The Akkadian empire {2334–2190}

With the rise of the Akkadian empire we see a number of new characteristics appearing in Mesopotamian military history.¹ First, there is a fundamental shift in military power away from the ethnic Sumerians to Semitic-speaking peoples of central and northern Mesopotamia. Second, although a few kings of the Early Dynastic period campaigned outside of the confines of Sumer itself, for the most part the military history of the Early Dynastic period focused on struggles among rival Sumerian city-states. With the rise of Akkad, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Elam are all integrated into one diplomatic and political system. Third, the Akkadian warlords introduced new policies of destroying the walls of conquered cities to eliminate their capacity to rebel, and of installing Akkadian governors in conquered cities rather than keeping the indigenous kings as vassals (R2:11–12), who presumably were supported by Akkadian garrisons. Thus, rather than trying to establish himself as hegemon over rival vassal kings who had been defeated, Sargon deposed those kings and took direct rule over an empire administered by appointed governors.

The origins of the Akkadian empire are obscured by lack of sources, and by many late legendary accounts. The site of Sargon's capital at Akkad is unknown, although there is a general consensus that it was probably located in the region of modern Baghdad at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates (EA 1:41–4). The eventual discovery of this site may produce additional information about the Akkadian Empire from tablets and monuments. Before the rise of Sargon, Akkad had never played an important political or military role in Mesopotamia.

Sargon (Sharrukin) {2334–2279}²

Interpreting the military career of Sargon is complicated both because most of his inscriptions lack chronological data, and because of the large number of legends which grew up about him, making it sometimes difficult to distinguish between history and legend. In this section I will mainly use contemporary sources written during the lifetime of Sargon or his immediate successors.

If the later legends are to be believed, Sargon was a usurper of the throne. He began his career as the dependent ruler of Akkad under the hegemony of his overlord Ur-Zababa, king of Kish, whom legend claims he served as cup-bearer (KS 330). He may have been installed as governor of Akkad by Ur-Zababa. In his early reign³ he rebelled against Ur-Zababa, perhaps after the latter had been weakened and his authority undermined in wars with Lugalzagesi of Uruk. Sargon successfully secured his independence, defeating several subsequent rulers of Kish during his early reign, and finally conquering the city of Kish itself. This early phase of his career, centering on the struggle with Kish for independence and predominance in central Mesopotamia, apparently lasted from 2334 to around 2320.

With his position in Akkad and central Mesopotamia finally secure, Sargon faced an even greater challenge. While Sargon was struggling with Kish, Lugalzagesi of Uruk had risen to prominence in Sumer and even campaigned up the Euphrates and Tigris (see pp. 64–6). It seems likely that, during some part of Sargon's early reign, he was in some sense a vassal of Lugalzagesi – though the royal inscriptions of Sargon would of course never admit such a thing. Sargon's conquest of Kish was probably viewed by Lugalzagesi as an upstart vassal taking too much power. War broke out (R2:9–22, 31), and at the battle of Uruk {c. 2316}, Sargon defeated the army of Uruk, including “fifty governors” or vassal rulers of Lugalzagesi; one suspects that some of Lugalzagesi's vassals may have deserted him at a key moment in the battle, hoping his defeat would allow them independence, not realizing, of course, that Sargon was ultimately a greater threat to their independence than Lugalzagesi. Sargon claims to have personally captured the aging king Lugalzagesi (R2:16, 21), and to have led him captive in triumph to the Gate of Enlil at Akkad.

Sargon, king of Akkad, steward of the goddess Ishtar, king of the world, anointed priest of the god Anum, lord of the land, governor [on earth] for the god Enlil, was victorious over Uruk in battle, conquered fifty governors [of Lugalzagesi] with the [divine] mace of the god Ilaba, as well as the city of Uruk, and destroyed [Uruk's] walls. Further, he captured Lugalzagesi, king of Uruk, in battle [and] led him off to the gate of the god Enlil in a neck stock.

(R2:13)⁴

Sargon forced his royal captive to watch the erection of a victory stele (R2:15); Lugalzagesi's ultimate fate is uncertain, but presumably he was executed, as was the Akkadian custom with captured kings: Naram-Sin “captured three kings and brought [them] before the god Enlil”, after which they were apparently executed. Other captured kings were marched through cities in triumph, after which they were executed “before the gods” in their temples (R2:112, 138, 222).

Following his victory over Uruk, Sargon faced a new challenge. The Sumerian vassal rulers had asserted their independence after the fall of their overlord Lugalzagesi to Sargon, requiring him to undertake at least four additional campaigns in Sumer to secure Lugalzagesi's entire former domain (R2:10–15).

Sargon, king of Akkad, was victorious over Ur in battle, conquered the city and destroyed its walls. He conquered Eninmar, destroyed its walls, and conquered its districts and Lagash as far as the sea [Persian Gulf]. He washed his weapons in the sea. He was victorious over Umma in battle, conquered the city, and destroyed its walls.

(R2:14)

The important after-battle ritual washing of weapons was designed to cleanse them of blood and purify them (HTO 243). When inscriptions describe Sargon's weapons being washed “in the Upper and Lower Seas” (the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf) (R2:11, 32, 97), it was meant to indicate that Sargon had reached the end of the world, and could therefore ritually cleanse his weapons, since there was nothing left to conquer (R2:11, 14, 17).

The destruction of the walls of conquered cities, while not unknown before, became a standard policy under Sargon. Presumably the city walls were not entirely destroyed, but were left with major breaches or without gates, rendering them indefensible and thereby making rebellion a very dubious proposition. The fact that so many cities in the Akkadian empire repeatedly rebelled despite their ruined city walls is an indicator of the great hatred the conquered people had for their Akkadian overlords. A related policy undertaken by Sargon was to install loyal Akkadians as governors of conquered cities rather than allowing conquered kings to remain as vassal rulers: “from the Lower Sea to the Upper Sea citizens of Akkad held the governorship [of conquered cities]” (R2:14). Sargon is also sometime credited with creating the world's first standing army, based on one of his inscriptions where he claims “5400 men daily eat in the presence of Sargon” (R2:29). This passage probably has reference to Sargon's palace establishment rather than an actual standing army, and references to ration distribution to ministers, scribes, priests, courtiers, and perhaps even servants at the palace of Akkad. It is quite likely that a portion of those 5400 men were in fact the Royal Bodyguard who formed a permanent standing army.

The exact chronological order of his subsequent conquests is uncertain, though we can identify four regions where Sargon campaigned: Elam, Subartu (northern Tigris), Syria, and perhaps south-central Anatolia. With Sumer secure, Sargon turned towards a traditional enemy of Mesopotamia, Elam, in south-western Iran.⁵ His inscriptions describe thirteen cities or regions which he defeated and plundered, along with capturing a number of governors and generals, including both “Khishibrasini, king of Elam” and his son Lukh'ish'an. A victory stele erected at Susa shows Sargon, with thick beard and long hair tied in a braided bun at his neck, leading prisoners and booty in triumph after his capture of the city.⁶ Elam was apparently not permanently subdued, however, for Sargon's son Rimish was compelled to campaign there again (see pp. 78–80).

Sargon also campaigned into northern Mesopotamia (C1/2:430–2). A vague tradition records his victories in Subartu (northern Tigris), where he “defeated them, cast [their dead bodies] in heaps [of burial mounds], and overthrew their widespread host” (C1/2:430). Nineveh and Ashur, the homeland of the Assyrians, were clearly ruled by Sargon's successors, and presumably were conquered at this time. The practice of piling the corpses of dead enemies and burying them on the battlefield is noted in the inscriptions, which seems to have served both as a religious ritual, and as a victory monument reminding would-be rebels of the price of defeat (R2:53, 56, 129, 144). For example, “when [Shulgi] destroyed the land of Kimash and Hurtum, he dug a ditch and heaped up a pile of corpses” (R3/2:141; E4:387).

Sargon's campaigns up the Euphrates are more clearly documented in his own inscriptions (R2:12, 15, 28–31). Sargon began his campaign by seeking authorization from the gods for his proposed conquest of Syria. At the city of Tuttul in the middle Euphrates …

Sargon, the king, bowed down to the god Dagan in [his temple in the city of] Tuttul [seeking oracular confirmation for his plan to conquer Syria]. He [the god Dagan, through an oracular pronouncement] gave to him [Sargon] the Upper Land [Syria], [including the cities of] Mari, Yarmuti, and Elba as far as the Cedar Forest [of Lebanon] and the Silver [Taurus] Mountains.

(R2:28–9)

Archaeological evidence shows destructions of Mari and Ebla at this period, probably by the invasion of either Sargon or his grandson Naram-Sin (AS 277–9).

There are also later legendary sources which claim that Sargon invaded south-central Anatolia and attacked Purushkhanda, in defense of Mesopotamian merchants who were being abused by local rulers. There is no confirmation of this campaign in contemporary Akkadian sources, but it is not inherently implausible, since Anatolia was an important source of silver for Mesopotamia, and would therefore have been an attractive source of plunder for Sargon (C1/2:426–9).

Overall, Sargon was clearly the greatest Mesopotamian conqueror before the Assyrian period some 1500 years later. In military terms his achievements are remarkable:

Sargon, king of the world, was victorious in thirty-four battles. He destroyed the [city] walls [of his enemies] as far as the shore of [both] the seas. He moored the ships of Meluhha [Indus Valley], Magan [Oman], and Dilmun [Bahrain] at the quay of Akkad. … 5,400 men daily eat in the presence of Sargon. (R2:28–29) … He [the god Enlil] gave to Sargon [all the land from] the Upper Sea [to] the Lower [Sea]. Sargon [became] king of the [entire] world.

