Contact theSOPAbout theSOPSupport theSOPWritersEditorsManaging Editors
theSOP logo
Published:October 13th, 2009 18:53 EST
History of War [Part 4] Wars in Ki-En-Gir

History of War [Part 4] Wars in Ki-En-Gir

By Rob Roy

Wars were already an ancient concept in the world, but Ki-en-gir was the first known place with recorded battles. Their copper helmets were the first known use of metal shielding - "From such beginnings as these were to come the steel-clad battleships and gun turrets of modern times." [CoC]

They invented the wheel and rode chariots [although their four wheeled contraptions were not yet drawn by horses]. Ki-en-gir is mainly known as Sumer [sometimes called Sumeria]. The Sumerians called themselves the Sag-gi-ga [Black Headed People], and the place they lived was the "Land of the Civilized Lords" [Ki-en-gir]. Located in modern Iraq, it is also referred to as the Fertile Crescent because the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers were ideal for early irrigation and farming. Their location and cunning use of the land made them prosperous enough to form the most powerful armies on earth by 2,500 B.C. [29] Their prospect looked bright.

The Black Headed People were not without foreign enemies. One was Elam, located in northern Iran. Here is how one web page put it:

"The conflict between Sumerians and Elamites probably extended back to Neolithic times, but the first recorded instance of war between them appeared in 2700 B.C., when [a Sumerian king] undertook a war against the Elamites, and `carried away as spoil the weapons of Elam.` This first "Iran-Iraq war" was fought in the same area around Basra and the salt marshes that have witnessed the modern conflict of the last decade between the same two states." [1] Elam, however, sometimes triumphed over Sumerian cities. [22]

The Elamites had their own kind of cunning: "An Assyrian plan of the city shows it occupying a strategic position at a bend of the Shawur river, which afforded protection against Sumerian attacks from the west, while a canal curved round its northern and eastern sides, so that Susa was completely surrounded by water. Fortifications had been erected on the river and canal banks ..." [7] An ancient moat that doubled as an irrigation system for farms? Not bad. I did a little research on ancient and prehistoric moats. Best I could tell, Susa may have had the first known moat in existence. That might even be the inspiration of future Assyrian moats. Natives in North America also developed the moat concept independently [much later though]. [14] After looking up ancient moats in Thailand, China, Thrace, India, and even Troy, I gave up - so far as I know, Susa made the oldest known moat.

Susa was a paradox of extremes. Kings used the warm city as a winter home, but in the summer, it reached 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Travelers claimed that a lizard walking across a path could roast to death before reaching the other side. Two months out of the year, Susa was flooded by monsoons. That was why irrigation and farming were possible there. Either extreme would make Susa a difficult place to besiege. [19]

The main reason Ki-en-gir failed to completely subdue the Elamites was because the Black Headed People were divided. Each temple of Ki-en-gir took to having its own high priest, and the Sumerian city-states grew ambitious. For two thousand years, the "Land of the Civilized Lords" was divided by wars.
Victories and defeats are difficult to reconstruct due to contradictions [with any confidence at least]. King lists are often referred to for lack of anything better. It`s best to take Sumerian king lists with a grain of salt. Here is a good example: according to most king lists, one king kept his crown for 28,800 years. "[T]he ancient kings of Sumer had reigns that were truly cosmic." Their exaggerations tended to get more believable with each new century. As an example, mighty Lugal-Ammemundu. After defeating thirteen pesky Akkadian rulers [how dare they rebel], he marched deep into the Zagros mountains, conquering, until his vast domain bordered the Gutians. He reigned for ninety years as "King of the Four Quarters of the Universe. He who made all the foreign lands pay steady tribute to him, who brought peace to the peoples of all the lands, who built the temples of all the great gods, who restored Sumer to its glory, who exercised Kingship over the entire world". [22] (If you believe all of those claims, please remember to vote on Super Wednesday.)

Some things can be gleaned regardless. It is clear that the Sumerian city-kingdoms warred with each other numerous times, and fortunes changed repeatedly. Rebellions were a constant problem. Each individual priesthood had powerful sway over the populace. Even if a city were a mere eighteen miles away, it was difficult for one city to control another.

