Month: January 2017

Posted on

Hunting the Lions: A Dead King, and a Collapsing Assyrian Empire – Part I

 

The fall of Assyria was with a whimper and in no way ended with a bang. Instead, it ended in a slow, agonizing death. Ashurbanipal, Assyria’s last great king, ascended the throne only to inherit a storm forming on the horizon. From the time he became king until his death, wars and revolts were commonplace throughout his empire. One could easily speculate that Ashurbanipal in fact died from pure exhaustion due to the series of wars he led. His army was stretched, exhausted, and depleted from conducting military operations.

Sculpture of Ashurbanipal

Sculpture of Ashurbanipal (Public Domain)

The Fall of A King, The Rise of Troubles

Once the great Ashurbanipal died, his successors were not ready for the job and duty to support and defend the empire. His younger son Ashur-etil-ilani (still a young boy at the time), was chosen over Ashurbanipal’s eldest by the chief eunuch, Sin-shumu-lishir. This eunuch is also said to have used a private army from Ashurbanipal’s estate in 631 or 627 BCE, so it appears this man had great influence over the court. When the young king finally took over the throne, he was forced to share power with at least several other people claiming rights to his position. This was because the region and its politics were still very unstable, so he really didn’t have much say in the matter. It should be noted that one of the contenders was Sin-shumu-lishir, the chief eunuch.

A drawing believed to represent Assyrians (a beardless eunuch in middle) (Public Domain)

Out of the many claiming rights to the throne, one was powerful enough to be mentioned in the ever-so-obscure Assyrian tablets that are silent for this period. This man’s name was Nabu-rihtu-usur. Nabu-rihtu-usur rose from obscurity and laid claim to the title of King of Assyria, gaining much support from Sin-shar-ibni, the governor of Te. In addition, many of the Assyrian citizens, including those of the city of Ashur, threw in their support for Nabu-rihtu-usur. It also appears that around this time, King Josiah of Judah rebelled against Assyria by throwing out objects considered pagan. These objects were thought to have had strong connections with Assyria (II Kings 23:12). Josiah then went on the attack, taking back former lands from Assyria that had once been occupied by the Northern Tribes of Israel (II Kings 23:15-20).

When the wars had subsided, the boy king Ashur-etil-ilani, gave property to his chief eunuch (Sin-shumu-lishir) as reward. Not only was this for his loyal support, but the eunuch had also been the commander and chief of Ashur-etil-ilani’s forces, and his military ability in defeating the king’s enemies must have been greatly received. In addition, the eunuch was exempt from paying taxes, as were those of his household and in fact anyone else of power who supported the young king as rightful heir to the throne. It later became evident that the royal house would eventually come under siege by those much stronger and more influential than even the royals were. This led to a total breakdown in royal authority and influence which not only affected the court but the empire as well.

It is said that Ashur-etil-ilani did not last long on the throne. His trusted eunuch Sin-shumu-lishir took control at some point, disposing of Ashur-etil-ilani and taking the throne for himself. He reigned for nearly a year. It could be possible though that Sin-shumu-lishir took over as acting king and was given the title of “sub-king,” until a suitable replacement could be found. The reason for this, some sources indicate, was that that Ashur-etil-ilani and his brother Sin-shar-ishkun were at war with each other over who was the rightful heir. Sin-shumu-lishir could have been left as the acting king until Ashur-etil-ilani had returned from his campaign against his brother, (and no doubt other enemies of Assyria too).

Assyrian statue (CC BY 2.0)

We do know that when Sin-shar-ishkun returned and took the throne, he did so by deposing Sin-shumu-lishir relatively easily. It could have been possible that the Assyrian populace always supported Sin-shar-ishkun over his younger brother because Sin-shar-ishkun was likely to have been the true heir to the Assyrian throne. As to what happened to his younger brother, Ashur-etil-ilani, it is uncertain. It could be speculated that he was killed by Sin-shumu-lishir or in battle against his older brother. The only other alternatives are that he was killed by another enemy or just captured and put in prison and left to be forgotten. At the end of this period, the fact remains that Sin-shar-ishkun became the new king of a decayed body once known as Assyria.

Sin-shar-ishkun became king around 626-625 BCE, give or take five years. Once Sin-shar-ishkun took power as the rightful king in Assyria, he also took the Babylonian crown for himself. At this time, there was no official king in Babylon due to his younger brother possibly taking the title for himself and deposing the then vassal king “Kandalanu.” Thus, Sin-shar-ishkun took the Babylonian title for himself and deposed either his younger brother or Sin-shumu-lishir. It was then that another leader rose up to challenge him for his kingship of Babylon; This challenger was Nabopolassar.

Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia c. 1450 BC

Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia c. 1450 BC (Public Domain)

Nabopolassar Leads Growing Unrest

The origins of Nabopolassar are not known and speculation surrounds him much more than fact. It is said that Nabopolassar may have been the son of Bel-ibni. There is some suggestion that Bel-ibni was a Chaldean and viceroy of the Sealands. This could be possible but I have some doubts. As Bel-ibni was appointed governor of Babylon during the early years of Sennacherib’s reign in around 703-700 BCE, there is too much of a gap in years between Bel-ibni and Nabopolassar. One could speculate that Bel-ibni may have been his grandfather or great uncle, but again this is uncertain. The other possibility is that Nabopolassar was the son of or simply a relative of Merodach-baladan, but that idea needs more evidence. It is also possible that Nabopolassar was an Assyrian general, appointed by Ashurbanipal to look after the region. In any case, Nabopolassar must have had some connection to royalty for such support. One could speculate that he may have been the William Wallace of his day, with no distinct background in terms of nobility at all! Whatever the reason, Nabopolassar became the man to lead the growing unrest, built up due to the Assyrian occupation that controlled all things Babylonian.

Illustration of a Babylonian/Assyrian king.

Illustration of a Babylonian/Assyrian king. (Public Domain)

Nabopolassar gained adherents to his cause. His strongest support most likely came from the shared struggle of the people in southern Babylonia. This region, especially the tribes of Bit-Yakin and Bit-Amukani, had a history of being anti-Assyrian. The reason for this is that the two tribes mentioned above wanted to preserve the independence of Babylon. Because of this, Assyria invaded time after time to smash rebellions. This was not forgotten among the people that occupied the southern portion of Babylonia. Nabopolassar, who gained kingship in the marshlands of this Babylonian region, may also have come from the Bit-Yakin tribe.

Once Nabopolassar established himself as king and declared independence from Assyrian rule, he made plans to recover the rest of Babylonia from Assyria. It could have been possible that Nabopolassar did not intend to expand his borders into Assyria, thus simply claiming the Babylonian throne for himself. However, he chose to invade. Once Nabopolassar decided to go to war against Assyria, he must have known that the only way to win was to invade, defeat, and take Assyria on Babylonian land. Nabopolassar would do just that by attacking Assyrian garrisons stationed there. As soon as Nabopolassar had pushed the remaining Assyrian forces out of Babylonia in 616 BCE, he began his invasion of greater Assyria, planning to extinguish their absolute power forever.

King Josiah and Pharaoh Psammetichus Clash

The next figure on this grand stage was none other than Josiah. Josiah was the king of Judah and had been for quite some time when the events of Nabopolassar’s war began to unfold. One could say that Josiah’s first act of rebellion was re-establishing Biblical Law in the land of Judah. With this, Josiah also instigated a great campaign to destroy and rid the land of pagan idolatry, as well as groves and child sacrifice to the god Molech (II Kings 23:1-37). In doing so, Josiah could be perceived as “throwing off the Assyrian yoke of oppression” that his ancestors had so deeply embraced, in particular, King Manasseh, who originally imported such practices to the people. Josiah would not rid the land of idols until sometime after Ashurbanipal had died. This was probably due to the provincial and regional rebellions that continued post-battle in the weakened land of Assyria. Once Josiah rid Judah of paganism, he looked to the north of his land that had previously belonged to the kingdom of Israel.

Illustration of King Josiah

Illustration of King Josiah (Public Domain)

This northern region was ready to be invaded. Assyria withdrew from the region of northern Israel roughly around 640 BC. I would say that the reason for this withdrawal was due to the wars still taking place within and around Greater Assyria. However, some have speculated that Assyria withdrew from northern Israel (Palestine) due to an agreement made with Egypt. The reason for this is that Egypt won its independence around 649 BC and was, from that moment, an independent kingdom free from Assyrian rule and a force to be reckoned with. Egypt, at this time, was more interested in the coastal region of the Levant. If Egypt controlled the coast, it would control the trade routes and trade cities like those of Phoenicia. This would generate much wealth and at the same time put Egypt in an economically and militarily strategic position. However, Josiah was in the way and had to be removed, or at least be made to submit. The Levant had traditionally belonged to Egypt, and in Egyptian eyes had always been the land of the Pharaohs. In their view, a shepherd king was not fit to rule the land.

King Josiah had to protect his land from invasion. His chosen defense was forts – many forts, and Josiah made sure they were garrisoned with tough Greek mercenaries. Archaeologists say that during Josiah’s reign, he hired many Greek mercenaries to guard his southern border, particularly the area that bordered Egypt. An example of this Greek presence in the service of Josiah is the fort known as Mezad Hashavyahu, which faced towards the Philistine city of Ashdod.

Replica of the Mesad Hashavyahu ostracon (potsherd used as writing surface).

Replica of the Mesad Hashavyahu ostracon (potsherd used as writing surface). (Public Domain)

Nevertheless, these fortifications did not stop Psammetichus from invading. Egypt, for the most part, would come to dominate the region in mainly the coastal parts of Palestine. As for Josiah’s forts, they were most likely a constant nuisance to Psammetichus’ goal of a “total conquest” of the Philistine coast, or what is today known as the Gaza Strip. The city that troubled Psammetichus immensely was Ashdod. The Greek historian Herodotus says it took Pharaoh Psammetichus twenty-nine years to take the city. If these details are true, then the Egyptians’ goal to obtain complete stability remained out of reach for a further three decades.

One such possibility that tripped up the Egyptian advancement may have been the Scythians. The Scythians (according to Herodotus) invaded Palestine to halt the Egyptians advance; Pharaoh Psammetichus met them, gave them gifts and prayers, and sent them on their way. As they left, a number of them decided to venture into the city of Ascalon and plunder the temple of Aphrodite.

Philistine captives of the Egyptians, from a graphic wall relief at Medinet Habu. In about 1185-52 BC, during the reign of Ramesses III.

Philistine captives of the Egyptians, from a graphic wall relief at Medinet Habu. In about 1185-52 BC, during the reign of Ramesses III. (Public Domain)

A curse was swiftly put on those who had carried out this desecration. As for how long the Scythians remained in the area stifling Egypt’s attempt to take control of the region is uncertain.

Top Image: A lion is hunted, and is near death. Assyrian relief, Nineveh, north palace, 645-635 BCE (Public Domain)

By Cam Rea

References

Boardman, John, I. E. S. Edwards, and N. G. L. Hammond. The Cambridge Ancient History. The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C. Volume III, Part 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Brosius, Maria. Women in Ancient Persia, 559-331 B.C. . Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.