(R2:32)

He created the largest empire the world had yet known, stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, and encompassing most of modern Iraq and Syria, and over twice the size in population and land of contemporary Egypt.⁷ From another perspective, however, Sargon's empire was what we would call today a humanitarian disaster, for “the god Enlil instructed [Sargon to conquer the world] and he showed mercy to no one” (R2:32). This merciless feature of Sargon's conquests, imitated by all his successors, fomented widespread hatred for Akkadian rulers, creating a constant underlying threat of rebellion. When the great warlord finally died, his entire empire rose in revolt, only to be further suppressed by mass devastation by his son Rimush (see pp. 78–80).

Sargon as the ideal warrior-king (LKA 51–139)

The reality of Sargon the Warlord as unifier of Mesopotamia was amplified by subsequent generations. For later Mesopotamians Sargon served as the exemplar of the conquering warlord, a mythic role similar to Alexander's or Caesar's in Europe – two subsequent kings of Assyria took his name. In the past few decades scholars have been able to reconstruct the legendary account of the life of Sargon. Although the historical value of these texts for understanding Sargon's historic reign is limited – rather like the Alexander Romance in relation to the historic Alexander – the legends are useful to illuminate the warrior mentality of the age. Although these literary texts cannot necessarily be viewed as reliable history, they do provide narrative detail of a typical military campaign that is often lacking in the terse and propagandistic royal inscriptions.

Sargon is described as ever eager for war: “Sargon girds his loins with his terrible weapons. In the palace, Sargon opens his mouth. Speaking to his warriors he declares: ‘My warriors! With [the land of] Kanish I desire war!’ ” (LKA 109–11). Sargon recognizes the logistical and intelligence problems facing his army in campaigning far from Akkad. When his advisors warn him, “The road, O my Lord, that you wish to travel – it is month-long, it is dangerous” (LKA 111–13), Sargon summons merchants “who spy out the regions” to provide him with intelligence to properly plan for the march (LKA 115–21).

On the eve of battle, Sargon is depicted as giving a speech to his assembled warriors, admiring their “courage, strength, vigor [and] heroism” (LKA 63). His warriors are compared to “strong bulls” (LKA 67). His champion responds, “Tomorrow, Akkad will commence battle. A festival of warriors will be celebrated” (LKA 63). The army is encouraged to act bravely “so the king [Sargon] will proclaim you ‘My Warrior’ and erect your statue in front of his own statue” (LKA 66–7). “My Warrior” may have been a technical term for personal guards. The reference here to making monuments commemorating the bravest warriors on campaign may mean that some soldiers depicted along with the king on Akkadian monuments may represent actual individuals. The soldiers are described as wearing fine robes adorned with gold (LKA 67–9), perhaps like those depicted on the Alabaster Victory Stele (AM §119; AFC §131). These may be robes of honor given as another type of reward for heroic soldiers.

Sacrifices, prayers, and divination preceded and followed battle.⁸ Armies are divided into center lines and two flanks (LKA 87, 181), and the troops are divided into battalions (kisri) (LKA 65), armed with “maces and copper battleaxes” (LKA 137). Sargon naturally fights in the front ranks (HTO 244–5), and is compared to a lion in battle: “Was it not because of his frightening radiance and his bellowing roar that no one dared to approach him? I, Sargon, am your raging lion … When there is combat, invoke my name!” (LKA 99–101). This may be an allusion to shouting the king's name as a battle-cry. On another occasion the men shout “Charge, man against man!” (HTO 37) to launch an attack.

Even after the battle is won, the enemy's capital must be besieged to win the final victory. Some narrative details of siegecraft are provided:

Sargon undermined [the walls of] the city, broadened the Gate of the Princes, [he made a breach] two iku [c. 120 meters] wide. He cast it down; in the highest part of its wall he made a breach; he smote all of his wine-intoxicated men. Sargon placed his throne before the gate. Sargon opens his mouth, speaking to his warriors. He declares, “Come on! Nur-Daggal [the enemy king] … Let him stir himself!Let him humble himself! Let me behold [him surrender].”

(LKA 123–5)

With his city walls undermined, Nur-Daggal panics and surrenders, negating the need for an assault into the breach. In victory the Akkadian army strips the countryside of both humans and animals, leaving the conquered city a heap of ruins depopulated for miles around (LKA 71–3, 91).

Rimush {2278–2270}⁹

Even during Sargon's lifetime, there were hints of rebellion among the conquered peoples of Mesopotamia (R2:30; C1/2:433). It is clear there was substantial dissatisfaction with Akkadian rule, and upon Sargon's death most of the empire rose in revolt. Sargon's son and successor Rimush probably spent most of his short reign trying to keep his empire in one piece. It is difficult to obtain an accurate picture of the extent and success of these rebellions, since they are only mentioned in the Akkadian annals after they have been suppressed; successful rebellions are never discussed.

Rimush recorded a lengthy inscription in which he details his suppression of these rebellions. His inscription, however, is highly formulaic, repeating over and over that a city revolted, Rimush defeated it, killed and captured a certain number of men, captured the rebel leaders, and destroyed the walls of the rebellious city. Here is an example:

Rimush, king of the world, was victorious over Adab and Zabala in battle and struck down 15,718 men. He took 14,576 captives. Further, he captured Meskigala, governor at Adab, and Lugalgalzu, governor of Zabala. He conquered their two cities and destroyed the walls of both of them. Further, he expelled many men from their two cities and annihilated them.

(R2:41)

After six campaigns, Rimush had apparently suppressed the rebellion, concluding that, like his father, he “[was] king of the [entire] world – the god Enlil did indeed grant kingship to him. … He took away their tribute [from defeated enemies from] as far as the Lower Sea [Persian Gulf]” (R2:46).

The inscriptions of Rimush introduce a new element into Akkadian military practice: mass slaughter, enslavement, and deportation of defeated enemies, and the total annihilation of their cities (R2:42, 44, 46, 48). The policy was that, if a city rebelled against the king of Akkad, that city should be utterly destroyed as a warning to others contemplating revolt. Rebellion against the king was tantamount to rebellion against the gods. Table 3.1 summarizes the casualty reports from Rimush's inscriptions, emphasizing the widespread human suffering caused by Akkadian imperialism.

The names of a number of important captured aristocrats are also given, including Kaku, king of Ur (R2:46–7). Since Ur had been previously captured by Sargon, this would indicate either that he had left Kaku as vassal prince of Ur, or that Kaku restored kingship in Ur as part of the rebellion. Other cities in Sumer are described as being ruled by rebellious “governors” (ensi). To the extent that the figures given by Rimush are not pure fabrications – he repeatedly insists “by the gods Shamash and Ilaba I swear that [these] are not falsehoods, [but] are indeed true”, perhaps protesting too much (R2:49, 54, 57–8) – these numbers undoubtedly represent casualties among the entire civilian population of the defeated cities, rather than just numbers of soldiers.¹⁰ If so, they represent the first evidence for a new policy of mass destruction as punishment for rebellion, one which will endure for several thousand years in the Near East, bearing terrible fruit under the Assyrians and Babylonians, and which continues to be practiced by some modern Middle Eastern tyrants who, like the ancient Akkadians, rule with blood and horror upon the earth.

Having solidified his rule, Rimush launched a campaign against Parahshum in Elam, winning a great victory at the battle of the Middle River {c. 2273}, for which we have a detailed description (PAE 103–6; ME 100–2).

Rimush, king of the world, was victorious in battle over Abalgamash, king of Parahshum. Zahara, Elam, [Gupin, and Meluhha,]¹¹ had assembled in Parahshum for battle, but he [Rimush] was victorious [over them] and struck down 16,212 men [and] took 4,216 captives. Further, he captured Emahsini, king of Elam, and all the [nobles?] of Elam. Further, he captured Sidga'u, general of Parahshum, and Sargapi, general of Zahara, in between [the cities of] Awan and Susa, by the “Middle River”. Further, he heaped up over them a burial mound in the area of the city. Further, he conquered the cities of Elam, destroyed their walls, and tore out the foundations of Parahshum from the land of Elam. [Thereby] Rimush, king of the world, ruled Elam. The god Enlil showed him [the way to victory] … When he conquered Elam and Parahshum, he took away 30 minas [roughly a pound each] of gold, 3,600 minas of copper and 300 male and female slaves and dedicated [them] to the god Enlil.

(R2:52–5)

Table 3.1 Summary of enemy casualties from Rimush's campaigns
City	Killed	Captured	Expelled	Source
Adab and Zabala	15,718	14,576	–	R2:41
Umma and KI.AN	8900	3540	3600	R2:43–4
Ur and Lagash	8049	5460	5985	R2:45–6
Three battles in Sumer	11,322	–	14,100	R2:47–8
Kazallu	12,052	5862	–	R2:48, 51
Parakhshum (Elam)	16,212	4216	–	R2:52

An interesting element of this inscription is the reference to troops from Meluhha – the Indus Valley civilization – serving in the anti-Akkadian coalition at the battle of the Middle River.¹² Rimush saw this victory as definitive for his reign, describing himself in later inscriptions as “Rimush, king of the [entire] world: the god Enlil gave to him all the land. He holds the Upper Sea and the Lower Sea and all the mountain [lands] for the god Enlil” (R2:59). Overall Rimush managed to keep much of the Akkadian empire together after significant rebellions, and solidified Akkadian power in Elam.

