War and Weapons in the Ancient World

Introduction

The history of war is essentially the history of humankind. While pre-Neolithic peoples probably did not spend much time analyzing war as an activity, they were certainly not a stranger to it. The bows and arrows, clubs, and other crude weapons they used for hunting animals could be, as cave art has shown, just as easily used for fighting other people. To be sure, the probable spontaneous nature of the fighting that occurred could hardly be called war—at least in the sense that historians use that term. However, as agriculture and the herding of domesticated animals began to compete with hunting and gathering as a means of obtaining sustenance, the necessity to acquire and protect property gave rise not only to permanent settlements and eventually to states but also to a more organized and definitive kind of warfare. The following is an examination of the development of war and weapons among selected civilizations that flourished between circa 2000 b.c.e. and 700 c.e. as well as among some groups of primitive people who remained virtually pre-Neolithic until more recent times.

Egypt

The early Egyptians were united into a state about 3100 b.c.e. by the warrior-ruler Menes, who, in the absence of a standing army, used a militia from which troops were called up as needed to defend the frontiers or to move out in campaigns to gain control of more territory. The Egyptians went to war armed with spears, bows, and battle axes as their primary weapons. Disdaining body armor in the beginning, they wielded a heavy shield of wood and bull hide. After 1500 b.c.e., the sword, along with the dagger, also became an important weapon. Armor and coats of mail were also adopted at this time.

From 1800 to 1600 b.c.e., the Egyptians were invaded by the Hyksos, from whom they copied a new style of two-wheeled chariot made of wood and open at the back. Boasting no seat, it had barely enough room for the charioteer and a combatant armed with either arrows, a spear, or a javelin. The spoked wheels were made of wood and moved freely on their axle, providing much more maneuverability than the earlier four-wheeled chariots used by the Sumerians. The speed of this vehicle, in terms of shock and of getting into battle quickly, was to change warfare dramatically.

The whole operation demanded considerable training for the horses, the charioteer, and the combatant, along with facilities for maintenance. Indeed, a kind of hierarchical camaraderie sprang up among charioteers, similar to that of the aviators of World War I, regardless of which side they fought on. The Egyptians used this form of the chariot to great advantage in expanding their empire to the eastern Mediterranean and into parts of Mesopotamia and Asia Minor.

Assyria

As the Assyrians settled in northeastern Mesopotamia along the Tigris River with no natural barriers to protect them, the constant attacks from the Hittites and numerous other invaders made war pervasive in their culture. A strong, fierce people who worshiped a strong, fierce god, Ashur, Assyrians developed a military system under Tiglath-pileser I (r. c. 1115-1077 b.c.e.) based on a well-organized and trained standing army that would be unmatched until the advent of the legions of Rome. Resplendent in their conical helmets of bronze and well equipped with weapons of iron, the Assyrian army’s masses of spearmen, slingmen, archers on horseback, and charioteers well versed in the use of the new two-wheeled light chariot all fought with a strikingly brutal coordination yet unseen in the ancient world. Following tactics of terror, they gave no quarter, often killing not only enemy soldiers but also great numbers of civilians in captured territories. The words of the English poet Lord Byron in his poem “The Destruction of Sennacherib” are apt: “The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold, / And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold.”

Assyrian battle tactics consisted of archers firing their arrows into their enemies’ formations, followed by mass chariot charges. As the situation warranted, well-trained cavalry—Assyria was the first to use cavalry in any significant way—often played a significant role in the chariot charge. Finally, large masses of spearmen advanced relentlessly in a final mopping up of what was usually by this time a bloodied and disorganized enemy force.

Although they were not the first to use siege techniques against the almost impregnable walled cities of Asia Minor, the Assyrians improved upon them dramatically, employing powerful battering rams that swung from massive frames to demolish gates and walls, along with immense movable towers from which archers could fire their arrows into the city and from which drawbridges could be lowered against breached walls to allow spearmen to enter.