Chavalas, Mark W., and K. Lawson Younger. Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Glassner, Jean-Jacques and Benjamin R. Foster. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.

Lipinski, Edward. On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topographical Researches. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 2006.

Olmstead, A.T. History of Assyria. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1975 reprint (1923).

Saggs, H.W.F. The Might that was Assyria. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984.

Zawadzki, Stefan. The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle. Poznań: Adam. Mickiewicz University, 1988.

Posted on

“Lion of the North” Gustavus Adolphus and the Thirty Years’ War: Victories and Downfall – Part II

[Read Part I]

This is the recounting of the dramatic life of the “The Golden King” and “The Lion of the North” Gustav Adolf, and the Swedish Empire during stormaktstiden – “the Great Power era”.

As Gustav II Adolf (King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden) waited in Werben, Germany, Johann Tserclaes, the Count of Tilly (Field Marshall of the Catholic League’s forces) received a message from Field Marshall Pappenheim requesting that he come to Magdeburg and aid in its defense against the Swedes. After some time, Count Tilly decided to send three cavalry regiments on a recon mission towards Werben on July 27, 1631. After a few days, Gustav received word of the cavalry advance and quickly assembled 4,000 cavalry and led them towards the enemy force and surprised them at Burgstall and Angeren on August 1, 1631. The imperial forces suffered heavy casualties and lost their baggage.

[Left] Engraving of Gustavus Adolphus (Public Domain) and [Right] portrait of Count Johann t'Serclaes von Tilly. (Public Domain)

[Left] Engraving of Gustavus Adolphus (Public Domain) and [Right] portrait of Count Johann t’Serclaes von Tilly. (Public Domain)

During this engagement, Gustav himself almost became a casualty. Those who were captured provided the Swedish king with valuable information. He soon learned that Tilly was planning to attack his forces at Werben.

When news reached Tilly that the cavalry forces he had sent had been devastated, he fell into a rage. Tilly wasted no time; he mustered his forces, and pushed towards Werben with 15,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry. Tilly’s hurry towards Werben was to prevent the Swedes from fully digging themselves into a defensive position. However, when Tilly arrived, he saw that Swedes had already set up defensive fortifications, for it was standard procedure among the Swedish military to do so once they set up camp.  Tilly, seeing that the element of surprise was out of the question, positioned his forces and opened fire on the Swedish camp with sixteen heavy guns, and the Swedes obliged Tilly with a volley of their own.

Illustration of the Battle of Werben, detail.

Illustration of the Battle of Werben, detail.(Deutsche Fotothek‎/CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

The first day of fighting was primarily sorties and heavy skirmishing outside the Swedish perimeter. The second day was much the same, as each side exchanged cannon fire and engaged in limited skirmishes. While Tilly was poking and prodding the Swedes, he received intelligence that a German unit within the Swedish ranks would mutiny. Tilly, understandably suspicious of the information, decided that it was something he could not ignore. Therefore, Tilly gave the order to launch a full-scale assault on the Swedish entrenchments. This would be a grave mistake. As the imperial forces advanced, they came under a well-organized concentration of artillery and musket fire. The imperial forces began to drop quickly. Sensing that any further advancement would do them no good, they retreated, but as they did so, the Swedish cavalry fell on them. Six thousand imperial forces lay dead on the field of battle, while the remaining wounded and untouched scattered.

A scene of battle and death from another engagement during the Thirty Years’ War (Battle of Fleurus, Aug 20, 1622.)

A scene of battle and death from another engagement during the Thirty Years’ War (Battle of Fleurus, Aug 20, 1622.) (Public Domain)

Battle of Breitenfeld, Clashing Forces

After Werben, Tilly had received orders from the emperor to invade Saxony and force Elector John George to pledge his allegiance to the emperor and disband his army. John George did not answer Tilly but stalled to see what terms Gustav could offer. John George gave Tilly a negative answer but by that time Tilly’s forces had swelled to 36,000 troops who need supplies. Sensing that John George was not going to join the imperial forces, Tilly decided to move his forces into Saxony where he besieged, plundered, and raped the countryside for supplies.

By September 8, 1631, Tilly was quickly approaching Leipzig where he positioned his forces on the level terrain of Breitenfield, north of Leipzig. On the September 11, 1631, Gustav and John George came to a treaty in which Saxony would place its forces under the command of Gustav, along with one month’s pay, food, shelter. Most importantly, Saxony would make no peace with the empire.

On September 15, 1631, Gustav and John George meet, and began to maneuver around Leipzig to disrupt the imperial forces, to root out any enemy units, and to find an advantage before digging in for battle. The next day, the Swedes and their allies marched towards the city. As Gustav moved towards Leipzig, the garrison defending against the imperial forces, unaware that Gustav was on his way, surrendered to Tilly. Soon after the surrender, the imperial force began to pillage the city until news arrived that the Swedes were not far away.

Once the Swedish forces had arrived with their allies, Gustav arrayed his army that evening, and his men slept in the order in which they would march into combat. The battlefield they and the imperial forces agreed to engage upon was relatively broad, on a rolling plain north of Leipzig. It stretched for miles and was void of woods and rivers, making it ideal for two large armies to clash. The Swedish forces boasted 13,000 to 26,800 soldiers, while their Saxon allies reportedly had from 12,000 to 18,000 troops. As for field guns, numbers are disputed, as the number of cannons ranged between 51 to 100 heavy guns and every regiment each had their field guns. The same can be said for the imperial army, wherein it’s said they fielded anywhere from 27 to 36 cannons.

Battle of Breitenfeld – Initial dispositions, 17 September 1631 Swedish-Saxon forces in Blue, Catholic army in Red.

Battle of Breitenfeld – Initial dispositions, 17 September 1631 Swedish-Saxon forces in Blue, Catholic army in Red. (Public Domain)

Tilly deployed his imperial forces in fourteen tercio blocks (companies of men with pikes and/or firearms) in the center with his cavalry on either flank. Gustav deployed his forces in a similar fashion, with smaller units drawn up in two lines of musketeers supporting the cavalry while the infantry had the support of 42 two-man battalion guns, (even though the number of guns is uncertain). The smaller Saxon force under John George positioned to the left of the Swedish forces.

In this contemporary drawing, the Imperial formations (to the left) are deployed two companies deep, while the Swedish (to the right) are deployed just one company deep

In this contemporary drawing, the Imperial formations (to the left) are deployed two companies deep, while the Swedish (to the right) are deployed just one company deep (Public Domain)

At noon, both sides exchanged artillery fire. After two hours of trying to weaken one another with a near constant barrage, Tilly gave the order to move forward. Tilly’s intention was a double envelopment. Leading the way was Tilly’s left-wing cavalry, their goal was to engage and turn the Swedish right. However, the cavalry was stopped when the Swedes extended their lines, and alternated musket fire along with countering the imperial cavalry with their own cavalry.

While the Tilly had little luck attacking the Swedish right, he did find success on the left against the Saxons and were able to disperse them by 16:00. With Tilly’s tercios advancing with the aid of the cavalry, and with the dispersal of the Saxon forces thus exposing Gustav’s left, success seemed imminent. However, the left-wing of the Swedish cavalry was able to make a counter-attack and drive Tilly’s cavalry back into their own tercios, who happened to be reorganizing after their successful assault.

With Tilly’s forces preoccupied with reformation, Gustav took advantage of the moment by extending their flank and he counter-attacked with a steady, combined concentration of shock and firepower which compressed Tilly’s forces, causing confusion. The Swedish push was so successful that they were able to reclaim the Saxon artillery and capture the imperial artillery by steadily pushing the discombobulated enemy back.

With the imperial forces well behind their initial battle line, the Swedes used the captured artillery and turned it on the imperial forces, and by 18:00, Gustav swept the remaining enemy forces off the battlefield. Gustav demonstrated that the combination of finesse and firepower were far more dominant then the cumbrous system used by the enemy.

Battle of Breitenfeld – Annihilation, 17 September 1631 Swedish forces in Blue, Catholic army in Red.

Battle of Breitenfeld – Annihilation, 17 September 1631 Swedish forces in Blue, Catholic army in Red. (Public Domain)

Battle of Lech and A Clever Plan

After Breitenfeld, Gustav maintained success. He pushed further until he reached the Rhine, where he decided to consolidate his hold and to winter his troops. This gave time to make plans in acquiring an additional 210,000 men for his 1632 campaign, which would allow him to field six other armies and to use the rest to advance on Bavaria and possibly onto Vienna itself.

Once spring arrived, Gustav mustered his forces and began the trek towards Bavaria. However, there was a problem, once he reached the river Lech, it proved to be impassable. The reason f was that Tilly had destroyed all the bridges and had removed all the boats. Gustav quickly came up with a clever plan. He began an artillery barrage to distract Tilly while obscuring the real crossing point, which was three miles south of Rain where the Lech splits into two channels with a sizable island in the middle. It was there where the Swedes began constructing their bridge. The next day, Gustav placed 18 guns to cover the next step of the operation. With musketeers now on the island, Gustav made it lucrative by giving five months’ extra pay to those who would row across the river to the Bavarian bank. Three hundred and thirty-four Finns quickly got to work; carrying across the channel the last pieces of the prefabricated bridge. Once in place, the Swedish army still under the cover of fire, poured across the river. Tilly soon learned what was going on and sent troops to counter the Swedish advance and stop them from penetrating his camp.

A cavalry battle between 1626 and 1628

A cavalry battle between 1626 and 1628 (Public Domain)

Gustav had also sent 2,000 cavalry to ford the Lech a mile or two away, near the village of Munster. As expected, once the cavalry rolled up on Tilly they struck a decisive blow to the imperial left flank at the climax of battle. As the evening hours wore on, the imperial forces wore out and retreated, leaving their guns and baggage behind— and worst of all, Tilly took a hit to his right thigh by a cannon ball, which mortally wounded him. He died from this wound two weeks later.

As for Gustav, he would continue seeing victories as he pushed on, with his only real defeat coming in September 1632 at the Battle of the Alte Veste. Finally, his day under the sun came on November 16, 1632, at Lutzen.

Battle of Lützen

Late October 1632, word reached Gustav that general Albrecht von Wallenstein had led his forces northward to meet with another Imperial force under Count Pappenheim. Their goal was to subjugate Saxony and to cut off Gustav’s supply line to the Baltic. Gustav quickly headed north. While one might think he would call on the 163,000 troops he had available, the problem was that they were scattered throughout his holdings. Gustav had to make best with the available 19,000 men on hand.

On November 10, 1632, Gustav reached Naumburg and began to fortify his camp. Wallenstein mistakenly believed the Swedes were suspending their campaign and scattered his own forces about the lands since his camp at Leipzig could not provide enough supplies.

Gustav wasted no time in mustering his troops and marched out of Naumburg in the direction of Wallenstein’s camp on November 15, 1632. Wallenstein sent an urgent message to Pappenheim to bring back his cavalry. That night both armies slept in battle formation. If Wallenstein was not ready once morning arrived, he still had a little luck from nature as a fog rolled in. This allowed him to further prepare what may have been missing due to their hasty preparation. Around late morning, Gustav formed his 18,000 troops in nearly the same battle formation as they had held at Breitenfeld.