Manishtusu {2269–2255}¹³

According to later legend, Manishtusu usurped the throne after the murder of his brother in a palace coup; certainly Rimush's reign was rather short. As was usual at Akkadian succession, his reign began with a general uprising of most conquered provinces, which was probably an extension of the revolts against his predecessor Rimush: “all the lands … which my father Sargon left had in enmity revolted against me [Manishtusu] and not one stood fast” (C1/2:437–8). There is no account of his suppression of this revolt, but he apparently maintained control over most of the empire. An inscription from Ashur indicates that the local ruler Azuzu recognized Manishtusu as his overlord (A1:8).

The military affairs of Manishtusu's reign are poorly documented. His single martial inscription alludes to two great campaigns:

Manishtusu, king of the world: when he conquered Anshan and Shirihum [in south-west Iran], had … ships cross the Lower Sea [Persian Gulf]. The cities across the Sea, thirty-two [in number], assembled for battle, but he was victorious [over them]. Further, he conquered their cities, struck down their rulers, and after he roused them [his troops] plundered as far as the Silver Mines. He quarried the black stone of the mountains across the Lower Sea, loaded [it] on ships, and moored [the ships] at the quay of Akkad. He fashioned a statue of himself [and] dedicated [it] to the god Enlil

(R2:75–6).

Here we see a first campaign into eastern Elam, solidifying and even expanding the conquests of his brother in that region. (Anshan is Tal-i Malyan near modern Shiraz, while Shirihum is the area west of modern Bandar Abbas.) Thereafter, he launched a major maritime campaign “across the Lower Sea”, or the Persian Gulf. The specific target of this offensive is not named, but there are three lands generally reached via the Persian Gulf during this period: Dilmun (Bahrain), Magan (Oman) and Meluhha (Indus delta). Most scholars assume it to be Oman, since it is a source of the “black stone” which is probably diorite (R2:117). None of the three regions can be excluded, however. Given the mention of a Melluhan contingent allied with the Elamites at the earlier battle of the Middle River against Rimush, it is possible that Manishtusu's expedition included a punitive raid on the Indus delta as well. The ability of the Akkadians to launch a successful maritime expedition in the Persian Gulf in the twenty-third century BC indicates a fairly sophisticated level of administration and logistics, as well as ocean-going naval technology. Manishtusu's ocean campaign (c. 2260) comes almost a century after Weni's maritime campaign against Canaan (c. 2340) (see pp. 336–40); together these events represent the beginning of recorded naval warfare.

Naram-Sin {2255–2218}¹⁴

After his grandfather Sargon, Naram-Sin was the greatest of the Akkadian warlords. The widespread use of terror and massacre by his uncle Rimush to suppress revolts had done little to endear the people of Mesopotamia to their Akkadian rulers, and Naram-Sin's rule was likewise inaugurated with a massive revolt.¹⁵

When the four quarters [i.e. the entire world] together revolted against him, [which] no king whosoever had [ever] seen [before]: when Naram-Sin, the mighty, [was] on a mission for the goddess Ishtar, all the four quarters together revolted against him and confronted [him] (R2:96)…. Through the love which the goddess Ishtar showed him, he was victorious in nine battles in one year, and the [three] kings whom [the rebels] had raised [against him], he captured.

(R2:113)

Of course the suppression of the rebellion was not nearly as straightforward as Naram-Sin wanted to make it seem. The exact order of the different phases of the rebellion and its suppression cannot be established, since the inscriptions lack a chronology. None the less, it is clear that the rebellions nearly toppled the empire.

As the rebellion began, the newly independent city-states elevated anti-Akkadian rulers as new kings, and organized large coalitions to oppose Naram-Sin. Akkad's old rival Kish rebelled under Iphur-Kish, rallying half-a-dozen cities to his cause, enlisting the aid of Amorite bedouins (shadu) (R2:104, 109), serving as an ominous precursor to the Amorite invasion and migration into Mesopotamia in subsequent decades (see pp. 157–9). As leader of the rebel coalition, Iphur-Kish mustered his force and marched toward Akkad, where “he drew up battle lines [before the city] and awaited battle” at the “Field of the God Sin” (R2:104).

With a rebel army at the gates of Akkad, Naram-Sin was seriously threatened: “Naram-Sin, the mighty, [mobilized] his young men there [in Akkad], and he held Akkad. He closed [the city gates]” against Iphur-Kish (R2:104–5; LKA 255–7). Rather than face a lengthy siege, which would only give other cities the opportunity and motive to join the rebellion, Naram-Sin mustered his army and immediately attacked Iphur-Kish. “In the field of the god Sin the two of them engaged in battle and grappled with each other. By the verdict of the goddess Ishtar-Annunitum, Naram-Sin, the mighty, was victorious over the Kishite [Iphur-Kish] in battle at Tiwa”, capturing “300 officers and 4932 captives” (R2:105–6). Thereafter Naram-Sin pursued the routed rebels:

Further, he [Naram-Sin] pursued him [Iphur-Kish] to Kish, and right beside Kish, at the gate of the goddess Ninkarrak, the two of them engaged in battle for a second time, and grappled with each other. By the verdict of the goddess Annuntium and the god Anum, Naram-Sin, the mighty, was [again] victorious over the Kishite in battle at Kish.

(R2:106)

Another 3015 men were captured in battle, and the city and its walls were destroyed.¹⁶

The immediate threat to Akkad was thus averted, but unfortunately for Naram-Sin, rebellion spread rapidly throughout Sumer. Ur and Uruk had joined Iphur-Kish's coalition (R2:109), but, because of Naram-Sin's swift response and victory, they were apparently unable to arrive with their armies in time to face Naram-Sin in the initial battles. After the fall of Kish, rebellion continued in southern Sumer under the leadership of Amar-Girid of Uruk, who formed an alliance with nearly all the Sumerian city-states including Ur, Lagash, Umma, Adab, Shuruppak, Isin, and Nippur (R2:107). Amar-Girid “drew up battle lines” near Ashnak (R2:108). Wasting no time, Naram-Sin “hastened” to successfully attack Amar-Girid (R2:108), thereby apparently crushing the rebellion in Sumer. In all, Naram-Sin was victorious in nine battles in a single year {2255}, capturing three of the rebel kings (R2:113, 115–17; LKA 260–1). By any military standard it was a remarkable victory.

In grateful recognition for the divine intervention that preserved Naram-Sin's rule and saved city of Akkad, the people of Akkad spontaneously prayed that the gods might accept Naram-Sin as one of their own – at least if you believe Naram-Sin's account:

In view of the fact that [Naram-Sin] protected the foundations of his city [Akkad] from danger, [the citizens of] his city requested from [the following gods] – Ishtar in [the temple of] Eanna, Enlil in Nippur, Dagan in Tuttul, Ninhursag in Kes, Ea in Eridu, Sin in Ur, Shamash in Sippar, (and) Nergal in Kutha – that [Naram-Sin] be [made] the god of their city, and they built within Akkad a temple [dedicated] to him [as a god].

(R2:114)

Thereafter Naram-Sin took the title “king of the four quarters”, meaning the entire world, and was frequently called the “god of Akkad” (C1/2:440). As with Alexander the Great, it is impossible to determine whether this self-deification was megalomania, shrewd propaganda, or a sincere religious belief – or, most likely, a combination of all three.

The rebellion against Akkadian rule was not limited to Sumer, however; city-states in northern Mesopotamia (Subartum) revolted as well. Naram-Sin apparently undertook two campaigns in this region.¹⁷ The first, up the Tigris river valley, is poorly documented (R2:125–30). He claims to have “smashed the weapon of all of [the land of] Subartum” and to have conquered “fourteen fortresses” (R2:141–3); Naram-Sin boasts of having “reached the source of the Tigris River and the source of the Euphrates River” during his campaigns (R2:140).

With the Tigris Valley subdued, Naram-Sin turned his attention to the Euphrates, where the revolt was galvanized under the leadership of the lord of Apishal, swearing to fight Naram-Sin “whether I die or keep myself alive” (R2:91, 141).¹⁸ One inscription gives us a feel for the nature of Naram-Sin's campaign and an itinerary of his march against this northern rebellion (cf. R2:125). The rebels mustered their troops and marched to the battle of Mt. Bashar (Jebel Bishri on the west bank of the Euphrates in Syria):

Naram-Sin, went from Ashimananum to Shishil. At Shishil he crossed the Tigris River and [went] from Shishil to the [east] bank of the Euphrates River. He crossed the Euphrates River and [went] to [Mount] Bashar, the Amorite mountain…. He [Naram-Sin] marched to Habshat. Naram-Sin, [going] from the Euphates River, reached Bashar, the Amorite mountain. He personally decided to fight: [the two armies] made battle and fought one another. By the verdict of the goddess Ishtar, Naram-Sin, the mighty, was victorious in battle over Apishal at [Mount] Bashar, the Amorite mountain…. He struck down in the campaign a total of 9 chiefs and 4,325 men. Naram-Sin, the mighty captured [?] captives and the king of Apishal…. [He captured] leaders and chiefs, as well as 5,580 captives. [Enemy casualty list for this campaign]: Total: 6 generals. Total: 17 governors. Total: 78 chiefs. Total: [?] captains…. [Grand] total: [?] kings. [Grand] total: 13 generals. [Grand] total: 23 governors. Grand total: 2,212 chiefs. Grand total: 137,400 men [including civilian casualties?]. The god Enlil showed [him the way and] Naram-Sin, the mighty, struck down as many as there were in the campaign, and captured [them].