Assyria was the first great military power of the Iron Age and the first nation truly based on war. Its conquests included Egypt, Syria, Palestine, the eastern part of present-day Turkey, and parts of Armenia. The empire began to disintegrate about 625 b.c.e., and with the capture and destruction of the capital Nineveh by the Medians and the Babylonians in 612 b.c.e., Assyria came to an end.

Greece

The beginning of Greek history is generally considered to have begun with Homer’s Iliad (c. 800 b.c.e.; English translation, 1616), the legendary story of the fall of Troy. The favorite epic of the Greeks, it served as a kind of handbook on how an individual could gain glory in war by fighting with courage and skill. The Greek people, an amalgam of various migrant groups, turned to seafaring and colonizing in an effort to make up for poor farming conditions, both of which gave them a cosmopolitan background and an understanding of other people that stood them in good stead militarily.

Of the several city-states into which Greece developed, Sparta in many ways stands out as a parallel to Assyria. Spartan society was based on the inevitability of war, with the army and the state being essentially one. At the age of seven, boys of all classes were taken from their homes and put into barracks for highly disciplined military training that was both harsh and exhaustive.

The result was a professional army that with its red coats, oiled hair, and polished weapons was a most frightening sight to any enemy. By 600 b.c.e., Sparta was the strongest city-state in Greece. Although the Spartans fought with the Athenians against the Persians, the growing rivalry between the two eventually resulted in the Peloponnesian War (431-404 b.c.e.), in which Sparta defeated Athens.

Instead of the expensive chariots and cavalry that could not function well on much of Greek terrain, the phalanx became the dominant fighting force. This well-trained and disciplined infantry militia, made up primarily from the middle and upper classes, was armed with spears in the right hand and shields in the left and fought as a tightly massed formation with practically no maneuverability. Battles between phalanxes required at least a semblance of level ground and were really great shoving matches in which one major effort usually forced one side to give way and leave the field in defeat. The fact that the shield was carried in the left hand caused the whole phalanx to move to the right, as soldiers sought protection from their comrades’ shields. The strongest individuals were put on the right flank to counter this shifting.

Over the centuries, the use of ships for war as well as for commerce was common among those living along the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas. The Greeks, however, particularly the Athenians, developed naval warfare to a high degree with the use of the trireme—a long, narrow craft using three levels of oarsmen as well as some sails. Although boarding an enemy vessel in battle was practiced occasionally, the basic Athenian tactic was to ram the opponent with the trireme’s deadly metal beak. The Athenians also used amphibious-landing tactics in their attack against Sicily in 415 b.c.e. When Athens and Sparta clashed in the Peloponnesian War, however, it was Athens’ naval and military disaster at Syracuse that provided victory for Sparta. The Athenian trireme, nevertheless, was copied widely during this and later periods by various groups vying for military advantage on the sea.

Persia

The rise of the Persian Empire was, if nothing else, swift. Uniting some of the remnants of the fallen Assyrian Empire, Cyrus the Great, a Persian prince, moved on a path of conquest that eventually gained control of Media, Lydia, Babylon, and Chaldea. Killed in battle against the Masagetae in 530 b.c.e., Cyrus was succeeded by his son Cambyses II, who added Egypt to the Persian Empire. At Cambyses’ death, Darius the Great assumed power. After putting down some internal conflicts, Darius consolidated his empire and began plans to bring the Greek city-states under Persian control.

The Persian Empire, well-organized and deftly controlled, was the largest yet seen in the world and the most permanent—indeed an empire ready for the military genius of Darius.

The political system was based on some twenty provinces, each governed by an able and loyal official and each boasting a military garrison commanded by a general who reported directly to the king.

Like the army of Assyria, that of Persia was based on chariots, foot archers, and cavalry, the bow being the most important weapon. The goal was to disorient the enemy with the arrows from swarms of foot archers in the front and cavalry on the flanks and to follow with the main charge of the chariots. As the Romans were to do later, the Persians required military service of conquered people, thus making their forces multinational.