A tablet hints that the Sumerians were the first to form a phalanx, which was more advanced warfare than anywhere else on earth at the time [Egypt included]. The warriors protected themselves with rectangular body shields [which they overlapped]. Through precise and tight-knit formations, they could act as a giant "hedgehog" of spears, slowly marching forward. In that same tablet, the king is also on foot, leading them in a suit of scale armor. The helmets already had nose guards. [CoC, Fig. 59, p. 133.]
So there you have it - scale armor and nose guards already conceived of. The concept of scale armor intrigues me. I would guess the idea probably originated from someone noticing fish being scaled. [The king`s armored scales even curved like fish scales.] Please don`t get me wrong - I think scale armor is both clever and aesthetic.

The concept of recording battles apparently came late. The earliest record of a battle in Ki-en-gir was the Stele of the Vultures [2525 B.C], a thousand years after Sumerian writing began.
The Sumerians wanted to have an easier time knocking down enemy defenses. By 2500 B.C., they used battering rams. [3]

Ki-en-gir was not the only place where major wars were being fought. Researchers have found siege sites in several places prior to 3000 B.C. - in Israel, Syria, Iran, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Britain. These were not the kind of sieges where losing was a marginal thing either - dwellings behind the walls suffered severe destruction, especially burning. Ancient Spain had "a multitude" of such sieges during that time. By 2000 B.C., the number of brutal sieges had intensified, and they constructed siege engines that could hurl boulders. Some siege weapons even launched ceramic projectiles [have to wonder if something flammable was in them, or if their shattering was a primitive "anti-personnel" concept]. [17]

Scholars have more than the king lists to rely on as well. Archaeological evidence also helps clear things up, such as what religion was dominant at what time. I winnowed this summary down to a few major conflicts that have enough detail to make them worthwhile.

Lugal-anne-mundu of Adab conquered all of Ki-en-gir and went on to conquer territory spanning from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea [unconfirmed]. Upon his death, the world`s [allegedly] first empire collapsed.

The high priests of Lagash told everyone that their gods made them the new kings. [Cool how that works.] Lagash kept winning conquests, but her neighbor, Umma, was too strong to attack.
There are 18 miles separating Lagash and Umma. Lagash records [dated around 2500 B.C.] claim that there was a "holy border" between their city and Umma, but the high priest of Umma broke his vow. The priest destroyed the holy wooden border marker, and the treacherous people of Umma seized territory that the gods had given to Lagash. These "objective" records then proceeded to make deceitful boasts. What is clear - Umma and Lagash were terrible neighbors. The high priest of each city claimed that the gods wanted the border settled a different way. [22] (Got to keep those temple-bank profits rolling in, don`t you know. I guess their holy wh*res weren`t doing so well at the time. [29])

Then arose Eannatum, King of Lagash. He proved to be a formidable commander and conquered some other cities before he warred with Umma. The two armies clashed in a battle that left many dead on the field. Eannatum was victorious. Umma was no minor foe - the victory was celebrated as significant. A monument [Stele of the Vultures] shows Priest-King Eannatum on a chariot, leading helmeted footmen armed with spears. [I forget whether it was drawn by oxen or wild asses.] The reason the stele is so named is because it depicts vultures flying off with the heads of slain men. It also shows lions devouring the dead. [30]

King Eannatum held a socket axe. [30] According to researchers, that is a sign that Sumerians already wore plate armor. I assume they are referring to scale armor of overlapping bronze scales [or possibly copper]. The term, "overlapping plate armor" can confuse people who might assume they are claiming that Sumerian armor was "plate mail". I found no evidence of Sumerian plate mail - "just" scale armor [significant in its own right for 2500 B.C.]. Archaeologists have also discovered copper studs, indicating studded armor [which is typically sown to leather]. I suspect that studded armor was more common than scale. The first in many ways, the Sumerians appear to be the first to wear scale armor and studded armor.

Regardless, the socket axe was a devastating weapon. The blade was narrowed to increase penetration. [1] I realize that runs counter to what you see in the movies. But it helps to stop and ask yourself: what is better for busting rocks? A regular axe or a pickaxe? The socket axe would be superior against scale armor; a narrow blade would drive the scales apart and pierce the leather [even more so for studded armor]. A broad axe head might even be inhibited by a single stud [marginally]. A socket axe, on the other hand, could punch holes in shields. If the shield were not strapped on the arm, a skilled axeman could yank it out of the shield bearer`s grip. [Not all mercenaries and barbarian raiders would be ready for that.] If the arm is strapped to the shield [very common for large shields], then the axeman could yank the shield bearer from his phalanx position. Just about anywhere that axe landed would have been a problem for the phalanx [especially a punctured helmet].