(R2:91–4)

Despite the probable hyperbole in the total of 137,400 casualties he claims to have inflicted on his enemies, this inscription makes clear the magnitude of the opposition to Naram-Sin, with over two dozen city-states allied against him, together with the Amorite tribesmen from the Syrian Desert (R2:93).

His subjugation of the rebellion in the northern Euphrates left him in a position to undertake further campaigns into Syria (R2:163, 167). Naram-Sin's inscription describing his conquest of Armanum (Aleppo?) and Ebla contains the most important description of fortifications and siegecraft for this period.¹⁹

Whereas, for all time since the creation of mankind, no king whosoever had destroyed Armanum [Aleppo?] and Ebla, the god Nergal, by the means of [his divine] weapons opened the way for Naram-Sin, the mighty, and gave him Armanum and Ebla [through conquest]. Further, he gave to him [by conquest] the Amanus [Mountains], the Cedar Mountain, and the Upper Sea. By means of the [divine] weapons of the god Dagan, who magnifies his kingship, Naram-Sin, the mighty, conquered Armanum and Ebla. Further, from the [west] side of the Euphrates River as far as [the city of] Ulishum, he smote the people whom the god Dagan had given to him for the first time, so that they perform service for the god Ilaba, his god. Further, he totally [conquered] the Amanus, the Cedar Mountain

(RS2:163, 167).

The regions described here are all in western Syria. The Amanus Mountains are the range north-west of modern Antioch, while the Cedar Mountain is in modern coastal Syria or Lebanon. From central Syria Naram-Sin marched to the Mediterranean Sea and to “Talkhatum”, apparently in south-central Anatolia (C1/2:442–3). At least large portions of Syria were incorporated into the Akkadian empire, with Nagar (Tell Brak) in northern Mesopotamia becoming the main Akkadian administrative center, flourishing during this period (AS 279–80).

With Syria subdued and his conquests extended to the “Upper Sea” or the Mediterranean, Naram-Sin turned his attention to the Akkadian overseas domain in the Persian Gulf, which had been established by his father Manishtusu. His army “crossed the [Lower] Sea and conquered Magan [Oman], in the midst of the sea”, capturing its ruler Manium (R2:97, 117, 138, 140, 163). Naram-Sin also attacked Elam and Parahshum in south-western Iran, but these campaigns are poorly documented (R2:130, 167; PAE 106–8; ME 105–16). There is archaeological evidence of direct Akkadian rule in Elam in the form of victory monuments and other Akkadian artifacts.

Ominously, the inscriptions of Naram-Sin include a vague reference to “smiting the people and all the [Zagros] Mountain Lands for the god Enlil” (R2:138, 140). Mountain Peoples, or highlanders (shadu) is a somewhat vague term, but is generally understood to refer to fierce mountain tribes of the Zagros Mountains. Evidence of direct Akkadian rule in part of the central Zagros is found in copper and stone votive maceheads which were discovered in the area (ME 112). Most importantly, the famous Victory Stele of Naram-Sin describes a punitive campaign against the highlander tribal confederation of the Lullubu in the central Zagros (AANE §49; Figure 3): “Satuni, the king of the the highlanders of Lullubum assembled together … [for] battle. … [Naram-Sin] heaped up a burial mound over them … [and] dedicated [this object, the stele] to the god [who granted victory]” (R2:144). The Lullubu highlanders who “assembled together” to attack Akkad were an ominous precursor to the invasion of Akkadian empire by Gutian highlanders within a few years after Naram-Sin's death (see pp. 102–4).

The “Victory Stele” of Naram-Sin, Akkadian {c. 2230} Source: Louvre, Sb 4; drawing by Michael Lyon.

Akkadian martial art

Given the warlike nature of the Akkadian kings, the fact that we have only nine surviving pieces of Akkadian monumental martial art – all but two of them fragmentary – clearly emphasizes the point that we are at the mercy of random chance for both survival and discovery of our evidence for ancient Near East military history. I will examine each of these pieces here for the insights they can give us into Akkadian military history.

· Victory Stele of Sargon (Susa).²⁰ King Sargon, identified by an inscription, is shown in procession with soldiers and prisoners (AM §115). This badly damaged stele, which is a small fragment of a much larger original relief that probably included item 1b below, consists of only half of two panels. The upper panel shows a row of naked prisoners with their arms bound behind them at the wrist. The lower, more important panel shows Sargon leading a victory procession. Sargon is dressed in a robe, with his long hair and beard precisely matching the famous bronze bust of an Akkadian ruler (9, below). He may have a dagger in his belt. Two characteristics of the stele make it slightly possible that Sargon is riding in a war-cart. First, there is a triangle of damaged rough stone in front of Sargon, about waist high. It is in high relief, and if Sargon were walking one would expect this portion of the panel to be in low relief, as is the rest of the background on the stele. This piece of the stele is in the rough shape of the upper front of a two-wheeled war-cart from the period (see WV §8, §13, §17, §18, §31), but is too damaged to see any confirming details. Something is there, which has the vague shape of a war-cart; if it is not a war-cart, what is it? Second, Sargon is taller than the rest of his soldiers; this may be because of the widespread tradition in Near Eastern martial art of representing the king as larger than ordinary mortals, but may also be because he is standing on a war-cart. The bottom and front part of image that would have shown the wheels and equids are both missing. Sargon is followed by a courtier carrying either a standard, a banner, or perhaps a parasol. Behind march five soldiers with long pleated robes on their left shoulders and carrying large Akkadian battle-axes.²¹

· The Prisoner Stele of Sargon (Susa). This shows prisoners led by an Akkadian soldier with an axe (AFC §127).²² This is likely, but not certainly, a different piece of stele 1a. It shows an Akkadian soldier in a kilt with a broad-headed battle-axe escorting naked prisoners with their arms bound behind their backs at the wrist.

· The War-net stele of Sargon (Susa) (AAM §126–7; AFC 193). This highly fragmentary relief shows a war-net scene based on iconography quite similar to Ningirsu's war-net on the Stele of the Vultures (see pp. 55–9). Here Sargon holds a net in which a dozen enemy prisoners are ensnared. As with Ningir-su's net, one prisoner is trying to escape and is being bashed on the head by Sargon's mace. Sargon is presenting the net to the war goddess Ishtar (Sumerian Inana) who is seated on her throne. All we see is her skirt, and a mace over her shoulder (presumably in a quiver on her back), which iconographically point to Ishtar.

· Stele of Rimush (two sides) (from Telloh) (AFC §129a–b; Figure 5e, p. 219).²³ All that survives of this stele is one triangular fragment with reliefs on both sides. Parts of three panels of war-scenes are shown on either side. On side one, the upper panel depicts two archers with their tasseled quivers on their backs, and vague outlines of bows; they are very similar to an archer from an Akkadian cylinder seal (AFC §139). The second panel of side one shows an archer with a drawn bow. In front of him, a soldier with an axe dispatches a naked enemy. The third panel shows a man wielding his pike with two hands, stabbing a fallen enemy who is missing from the fragment. The second side, panel one, shows a soldier carrying a large axe. On the second panel, a soldier dispatches a kneeling man pleading for his life. Behind him, a soldier with a long 2.5–meter pike escorts a prisoner. This man's marching stance with his pike is very similar to that in the Victory Stele of Naram-sin (4). On the feet just below the pikeman is the head of an archer with the top of his bow visible. Taken together we see four archers, three axemen and two pikemen.

· Victory Stele of Naram-Sin (AANE §49; Figure 3). The the most famous Akkadian martial monument,²⁴ this stele shows the king and his army ascending into the Zagros Mountains and defeating the Lullubu highlanders. This scene is the first in the history of Mesopotamian martial art to attempt to depict the natural terrain of the battlefield in a single scene rather than in stylized panels. The terrain shows a number of ridges covered with trees and a high mountain peak in the background. The inscription reads in part, “Satuni, the king of the highlanders of Lullubum assembled together … [for] battle…. [Naram-Sin defeated them and] heaped up a burial mound over them … [and] dedicated [this object, the stele] to the god [who granted victory]” (R2:144). The Lullubu soldiers, with their distinctive long braided ponytails, are shown in an utter rout. Several lie dead; one has an arrow or javelin protruding from his neck. Another falls from the mountain. Two more run away, one with a broken pike. The Lullubi king Satuni stands before Naram-Sin, begging for his life. The Akkadian army, on the other hand, marches boldly forward in good order. All six of the Akkadian soldiers wear kilts and helmets, broadly similar to those shown in the earlier Sumerian Standard of Ur and Stele of the Vultures (Figure 2). They all also have narrow-bladed axes for melees. Two carry war banners, two hold 2.5–meter pikes at the butt, resting the shaft on the shoulder like a rifle on the parade-ground. The fifth Akkadian has a bow, while the sixth seems to have an axe. The heroic Naram-Sin leads his army into battle on the crest of the mountain, standing twice as tall as anyone else, and stepping on the bodies of fallen enemies. He has a similar kilt, but has a thick beard and long hair, and wears a horned crown symbolic of his divinity. In his hand he carries an axe, a bow, and an arrow. His bow is often said to be the earliest representation of a composite bow, an issue that will be discussed below (pp. 89–95).