Map of the troop dispositions.

Map of the troop dispositions. (Public Domain)

The battle began with Gustav leading a cavalry charge towards the Imperial musketeers in a ditch. This charge, while effective in uprooting them, also cost the Swedish cavalry in many lives due to the musket fire. Driving the Imperial forces out of the ditch, the Swedish cavalry pressed on and were close to falling on the main body of infantry. However, the Imperial cavalry under Pappenheim appeared suddenly and countered the Swedish advance. The tide had shifted in favor of the Imperial forces. Nevertheless, the Swedes would regain the advantage when two musket balls mortally wounded Pappenheim. This would cause panic throughout the Imperial ranks due to Pappenheim reputation as a fine leader.

Gustavus Adolphus in the battle of Lützen.

Gustavus Adolphus in the battle of Lützen. (Public Domain)

With Pappenheim out of action, the Imperial left flank began to fall apart. While this was going on, the Swedish cavalry started hitting the center of the enemy. Victory seemed to be in Gustav’s hands but nature quickly stole it away when an even heavier mist rolled in on the battlefield. With both armies nearly blind by the fog, Gustav, who had the advantage and momentum, stalled. Gustav got word that his left flank was weakening and decided to help strengthen their position; this would be the end of the great king.

Gustav, as usual, led from the front and rode so fast he left his escort behind. In doing so, an Imperial musketeer took aim and shattered Gustav’s left arm. As it was known that Gustav forwent body armor due to an old wound that plagued his shoulder, he was easily shot in the back, and wounded grievously. He fell from the saddle with one foot in the stirrup, and was dragged for some time before being able to twist free. However, once free, lay face down in the mud when a third shot rang out, this time it was the death shot as it penetrated his head.

The Imperial forces seemed to be on the verge of victory but were thwarted by the Swedes who now took revenge for the death of their king. In the end, it was a Swedish victory with a high cost. The Swedes could not pursue the fleeing Imperial forces afterwards due to having lost a third of their men and on top of that, with a dead king on their hands.

The scene shows the death of the “Lion of the North” King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden on November 6, 1632.

The scene shows the death of the “Lion of the North” King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden on November 6, 1632. (Public Domain)

In conclusion, Gustav’s military reforms were revolutionary and evolutionary. In other words, it was just a matter of time and a bit of tinkering that manufactured a superb military force.  With combined arms, it was capable of producing a greater volley of fire and an ability to maneuver on the field of battle with speed and precision. No matter how effective Gustav’s forces were in battle, he continued to make changes. He felt all must be scrutinized for inconsistencies in order to stay one step ahead of any future foe. He is regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of all time.

Ultimately, his legacy is one of military supremacy, in effect determining the religious and political balance of power in Europe, making Sweden a Great Power and empire.

After his death, Gustavus's wife initially kept his body and his heart. His remains (including his heart) now rest with his sarcophagus at Riddarholm Church, Stockholm, Sweden.

After his death, Gustavus’s wife initially kept his body and his heart. His remains (including his heart) now rest with his sarcophagus at Riddarholm Church, Stockholm, Sweden. (Public Domain)

Top Image: Deriv; Portrait of Gustav II of Sweden (Public Domain) and his death on November 6, 1632. (Public Domain).

By Cam Rea

References

Addington, Larry H. The Patterns of War though The Eighteenth Century. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990.

Boot, Max. War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today. New York: Gotham Books, 2006.

Bradford, James C. International Encyclopedia of Military History. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Brzezinski, Richard and Richard Hook. The Army of Gustavus Adolphus (1): Infantry. London: Osprey, 1991.

Curtis, Benjamin W. The Habsburgs: The History of a Dynasty. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.

Dodge, Theodore Ayrault. Gustavus Adolphus. New York: Da Capo Press, 1998.

Fissel, Mark Charles and D. J. B. Trim. Amphibious Warfare 1000-1700: Commerce, State Formation and European Expansion. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Fletcher, C. R. L. Gustavus Adolphus and the Struggle of Protestantism for Existence. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890.

Frost, Robert I. The Northern Wars: War, State, and Society in Northeastern Europe, 1558-1721. Harlow, England: Longman, 2000.

Hart, B. H. Liddell. Great Captains Unveiled. New York and Washington D.C.: Da Capo Press, 1996.

Häusser, Ludwig, G. Sturge, and Wilhelm Oncken. The Period of the Reformation, 1517 to 1648. New York: American Tract Society, 1873.

Helfferich, Tryntje. The Thirty Years War: A Documentary History. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 2009.

Posted on

“Lion of the North” Gustavus Adolphus and the Thirty Years’ War: Fighting the Holy Roman Empire – Part I

 

On 9 December 1594, Gustav II Adolf was born. From the time of his birth until his coronation, his upbringing involved many lessons in politics, literature, military science, and physical development, making him physically and intellectually rounded. In 1611, his father, Charles IX of Sweden died, leaving the Swedish crown to the young Gustav who was sixteen at the time.

When Gustav was crowned king of Sweden, there was no celebration for the sixteen-year-old had inherited from his father three bloody wars against Denmark, Russia, and Poland, along with financial troubles. However, the boy king would not let these incredible challenges stop him from restoring stability to Sweden and leading his country towards military innovation and glory.

This is the recounting of the dramatic life of the “The Golden King” and “The Lion of the North” Gustav Adolf and the Swedish Empire during stormaktstiden – “the Great Power era”.

Gustav Enters the War

In 1629, the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II of Bohemia made a drastic move without consulting the electoral princes, his advisors, and the imperial diet as a whole when he announced the Edict of Restitution. This edict took 500 abbeys, two archbishoprics, and two bishoprics that had been “secularized” since 1552 by Germany princes and returned them back to the Catholic Church.

Ferdinand II of Habsburg, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, King of Hungary and Bohemia with his court dwarf.

Ferdinand II of Habsburg, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, King of Hungary and Bohemia with his court dwarf. (Public Domain)

This not only threatened the Protestant princes who sized church land, but indicated how far the emperor would go with his authority at the expense of his own subjects. Ferdinand’s expanding sphere of influence not only threatened the Protestant authorities within his realm, but also Sweden, for they shared a presence on the Baltic, which eventually induced Gustav to invade Germany.

Before Gustav could set off for war against the Holy Roman Empire, he needed to calculate the costs of the war and the amount of supplies the army would need. Upon examination, the Swedish exchequer concluded that it would cost the taxpayer 2,800,000 silver dalers. While the money was being carefully calculated and banked, the spending started immediately to pay the producers to manufacture the supplies and an army to use them. To get an idea of the amount of supplies needed, an infantry regiment of 576 muskets would need 3,000 pounds of gunpowder, 2,400 pounds of lead, and 3,400 pounds of match each month while campaigning.

Early spring 1630, Gustav mustered 13,641 soldiers and placed them to a fleet consisting of 25 major warships along with 75 smaller units and transports. With troops assembled, they boarded the ships.

The Vasa, early 17th century warship, was ordered by King Adolphus and built at the Stockholm shipyard by Henrik Hybertsson - an experienced Dutch shipbuilder. Vasa was to be the mightiest warship in the world, armed with 64 guns on two gundecks.

The Vasa, early 17th century warship, was ordered by King Adolphus and built at the Stockholm shipyard by Henrik Hybertsson – an experienced Dutch shipbuilder. Vasa was to be the mightiest warship in the world, armed with 64 guns on two gundecks. (Dennis Jarvis/CC BY-SA 2.0)

However, the winds were unfavorable, and it took the fleet a little longer than hoped to arrive. On June 25, the Swedish forces quickly disembarked at Peenemunde, which is located on the northern end of the island of Usedom, sent reconnaissance parties out, built field fortifications, and began sweeping the island clean of enemy forces. By July 4, the island was under Swedish control. With a base established, the Swedes could now receive supplies and troops and when news reached the German interior that Gustav had arrived, the Protestant powers of Europe, such as the elector Palatine and Landgrave (Duke) of Hesse-Cassel, saw opportunity arriving, as he had had much of his land stripped away by the emperor.

The prow of the Vasa. “During the 1961 recovery, thousands of artifacts and the remains of at least 15 people were found in and around the Vasa's hull by marine archaeologists.”

The prow of the Vasa. “During the 1961 recovery, thousands of artifacts and the remains of at least 15 people were found in and around the Vasa’s hull by marine archaeologists.” (Jorge Láscar/CC BY-SA 2.0)

On July 18, Gustav mustered 8,723 men who boarded fifty-one ships suitable to sail up the Oder River. On July 19, the Swedish forces set sail down the Oder. By noon on July 20, the Swedish forces had arrived at Stettin. Gustav ordered that part of his troops land near the Oderburg castle where he took up position, and after some deliberation with the authorities, the city of Stettin surrendered. Gustav not only established a foothold in the interior of Germany, but also gained a major economical artery.

Before pushing any further south, Gustav decided to stay put in Pomerania to strengthen his position. However, Protestant support was still lacking. Many began to view his arrival with suspicion instead of opportunity—except for one.

While Gustav remained in Stettin, the large prosperous city of Magdeburg on the Elbe River, in August 1630 rose up against imperial authority and joined Sweden. Not long after the city came under siege and asked Gustav to alleviate them.  However, Gustav could do little to help. The reason for this is that if he were to rush to their assistance, he would have to lead his army though the neutral territories of Brandenburg and Saxony. Moreover, he would also have to pass though enemy territory. However, Gustav knew that Magdeburg was under siege by a small imperial force, which could hold out for some time. Of course, it could hold out for a considerable amount of time so long as Count Tilly and his powerful Catholic forces did not aid the besiegers. Magdeburg would have to wait. Gustav had other problems to deal with; the winter and supplies.

The winter of 1630-31 slowed not only the forces of Tilly but also the enemy forces stationed at Gartz and those east and west of Gustav along the coast. The reason for the stagnation of the imperial forces was due to not having the proper attire for the winter, thus causing them to stay put in their winter camps. The Swedish forces on the other had been equipped for the winter with fur-lined coats, boots, head covers, and gloves.

Kyller - It was worn by military men, mainly cavalry in the 1600s and 1700s under armor.

Kyller – It was worn by military men, mainly cavalry in the 1600s and 1700s under armor.  (Livrustkammaren (The Royal Armoury)/CC BY-SA 3.0)

While the winter did not stop the Swedish troops, it did slow them down. The reason for their sluggish movement was due to logistical issues. However, logistical issues were not going to stop Gustav when he saw opportunity, as intelligence reports indicated that the imperial forces at Gartz were reduced from 6,000 men. Gustav mustered his forces and moved his troops by foot and flotilla on the unfrozen Oder River on Christmas Eve, and attacked the 4,000 imperial forces remaining at Gartz. The Swedes were victorious. However, victory came due to the garrison being undisciplined and most importantly, many had been out searching for food, thus leaving only a small force to resist.

With Gartz under Swedish control, Gustav now had a firm hold on Pomerania with the exception of a few smaller besieged garrisons. With success came issues in early 1631, for Gustav lacked the money needed to pay his troops. A man by the name of Armand Jean du Plessis, better known to us as Cardinal Richelieu, came forward and offered Gustav a proposal that would greatly help the Swedish forces continue the fight.

