babylon was the brutality of the troops. Most armies respected certain widely known protocols, and observed certain limits. Babylon paid scant heed to such things. They offered but a single chance to capitulate, after which there was no quarter offered in any way. While a city or army might surrender after some fighting, it was almost surely no better than fighting to the death, just quicker. Survivors not taken at the place of battle were inevitably conscripted into the military, or enslaved.
Return Homepage
Return to Daniel Index
Ed Hurst
12 November 2007
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: People of honor need no copyright laws; they are only too happy to give credit where credit is due. Others will ignore copyright laws whenever they please. If you are of the latter, please note what Moses said about dishonorable behavior -- "be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23)