· Darband-i-Gawr rock cut relief of Naram-sin (AAM §157; Figure 5d, p. 218). This gives a different version of the events depicted on Naram-Sin's victory stele (4). The king is shown in precisely the same martial pose, striding forward to victory carrying a bow and a mace or axe. Beneath him are the fallen bodies of the dead Lullubu highlanders, again with long braided ponytails.

· Royal Stele of Naram-Sin (from Pir-Hussein), (AFC §130).²⁵ This stele shows the king in courtly robes in a ritual pose. In each hand he holds the haft of a weapon, probably an axe or a mace; unfortunately, the heads of both weapons are missing.

· Alabaster Victory Stele (from Nasiriyya). The three fragments show a triumph scene of yoked prisoners and booty with an armed Akkadian escort.²⁶ Fragment A (left, AM §119), shows two Akkadian soldiers bearing booty, including two nicely rendered bronze daggers in leather sheaths and belts. The Akkadian solider wears a long kilt with a sash-like fringed robe over his shoulder, and a helmet/cap with stripes, either striations on metal, or colored bands. The solider has a broad-headed axe thrust in his belt. A comparison with the dress of soldiers in combat leads me to suspect that this is the court dress of the bodyguard, rather than combat dress. Fragment B (center, AM §136), shows a line of naked prisoners with their arms bound behind them at the elbows, yoked together at the neck with long poles. The middle soldier has a beard and a long braided ponytail similar to the Lullabi soldiers on the Naram-Sin Victory Stele (4; see also 8). Fragment C (right, AFC §131) shows an Akkadian guardsman wearing the same robes and helmet as the soldier in Fragment A. He holds a broad-headed battle-axe which is nicely rendered, showing the details of the blade and how it was riveted to the haft. Above him are the feet of another guardsman with what appears to be the spiked-shape head of a spear pointing downward.

· Vase. This shows a bound highlander captive, with long beard and braided hair similar to that of the Lullubu (SDA 190–1; AANE §367), and the prisoners in 4 and 7.

· Cast bronze bust of Sargon or Naram-Sin. Technically not a piece of martial art, this is however the most striking example of royal iconography, and shows details of how the hair of the king, and possibly other warriors, was braided and bound for combat.²⁷

Other sources of martial art

Akkadian period weapons included the mace, dagger, bow, javelin, narrow-headed axe, broad axe, spear, and pike, all of which are depicted on contemporary cylinder seals; several have surviving archaeological examples. Contest scenes depicting grappling with animals or mythical creatures may show ancient wrestling stances (FI §95–101 §703), and presumably Akkadian warriors were trained to fight without weapons. In other hand-to-hand combat the dagger is frequently used (FI §566, §876). A finely rendered and well preserved glyptic scene shows four armed men, one with bow, arrow, and quiver, one with javelin, and two with small narrow-headed axes (AFC §139, §150; FI §641). The two-handed long spear or pike makes a frequent appearance in Akkadian art. In one scene two gods attack a seven-headed monster with longs spear held overhand with both hands (FI §840).

The mace is actually the most frequently represented weapon in Akkadian cylinder seals, but it appears mainly in mythical scenes of combat between heroes, monsters, and gods, where the mace is a primary weapon (FI §445, 516, §779, §849; AFC §143–4, §156–7; AM §113b). Sometimes maces appear in ritual poses, but other times they are used in combat (FI §126), where a broken mace shaft is a symbol of defeat (AFC §156; AM §113b). Some scenes show maces with handles roughly a meter long which would best be wielded with two hands (FI §103–5, §126, §896). One god holds two large maces, one in each hand (FI §896). The widespread presence of the mace in Akkadian glyptic art may be because of iconographic conservatism resulting in representing archaic weapons in mythical scenes, since the mace is rarely seen in actual combat scenes between humans. Thus, these mythic scenes may not tell us about real Akkadian weaponry, but they certainly show the importance of the mace in earlier times.

Mesopotamian archery and the Akkadian composite bow²⁸

In 1963 Yigael Yadin, in his magisterial study The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands,²⁹ argued that two Akkadian stelae depict “the very first representation of the composite bow in the history of ancient weapons”. He maintained that the Akkadian composite bow “explains … [how] the Akkadians were able to conquer and gain dominion over Mesopotamia…. It is indeed no exaggeration to suggest that the invention of the composite bow with its comparatively long range was as revolutionary, in its day, and brought comparable results, as the discovery of gunpowder thousands of years later” (AW 1:47–8). Yadin later included a then newly discovered archery scene from Mari as a third example of what he believed to be the composite bow in Akkadian times (Figure 5c, p. 218).³⁰ Since Yadin, many scholars have accepted this interpretation.³¹ The standard interpretation holds that, during the Akkadian period, the combination of the greater range and power of the composite bow, with the added penetrating power of bronze arrowheads, gave a decisive tactical advantage to Akkadian archers. Thus, the Akkadian conquests were due at least in part to the new technological innovation of the composite bow with bronze-tipped arrows.

In order properly to evaluate Yadin's argument, we need to re-examine the evidence for the development of Mesopotamian archery, some of which has been published since Yadin's book, and some of which Yadin did not consider. The crux of Yadin's argument for the development of the composite bow in the twenty-fourth century is based on an interpretation of three artistic depictions of the bow. As far as I can tell, no one has presented any archaeological or textual evidence for the composite bow before the Middle Bronze period. Yadin's argument, then, rests entirely on the iconographic interpretation of these three pieces of martial art. To properly interpret their significance, these depictions need to be placed in the broader context of Mesopotamian artistic representations of bows and archery.

The bow was known in the Neolithic Near East by at least 6000, and undoubtedly much earlier (EBD). Many figures depicted at Catal Hoyuk {c. 6000} use the bow (CH 171, §54, 61–4; xiii). Likewise Syrian pottery {sixth millennium}³² and Mesopotamian pottery {c. 4200} have examples of hunter/warriors with bows (AANE §186); these weapons seem to be simple wooden self bows. The bow is also well represented in Pre-Dynastic {3500–3000} Mesopotamian martial art. The Priest-king figure (see pp. 37–39) is shown using the bow for hunting and in a siege. The most famous archery scene is the Uruk lion-hunt,³³ in which the nocks of the bow are clearly recurved. However, this scene is not the most informative. Less well-know are cylinder seals showing the Priest-king hunting bulls using the same type of bow (Figure 5a, p. 218; AFC 23; FI §683), and in target practice (FI §682). In two siege scenes the Priest-king again uses the same bow (AFC 24; FI §743; PAE 68/2), which is also found in a mythological Early Dynastic hunting scene (FI §993). Burials at Susa in Elam from the early third millennium included copper arrowheads (PAE 95). All of these depictions seem to show the same type of bow. It is fairly large proportionally (c. 100 cm), going from above the head to the waist when drawn. It is also clearly recurved at the nocks or tips of the bow. The most pronounced recurvature is found on the Uruk lion-hunt stele, but every example shows some degree of recurvature at the nocks. My suspicion is that the Uruk stele artist was simply exaggerating the size of the nocks because of the difficulty of working in a basalt medium with only copper or stone carving tools.

While some have interpreted this Pre-Dynastic bow as composite (PAE 67), the most decisive argument against a Pre-Dynastic composite bow comes from a Pre-Dynastic cylinder seal showing an arms factory (Figure 5b, p. 218; FI §742). In this scene, five unstrung bows are shown. They are all essentially straight when unstrung, although they show a clear difference in thickness – thicker in the limbs and thinner in the handle and nocks. But each shows a pronounced hook-like recurvature at the nock, very similar to the nocks on the drawn bow of the Uruk lion-hunt stele. The fact that the overall shape of the bow is not recurved in the slightest when unstrung implies that the weapon is probably a self bow with some type of highly recurved nocks for the bow string. Another crucial piece of evidence comes from Uruk, where a stele shows the Priest-king carrying a bow which is not drawn and may be unstrung (PAE 68/3). This bow may exhibit some recurvature of the limbs and also has the curved nocks.

In overall structure, this Pre-Dynastic bow appears quite similar to the late Early Dynastic bow from Mari, which Yadin believes is a composite bow (Figure 5a, p. 218).³⁴ In the Mari scene the archer seems to be depicted as he begins to draw the bow, which certainly appears to be recurved. This creates a problem: if the Mari bow is definitely composite, as Yadin argues, one would have to argue that the Pre-Dynastic Mesopotamian bow, which seems to have the same basic shape and type of recurvature, should also be composite. This would place the origin of the composite bow in Mesopotamia at around 3400, a thousand years earlier than Yadin suggests. It also ignores the fact that in the bowyer scene mentioned above, the bow has no recurvature when unstrung (FI §742). If the bow in Pre-Dynastic art is not composite, there is no reason to believe the Mari bow is either.