Cardinal Richelieu, French Money, Religion and Politics

The citizens of Sweden were poverty-stricken, and further war at their expense threatened the infrastructure of Gustav’s kingdom if the war became protracted. Furthermore, he had no allies. Denmark could have provided assistance but they remained neutral and were still viewed as untrustworthy by Gustav (even though King Christian publicly expressed friendship, it did not sway Gustav).

Portrait of Cardinal Richelieu

Portrait of Cardinal Richelieu (Public Domain)

One would think that other Protestant kingdoms outside of Germany would have mustered their forces and pushed on into Germany. Unfortunately, many of them were already in war or coming out of a war against a powerful Catholic state. England could have helped but they had just signed a peace treaty with Spain. The Netherlands could have helped, but were busy fighting Spain. As mentioned, Denmark remained neutral; this was due to being beaten into submission and afterwards paid off to remain neutral. Inviting the Ottomans into the war was a possibility but was looked upon as an uncertainty. As for all the Protestant princes within Holy Roman Empire, they either stayed neutral, looking for ways to find peace, or sought outside help to fund their military endeavors. Because of this, the only two powers one could look to help their religious cause were France and Sweden.

France could have entered the war on the side of the Catholics. However, politics was thicker than religious similarities. Because of this, King Louis XIII of France’s chief minister Cardinal Richelieu proposed an entirely different approach. Instead of aiding the Catholic nations in their war, why not aid the Protestants? Richelieu’s thinking was politically strategic. Richelieu understood that if France were to support Emperor Ferdinand II, they would be helping to further politically and territorially suffocate themselves for the powerful House of Habsburg. The only nation and leader battle-hardened and strong enough to curtail the Catholics was King Gustav of Sweden.

Cardinal Richelieu at the Siege of La Rochelle, a result of a war between the French royal forces of Louis XIII the Huguenots of La Rochelle, at the height of the tensions between the Catholics and the Protestants in France.

Cardinal Richelieu at the Siege of La Rochelle, a result of a war between the French royal forces of Louis XIII the Huguenots of La Rochelle, at the height of the tensions between the Catholics and the Protestants in France. (Public Domain)

Richelieu approached Gustav with the proposal to enter the war with the aid of subsides. Gustav had no issue with this and greatly accepted. However, it came down to ‘name your price’. Gustav asked for six hundred thousand rixdollars (silver coinage used throughout the European continent) a year but Richelieu quickly declined, for it was too much. However, Richelieu concluded that money well spent is money well-earned and agreed to Gustav’s terms with the signing of the Treaty of Bärwalde 23 January 1631. After the parties agreed to the terms, Gustav had one more favor to ask, and that was to make the agreement public. Richelieu disagreed, but understood the circumstances at hand. By agreeing to make the treaty public, this was making a statement that showed Catholic France and Protestant Sweden were united and most importantly, the treaty itself was an invitation to the Protestant states to join the war against the Holy Roman Empire.

The Battle of Frankfurt an der Oder

Six days after signing the Treaty of Bärwalde, Gustav turned his forces back north and headed towards the fortified city of Demmin. In less than three weeks the Swedish forces had captured six towns including Demmin, which surrendered after a siege of two days. While Gustav moved with fluidity, Tilly had to turn west for a moment before swinging north. As Tilly’s forces continued pushing north, he decided to hit soft targets, like that of Swedish occupied Neu-Brandenburg, whose garrison lacked artillery and was secured by only 750 troops. Gustav was quick to respond by mustering 19,000 men to relive the city but then refrained from doing so. Gustav had the men but his cavalry was largely unpaid German mercenaries who might have proved unreliable.

Therefore, Gustav decided on a far different strategy. He decided that to relieve the city. He would have to move his forces towards Frankfurt. This would distract Tilly and disrupt his communications with the forces besieging Magdeburg. However, when Tilly got word of Gustav’s army moving towards Frankfurt it was too late. Tilly had stormed Neu-Brandenburg and sacked the town. Afterwards, Tilly moved his forces to aid in the siege at Magdeburg in hopes to end it. Unfortunately for Tilly, his forces proved too small to make a difference. To make matters worse for Tilly, Gustav on March 27 had pushed south on the Ober with a force of 14,000 troops and 200 guns, to attack Frankfurt. Gustav also knew that the garrison of Frankfurt consisted of 6,000 soldiers and capable commanders, thus it was imperative to take Frankfurt quickly.

Swedish infantry and cavalry led by the Swedish king Gustav II Adolf march through Frankfurt, 17 November 1631. Cannons firing.

Swedish infantry and cavalry led by the Swedish king Gustav II Adolf march through Frankfurt, 17 November 1631. Cannons firing. (Public Domain)

On March 31, Tilly pulled his forces and headed to relive Frankfurt. However, when he arrived, it was too late. On April 3, the Swedish forces stormed the city, massacred the garrison and sacked the town. Seeing that Frankfurt was lost, Tilly returned to Magdeburg. Tilly’s return was a smart move, for he would have known that Gustav’s forces lay in wait for his arrival. Tilly’s about face from Frankfurt frustrated Gustav. Seeing that Tilly would not take the bait, Gustav tried to negotiate with the electorates of Saxony and Brandenburg that would allow his forces to pass through their neutral territorial in order to reach and relieve Magdeburg of the imperial forces. Finally, on April 20, Saxony and Brandenburg gave permission. Unfortunately, it came too late, for Tilly had assaulted the city and the imperial forces who happened to be unpaid and under-fed, torched the city and killed 20,000 inhabitants. Even though this campaign between Gustav and Tilly was purely defensive maneuvering, the end was clearly a Swedish victory.

The Sack of Magdeburg, 1631.

The Sack of Magdeburg, 1631. (Public Domain)

The Battle of Werben

Three months later, at Werben, near the confluence of the Havel and Elbe, Gustav established his camp, while Tilly had moved into Hesse-Cassel. The reason for Gustav’s establishing himself at Werben was to keep Tilly away from that principality. Tilly chose Hesse-Cassel to provision his forces and attempted to convince the landgrave to join him. However, the langrave decided to put his support behind the Swedes and thus entered into an alliance with Gustav.

As Gustav waited in Werben, Tilly received a message from Field Marshall Pappenheim requesting that he come to Magdeburg and aid in its defense against the Swedes. After some time, Tilly decided to send three cavalry regiments on a recon mission towards Werben on July 27, 1631. After a few days, Gustav received word of the cavalry advance and quickly assembled 4,000 cavalry and led them towards the enemy force and surprised them at Burgstall and Angeren on August 1, 1631. The imperial forces suffered heavy casualties and lost their baggage.

During this engagement, Gustav himself almost became a casualty. Those who were captured provided the Swedish king with valuable information. He soon learned that Tilly was planning to attack his forces at Werben…

King Gustavus II Adolphus statue, Stockholm

King Gustavus II Adolphus statue, Stockholm (CC BY-SA 2.0)—

Top Image: The victory of Gustavus Adolphus at the Battle of Breitenfeld (1631) (Public Domain)

By Cam Rea

References

Addington, Larry H. The Patterns of War though The Eighteenth Century. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990.

Boot, Max. War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today. New York: Gotham Books, 2006.

Bradford, James C. International Encyclopedia of Military History. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Brzezinski, Richard and Richard Hook. The Army of Gustavus Adolphus (1): Infantry. London: Osprey, 1991.

Curtis, Benjamin W. The Habsburgs: The History of a Dynasty. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.

Dodge, Theodore Ayrault. Gustavus Adolphus. New York: Da Capo Press, 1998.

Fissel, Mark Charles and D. J. B. Trim. Amphibious Warfare 1000-1700: Commerce, State Formation and European Expansion. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Fletcher, C. R. L. Gustavus Adolphus and the Struggle of Protestantism for Existence. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890.

Frost, Robert I. The Northern Wars: War, State, and Society in Northeastern Europe, 1558-1721. Harlow, England: Longman, 2000.

Hart, B. H. Liddell. Great Captains Unveiled. New York and Washington D.C.: Da Capo Press, 1996.

Häusser, Ludwig, G. Sturge, and Wilhelm Oncken. The Period of the Reformation, 1517 to 1648. New York: American Tract Society, 1873.

Helfferich, Tryntje. The Thirty Years War: A Documentary History. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 2009.

Posted on

The Maiden of France: A Brief Overview of Joan of Arc and the Siege of Orléans

 

 

France, embroiled in a war with England in a struggle over the French throne during the Hundred Years’ War, would find a savior who in turn was a heretic to the English. This sinner and saint was a woman by the name of Joan of Arc. While most people know that the English burned her at the stake at Vieux Marche in Rouen, most have forgotten her military adventures against the English.

The Peasant Girl

In 1412, Joan of Arc (or Jeanne d’Arc) was born in the village of Domremy located in the Duchy of Bar, France. She was the daughter of poor farmers by the names of Jacques d’ Arc and his wife Isabelle. Like the upbringing on any farm, Joan learned primarily agricultural skills. She was said to have been a hardworking and religious child.

Jeanne d'Arc, by Eugène Thirion (1876). The portrait depicts Joan of Arc's awe upon receiving a vision from the Archangel Michael.

Jeanne d’Arc, by Eugène Thirion (1876). The portrait depicts Joan of Arc’s awe upon receiving a vision from the Archangel Michael. (Public Domain)

Joan’s fame came when she claimed to hear the voice of God, which instructed her to expel the English and to have the Dauphin, Charles Valois (Crown Prince of France) crowned king of France. Incredibly, Joan would get her chance to meet with the Dauphin Charles VII when the situation changed for the worse in 1429.

In 1429, the city of Orleans, loyal to the French crown, had been under siege by the English for over a year. With Orleans heavily under attack, the uncle of Henry VI, John, Duke of Bedford and the English regent, advanced with a force towards the Duchy of Bar, which at that time was under the rule of Rene, the brother-in-law of Charles Valois.

Siege of Orléans, 1429.

Siege of Orléans, 1429. (Public Domain)

Divine Revelation

Seeing that the English advance seemed unstoppable, the young Joan in the village of Domremy, approached the garrison commander, Robert de Baudricourt, and informed him that voices told her to rescue Orleans. She demanded that he assemble some men, provide some resources, and take her to meet with the Dauphin at Chinon.  The garrison commander scoffed at the idea of a peasant girl standing before the French Royal Court and sent her away. Not dissuaded, she petitioned Baudricourt’s soldiers, and making accurate predictions about the outcomes of battles (apparently proving divine revelation), was eventually escorted to the Royal Court.

Joan arrived at Chinon on 23 February 1429. Right before Joan arrived, Charles is said to have disguised himself to see if she would be able to identify him, and to test her ‘powers’ as a prophetess, but it was to no avail, because she bowed before him, and said, “God give you a happy life, sweet King!”

Miniature from Vigiles du roi Charles VII. Joan of Arc and Charles VII, king of France.