Archaeologists also found bronze socket axes dated around this time. Beyond doubt, during this battle, the Black Headed People had begun to enter the Bronze Age. Bronze was apparently too rare [and expensive] for the regular forces during this famous battle. Copper helmets were found in the Death Pit of Ur dated at 2500 -2600 B.C. [1] While most helmets were still copper, a little bronze could go a long way if it were a socketed axe head. A bronze socket axe could punch a hole in a copper helmet. [This conforms with the old saying that destruction is much easier than protection. A little bronze for destruction is a fraction of the cost of covering yourself with bronze armor. Destruction is too easy and can`t be prevented, which is why I conclude that war is mathematically inevitable, at least until something profoundly revolutionary is developed.]

Bronze was an important discovery. Tin has a very low melting point [no higher than 450°F, compared with copper - 1980°F, gold - 1947°F, and silver - 1760°F]. Someone might have discovered bronze by accident when seeing a silvery liquid flowing into some copper and "contaminating" it. The observer must have been curious about the "ruined" copper. Experimenting with different levels of tin, smelters learned that the best bronze was one tenth tin alloyed with nine tenths copper. Now the lords and kings possessed weapons and armor significantly better than stone.

As the tin trade picked up, the price of bronze slowly drifted down, and every warrior benefited. Trade became more important than ever. Equally important, the concept of alloys helped awaken an awareness of a new power - the ability to improve things, to alter them. For five thousand years, all men knew was that they could melt copper out of certain rocks [if they even knew that much]. The concept of arsenic bronze was not well known, but tin/copper bronze was. The unalterable was now alterable.

A person might ask, "Hey, why did the Sumerians keep coming up with new military ideas while other cultures didn`t?" War is one reason, particularly a long war against nearby neighbors [such as a civil war]. The more close enemies are together, the more desperate they are to win. Ki-en-gir also suffered from outside threats. They could be attacked from any direction, unlike Egypt, which had no significant enemies. Peace can lull a nation into mental laziness regarding defense. It also tempts the nation to devote more resources toward peaceful pursuits. It`s a fine thing to beat swords into plowshares, but you darn well better be certain that you do not need those swords.

War alone was not the reason. Trade means travel, and travel broadens the mind. Not only do you see other cultures, but you have new things to ponder - new trade opportunities, new ways to cut costs, new ways to make goods more valuable.

[Back to King Eannatum of Lagash and his great victory.] I suspect that King Eannatum was reluctant to besiege Umma`s walls. He agreed to allow Umma to rule herself so long as Lagash received tribute [a vassal-ruler arrangement]. This was convenient because a prolonged siege of attrition would have led to food shortages and lost trade. Just as bad, undisciplined men pillaging and burning a city could hurt future revenue. I am not certain what kind of discipline the Sumerian armies had.

He ultimately restored the sacred wooden border marker. Farm owners of Umma were allowed to keep their lands even though they remained in Lagash territory, but they had to pay their taxes to Lagash [farmers at the time paid taxes through part of their harvests]. I suspect these farmers also had to keep paying to Umma at the same time [double taxed], and they certainly had to keep paying Umma`s priests.
Umma, now a vassal, was reduced to paying tribute to mighty Lagash. Dominating all Ki-en-gir, Lagash became the capital of a multi-city kingdom, though not large enough to be truly called an empire.

A new threat arose: "An army of Elamites swept down from the hills, but [Eannatum] inflicted upon these bold foreigners a crushing defeat and pursued them over the frontier." His power continued to expand. Then Zuzu, king of a city in the north, led a rebellion. "[Zuzu] marched south with a large army, but the tireless and ever-watchful Eannatum hastened to the fray, scattered the forces of Opis, and captured the foolhardy Zuzu." [7]

Now there appears to be an on-the-scene historian. This might even be a first, at least for Ki-en-gir. Prior to this, historians had to rely on word of mouth about previous generations. Mighty Eannatum had passed away. Umma`s high priest believed the new king was weak. Umma quit paying tribute, drained ditches at the boundary line [boundary moats, I wonder?], and burned the sacred wooden border marker. Lagash crushed Umma`s army. The high priest of Umma tried to run away, and Lagash captured him. Lagash refused to allow Umma to rule herself anymore.