Archery does not appear frequently in either the art or texts of the Early Dynastic period. This has led Yadin to conclude that “the bow … was not used by the Sumerian army” (AW 1:47). There are, however, several examples of its use. Two cylinder seal from Early Dynastic Susa show the use of a bow (FI §758, §933; ME 110), but these are from Elam. The Early Dynastic archery scene from Mari also shows archery, but this is from Syria. None the less, although there were significant cultural differences between Mari and Sumer, there were also many parallels in military equipment; a martial scene from Mari shows the use of the bow (AFC §99). In textual evidence, an inscription of king Eanatum of Lagash {2455–2425} claims that “a person shot an arrow at Eanatum. He was shot through by the arrow and had difficulty moving” (PI 34), indicating the use of archery on the battlefield among the Sumerians. The infantry on the Stele of the Vultures are protected by large body-length rectangular shields (FA 82; AM §66–9), which makes sense as a defense against missiles (see p. 55). There is thus limited evidence for the use of the bow among the Early Dynastic Sumerians.

Furthermore, although there is no artistic evidence of the bow among the Sumerians in the Neo-Sumerian period {c. 2200–2000}, there is extensive textual evidence for their use of the bow at that time. In a twenty-second-century myth the god Ninurta uses the bow (HTO 244). Gudea of Lagash {2141–2122} had a bow for a chariot he built (R3/1:96–7). A twenty-first-century text mentions the use of a bow in battle (LD 61), while king Shulgi of Ur {2094–2047} mentions conscripting archers for his army (R3/2:101). Hymns of Shulgi also mention the king shooting a bow in battle (TSH 79), while a quiver is among objects dedicated to the god Ningirsu (R3/1:34). The importance of archery is further emphasized in the seal of “Kalbaba, bowmaker (^GIš.ban-dim), servant of [king] Ishbi-Erra [of Isin, {2017–1985}]” (R4:12). The possession of seals was generally associated with the elite of Mesopotamian society; Kalbaba was thus an important man, perhaps the king's personal bowyer. What we actually have in the sources is evidence for the extensive use of the bow in Pre-Dynastic art, limited evidence for the bow in Early Dynastic sources, and extensive evidence again Akkadian and Neo-Sumerian sources. It is impossible to tell if this reflects a change in the importance and practice of archery, or a change in the nature and survival of our sources.

In the 2048 the king of Ebla sent Shulgi of Ur tribute (gun) consisting of “500 tilpānu-weapons of sudiānum-wood and 500 containers (^CIš.Kab-kut) of the same wood.”³⁵ This text leads us to the complicated problem of the philology of ancient weapon names, an issue with many ambiguities leading to possible confusion. Eichler has argued that the tilpānu is a javelin,³⁶ while Groneberg has made a strong argument that it should be a bow.³⁷ I believe that the fact that the 500 tilpānu- weapons are sent along with 500 “containers” strongly points to the tilpānu being a bow, in which case the 500 “containers” would obviously be quivers. Otherwise, of what use are the 500 “containers” for javelins? At any rate, if the tilpānu here is in fact a bow, as seems probable, it is said to have been made out of the same sudiānum-wood which is used to make the quivers. The most straightforward reading of this evidence is that the tilpānu-bow of the twenty-first century is an ordinary self bow made from wood, not a composite bow. It is, of course, possible that the sudiānum-wood is used only for the wooden part of a composite bow, or that these bows were self bows, while other weapons were composite bows. Once again, the evidence is inconclusive.

The Akkadian artistic sources provide Yadin with two pieces of evidence that are crucial to his argument: one shows Naram-Sin holding an undrawn strung bow, the other shows an Akkadian warrior drawing a bow. Yadin argues that Naram-Sin's bow “bears the two characteristic features of the composite weapon; it is small – about 90 centimeters from end to end (an estimate based on its relationship to the size of the figure holding it); and its arms tend to recurve near the ends and then become straight” (AW 1:47). In actuality there are a number of other artistic representations of the use of the bow by Akkadians, which serve to muddy the interpretative waters. The two sources discussed by Yadin need to be compared with six others showing an undrawn Akkadian bow, and two others with drawn bows.

We have a number of examples of gods or kings posing in Naram-Sin's “archer stance” from his Victory Stele, showing the Akkadian bow strung but not drawn.³⁸

· Naram-Sin's famous victory stele (4 in the list on p. 86; Figure 3, p. 87) shows the conqueror holding a 95-cm bow which recurves and becomes quite straight toward the end. Indeed, about a third of each limb appears straight in this example.³⁹

· Often neglected in the study of the Akkadian composite bow is the parallel, but less famous, war monument of Naram-Sin, the rock-cut relief at Darband-i Gawr (5 on p. 87; Figure 5d, p. 218).⁴⁰ This source is important because it shows Naram-Sin in precisely the same dramatic stance, holding a bow in the same way. However, at Darband-i Gawr, Naram-Sin's bow does not appear to be a composite bow. Whereas the tips of Naram-Sin's bow are straight and parallel with the string for about one third of the limb on the Victory Stele, at Darband-i Gawr the bow is shorter (70 cm to the stele's 95 cm) and immediately curves away from the string; it is actually more triangular in shape. Now it is, of course, possible that Naram-Sin is depicted using two different types of bows, but it is equally possible that the differences between the bows of the two monuments are based on artistic style rather than technological substance. Assuming Naram-Sin had a powerful and expensive composite bow, why would he use an ordinary self bow in battle, or order a monumental propaganda depiction of himself with the inferior weapon?

· Another soldier on the Naram-Sin victory stele also holds a bow (c. 90 cm). The bottom part of the image of the bow is damaged, but the top part shows that the bow is smaller than Naram-Sin's, and has less recurvature towards the tip; in style it seems midway between Naram-sin's bow on the stele and that on the Darband-i Gawr relief.

· A god holds a somewhat longer bow (102 cm) and arrow; the bow shows very little recurvature towards the tips (FI §761; AM §113a; SDA §237; AFC §139).

· A god holds a rather small, undrawn bow (67 cm) which displays moderate recurvature towards the tips (FI §849).

· A cylinder seal shows an Akkadian archer with an undrawn bow (94 cm) and a quiver with tassel.⁴¹ Here the fine work of the artist shows a moderate recurving of the limbs toward the nocks, but it is less pronounced than in the Naram-Sin stele.

· In the lower right corner of the right fragment of the Victory Stele of Rimush (p. 86) we see the head and top of the bow of an archer (AFC §129; AAM §135). This bow, on the same stele as the drawn bow that Yadin saw as composite, shows no recurvature and no straightening at the end. The slight outline of the bottom of a bow on the other side of this stele in the upper left panel also appears to have no recurvature and no straightening at the nock.

Also, the ends of two other bows on the Rimush stele show no straightening at the nocks.

In summary, these examples show a range in both size and recurvature: 95 cm, strong recurvature (Naram-Sin stele); 90 cm, moderate recurvature; 67 cm, moderate recurvature; 94 cm, moderate recurvature; 102 cm, little recurvature. From this evidence we note that Naram-Sin's weapon on his victory stele is of average length, but is by far the most recurved of all these weapons. Yadin's deduction that the Akkadians used the composite bow is thus a generalization from an atypical example.

We also have three depictions from the Akkadian period of a drawn bow.

· Yadin's example comes from Akkadian monumental martial art (Figure 5e, p. 219).⁴² Yadin believes that the bow's “arms still curve outward slightly” at full extension (AW 1:47; AFC §129), but if so, it is quite slight. In my view, the shape of this flexed bow is much closer to that of a self bow than the classic composite bow (EBD 78–9); it is certainly less recurved than the next example.

· A god draws a bow which remains quite recurved in form (FI §876).

· An archer shooting a bow; the image is unclear, but there is not much apparent recurvature (FI §685).

Of these latter three examples, I would classify one drawn bow as recurved, and two as not recurved. This leaves the evidence for the Akkadian recurved (and hence composite) bow ambiguous. It either means that the Akkadians used both the composite bow and the regular self bow, or that the Akkadian artists were not overly concerned with accurately representing the weapons they saw. None the less, when recurvature on Akkadian bows is seen, it is a distinctive enough feature that it seems unlikely that it would have appeared as an arbitrary artistic aberration. If the composite bow was known to the Akkadians, it was certainly not universally used by Akkadian archers; some, probably most, would have continued to use self bows.

Thus I would suggest that, while the existence of the composite bow among the Akkadians is possible, it is still uncertain. More to the point, however, the military impact of the Akkadian composite bow, if it existed, is also unclear. The mere technological capacity to make composite bows would not necessarily translate into a tactical revolution on the battlefield. What percentage of all Akkadian troops used the bow? What proportion of these had composite bows (if any) instead of self bows? How many bronze (as opposed to copper or flint) arrowheads were available? One Neo-Sumerian text mentions that the king himself shot “flint-tipped arrows” (HTO 330). If the king is still using flint arrowheads, how widespread could bronze arrowheads be? How many arrows could each archer realistically shoot in a battle or siege? There is no hard evidence to answer any of these questions. If the composite bow existed in Akkadian times I would suggest that it was a rare and expensive weapon used by kings and other elites. As discussed elsewhere (p. 255), the expense of making bronze (as opposed to copper or flint) arrowheads would probably limit the overall tactical impact of the Akkadian composite bow. A few dozen archers in an army of several thousand would not be tactically decisive.