From 499 to 449 b.c.e., the Persians tried to bring Greece to heel in the Greco-Persian Wars. Following a number of invasions by the Persians, the Greeks, particularly the Athenians and the Spartans, managed to unite long enough to hold back the Persians and ultimately to defeat them on both land and sea at the Second Battle of Salamis (in Cyprus) in 450 b.c.e. A peace treaty was arranged in 449 b.c.e.

Macedonia

The Macedonians from northern Greece were generally thought of by the rest of Greece as an inferior people. Under Philip II, however, they became an innovative and dominant military power. With Philip’s assassination in 336 b.c.e., his son Alexander the Great, destined to become one of the world’s great military leaders, assumed power at the age of twenty and soon had control over all Greece.

Because numerous Greeks in various places still lived under Persian rule, many in Greece wanted to go to war once again against Persia. Alexander, with great confidence in his capabilities and those of his army, led an allied Greek force into Asia Minor and defeated the Persians at Granicus (334 b.c.e.) and at Issus the next year. A year later, he was in Egypt, where he founded the city of Alexandria. From there, he moved to Mesopotamia to overthrow the Persian Empire of Darius III (331 b.c.e.). His thirst for power and conquest led him through Asia to northern India (326 b.c.e.), but the weather, the terrain, and particularly the Gedrosian Desert proved too much for an army that was more interested in going home than in any further conquests. War was in Alexander’s blood, and without it, he was lost in depression and alcohol, dying from a fever in 323 b.c.e. Whatever his end, his accomplishments speak for themselves.

Alexander’s generalship was based on flexibility in both leadership and organization. Featuring the formidable and highly mobile base of a phalanx that could charge on the run and the speed and shock of cavalry, Alexander’s army on numerous occasions was able to seize opportunities and surprise the enemy. His oblique order of attack in which his troops would fall back in one place in order to hit the enemy with superior forces in another and then to roll them up in a flanking movement became a hallmark in military theory. He followed a strict logistical system of movement and attack in which nothing was overlooked. Organized for speed, his army marched an average of 10 to 15 miles (16 to 24 kilometers) per day, with each soldier carrying 80 pounds (36 kilograms) of weight.

Like his father, Alexander was a pioneer in siege warfare, using new lighter versions of catapults and ballistae that could be carried by pack trains and expeditiously set up as needed.

India

About 2000 b.c.e., Aryan invaders and Indo-European people came into the Indus Valley, which was populated by the dark-skinned Dravidians. There was enough mixture between the dominant Aryans and the Dravidians to produce a new Aryan Hindu culture that eventually settled throughout the Indus and Upper Ganges valleys.

Though little is known regarding the military practices of the Hindus before 600 b.c.e., two works of classical literature provide some idea of the conduct of warfare: the Rigveda (also known as Ṛgveda, c. 1500-1000 b.c.e.; English translation, 1896-1897) and the Mahābhārata (400 b.c.e.-400 c.e., present form by c. 400 c.e.; The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa, 1887-1896). For example, Arjuna, the primary warrior of the Bhagavadgītā (c. 200 b.c.e.-200 c.e.; The Bhagavad Gita, 1785), refuses to kill until he is instructed in his duty by the god Krishna to “arise, O son of Kunti, intent on battle.” Although the Hindu tribes were acquainted with most metals, footmen armed with bows made up the great majority of the early Hindu armies. Cavalry and chariots were used, but because horses were scarce, they were used primarily by the kings and nobles. The warriors enjoyed considerable prestige and were a leading class.

By about 600 b.c.e., the area between the Himalayas and the Nerbudda River was divided into sixteen more-or-less independent states. Although little is known of this semi-mythical period, it evidently was a time of numerous wars. Two constant factors, however, in all of Indian history—and certainly in military history—are geography and climate, both of which have dictated over the centuries the success or failure of invasions. Two successful invasions that occurred within approximately twenty years of each other were that of Cyrus the Great of Persia in 537 b.c.e. and that of Darius the Great of Persia from 517 b.c.e. to 509 b.c.e. Cyrus probably reached the Indus, and Darius succeeded in conquering the western bank of the Indus and part of the northwestern Punjab.