The King appointed a priest named Ili to govern Umma directly. A decision is one thing, but there is still the city wall of Umma. I know of no siege. Around this time, Sumerians had begun using great battering rams. Gates back then were vulnerable to ramming. A little innovation could have prevented this problem, but the concept of elaborate gate houses [and murder holes] would not be commonly used for more than a thousand years. [That particular gap in development makes me ponder frequently about the human mind.] Just the sight of a battering ram could have compelled Umma to utterly capitulate before a rampaging army swarmed in.

Umma surrendered and accepted Ili as her new governor. He was ambitious and greedy. Ili stole grain that was supposed to be sent to Lagash. He "drained the boundary canal". When Lagash`s king let his anger be known, he soon heard that Ili had flooded fields, destroyed the Stele of the Vultures, and sent soldiers out to seize territory from Lagash. How the matter was resolved, the records of Lagash are evasive [which hints that Ili succeeded in humiliating Lagash and getting some kind of reward for his mischief]. The sacred wooden border marker must have been singled out again, because Lagash proudly announced that it was restored. [22]

Lagash was the victor, the dominant city-state of Ki-en-gir. Priest-pimps and tax collectors became corrupt. Tax collectors stole cattle, boats, and fish. Taxes on certain items were raised to the point of outrage on perfume, divorce, white wool - even a death tax. [Tax collectors back then often pretended that taxes were higher than they really were so that they could skim off every taxpayer.] Priests smuggled away sacred oxen "to plow the king`s onion patch". [22]

As the generations passed, Lagash suffered from one corrupt priest-king after another and faded until the people revolted. A man named Urukagina rose up to lead the rebels and to command Lagash. I`ve noticed numerous summaries about what a wonderful reformer Urukagina was, the first known king to seriously change how his kingdom was governed, such as this: "The high priest, according to one of [Urukagina`s] edicts, must refrain from `coming into the garden of a poor mother and taking the wood from it, or gathering tax in fruit from it.` [Stealing firewood and a fruit tax?] Burial fees were to be cut to one fifth of what they had been; and the clergy and high officials were forbidden to share among themselves the revenues and cattle offered to the gods." [9]

"His laws were similar to those which over two centuries afterwards were codified by Hammurabi, and like that monarch he was professedly the guardian of the weak and the helper of the needy; he sought to establish justice and liberty in the kingdom." [7]

Curious enough to seek detail about this wise king, I found this, "Urukagina`s motives were undoubtedly above reproach, and he showed an example to all who occupied positions of trust by living an upright life and denying himself luxuries." [7] Here is a clear account of what transpired during this good king`s reign:
- - -

[From "Myths of Babylon and Assyria", by Donald A. Mackenzie, written in 1915, tweaked and condensed for tightness and clarity.]

Urukagina was the first reformer in history. What appears certain is that he was the leader of a great social upheaval. A leisured class had come into existence, with the result that culture was fostered and civilization advanced. All indications of social unrest were, it would appear, severely repressed by the iron-gloved monarchs of the previous dynasty.

The people as a whole groaned under an ever-increasing burden of taxation. Sumeria was overrun by an army of officials who were notoriously corrupt. They not only attended to the needs of the exchequer, but enriched themselves by sheer robbery, while the priests followed their example by doubling their fees and appropriating temple offerings to their own use. The splendid organization of Lagash was crippled by the dishonesty of those who should have been its main support.

Reforms were necessary and perhaps overdue, but, unfortunately for Lagash, Urukagina`s zeal for the people`s cause amounted to fanaticism. Instead of gradually readjusting the machinery of government so as to secure equality of treatment without impairing its efficiency as a defensive force in these perilous times, he inaugurated sweeping and revolutionary social changes of far-reaching character regardless of consequences. Taxes and temple fees were cut down, and the number of officials reduced to a minimum. Society was thoroughly disorganized. The army, which was recruited mainly from the leisured and official classes, went practically out of existence, so that traders and agriculturists obtained relief from taxation at the expense of their material security.

In bringing about his sudden social revolution, Urukagina had at the same time unwittingly let loose the forces of disorder. Discontented and unemployed officials, and many representatives of the despoiled leisured and military classes of Lagash, no doubt sought refuge elsewhere, and fostered the spirit of revolt which ever smouldered in subject states.

Umma, remembering the oppressions of other days, was not slow to recognize that the iron hand of Lagash had become unnerved. The zealous and iconoclastic reformer had reigned but seven years when he was called upon to defend his people [of Lagash] against the vassal-turned-invader. Urukagina appears to have been utterly unprepared to do so. The victorious forces of Umma swept against the stately city of Lagash and shattered its power in a single day.