Old Babylonian martial art also has a few representations of the bow, but the surviving textual and artistic evidence does not give a great importance to the weapon. One scene shows a god holding a bow in the Naram-Sin archer stance; it is a short weapon with little or no recurvature (FI §160, §686). A scene from Ebla shows an archer hunting with a quiver and what appears to be a short self bow (AANE §451; SDA 292). During the Middle Bronze period, the god Ashur gives the king of Assyria a bow at his investiture, indicating its continued importance as a royal ceremonial weapon (A1:21). King Anubanini of Lullubi (modern Luristan) is also depicted in the Naram-Sin pose, trampling a fallen enemy. In one hand he holds an axe, and in the other a bow and arrow; the bow itself is not recurved, but has slightly recurved tips where the string is attached (PAE 319; ME 20). In the Old Babylonian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh, the hero arms himself with dagger, axe, and “his quiver with the bow from Anshan” in south-west Iran (EG 113). In the Beni Hasan murals in Egypt, Canaanite warriors have bows similar to those of the Egyptians – though this may be the artistic convention of an Egyptian artist who is told to draw a Canaanite with a bow, and draws the Canaanite with an Egyptian bow, the only weapon the artist knows (AW 1:166–7). The textual evidence for the bow from Mari, again indicating its relative unimportance, is discussed on pages 254–5.

If, as Yadin argues, the composite bow existed in Mesopotamia in the twenty-fourth century with revolutionary military impact, the following questions become difficult to answer. Why does the bow seem to decline in importance in later evidence from Mesopotamia and Syria? Assuming the composite bow made archery more effective, one would expect its use to increase, not decline, relative to the Akkadian period. Why did the composite bow not spread to Canaan and Egypt by the Middle Bronze Age, if it had already existed in Mesopotamia for several centuries? Most other Syrian military technologies – fortifications, axes, chariots – spread quite rapidly to Canaan. Assuming the Beni Hasan murals are accurate in showing the Canaanites using Egyptian-style bows, why are the Canaanites not using the superior composite bow if the technology had been known to their Syrian neighbors for centuries? Why are arrowheads so sparsely attested in martial tombs with other weapons burials? Why does archery appear to play a relatively minor role in warfare in the Mari archives? Why are charioteers not shown using a bow in martial art before the eighteenth century (see Chapter Five)? Why do we not see the rapid spread of body armor and shields from the late third millennium for protection from the new, more powerful composite bow?

I would argue that the most probable interpretation of the evidence is that the composite bow – or at least an efficient version that could be produced in reasonable quantities – developed only in the nineteenth or eighteenth century. The dramatic military impact one would expect from the development of a new weapon like the composite bow, with twice the range and penetrating power of the self bow (EBD), only begins to be seen in the eighteenth century. We also find textual evidence for the increasing weight of bronze arrowheads which could have been shot from the more powerful bows (ARM 18.5; MK 63; see pp. 254–5). During the seventeenth century we see marked evidence of the use of the bow from chariots, and the weapon is introduced into Egypt probably in the seventeenth century by the Hyksos (see Chapter Eighteen). Increased use of body armor and shields is found in the seventeenth century and throughout the Late Bronze Age, but is not found in the Akkadian and Old Babylonian periods. If the Akkadians did have the composite bow, it was either a less efficient version of the weapon, or it was so difficult and expensive to make that only the elites could afford it, and therefore its tactical importance before the late Middle Bronze Age was limited.

Akkadian and Neo-Sumerian military systems⁴³

Only a partial understanding of the Akkadian and Neo-Sumerian military systems can be obtained from fragmentary bits and pieces of information. Sumerian city-states apparently organized their population into “clans”, each with a different name and emblem, who were called up in labor corvees for construction of canals, dikes, and temples (R3/1:78). Presumably, a similar organization existed for recruiting levees for warfare, which were treated administratively as a type of labor duty to the state. Each band of warriors served within a kinship or socially related group. Each Sumerian family owed military service to the state. Shulgi named one of his years “the year the citizens of Ur were conscripted as spearmen”. He also describes his “conscription with the bow and arrow; nobody evaded it – the levy being one man per family” (R3/2:101). These levees were recruited on an ad hoc basis for a specific war, with soldiers returning to their homes after the campaign (MAS 27). As a special privilege, the military and labor conscription required of a city could be cancelled. For example, Ishme-Dagan of Isin {1953–1935} “relieved the citizens of Nippur from military service … and made the nation content” (R4:32–4, 89).

Sargon is sometimes credited with having created the first-known standing army in the world. His claim that “5400 men daily eat in the presence of Sargon” (R2:29, 31), however, refers not just to soldiers, but to priests, scribes or other court functionaries see (see p. 75). None the less, a substantial number of the 5400 were probably soldiers. On the other hand, it is very likely that earlier rulers also had professional guards. Texts of Amarsin mention the elite gardu, translated as “royal body guard” (R3/2:239), who were probably professional troops. A seal from the reign of Sumu-El of Lagash mentions an “Iemsium, lieutentant of the elite soldiers (ugula aga.us.sag.ga)” (R4:136), perhaps another professional regiment. There is a group know as the aga-ush – “followers of the crown” – who seem to be professional full-time soldiers as opposed to levees (MAS 27). Soldiers are sometimes described as receiving land in return for military service.⁴⁴

The Akkadians and Neo-Sumerians had a sophisticated bureaucracy over all aspects of the state, including the military (EM). City governors (ensi) seemed to have had responsibility for military recruitment and supplies in their jurisdiction (MAS 26–7). Within the homeland, cities were expected to provide supplies and accommodation for armies passing through their province. Numerous Sumerian and Akkadian economic texts describe the requisitioning of food and equipment for government use, although it is not clear if this is for labor gangs or soldiers (MAS 26). From the Mesopotamian perspective, there was probably no distinction.

Surviving archives describing the disbursement of supplies and equipment to soldiers demonstrate that, at least by the Akkadian period, Mesopotamians had developed a well organized commissary system which kept detailed records of the collection and distribution of supplies.⁴⁵ The archive recorded “the number of workers [or soldiers] and how long they worked on the one hand, and the number of times they had been fed on the other” (USP 25). They dealt with the collection, storage and distribution of grain, foodstuffs, personnel, livestock (including donkeys), textiles, and equipment, including weapons (USP 38). A typical record reads:

580 shu-loaves [of bread,] 29 jars of 30/30 beer did the chief of the work troops receive. 20 loaves, 1 pot of 30/30 beer to the soldier of Adda. The bread and beer are a disbursement. Year 5, month 5, day 27.

This extensive and complex bureaucracy facilitated the creation of the Akkadian army and the management of the lands conquered by the armies.

The capture of booty was a major purpose of war. Several “booty tablets” (namrak) have survived from the Neo-Sumerian period, giving lists of booty taken on a campaign and its disbursement (R3/2:236). A portion of the booty was generally donated to the temples of the gods, for practical use by the priests. One text mentions, for example, the “booty dedicated to the god Shara [taken as plunder] from the city of Sharithum” (R3/2:238). Since the gods were the most important allies of the king, and granted him victory, they deserved their share of the plunder just as any other allied king would, even though this portion of the plunder was not of immediate practical military use. Part of the booty was directly distributed to soldiers, both for food while on campaign, and as rewards after battle (R3/2:108, 110). Great victory feasts were held for the “heroes” of the campaign, in which captured animals were roasted (R3/2:109, 239). Finally, a portion of the booty went to the king, some of which would eventually be recycled to fund the army. The logistical and economic costs of maintaining this standing army may have caused Sargon to create the world's first predatory army – a force which is too large to be maintained by the economic resources of the kingdom, and must perforce campaign every year to provide plunder for its own upkeep (war must feed war). A number of the texts focus on the plunder and captives taken from conquered regions, indicating these important economic aspects of Akkadian warfare (R2:23–4, 31, 60–7).

The commander-in-chief of the Akkadian and Sumerian army was the king, who regularly campaigned in person. However, the king was served by a number of different types of military officers, although the specifics about their differences and functions are sometimes obscure. The Sumerian epic Gilgamesh and Agga has a section where Gilgamesh lists five military offices in order of ascending rank (EOG 148):

ugula	lieutenant (overseer)
nubanda	captain
ensi	governor (or perhaps colonel in a military sense)
shagina	general
shagina erin	“general of the army”, or perhaps field marshal

Shagina (Sumerian GIR.NITA, roughly “general”) was probably the highest military office, and occurs repeatedly in inscriptions (R3/2:349, 353). Successful generals were honored in royal inscriptions (R2:32). Generals also appear as military governors of conquered cities; for Mari we have a list of seven generals who governed the city for the Akkadians (R2:231–7; R3/2:143), with several others governing Elam (R2:302–8). Under Naram-Sin a warrior named Lugal-uru-si was “general of the land of Sumer and Akkad” (R2:103), the supreme army commander under the king, and perhaps the same as the shagina erin. As in many ancient societies, generals often held many additional government and religious offices – Caesar, for example, served as a priest as Pontifex Maximus. Under king Shusin, Irnanna served simultaneously as governor, a sanga priest of the god Enki, and the GIR.NITA of several different provinces (R3/2:323–4). In addition to his military duties, general Babati served as royal steward, accountant, canal inspector, and sanga priest (R3/2:341–2). Likewise, city governors (ensi) are often described as participating in campaigns, and seem to have ranked immediately under the general.

The second most frequently mentioned military office is nubanda, roughly equivalent to captain (R2:93; R3/2:239). They were clearly of lower rank and more numerous than the generals. We can get a sense of the relative status, rank, and numbers of Akkadian period officers by some of Naram-Sin's prisoner lists. He claims during one of his extended campaigns to have captured six shagina (generals), seventeen ensi (city governors), 78 rabi'anu (nomad “chiefs”), and 2000 nubanda (captains) (R2:92–3). At the battle of Tiwa, Naram-Sin captured the GIR.NITA (general) of Kish, along with four of his nubanda (captains) (R2:105–6). Nubandas were often assigned specific types of duties; under Shusin we hear of “Lugalmagure, captain of the watch” (nubanda ennuga) serving as governor of Ur (R3/2:326, 418).