Miniature from Vigiles du roi Charles VII. Joan of Arc and Charles VII, king of France. (Public Domain)

After a lengthy examination by the theologians, she was found not to be a heretic or insane. With no mental issues found, they advised Charles to let her do what the divine will had apparently commanded her to do. Charles agreed.

Joan of Arc on horseback. (1505)

Joan of Arc on horseback. (1505) (Public Domain)

Before setting off to fight the English, Joan wrote a letter to English king and English Regent of France:

JESUS, MARY

King of England, render account to the King of Heaven of your royal blood. Return the keys of all the good cities which you have seized, to the Maid. She is sent by God to reclaim the royal blood, and is fully prepared to make peace, if you will give her satisfaction; that is, you must render justice, and pay back all that you have taken.

King of England, if you do not do these things, I am the commander of the military; and in whatever place I shall find your men in France, I will make them flee the country, whether they wish to or not; and if they will not obey, the Maid will have them all killed. She comes sent by the King of Heaven, body for body, to take you out of France, and the Maid promises and certifies to you that if you do not leave France she and her troops will raise a mighty outcry as has not been heard in France in a thousand years. And believe that the King of Heaven has sent her so much power that you will not be able to harm her or her brave army.

To you, archers, noble companions in arms, and all people who are before Orleans, I say to you in God’s name, go home to your own country; if you do not do so, beware of the Maid, and of the damages you will suffer. Do not attempt to remain, for you have no rights in France from God, the King of Heaven, and the Son of the Virgin Mary. It is Charles, the rightful heir, to whom God has given France, who will shortly enter Paris in a grand company. If you do not believe the news written of God and the Maid, then in whatever place we may find you, we will soon see who has the better right, God or you.

William de la Pole, Count of Suffolk, Sir John Talbot, and Thomas, Lord Scales, lieutenants of the Duke of Bedford, who calls himself regent of the King of France for the King of England, make a response, if you wish to make peace over the city of Orleans! If you do not do so, you will always recall the damages which will attend you.

Duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of France for the King of England, the Maid asks you not to make her destroy you. If you do not render her satisfaction, she and the French will perform the greatest feat ever done in the name of Christianity.

Done on the Tuesday of Holy Week (March 22, 1429). HEAR THE WORDS OF GOD AND THE MAID.

One can definitely suspect that the king of England and the English Regent of France did not take it to be cordial.

Religious War

Joan of Arc, as a symbol of god’s will to the French, had turned a generational Anglo-French battle over thrones into a religious war.

Joan of Arc

Joan of Arc (Public Domain)

After convincing the theologians and future king of France that the divine had sent her, she was given armor to wear and a force of four thousand men were placed under her command. She set off towards Orleans soon after, carrying a white banner depicting Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and two angels.

Fortifications around Orleans at the time of the siege. English forts are depicted red, French forts depicted in blue.

Fortifications around Orleans at the time of the siege. English forts are depicted red, French forts depicted in blue. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

On 29 April 1429, she entered Orleans. She there met with the commander of the garrison, John, the Bastard of Orleans. Upon meeting him, she demanded that he immediately attack the English. However, John was not ready. While John was preparing with the now additional four thousand troops who accompanied Joan, Joan decided to approach and shout at the English troops. She informed them that she was the one sent by God—the “maiden”—and said to them “Begone, or I will make you go” but the English upon hearing her message, hurled insults back.

On April 30 the Orleans militia, under the command of Etienne de Vignoles, assaulted the English at the Boulevard of Saint-Pouair, but the attack proved unsuccessful. Joan called out to Sir William Glasdale at Les Tourelles stating, “Yield to God’s command.” The English replied by calling her a “cowgirl”.  They made it known to Joan that if they captured her they would surely burn her. But even in their anger, they were also cautious.

On May 1, Dunois and a small band of men, along with Joan and some soldiers, left to bring the army back to Blois. During this small mission, the English did not attempt to engage the French even though they knew she was among this small army. Interestingly, the reason for not engaging the French seems to have been due to fear, for the lower English ranks feared that she had some supernatural powers and to risk taking her dead or alive was detrimental to their own wellbeing.

On May 3, the main body of Joan’s relief force arrived. She made it clear to the French soldiers and officers that God had sent her, as she rode in at the head as a priest chanted from the book of Psalms.

(Creative Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0)

With Joan and 4,000 men in Orleans, the Armagnacs (Prominent Orleanists in French politics) attacked the outlying English fort of Saint Loup on May 4 and captured it. Feeling confident after the capture of Saint Loup, the French were preparing to attack the weakest English bastions on the south bank of the Loire the next day. However, despite the win, Joan decided on a temporary one-day truce to honor the Feast of the Ascension on May 5. It was during this truce that Joan wrote a letter for the English stating, “You, men of England, who have no right to this Kingdom of France, the king of Heaven orders and notifies you through me, Joan the Maiden, to leave your country; or I will produce a clash of arms to be eternally remembered. And this is the third and last time I have written to you; I shall not write anything further.”

She gave this letter to a crossbowman and he shot the letter into the English fortress of Les Tourelles. In the fortress, an archer retrieved the message and said, “Read, here is the news!” The English commander replied, “Here is news from the Armagnac whore!” Joan is said to have wept after hearing their reply.

The English Downfall

On May 6, the French set off and reached Fort Saint-Jean-le-Blanc. However, they found it empty. The Armagnacs continued to advance. The English appeared outside the fort and attempted a cavalry charge but were defeated and driven back into their stronghold.

15th-century depiction of Joan of Arc leading an assault on an English fort at the siege of Orléans.

15th-century depiction of Joan of Arc leading an assault on an English fort at the siege of Orléans. (Public Domain)

With the English bottled up, the Armagnacs continued on capturing another English forts near the Les Augustins monastery. From here, the Aramagnacs held steady on the south bank of the river Loire before engaging the English fortress of Les Tourelles the following morning on May 7.

While Joan partook in many of the battles, she did so from a support role, encouraging the men, boosting morale and confidence, and she also helped many of the wounded before she was herself wounded above the breast by an arrow at Les Tourelles. She is said to have pulled the arrow out with her own hand and dressed the wound with oil. After treating her wound and getting some rest, she noticed French troops retreating from the fortress. She quickly grabbed her standard, and stormed towards the fortress. She stuck her banner into ground and shouted encouragement to the men to fight on.

Sir William Glasdale and his small English force, seeing that they could hold no longer in their earth-and-timber fortress, and after witnessing that Joan was not dead, fled the flimsy ill-constructed fort for the safer stone fortress of Les Tourelles. It was at this moment that Joan saw Glasdale fleeing and shouted to him. “Glasdale! Glasdale! Yield to the King of Heaven! You called me a whore, but I have great pity on your soul and the souls of your men!”

Whether Glasdale stopped or not is up for debate, but during the chaos around them, a French incendiary boat became wedged beneath the wooden drawbridge, causing it to catch fire. Glasdale and his men attempting to cross it to reach the safety of Les Tourelles, did not make it, for the bridge caught fire and soon weakened. The bridge could not hold the weight of the men and it disintegrated and gave way. Glasdale and the men with him went crashing into the river and drowned due to the weight of their armor.

Tables Turned

The seemingly unstoppable French advance caused the English to surrender the fortress, which resulted in a French victory that lifted the siege of Orleans. Nine days after Joan’s arrival at Orleans, the siege had collapsed. This military victory was a major turning point in the Hundred Years war.

Afterwards, more fortresses fell within the duchy causing the English to send forces to stop the advancement but they were in turn defeated. In just a few weeks, the English in the Loire valley were swept aside and Bedford, the English Regent of France, had lost much of his supplies, which greatly crippled any further English advancement for the time being.

Joan partook in many successful military operations until the English eventually captured her.

Joan of Arc and the French army marched toward the defense of Compiegne against the Burgundian army, led by John of Luxembourg, and arrived on 14 May 1430. However, on May 22, Joan went out during a sortie and surprised the Burgundians. While Joan’s attack was effective, the Burgundian forces refused defeat, rallied their forces, and defeated her men.

Joan retreated towards the gates and continued to fight, as she refused to admit defeat. This stubborn will allowed her to fall into the hands of her enemy, for the commander of the town left the gates open long enough for Joan and her forces to enter. However, seeing Joan refusing to disengage and the enemy ever so close to the entrance, the commander ordered the gate shut, sealing Joan’s fate.

Joan captured by the Burgundians at Compiègne. Mural in the Panthéon, Paris.

Joan captured by the Burgundians at Compiègne. Mural in the Panthéon, Paris. (Public Domain)

After the Burgundians captured her, they imprisoned Joan at Beaulieu Castle at Rouen. After a lengthy imprisonment and trial, the Maiden of France was executed on 30 May 1431.

"Joan of Arc dies at the stake", painted in 1843 by German artist Hermann Anton Stilke (1803-1860). Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg.

“Joan of Arc dies at the stake”, painted in 1843 by German artist Hermann Anton Stilke (1803-1860). Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg. (Public Domain)

Featured image: Detail; Joan of Arc at the Siege of Orléans by Jules Lenepveu (CC BY-SA 2.5)

By Cam Rea

References

Baumgaertner, Wm. E. A Timeline of Fifteenth Century England – 1398 to 1509. Victoria, B.C., Canada: Trafford Publishing, 2009.

Bradbury, Jim. The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare. London: Routledge, 2004.

Edmunds, Joan M. The Mission of Joan of Arc. Forest Row: Temple Lodge, 2008.

DeVries, Kelly. Joan of Arc: A Military Leader. Stroud: Sutton, 1999.

Dupuy, Trevor N., Curt Johnson, and David L. Bongard. The Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1992.

Joan of Arc. Letter to the King of England, 1429. Translated by Belle Tuten from M. Vallet de Vireville, ed. Chronique de la Pucelle, ou Chronique de Cousinot. Paris: Adolphe Delahaye, 1859, pp. 281-283. https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/joanofarc.asp

Mirabal, Laura. Joan of Arc: The Lily of France. Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse, 2010.

Pernoud, Régine, Marie-Véronique Clin, Jeremy duQuesnay Adams, and Bonnie Wheeler. Joan of Arc: Her Story. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.

Richey, Stephen W. Joan of Arc: The Warrior Saint. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2003.

Tuckey, Janet. Joan of Arc, “the Maid;”. London: M. Ward & Co, 1880.

Wagner, John A. Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2006.

Posted on

The Iron Army: Assyria – Deadly and Effective Siege Machine – Part II

 

 

While the ram attempted to smash and loosen the rocky walls, Assyrian assault teams with scaling ladders would try to breach walls. The ram, while effective, was also vulnerable to enemy defenders dropping chains to pull the battering pole aside. Because of this issue, the Assyrians deployed men who counter this by hooking the chains with iron grapples. The prophet Joel gives a description of the Assyrian wall scaling:

“They rush upon the city;
they run along the wall.
They climb into the houses;
like thieves they enter through the windows.”

[Read Part I]

Joel’s description is quite accurate. Besides reliance on battering rams to bring down the walls, they also looked to sappers.