The Hindu military system of this period used the usual chariots (of various sizes), archers, and javelin throwers. The most important innovation in the makeup of Hindu armies, however, was the elephant. By 400 b.c.e., elephants had become the mainstay of offensive warfare. Replete with armor and carrying a driver and several archers and javelin throwers, these pachyderms were a sight to behold. Moreover, they were trained to perform a large variety of movements, including lying down, charging, and stamping, and whatever else might be deemed necessary in battle. Despite all this training, elephants were not totally reliable, and the driver was armed with a kind of spike to drive into the elephant’s head should it get out of control. As usual, an offensive weapon brings on a defensive one, and special arrows were developed to be used against elephants.

Even with chariots and elephants, Hindu armies consisted largely of foot soldiers with bows that had not been changed in more than two thousand years. Eventually, the sword came more into play as a companion weapon to the bow. Shields were carried by all except the archers, who needed both hands free to shoot their arrows. Although the best horses were reserved to pull the chariots, some cavalry units were used.

In the spring of 326 b.c.e. Alexander the Great invaded central India and faced Porus, the leading monarch of the Punjab. Porus had about one hundred elephants with his army and was confident that Alexander’s horses would not face such beasts. Alexander, however, had his infantry harass the elephants, so much so that some of them turned and stampeded through their own lines, causing intense confusion. Though the Hindus fought valiantly, the Macedonians won the day, and Porus was captured—at least to some degree a victim of his own elephants.

In circa 323 b.c.e., Chandragupta Maurya came to power. With a strong administrative and military mind, he organized an efficient government and a large military establishment of some 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, and 9,000 elephants. Chariots were also still in use and remained so for another one thousand years. Elephants were used into the nineteenth century c.e., some two thousand years after the disappearance of the Mauryan Empire.

China

Before becoming a unified state in the third century b.c.e., China was marked by numerous, often overlapping dynasties. During the Shang Dynasty (1600-1066 b.c.e.) some central authority was established, supported by a small standing army that could be reinforced militia fashion from the supporters of minor rulers. Infantry from the lower classes and chariots from the upper classes formed the basic structure of this force.

The highly decorated chariots, fashioned after those of the Egyptians, served as symbols of rank and power. Divided into squads of five, they each carried a driver, an archer, and a warrior with a dagger-ax, and each was supported by a group of infantry, armed with halberds, spears, and bows with bronze-tipped arrows. Leather armor, bronze helmets, and large shields of wood and leather provided protection. Because horses were expensive and saddles and stirrups did not yet exist, there was no use of cavalry.

Defeating the Shang in battle at Muye in 1028 b.c.e., the Zhou created a ruling dynasty covering a large area from the midlands east to the sea and north to what is now Manchuria. The Zhou maintained large numbers of forces, including their own and those of the conquered Shang, to control their sprawling dominions. Chariots pulled by four horses were widely used in mass chariot battles with invaders from the steppes. As time passed, however, infantry surpassed the chariot in importance, probably because of the maintenance expense of the chariot and of its lack of maneuverability in rough terrain. Both weapons and armor slowly evolved to match the needs of the Zhou armies, including development of the sword as an addition to the dagger-ax.

By 722 b.c.e., the Zhou Dynasty was losing control of much of its domain to internal fighting as each state sought more power. By 481 b.c.e., the size of armies of the warring states had increased up to 4,000 chariots and 10,000 men in some battles. When the Qin were fighting the Zhou in 403 b.c.e., the total combatants reached 1million or more. This period also saw considerable emphasis on fortification of cities, followed by powerful siege engines to break through those fortifications. Armies continued to consist of masses of infantry and, for the first time, cavalry, with chariots playing a lesser role.