The Akkadian army was also organized into military units, though these seem to have been rather flexible in size. The basic term for a military unit was kiseri, or regiment; Sargon is said to have mustered nine kiseri against Uruk (R2:16). Several records describe companies of roughly 200 men commanded by a nubanda (MAS 26 n11). The professional nature of the Akkadian army allowed it to campaign at rapid speeds; a Naram-Sin inscription describes a forced march in which the Akkadian army moved at over twice the normal rate of march for several days running (R2:125). Soldiers on campaign are described as eating “bread [baked] on coals” and “drinking water from skins” (LKA 179). Some type of camp fortifications on campaign seem to be implied when Naram-Sin “made firm the foundations of the army camps” (R2:141).

Manishtushu (R2:75–6), Naram-Sin (R2:97, 117) and Shar-kalli-shari (R2:192) all claim to have undertaken maritime expeditions in the Persian Gulf. Conquest of the coast of the Persian Gulf allowed Akkadians to control much of the maritime trade of the region, with merchants arriving in Akkad from Meluhha (the Indus valley), Magan (Oman), and Dilmun (Bahrain) (R2:28–30). The captain of a boat is also called a nubanda (R3/1:41), like his land-based counterparts. The “chief sea-captain”, or admiral, is called nam-garash (R3/247–8); this inscription has specific reference to trading activities, but presumably this officer would be involved in any naval military affairs as well.

Weapons in the Akkadian and Sumerian arsenals included lance, spear, javelin, narrow-headed axe, broad battle-axe (or scimitar-axe), mace, dagger, and bow. Weapons were kept in a special arsenal, sometimes inside a temple complex, which were protected by images of divine beings. King Gudea {2141–2122} gave a description of one of these arsenals: “in the inner [arsenal] where the weapons hang, [at] its Battle Gate, [Gudea] posted the warriors ‘deer-of-six-heads’ and ‘Mount Sinjar’ ” (R3/1:85) – the latter apparently being images of mythical warrior demons slain by Ningirsu.⁴⁶

A ritual blessing given by Imdugud, a mythical dragon-like creature, to the epic hero Lugalbanda, describes the arms of a Sumerian king:

May your flint-tipped arrow hit its man …

May it be sharp like the point of an axe …

May [the god] Ninurta, Enlil's son,

Cover your crown with the helmet, “Lion of Battle” …

When you have wielded the net in the mountain,

May the net not let loose [your enemies].

(HTO 330–1)

The throwing net mentioned here was used to entangle enemies (HTO 236), perhaps as depicted on the Stele of the Vultures (AM §66–9, see Figure 1, p. 55).

A description of a ritual inspection tour by Gudea of Lagash included a catalog of some of the weapons at the temple arsenal at Lagash:

Gudea brings to [the god] Ningirsu … [the officer] Shul-shaga … holding the seven-spiked mace, and opening the Ankar, the Battle-Gate [to the arsenal], that the

dagger blades [eme-gir]

the mitu [“dead-man”] mace,

the “floodstorm” weapon

the “bitter one” [khurratum]

and all the weapons of war;

might all exactly hit their targets, that he might flood all the lands of [the god] Enlil's enemies. Gudea brings along with himself [for the inspection] to [the temple of] Ningirsu the mighty weapon “Slaughterer of a Myriad”, which subdues all lands in battle, [and] the officer of [the temple] Eninnu, hawk of the rebel land, [and] his general Lugalkurdub.⁴⁷

This text apparently refers to a special blessing for weapons before battle. Weapons were often viewed as magical objects, as gifts from the gods imbued with divine power which was the real source of victory (R2:133). Many of these special ceremonial weapons were made of very precious and rare materials and given evocative names such as “Mace-unbearable-for-the-regions”, “Three-headed-lion-mace”, and “slaughterer-of-a-myriad” (R3/1:34). Sargon claimed that “the god Ilaba, mighty one of the gods – the god Enlil gave to [me] his weapons”. Sargon ascribes his victory over Uruk to the power of the “mace of the god Ilaba”; perhaps something similar to a mace he dedicated to the gods as a victory trophy (R2:13, 17–18). Bur-Sin of Isin donated a “three-headed gold mace with heads of lapis-lazuli as a great emblem for Ninurta” (IYN 30). Sargon's grandson Naram-Sin wielded this same mace (or another of the same name) in battle (R2:94). At his coronation Naram-Sin was given “a weapon of heaven from the temple of the god Enlil” (R2:85), as well as divine weapons of the gods Dagan and Nergal (R2:133), and Ishtar (LKA 195, 199); Shu-sin received the a'ankara weapon from Ninlil (E3/2:302, 307; cf. R4:391). The shibirru weapon – sometimes called a “scimitar” – was apparently a special weapon of kingship (LKA 199–200). What distinguished a divine weapon from an ordinary one is unclear. They may have been ancestral weapons preserved in the temples, or weapons that were manufactured with a special ritual and consecration by the priests. Meteoric iron was worked by the Akkadians (R2:68); such a mace could perhaps have been described as coming “from heaven”. These weapons of the gods are said to have the power to make the enemy panic in battle (R3/1:93).

Akkadian martial ideology

The god Enlil, whose major temple was E-kur (“mountain house”) at Nippur, was the particular focus of Akkadian martial devotion. Sargon became ruler by the “verdict” of Enlil, and ruled as his “governor” (R2:10, 13, 19, 34, 133). Enlil called Manishtusu “by name”, granting him the “scepter of kingship” (R2:77). Enlil granted Sargon “surpassing intelligence”, thereby insuring that Sargon had “no rival” in the world (R2:34, 11, 14, 20, 29, 31, 45).

The kings ruled as they were “instructed” by the gods, presumably through oracles and divination. Divination often preceded battle. Enlil's instructions included the command to “show mercy to no one”, which the Akkadian rulers followed religiously (R2:32, 34, 56, 192–3): “Naram-Sin, the mighty, by the authority of the god Enlil, showed mercy to no one in those battles” (R2:138). The gods also “go before” or “open the way” for the king in battle, granting victory (R2:50, 133; LKA 181).

The link between Akkadian kings and the gods was strengthened and emphasized under Naram-sin, who was no longer merely the representative of the gods, but the “spouse of the goddess Ishtar-Annumitum” (R2:88). When he defeated a rebellion of ”the four quarters” (i.e. the entire world), thereby saving the city of Akkad from destruction, Naram-Sin was proclaimed a god, and a temple was dedicated to him (R2:113–14). Thereafter, his name was always written with a divine determinative – a linguistic marker indicating the name of a god. His son Shar-kalli-shari also claimed divinity in one of his inscriptions (R2:206).

Shar-kalli-shari {2217–2192}, and the decline of the Akkadians⁴⁸

Naram-Sin's son and successor, Shar-kalli-shari (“king of all kings”) was the last of the great Akkadian rulers, but was unable to retain power over the vast empire his father had controlled by brutal repression. As with all Akkadian kings, the exact chronology of his reign is uncertain. He is noted as a great temple builder, who undertook resource gathering expeditions to Syria and Lebanon (R2:185–91, 193); he may have been more interested in religious and cultural pursuits than in warfare. Be that as it may, at some point during his reign a major rebellion broke out, which is described in terms similar to those used by Naram-Sin:

When the four quarters together revolted against him [Shar-kalli-shari], from beyond the Lower Sea as far as the Upper Sea, he smote the people and all the Mountain Lands for the god Enlil and brought their kings in fetters before the god Enlil. Shar-kalli-shari, the mighty, by the authority of the god Enlil, showed mercy to no one in those battles.

(R2:192–3)

Although he claims to have suppressed this rebellion, it is clear that his victory was tenuous. Whereas his ancestors consistently called themselves “king of the four quarters [of the world]”, Shar-kalli-shari is satisfied with “King of Agade”, as were his feeble successors.

Shar-kalli-shari's inscriptions are far fewer and less instructive than those of Sargon and Naram-Sin, but a basic picture begins to emerge of an empire in crisis. In his “year names” he mentions three campaigns, claiming victories in all. The Amorites were defeated in their mountain stronghold at Bashar (R2:183), where Naram-Sin had fought them earlier. Shar-kalli-shari claims to have defeated the Elamites at the battle of Akshak, near modern Baghdad (R2:183; PAE 108). Significantly, rather than campaigning into the heart of Elam, Shar-kalli-shari fought the Elamites as they were invading the Tigris valley. Finally, the Gutian highlanders from the Zagros mountains under their ruler Sharlak were defeated (R2:183), but not destroyed. In a few years Sharlak reappears as Sharlagab (KS 330), a Gutian warlord ruling in Mesopotamia (see pp. 102–4).

Thus Shar-kalli-shari's inscriptions reveal the empire surrounded by powerful and militant enemies: the Amorites to the north-west; the Gutians to the east, and the Elamites to the south-east. These problems were further complicated by the internal revolt of recalcitrant city-states. Although royal defeats are never mentioned in the Akkadian annals, they were obviously occurring with increasing frequency, and would culminate with the collapse of the Akkadian state shortly after Shar-kalli-shari's death. The Gutian invasion and collapse of Akkad will be discussed in the next chapter.