Undermining Fortifications

Assyrian sappers (soldiers for building, demolitions, general construction) would approach the walls possibly under the cover of shield bears, the same type that protected the archers one could suspect. If they had no such protection, the Assyrian king made sure his specialized troop had the armor needed to get the job done. The sapper, particularly during the rule of Ashurnasirpal (883-859 BCE), were heavily armored and wore long padded mailed coverings along with a conical helmet with mail protecting the face and neck.  Once at the walls, they would aid in helping the battering rams dislodge blocks from the wall with special flat-topped crowbars, pick axes, hoes, and drills. If the sappers could not get near the walls, they tunneled under them and prop it up with wooden supports until the hole was rather large and deep, after which they would set fire to the structure causing the foundation to weaken and collapse.

While the battering ram was effective, the Assyrians had a backup plan usually underway during the siege to aid the army if the rams failed to dislodge the walls, and that was siege towers. As these siege towers are pushed forward, archers would accompany them with the duty to pick off any enemy foe threatening to toss an incendiary weapon at the tower. Furthermore, the Assyrians placed hoses on the tower from which water poured over the leather sheets covering the wooden structure to prevent the tower from catching fire. If the water hoses failed and fire did catch, a man holding a large ladle with would extinguish the flames the best he could.

Siege Tower on the Lachish, Relief in the British Museum.

Siege Tower on the Lachish, Relief in the British Museum. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

If the battering rams breached the walls, the Assyrian infantry behind the rams would pour through the hole under the cover of their archers and slingers. The Assyrian infantry were heavy spearmen armed with long, double-bladed spears, straight swords for close combat and they carried a small shield. The armor worn by the infantryman was a conical helmet, a knee-length coat of iron mail which was lined with wool to absorb the blows from weapons and allowed heat to dissipate. To protect his legs, he wore knee-high leather boots that had iron plates attached to the shins.

Heavy-armed archers in action. Assyrian, about 700-692 BC. From Nineveh, South-West Palace. These archers, the front one of whom is beardless, possibly an enuch, are each accompanied by a soldier whose duty it is to hold the tall shield in position and guard against any enemies who come too close.

Heavy-armed archers in action. Assyrian, about 700-692 BC. From Nineveh, South-West Palace. These archers, the front one of whom is beardless, possibly an enuch, are each accompanied by a soldier whose duty it is to hold the tall shield in position and guard against any enemies who come too close. (Mike Peel www.mikepeel.net/CC BY-SA 4.0)

Plunder and Refugees

Inside the city, the Assyrian infantry would slash and plunder their way through. Once the slaughter and pillaging were over, those still alive (as at Samaria, which was sacked in 721 BCE), would feed the deported refugees during the journey back into Assyria, while also being treated by physicians to keep hygiene up and disease out. Furthermore, the Assyrians provided footwear if needed, along with carts for the longer journeys for women and children. Families were not separated for the most part. The Assyrians wanted to keep the families and communities together, as well as their national identity. Assyria was not a melting pot of nations. The Assyrians wanted to preserve the identity of the deportees for social and military strength and to lessen the possible acts of rebellion.

Judean people being deported into exile after the capture of Lachish. his relief depicts a man, 2 women, and 2 (male and female) children being deported with their household belongings.

Judean people being deported into exile after the capture of Lachish. his relief depicts a man, 2 women, and 2 (male and female) children being deported with their household belongings. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

After the people had been gathered and exported, the Assyrians, like a swarm of army ants, took the captured fortified cities, or even a villages, and would destroy and take everything. Trees that were in or around the city or village were usually cut down and the timber taken back as spoils of war. Trees such as date palms were stripped naked and then cut down, leaving only the stump behind so they could not grow again. Other trees would be uprooted and replanted back in Assyria. Farmlands also did not escape Assyrian plunder, for they too were likely stripped bare leaving the farmland as it was before planting. When Tiglath-pileser conquered most of Syria and Lebanon, he took many of the trees for his palace and as tribute:

With the keen understanding and grasp of intellect with which the Master of the gods, the prince Nudimmut (Ea) endowed me, a palace of cedar… and a portico (bit hilanni) patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, for my enjoyment, I built in Kalal (Kahi).”

A palace of cedar “Their (the palaces) doorways, of ivory, maple box-wood, mulberry, cedar… juniper, tribute of the Hittitte kings of the princes of the Aramaeans and of Chaldea, which I brought in submission to my feet through my valorous heroism. I made and I richly adorned them with tall cedar beams, whose fragrance is as good as that of the cypress tree, products of Amanus, Lebanon, and Ammanana (Anti – Lebanon) … The doorleaves of cedar and cypress, which give unbounded joy to the one entering them (and) whose odor penetrates to the heart, I bound with a sheathing of shining zahalu and (sariru) and hung (them) in the door-(ways).

People’s valuables were taken as well, apart from the things the captives needed in their day-to-day life. Even the temples’ valuables such as gold or silver were stripped. Idols in these temples were transported back to Assyria and paraded as weak gods of the conquered host; they could not compete with the gods that favored Assyria.

Once the refugees made it into the Assyrian homeland, they were sent to deportee camps before being sent to the region assigned to them. This was almost like a debriefing center. To give an example, one could look to Sargon II and the place of Dur-Sharrukin:

Peoples of the four quarters, of strange tongues and different speech, dwelling in mountains and plains…. I took as spoil at the word of Ashur my lord. I made of them one purpose, I made them take up abode therein [i.e., inside Dur-Sharrukin]. I sent natives of Assyria, competent in everything, as overseers and supervisors, to instruct them in custom and to serve the gods and the king.

After the Assyrians settled the captives in their assigned regions, the Assyrian monarch would make them feel welcome and comfortable. This was to keep any attempt of rebellion down. As the Assyrian monarch took the role as spokesman for the gods, it was his duty to accept all nations and to keep the peace within the Assyrian empire. Bustenay Oded writes well when referring to the role of the deported once they had been settled:

“..the exiled communities played a role very similar to that of the Assyrian garrisons stationed in all parts of the Assyrian empire, or to that of Assyrian citizens who were settled in conquered countries either as city dwellers, farmers, or officials. This explains the favorable treatment the deportees generally enjoyed, and the great concern shown by the Assyrian rulers for their welfare.”

After a long siege, the city of Lachish surrendered and the Assyrian army entered the city. King Sennacherib sits on his royal chair, surrounded by attendants and greets a high-ranking official. The king reviews Judean prisoners.

After a long siege, the city of Lachish surrendered and the Assyrian army entered the city. King Sennacherib sits on his royal chair, surrounded by attendants and greets a high-ranking official. The king reviews Judean prisoners. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

In conclusion, the Assyrians were indeed the first iron army but more important than that, was the fact that they were in many ways the first professionalized fighting force that integrated and effectively used command and control along with the combined arms (conventional and specialized) apparatus to their advantage long before anyone else. While this new professional army had its way with its neighbors, they too would succumb to those seeking to make a name in the wild near east. However, unlike those who would come after, only a few could match the Assyrian fighting force in name and merit when it came to war machine known as Assyria.

Top Image: Assyrian relief of a horseman from Nimrud, now in the British Museum (CC BY-SA 3.0)

By Cam Rea

References

Archer, Christon I. World History of Warfare. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.

Campbell, Duncan B. Besieged: Siege Warfare in the Ancient World. Oxford: Osprey, 2006.

Carey, Brian Todd, Joshua B. Allfree, and John Cairns. Warfare in the Ancient World. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Military, 2005.

David, Richard, Barnett and Margarete Falkner. The sculptures of Aššur-nasir-apli II, 883-859 B.C., Tiglath-pileser III, 745-727 B.C. [and] Esarhaddon, 681-669 B.C., from the central and south-west palaces at Nimrud. (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1962.

Eadie, John W., “The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry” The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1/2 (1967), 161-173.

Fagan, Garrett G., and Matthew Trundle. New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Gabriel, Richard A. Great Captains of Antiquity. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2001.

Gabriel, Richard A. The Culture of War: Invention and Early Development. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.

Gabriel, Richard A. The Military History of Ancient Israel. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2003.

Soldiers’ Lives through History – The Ancient World. Westport, Conn:    Greenwood Press, 2006.

Healy, Mark, and Angus McBride. The Ancient Assyrians. London: Osprey, 1991.

Kern, Paul Bentley. Ancient Siege Warfare. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999.

Nosov, K., and V. Golubev. Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons: A Fully Illustrated Guide to Siege Weapons and Tactics. Guilford, Conn: Lyons Press, 2005.

Oded, Bustenay. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979.

Rawlinson, George, Ancient Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World Vol I, (New York: Lovell, Coryell & CO, 1881.

Roberts, Janet “Centering the World”: Trees as Tribute in the Ancient Near East.” Transoxiana Journal Libre de Estudios Orientales.http://www.transoxiana.com.ar/11/roberts-near_east_trees.html (accessed August 11, 2016, 2011).

Saggs, H. W. F. The Might That Was Assyria. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984.

Vuksic, V. & Z. Grbasic, Cavalry: The History of a Fighting Elite, (London: Cassell, 1993

Posted on

The Iron Army: Assyria – Terrifying Military of the Ancient World – Part I

 

 

Before the famed Persian Empire, whose borders spanned from India to Thrace, there was another empire—the Assyrians. The Assyrian Empire, while much smaller than the future Persian Empire to come, made up for its lack of territorial mass with a well-greased, organized fighting machine.

In the book of Nahum 3:1, the prophet Nahum made it clear that Assyria was a “city of blood, full of lies, full of plunder, never without victims! The crack of whips, the clatter of wheels, galloping horses and jolting chariots! Charging cavalry, flashing swords and glittering spears!”

What made the Assyrian Empire one of the most terrifying militaries in the ancient world was that they were organized, well led, well fed, well supplied, and had the tools to crack into just about any city they so desired. When it comes to warfare, sieges dominate the vast array of Assyrian reliefs. The siege we will focus on is that of Lachish in 701 BCE.

In order to understand how the Neo-Assyrian military organization functioned one must first focus on the head of the army, the king. From there, we can gather the role of the nobility in military affairs and finally those who formed the bulk of the army.

King: Despotic Commander in Chief

Sargon II and dignitary. Palace of Sargon II at Dur Sharrukin in Assyria (now Khorsabad in Iraq), c. 716–713 BC. (Public Domain)

The Assyrian king wasn’t just directly involved with state affairs on all levels; he was the state. Every aspect of state affairs, whether international, political, military, and religious, was directly linked to him. The king was absolute, but even he had limitations. The Assyrian king, unlike the pharaoh of Egypt, was not divine but despotic. He was a mediator between the gods and his subjects through his ritual purification by both divine and human attendants. Besides the day-to-day domestic and foreign affairs dealt with by the king, he was commander and chief of the Assyrian army. Middle Assyrian inscriptions attest to this, as the Assyrian king on his coronation would swear an oath that they would lead their armies, in person, on annual campaigns of conquest to extend their borders. Even though he was the head of his army, he was a figurehead to a certain degree, for his military duties were diffused and delegated to lesser officials.