Echoes of the great disaster which ensued rise from a pious tablet inscription left by a priest, who was convinced that the conquerors would be called to account for the sins they had committed against the great god Nin-Girsu. He lamented the butchery and robbery which had taken place. We gather from his composition that blood was shed by the raiders of Umma even in the sacred precincts of temples, that statues were shattered, that silver and precious stones were carried away, that granaries were plundered and standing crops destroyed, and that many buildings were set on fire. Amidst these horrors of savagery and vengeance, the now tragic figure of the great reformer suddenly vanishes from before our eyes.

Perhaps he perished in a burning temple; perhaps he found a nameless grave with the thousands of his subjects whose bodies had lain scattered about the blood-stained streets. With Urukagina the glory of Lagash departed. Although the city was rebuilt in time, and was even made statelier than before, it never again became the metropolis of Sumeria.

The vengeful destroyer of Lagash was Lugal-zaggisi, High Priest of Umma, a masterful figure in early Sumerian history. Having broken the power of Lagash, Lugal-zaggisi directed his attention to the rival city of Kish, where [Akkadian] influence was predominating. [7]

[end of excerpt]

- - -

A good summary of Urukagina: "His social Arcadia vanished like a dream because he failed to recognize that Right must be supported by Might." [7]

Lugal-zage-si, high priest of Umma, beheld a land abruptly rendered from its monarch [essentially]. No strong army existed to oppose Umma. From his lofty position, boosted by conquest of mighty Lagash, he was able to press his advantage while his foes were still leaderless and in confusion. His plunder helped him pay for the next campaign.

He went on to conquer Uruk and Ur [and might well have profited even more from both]. The high priest then did something odd - he named Uruk his new capital. [I guess the worshipers in Umma must have been pretty darn devout to put up with that demotion, even from a high priest.]
King lists boasted that this new ruler, Lugal-zage-si, had an empire which stretched all the way to the Mediterranean, but [like much of the king lists] there is not enough corroborating evidence. He did have a kingdom that included multiple cities. He was the most powerful king in Ki-en-gir. But thus far, there is no empire actually confirmed in history. Nor was his power secure.

Something new is about to emerge - one of the world`s first chronicled adventurers, and that is what will be covered in Part 5. The later in history we study, the better able historians are to relate adventures and wars with greater detail. This breathes life into history. Adventure awaits.

One little side note. The merchants in and around Ki-en-gir had been using seals for thousands of years. Around 1000 B.C., someone in China took it a step further and thought of seals in a new way - to construct a clay printing press. Just think, the Sumerians could have been mass producing clay "books", cranking out manuals and guides with ease. Every home would have had a detailed library. Yep, even the Sumerians were able to overlook the obvious.

[End of Part 4]

- - -

Lessons to be Learned
It is difficult to step into the minds of civilization`s pioneers: one has to be almost childlike to imagine it. But it is useful to try.

The easy criticism is: "Hey, why didn`t the Sumerians get along better? United, they could have conquered neighboring territories more efficiently." The other criticism is: "Why did they bother to fight each other? Why couldn`t they just get along in peace?"

There were two reasons. The short term problem was the natural desire of a colony to become independent. The founding city-state resents a colony breaking its oath of submission.

The longer lasting problem was the disunion of Ki-en-gir`s religions. Every city-state had its own private priesthood. Each priesthood had its own religious monopoly [city-wide]. Religion was the force that gave Sumerian soldiers courage (enough courage to drink poison [29] ). Of equal importance, all Sumerian rulers had a claim to divine blessing. To oppose the King [or Priest-King or ruling High Priest] was to rebel against one`s goddesses or gods. These separate anointments from "the heavens" kept each Sumerian city opposed to her neighbors. Military unity is impossible without some form of religious unity. "Free exercise of religion" is the only known way to unite diverse faiths.

Now I step into the realm of the dangerous. For Sumerians, would "free exercise of religion" have even been possible? Only in the short term. Some ancient religions were too brutal to fit in with a modern and free society. Ancient Israelites used to stone "sinners" to death; some of the more corrupt pharisees frequently tried to stone Jesus himself [but based on how easily Jesus escaped most of the time, I think the Jewish populace was halfhearted in complying]. Israel was a very difficult nation to keep subjugated by gentiles. The reason was primarily religious.