Following the defeat of the Zhou, King Zheng (later first emperor Shi Huangdi) of the Qin Dynasty created the first real unified empire in China in 221 b.c.e. A consummate politician and general, Zheng increased the use of cavalry in his armies as he fought the nomads from Mongolia. Although the Qin Dynasty was short-lived, ending in 206 b.c.e., from it came the empire that was to last more than two thousand years.

Rome

Rome began as a small city-state and ended as an empire in control of vast areas of Europe, North Africa, and Asia Minor, an area containing more than 60 million people. From the beginning, Rome was a warrior state recognizing that to create and maintain an empire, a nation needed a strong and effective military. All Roman citizens between the ages of seventeen and forty-six owed sixteen years of military service to the state. Moreover, no Roman could run for political office until he had been on at least ten military campaigns. In short, the military and social cultures of Rome were closely related and highly disciplined and organized. When Rome went to war, officers (aristocrats) and common soldiers fought side by side with a ferocity seldom, if ever, matched in military history.

The legion was the base of the army. Made up of 10 cohorts of 600 men each, its total manpower was 6,000. Cohorts were made up of 6 maniples of 200 men each. The primary weapon was a heavy javelin with a small, barbed head that would stick in an enemy’s shield, making the shield essentially useless, and the gladius, a short sword. Tactically, following skirmishing and missile harassment, the legion would move to within 20 yards (18 meters) of the enemy, from which position the first two ranks would hurl their javelins. The next line of eight ranks, with a 6-foot (1.8-meter) interval between each man, then charged with shield and gladius. Whenever these ranks had trouble, reserve ranks would move up through the intervals provided, resulting in a continuous moving of lines during a battle. For protection, the legionnaires wore brass helmets with a leather brow and cheek plates, body armor of chain mail, and a 4-by-2-foot (120-by-60-centimeter) curved shield constructed from layers of wood and leather bound with iron that might occasionally be held over their heads in a tortoiselike fashion. Undergirding the above tactics and weapons was the superior organization, discipline, and training that each legionnaire went through.

Of all the enemies that the Roman legions faced, the Carthaginians provided the most competition as they battled each other over areas of Spain, Sicily, and North Africa. Rome’s move into Sicily in 264 b.c.e. brought these two powerful opponents to conflict in the First Punic War (264-247 b.c.e.), which lasted seventeen years before Carthage was forced to make peace. The Second Punic War (218-201 b.c.e.) began when the Carthaginians, led by Hannibal, clashed with Rome over a Greek city in Spain. Hannibal, accompanied by elephants, mounted a daring attack through the Alps that, even though less than half of his army reached Italy, did result in the defeat of a Roman army and the rise of Quintus Fabius Maximus to dictator in Rome. Following a series of battles on both land and sea, Rome prevailed, ending Carthage’s role as a power in the Mediterranean.

Though it receives less attention than war on land, naval war played a significant role in the Punic Wars. Each side had a great number of ships involved, sometimes as many as 350 in a single fleet. At a given time, a total from both sides of more than 1,000 ships could be at sea, with close to 300,000 seamen and marines manning them. The classic Greek trireme was replaced with the larger quinquireme. On balance, the Carthaginians were superior to the Romans in seamanship, as well as in the quality of their ships.

On its rise to power following the Punic Wars, Rome stressed domination of its neighbors, using client states as a first line of defense. Between 30 and 90 b.c.e., these states were taken into the empire, and legions were deployed along the perimeter for protection. Between 200 and 400 c.e., Rome began to weaken both internally and externally. The heavy cost of maintaining such a far-flung empire was taking its toll, and the ever-increasing inroads made by the Teutonic barbarians were becoming more and more difficult to control. The traditional Roman legion gave way to heavy cavalry, and the army in general was made up by a larger percentage of barbarians.