Turtānu: Leader of Armies

This lesser official, who would lead armies, was the turtanu. The turtanu was second in military command right under the king. While the king was in fact the commander in chief of the army, the real responsibility executing his majesty’s orders lay in the hands of the turtanu. Assyrian kings did participate in campaigns but when unable, the turtanu was firmly in charge. Eventually either Tiglath-Pileser III or Sargon II reorganized the office of the turtanu. In the past, one man held the position. However, this changed. Instead of having one man take charge of the military forces there was be two. One man was in charge “of the left” and the other “of the right.” While not definitive in all cases, the post of the turtanu were assigned to eunuchs. The reason for this was to limit power by ensuring that the man in charge could not pass his office down to his son through inheritance, which in turn limited the power of the office and avoided the possibility of a coup.

Army Organization and Officers

Information on the military organization of the Assyrian army is fragmented and murky. But a word of caution before proceeding: what is about to be presented is based on what is known and what can be considered from what information survives.

The Assyrians do provide some history concerning the framework of their military apparatus. During the eighth century BCE the Assyrian king could mobilize a force of between 150,000-200,000 men and in extreme cases, 1,000,000. This seems a bit farfetched but was not impossible. In times of war, the Assyrians could field between 20,000-50,000 troops, which would be the equivalent of two or five modern American divisions. Each division consisted of 120 officers. Therefore, two divisions would consist of 240 officers while five divisions consisted roughly of 416 officers. When further broken down, a squad of ten men was under the control of a noncommissioned officer. Five or twenty squads were formed into a “company” (kirsu) under the command of a “captain” (rab kisri or rab hanle). The amount of men in an Assyrian company probably was made up of five squads totaling 250 men and would take at least four of them to form a battalion. A regiment possibly consisted of and three battalions totaling 3,000 men, which seems possible based on the Urartian system, similar to that of Assyria, and it was under the command of a prefect, or what would be today the equivalent of a modern colonel. As for the size of an Assyrian division, it would seem possible that one division consisted of three if not more regiments.

By the time of Sargon, they had become a truly iron army. Sargon reorganized and integrated the fighting force, starting with the conventional units such as infantry, chariots, cavalry, and siege machinery. Next were specialized units to aid support to the conventional, such as scouts, engineers, intelligence officers, and sappers (soldiers for building, demolitions, general construction). To support and supply such an army with the amount of iron needed, Sargon constructed a single weapons room called Dur-Sharrukin (Fort Sargon) which contained 200 tons of weapons and body armor.

Plan of Dur-Sharrukin, 1867.  Victor Place excavated Khorsabad (Iraq) from 1852 to 1855. The Palace of Sargon is represented at North East. (Public Domain)

Reconstructed model of Palace of Sargon at Khorsabad, 1905. (Public Domain)

Soldiers and Engines of War

The Assyrian military consisted of four main units: cavalry, charioteers, infantry, and archers.

When it came to mobility, the Assyrians relied on charioteers like most Near Eastern nations. However, during the reign of Ashurbanipal II in the ninth century BCE, reliefs depict the Assyrians as already having cavalry but in small numbers; they were light by standard and their only function was to ward off other horse archer units during an engagement. What the Assyrians did to combat this was to take regular foot archers and place them on horseback. The Assyrians now had their own version of a horse archer, but the problem was they wore little or no armor. This made the Assyrian horse archer vulnerable to attacks from other horse archers better armored and trained in the rudiments of archery from horseback.

Ashurbanipal II meets a high official after a successful battle.

Ashurbanipal II meets a high official after a successful battle. (Public Domain)

Tiglath-pileser III took note of what is already in use pertaining to his own force and admired what could be adopted and improved upon into his own cavalry units. Tiglath-pileser invested in developing better cavalry units whereas their enemies later on (such as the Cimmerians and Scythians) continued to evolve into much better fighting forces that adapted to the natural conditions and to the conduct of their enemies— in other words, to improvise, adapt, overcome.

After conquering a portion of western Media, Tiglath-pileser incorporated Median cavalry into his own army and from then on, effectively changed the nature of the Assyrian cavalry from charioteer teams to mounted warriors armed with bow and spear. The days of the chariot as master of the battlefield were nearing an end but were not yet over. Over time, the Assyrian army had three types of cavalry. The first type was light cavalry, which consisted of Medes and other nomads who were quick and who primarily used the bow and javelin. Next were the Assyrian heavy archers. This unit consisted of men in heavy scale body armor. Finally, the heavy cavalrymen were fully armored and designed for fighting heavy infantry. However, the Assyrian use of heavy cavalry for shock is uncertain. Cavalry under Tiglath-pileser III on through to Sargon II seem to be primarily skirmishers. There is, however, cavalry depicted during the time of Sargon II on reliefs which are shown to be carrying spears and charging into battle, which may suggest the evolution of the Assyrian shock cavalry was well underway. Tiglath-pileser III and his successors loved the new cavalry so much that they replaced most of the chariot units with elite cavalry units over time. To put this into perspective, the king, his nobles, and the warrior elite were the only ones permitted to use the chariot.

Assyrian artwork from ninth century BC at British Museum. (CC BY 2.0)

Assyrian infantry can be divided into three types: spearmen, archers, and slingers. Spearmen were well armored and are the foundation of the Assyrian army. Their primary function was to provide defense and offense. When on the defensive it was the spearmen’s job to support the skirmishing and cavalry units, to maneuver around them and find targets that could be softened up, which would take pressure off the lines and allow the infantry to go on the offensive. These Spearmen were armed with a shield, spear, and a dagger or short sword.

Assyrian Soldier with Standing Shield, Soldier with Small Shield, Archer. (Public Domain)

Archers were also well armored and used a recurve bow. In some reliefs, Assyrian archers are accompanied by a shield bearer who provided protection as the archer discharged his arrow. Archers in battle were usually placed in front of the heavy infantry ranks to shower arrows down upon the enemy before retreating behind the spearmen once the enemy was too close for comfort. Assyrian archers in the reliefs also appear to be wearing short swords as well.

Another skirmishing unit utilized to harass the enemy was slingers. Slingers, as their name applies, slung well-rounded rocks at the enemy. While the distance was not as great as an archer, the power generated upon release caused tremendous damage as it was meant to crush, unlike the arrow, which was used to pierce. Slingers, like archers, would be out in front of the spearmen harassing the enemy infantry or, engaging the enemy skirmishing detachments.

Sling Stones, Tel Lachish, 701 BCE. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

However, Assyrian horse archers and those carrying javelins could and did act as skirmishing detachments who could, with the right covering fire from the archers, could quickly ride up on the enemy lines, whether infantry or skirmishers, and discharge their projectiles before riding off.

The Siege of Lachish will be our Example

Once they set up camp outside their intended target, the Assyrian military force, when arrayed, occupied roughly an area of 2,500 yards across and 100 yards deep. The supplies for such a force would have been massive. The number of calories and amount of water a single Assyrian soldier would need to function comes to 3,402 calories a day and nine quarts of water. This does not include the amount of food needed to feed the pack animals haul the equipment. Once the Assyrian army was finally in place before the walls of an enemy city, the consuming and waste began and the need to finish the job quickly set in.

Assyrian War Camp Relief.

Assyrian War Camp Relief. (CC BY-SA 2.0)

So how did the Assyrians deploy for a siege? An Assyrian siege begins with a messenger. According to 2 Kings 18:17-37 they would send a messenger to deliver the ultimatum, which was ‘surrender or die’. However, it seems most cities chose to fight than give in to the attacker.

Once the Assyrian army had isolated the city, they would begin to construct siege works on the spot. At the siege of Lachish in 701 BCE, Sennacherib’s siege crew deployed prefabricated battering rams, which required assembly on the spot. While the construction of siege engines was underway, the Assyrian infantry would begin to build earthen ramps leading to the weakest point in the city walls. The men building the ramps were likely under the protection of Assyrian archers and slingers.

Assyrian archers during a siege would push forward, wearing a long coat of mail and carrying a man-sized reed shield with a bent back to protect him from enemy fire. The Archer would carry an Assyrian composite bow, which required two to string. These heavy bowmen could easily get into position and pelt the enemy on the walls, thus negating interference with the men below who were constructing the siege ramps.

The same goes for the Assyrian slingers, who also were good at harassing the enemy with projectiles as the ramp drew closer to the city walls as they could hit high-angled targets who hid behind the parapets.

Assyrian attack on a town with archers and a wheeled battering ram, 865–860 BC. (Public Domain)

Chariots were deployed as light mobile artillery that could aid in hitting targets on the walls. In one sense, they were a great addition to keeping the defenders from firing back too often, for each volley the archers and slingers could fire, the charioteer archers could deliver another volley and quickly get out of harm’s way.

After the earthen ramps were finished, teams of infantry, aided with the protection of archers to cover their approach, began to push the heavy siege machines forward into position. One such siege engine that was very effective against enemy fortification was the Assyrian battering ram. During the siege of Lachish, King Sennacherib (704-681 BCE) deployed several battering rams simultaneously towards the weakest points of the walls. One of the big differences when comparing these rams with those of the past is that Sennacherib had the battering pole extended. This allowed a greater degree of reach and leverage. When looking at the reliefs depicting the siege of Lachish, one will notice archers atop the device as it moves forward. There are two likely reasons for this. First, as the battering ram is moved forward, enemy along the wall could possibly throw an incendiary device, which could cause the ram to catch fire. Placing archers atop the vehicle allows them to pick off those wishing to set the ram a blaze. The second reason is to protect the infantry moving behind the ram.

Assyrian troops attacking a besieged city using a battering ram on a siege ramp. Enemy archers are returning fire. Headless corpses lie at the foot of the city walls. (Public Domain)

While the ram attempted to smash and loosen the rocky walls, Assyrian assault teams with scaling ladders would try to breach walls. The ram, while effective, was also vulnerable to enemy defenders dropping chains to pull the battering pole aside. Because of this issue, the Assyrians deployed men who counter this by hooking the chains with iron grapples. The prophet Joel gives a description of the Assyrian wall scaling:

 They charge like warriors;

    they scale walls like soldiers.

They all march in line,

    not swerving from their course.

They do not jostle each other;

    each marches straight ahead.

They plunge through defenses

    without breaking ranks.

They rush upon the city;

    they run along the wall.

They climb into the houses;

    like thieves they enter through the windows. – Joel 2:7-9.

Top Image: Assyrian relief of horsemen with spears. Bodies fly in their wake. From Nimrud, now in the British Museum (CC BY-SA 3.0)

By Cam Rea

References

Archer, Christon I. World History of Warfare. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.

Campbell, Duncan B. Besieged: Siege Warfare in the Ancient World. Oxford: Osprey, 2006.

Carey, Brian Todd, Joshua B. Allfree, and John Cairns. Warfare in the Ancient World. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Military, 2005.

David, Richard, Barnett and Margarete Falkner. The sculptures of Aššur-nasir-apli II, 883-859 B.C., Tiglath-pileser III, 745-727 B.C. [and] Esarhaddon, 681-669 B.C., from the central and south-west palaces at Nimrud. (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1962.

Eadie, John W., “The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry” The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1/2 (1967), 161-173.

Fagan, Garrett G., and Matthew Trundle. New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Gabriel, Richard A. Great Captains of Antiquity. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2001.

Gabriel, Richard A. The Culture of War: Invention and Early Development. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.