Christians executed and tortured their devout brethren who revered the true Sabbath. Judeo-Christian faiths had to evolve for well over a thousand years before "free exercise of religion" was possible. Today there are examples of Islamics who behead disobedient wives or burn "sinners" alive in their houses. Young girls are frequently given "female circumcisions" [criminal barbarity in modern countries]. The concept of "free exercise of religion" was never intended for such inhumanity. [Fortunately, most Muslims in modern countries are humanitarians.] Extremists of any faith can believe his or her religion is above secular law. Even non-religious zealots, such as Hitler, the Unabomber, and Timothy McVeigh had a fanatical obsession that mirrors religious faith [such as eugenics]. Too many like-minded fanatics in one place at one time become a powder keg.

Throughout history, there are two kinds of religious monopolies. One monopoly is pacifist, and the other is militant. A pacifist religious monopoly rarely keeps its worshipers free [such as the Tibetan monks or the long-oppressed Hindus]. Militant religious monopolies keep their nations stronger because they encourage their people to fight zealously. But here is the catch - every militant religious monopoly with the power to exploit will exploit. I will show this in future examples of history.

Nazis and anarchists display a new kind of fanaticism, more philosophical, secular "faiths" which challenge us with the same danger. Just as a religion must strengthen the nation, so must a philosophy. This may sound pragmatic, but I believe in one philosophy - war. It is proven mathematically: zero equals zero. For the greater good, anything which weakens the nation must be viewed as evil. This does, however, require deliberation. [Some things which appear to weaken a nation actually strengthen it in the long run, such as moderate environmentalism which cleaned the sooty skies of Pittsburg, or the pacifist Amish: symbolic ambassadors of U.S. peace who benefit the economy. But even the Amish could weaken U.S. strength if their view were too dominant.]

With modern countries facing these problems, imagine the trouble Sumerians would have had to endure. "There were seven `fate-decreeing` gods, fifty `great` gods, and hundreds of minor deities." [31] That was only part of the problem. Bankers at heart, Sumerian priests were widely known for their corruption, but they remained powerful; they were the kingmakers. How could a king`s secular law compete with "magical powers"? The priests would simply read entrails and denounce their own kings. Secular leadership cannot out-trump a militant religion if the people are devout to the point of violence.

In modern Turkey, for example, the army is required to overthrow any government that gets too theocratic. That is the only example of a democratic republic enduring for any length of time in a country with strong militant theocratic leanings, and that only works because the Turkish military wants it to work. Imagine the US having a similar system for a moment. If a preacher`s kid, for example, were elected president and then sounded "too religious", the U.S. military would be required to invade Washington DC, to storm the White House, to arrest the president`s cabinet, and to hunt down her [or his] leading supporters. Here in the U.S., the Turkish constitution would actually make our government less stable, not more. Turkish generals must remain selfless for their system to keep in place. A single rogue general at the wrong time could topple Turkey.

Yes, religious unity was technically possible in Ki-en-gir, but the priests of each city refused to compromise. If they were more like Turkish generals, they could have achieved complete Sumerian unity. Armies would only have been needed to guard their borders [or the rare heretical movement]. But militant religious power inflames a priest`s heart with greed and ambition. [The same for leaders of militant philosophies.]

One of history`s most important goals is to glean what weakens a civilization. Despite Sumer`s sketchy past, the answer is clear. Religious corruption was the root of their rot. If the priests had been truly honorable and humanitarian, they would have united. Such a unity would have enabled the Sumerians to thrive beyond comprehension. Religious corruption was their pied piper.
- - -

History of War, The Dawning, Part 1

History of War [Part 2] Round Towers, the Byzantines, and Bohemond

History of War [Part 3] Land of the Civilized Lords

Mystery of the Six Towers [9,650 B.C.]

Mystery of the Six Towers Update - Catal Huyuk

- - -
All the source web pages below have more information. There`s an excellent web page with good images if you are still curious about the Sumerians and warfare:


[CoC] Conquest of Civilization [J. H. Breasted] 1938 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [The merry Sean Williams page.]
[7] Myths of Babylon and Assyria [Donald A. Mackenzie] 1915 [8] [note four standards on the left]
[9] [10] [12] [copper river] [13] multiple sources: [gets into detail incl. "civilized children" possibility] [14] Native American moat
[15] [and a second web address which is easier to access ...] [16] [17] [18] 9650 BC towers [19] Susa [20] Jericho [21] [22] excellent but obscene mythology alert: [23] Ishtar [24] [25] Death Pit of Ur [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]