North America

Whatever the actual date that humans reached the New World, any knowledge of their chronological development is scant at best. They left no cave drawings, no great monuments, and no written records. They spoke a plethora of languages, often having to communicate by sign language; and they did not use the wheel or the plow. Although projecting back through time cannot ensure complete accuracy, it seems safe to assume that these Indians did not change much from pre-Neolithic times to the first arrival of Europeans.

For the majority of the Indians of North America—whether of the frozen tundras of the Arctic, the deserts of the Southwest, the plains of the Midlands, or the forests of the East—religion and war were a significant part of their cultures. Although they lacked the sophisticated warfare techniques employed by their contemporaries in Europe, Asia Minor, and Asia, the Indians of North America practiced their own versions of warfare, and many were quite good at it. These Native Americans did not fight wars on a grand scale, but rather primarily battles employing hit-and-run tactics and ambushes, all designed to achieve a fairly specific goal, whether it be gaining or defending territory or stealing women, food, or other material things. Their weapons were primarily bows and arrows, spears, lances, war clubs, stone axes, and rawhide slings, along with primitive shields for protection. Although some of the more settled, agricultural tribes were not particularly warlike, there were others who practiced war frequently and with considerable skill. These latter groups often had warrior societies that celebrated those who proved themselves brave and effective fighters.

Interestingly enough, killing an enemy was not always the highest mark of bravery or skill. Taking coup, that is taking the weapon or some other possession from an enemy or even merely touching him with a stick, was often the goal of warriors. In this way, a warrior could gain the power of his enemy and make it part of his own. Scalping was practiced also, though often not considered as significant as taking coup. For the North American Indian, there was little stimulus to fight to the death, even in the later years in their struggle against the invading Europeans. A captured enemy, however, was frequently tortured and even cannibalized. Like many of the activities of all Indians of the Americas, the preparation for war and the actual carrying out of battle were highly ritualistic and closely related to the religious beliefs of the specific group.

Mesoamerica

Successors of the Olmecs, whose culture reached its peak about 1000 b.c.e., the Maya began settling in the Yucatán Peninsula and Guatemala about 1000 b.c.e. Advancing from hunting and gathering to a primitive form of agriculture based on the dominant crop maize and the myth of the Maize God, the Maya eventually developed a most remarkable civilization. Tribes and clans, bolstered by a strong warrior spirit, began building cities about 500 b.c.e., some of which would grow to many thousands of inhabitants. Although the Maya may be best remembered for their Long Count calendar and their system of hieroglyphics, the populous city-states that grew throughout their territories were ruled not by stargazers but by aggressive kings who practiced a brutal form of warfare—mostly against each other.

Never really unified into a single kingdom, the cities of the Maya were ruled by kings thought to be semi-divine. Like the feudal lords of later times, they lived in relative luxury and abundance with all the accoutrements of royalty. Of all their responsibilities of leadership, none was more important than the defense and extension of their holdings. The ruins of the arch-rival cities of Tikal and Calakmul serve as examples of the constant conflicts among Maya cities, large or small, that eventually played a significant role in the decline of that civilization.

Armies were organized on the clan or vassal basis. Armed with striking, slashing, and piercing weapons such as bows and arrows (sometimes poisoned), clubs, and spears hurled with the help of an atlatl (spear-thrower), the warriors making up these armies were highly individualistic in their military demeanor. As in much primitive warfare, the authority of command was not of primary concern. The resulting battles—really not much more than glorified raids—reflected little if any sense of tactical theory and more often than not were reduced to individual combat such as Homer described in the Iliad, in which opponents might be well known to each other. The goal, it seems, was to capture an enemy rather than to slay him, because a prisoner, particularly one of some rank, could be ritualistically tortured and ultimately offered up as a sacrifice to the serpent gods, whose appetite for human blood was apparently never satisfied.

Again, as with most primitive societies, war was closely tied to religion and was carried out with appropriate preparatory ceremonies, complete with dancing and hallucinogenic drinks. It has, for instance, been reported that before going into battle, the king would puncture his penis with a stingray spine, while his queen would draw a string of thorns through her tongue. More gruesome, however, were the rituals faced by the defeated captive, who might be pitted in gladitorial combat against other captives in a traditional game of mythic importance in which two teams would attempt to keep a hard ball from touching the ground. A captive might, alternatively, be drugged and placed on a pedestal of stone surrounded by a group of captor warriors anxious to spill his blood though a graphic display of skill in the use of weapons. Another practice was to behead the captive, displaying his head along with those of other fallen enemy warriors. The Maya were also known to “roll up” their enemies, tie them into a ball, and throw them down steps of stone. Occasionally the enemy’s flesh might find its way into a blood stew.

The Maya were thought by early scholars to be primarily a peace-loving people intent on mastering writing, mathematics, and the engineering of magnificent pyramids. Later scholars have recognized that, in addition to these accomplishments, the Maya occupied a culture in which the brutality of warfare was a stark reality.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Like the Indians of North America, the early inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa left little for archaeologists to work with in their attempts to piece together a probable picture of the cultural characteristics of this area. Archaeological evidence indicates that the native groups of sub-Saharan Africa were not really in a Neolithic stage of culture until about the sixth century b.c.e. Until that time, they were nomadic hunter-gatherers. In a vast land that was thinly populated, they had no need for organized permanent settlements, nor for anything more than rudimentary military knowledge. Their very isolation, the result of two oceans and a desert, was protection enough. Probably because of the wide availability of iron ore, the Iron Age arrived in the sixth century b.c.e. in West Africa, making possible the production of good-quality spears and hoes.

Any warfare carried out was probably limited to impromptu and spontaneous raiding parties to steal or destroy an enemy’s possessions or to capture women and children. Revenge was often a cause for warfare in African culture, but as in most primitive cultures, there were no abstract causes for which warriors were willing to die. Each tribe kept its own place, though occasionally a group of hunters from one tribe might run into a group from another, in which case there might be a battle that would last until one group was beaten or got tired and left. By the first century c.e., high-yield food crops, spreading up from the south, were discovered by the Bantu speakers along the Zambezi-Congo river system. This phenomenon gave rise to a pastoral-farm culture and the emergence of village life that, according to rock paintings and engravings, caused conflicts between this new culture and the hunter-gatherers, as the latter raided the herds and fields of the former.

Like the North American Indians, African males often belonged to warrior societies that assured them of superior cultural status and wore fetishes and various kinds of badges for bravery. Also, like the former, they participated in highly stylized behavior and rituals with drums and dancing before engaging in warfare. War, after all, was exciting and provided an opportunity to break the boredom of everyday life and to feel good that the gods were on their side. As in most primitive societies, during any kind of warfare, the women were often ritually ignored by the men and left to take care of the home front. Young boys, however, constantly practiced with bows and arrows and other weapons as they awaited their chance to become warriors.

The basic weapons used consisted of war clubs of various kinds, sharp spears, small bows and arrows—some tipped with poison strong enough to kill almost instantly—along with bracelets of spikes or blades and circular iron knives, also worn on the wrist. Shields of hides and wood, some highly decorated, provided the necessary protection. The early arrival of the Iron Age in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa (c. sixth century b.c.e.) made possible the production of good quality spears and other metal weapons.

Bibliography

Feest, Christian. The Art of War. London: John Calmann and Cooper, 1980.

Ferrill, Arthur. The Origins of War. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1985.

Fox, Robin. Alexander the Great. New York: Penguin, 1994.

Healy, Mark. The Ancient Assyrians. London: Osprey, 1992.

Healy, Mark. Armies of the Pharaohs. London: Osprey, 2000.

Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. New York: Vintage Books, 1993.

Peddie, John. The Roman War Machine. Conshohocken, Pa.: Combined Books, 1997.

Peers, Chris. Ancient Chinese Armies. London: Osprey, 1990.

Turney-High, Harry H. Primitive War. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1971.