Gabriel, Richard A. The Military History of Ancient Israel. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2003.

Soldiers’ Lives through History – The Ancient World. Westport, Conn:    Greenwood Press, 2006.

Healy, Mark, and Angus McBride. The Ancient Assyrians. London: Osprey, 1991.

Kern, Paul Bentley. Ancient Siege Warfare. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999.

Nosov, K., and V. Golubev. Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons: A Fully Illustrated Guide to Siege Weapons and Tactics. Guilford, Conn: Lyons Press, 2005.

Oded, Bustenay. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979.

Rawlinson, George, Ancient Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World Vol I, (New York: Lovell, Coryell & CO, 1881.

Roberts, Janet “Centering the World”: Trees as Tribute in the Ancient Near East.” Transoxiana Journal Libre de Estudios Orientales.http://www.transoxiana.com.ar/11/roberts-near_east_trees.html (accessed August 11, 2016, 2011).

Saggs, H. W. F. The Might That Was Assyria. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984.

Vuksic, V. & Z. Grbasic, Cavalry: The History of a Fighting Elite, (London: Cassell, 1993

Posted on

Soldier of Fortune: Glory Days for Sir John Hawkwood, King of Mercenaries

 

 

Sir John Hawkwood was born into a life on the English countryside that was business and rebellion. From an early age, he sought power and influence outside of England’s borders. He showed off his battle skills in the Hundred Years War and won a knighthood from England’s king.

Hawkwood the man was indeed an interesting character: a brilliant tactician, and an equally brilliant politician, but in his life, he would terrorize Italy with armies and bands of mercenaries, amass a great fortune, and cement his place in history as the most famous Anglo-Italian mercenary.

Engraving representing John Hawkwood.

Engraving representing John Hawkwood. (Public Domain)

Beginnings of Business

Hawkwood was born around 1320, in the parish of Hinckford, Essex, which is located in the north-central region of the county. Essex County was known for its farming and sheep; it had a thriving business sector that produced cloth and exported raw wool. Essex also produced anti-authoritarianism. In 1381, the people revolted against the crown in a large social uprising. The county of Essex in the 14th century was indeed a business class society that did not take well to authority. This attitude harbored by the locals may have influenced the young Hawkwood early on in his life.

John was the youngest child of Gilbert de Hawkwood, but he shared the same name as his older brother. John’s social situation is contrary to what past historians claimed, said to have come from a low ranking family, and was himself a poor soldier later on in his life. This, however, is not true, for John grew up in a wealthy business family. His father was supposedly a tanner who owned land, and even had a maidservant to take care of the day-to-day chores around the house.

In 1340, John’s father died. The will Gilbert left behind divided the share each child of his received. The elder John got the largest of the share and stayed at home to run the business, while the younger John left home with his share.

Hawkwood The Military Man

The younger John Hawkwood took his share and moved to London. Once Hawkwood made it to London, he worked as a tailor or a tailor in training, an apprentice. However true this story is about Hawkwood working and training to be a tailor remains in dispute. It is also said that tailors during this period were looked down upon in terms of serving in the military. However, it did not stop Hawkwood, for when Edward III began to recruit men for his army (which he planned on taking to France in order to claim the French throne), Hawkwood tossed the needle for the sword and joined the army along with his neighbors back home – one of whom happened to be John de Vere, his lord back in Essex, and wealthy families such as the Listons, Coggeshales and Bourchiers.

John de Vere assembled an army of 40 men-at-arms, 10 knights, 29 esquires and 30 mounted archers to serve Edward III.  Wool was provided to the men as pay; a total 56 sacks of wool was to be brought with them. As for Hawkwood’s role in John de Vere’s army, this remains uncertain. However, it is said that he may have started in 1342 as an archer.

Hawkwood and the Hundred Years War

He may have had humble beginnings in the army, but Hawkwood’s ambitious goal was to one day retire to these lands and that goal would start with the battle of Crecy in 1346.

Battle of Crécy between the English and French in the Hundred Years' War. 15th century.

Battle of Crécy between the English and French in the Hundred Years’ War. 15th century. (Public Domain)

Hawkwood’s archery skills are said to have started when Edward banned games such as football, cricket, hockey, cockfighting and so on. King Edward wanted his men to focus on archery, particularly using the English longbow. Hawkwood must have been a good pupil when it came to master the bow, for at the battle of Crecy in 1346, he held the rank of captain on the battlefield and commanded a company of 250 archers led by de Vere. After the battle of Crecy in 1346, Hawkwood seems to have disappeared.

Village sign at Crécy-en-Ponthieu, Picardy commemorating the Battle of Crécy, 26 August 1346.

Village sign at Crécy-en-Ponthieu, Picardy commemorating the Battle of Crécy, 26 August 1346. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Between Crecy and the battle of Poitiers, Hawkwood appears to be only mentioned twice, but in a negative light, so it seems. The first known record tells us he and another beat a man almost to death in a place called Finchingfield in 1350, and then he committed theft a year later. Hawkwood’s life outside the military seemed to be like that on the battlefield. In other words, Hawkwood was broke and in need of booty.

These two unflattering events are all that is known about Hawkwood outside the military, for he again disappears in the historical record and it is speculated that he returned to France and rejoined de Vere’s forces and maybe even married one of de Vere’s daughters. Nevertheless, Hawkwood’s case will always have speculation, but one can gather that he did return to France, was married, did have a daughter, and is recorded to have been at the battle of Poitiers in 1356.

In 1356, at the Battle of Poitiers, Hawkwood is said to have distinguished himself in the field of battle by winning his spurs. In other words, John Hawkwood was not just John Hawkwood anymore; he was Sir John Hawkwood, for the spurs he won made him a knight. The recommendation of knighthood that be awarded to Hawkwood was by the Earl of Oxford. After Poitiers, Hawkwood was involved in the raids on Gascony province, particularly raiding the city of Pau. Nevertheless, all well ends well or so we think, for in 1360, the treaty of Brétigny was signed between England and France, thus ending the Hundred Years War in theory.

A few historians mention Hawkwood’s status by the end of the war. The historian Philip Morant from Essex says that Hawkwood was “the poorest of knight,” while Froissart calls him “a poor knight.” Overall, Hawkwood was rich in title, but lacked the wealth to be noble. This is where his life as a mercenary was about to begin.

Hawkwood the Mercenary

John Hawkwood had only two options in his life; return home as a commoner, or stay in France and become a mercenary. This second option was preferred, as he could make money that would help him climb the ladder of nobility and service.

In 1360, Hawkwood joined up as a freebooter or mercenary group that was called “Les Tart-Venus”, which means ‘Late-Comers’. Men in positions like John Hawkwood were allowed to stay in France and conduct war. The reason is that once Edward III signed the Brétigny Treaty, he gave the order for his men to pull out of France and return to English soil. However, Edward III allowed raids to take place in France unofficially. The reason Edward allowed this was to see if he could gain a much greater deal from the French king. So how did the English soldiers stay? According to medieval author Jean Froissart, King Edward had high-ranking men encourage those seeking to return home to stay in France and continue on their destructive path—and why not? If the English soldiers returned home, they returned to nothing, for they were at the moment unemployed. However, if they turned to face the French countryside, they would soon notice that money was abundant and opportunity for warfare never-ending. All these men had to do was claim no country, as was the case of Hawkwood.

The Great Company and Heaven over Money

In December 1360, Hawkwood and his men arrived at, and captured the French town of Pont-Saint-Esprit, along with the help of other mercenaries, and together they became known as “The Great Company.”

Hawkwood had a much bigger prize in mind, however: the town of Avignon. Avignon was the capital where the Pope, himself lived.  Hawkwood saw Avignon as prime pickings, for if the Pope lived there then money was there, for the money that flowed to and from the Papacy was linked with all the major kingdoms of Christendom. Hawkwood and many others saw a great investment in harassing Pope Innocent.

The city of Avignon was surrounded and cut off by the various bands of mercenaries, including Hawkwood’s men. The city had no way of getting food, and the population was slowly beginning to starve, not to mention that the plague was back in France again. The Pope was all but powerless. He ordered the mercenaries to disperse and go home, but the mercenaries said no, so the Pope excommunicated them, but the mercenaries could care less. This left Pope Innocent with one last option. He announced a crusade to come and defeat the mercenaries that surround Avignon.

The Pope was able to summon seven thousand men to go and besiege Pont-Saint-Esprit in early February 1361. However, it failed, and Froissart mentions that the reason why the crusaders lifted the siege on Pont-Saint-Esprit was due to not being paid. The Pope had promised Heaven over money.

Despite the ‘heavenly’ offer, many of the crusaders packed up and returned home while others went over to the “Free or Great Company Side.” Because of this, the Pope and the cardinals debated as to what to do with the mercenaries. In the end, they summoned for a man by the name of Marquis of Monferrato. Monferrato was the Imperial Vicar of Piedmont as well as Lord of Turin. It was his job to hire the mercenaries and to take them back to Northern Italy to fight against Milan. Thus, the Pope paid Monferrato a huge sum of money to decontaminate the land around Avignon of plague, but also to fight Milan. Hawkwood signed up.

It is recorded that Hawkwood was sending money back home to his older brother John to make the investments for him, which in turn made the family wealthy, even during the plague years, which seemingly did not hinder their economic growth.  This could be true, for the Pope is said to have paid one hundred thousand florins to the companies: thirty thousand went to the men, while Monferrato paid the men sixty thousand more florins to hire them. This would have given each man 15 florins apiece, maybe more, for the men in charge of the bands, like Hawkwood, may have been paid more due to rank, but it is not known for certain.

White Company

Hawkwood returned to France in 1361 to fight the French as a part of the Great Company. Hawkwood finally returned and stayed permanently in Italy with a group of Anglo-German mercenaries called ‘condottieri’, effectively ‘contractors’.

Bartolomeo d'Alviano, a Condottieri.

Bartolomeo d’Alviano, a Condottieri. (Public Domain)

A man named Albert Sterz led the condottieri until December 1363.  Hawkwood took over the condottieri band of Pisa and reorganize them into the famous English mercenaries, called “White Company.” From then on Hawkwood’s fame grew ever-increasingly due to his men’s military professionalism as seasoned veterans.

In 1365, a man named Egidio Albornoz approached Hawkwood with a war chest of 200,000 florins provided by the Pope. The payment was intended for Hawkwood to attack the Visconti who had been molesting church lands in central Italy for some time. He took the battlefield and did well until he began to lose to Visconti, and Hawkwood made the decision to retreat to the castle of San Mariano.

Modern photograph of San Mariano, Perugia, Umbria, Italy.

Modern photograph of San Mariano, Perugia, Umbria, Italy. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Hawkwood and his men held out for some time, but due to thirst, they begged for peace. The besiegers led by Albert Sterz (who was once Hawkwood’s friend), knew that it was better to keep these men alive than to kill them, for they were worth money—not as prisoners, but rather as mercenaries. In the end, 2024 men surrendered and all their belongings they had with them was given over as booty to Albert Sterz.

Sterz had won the day and was showered with glory from the people of Perugia. However, Sterz was about to betray everything he had achieved with the Perugian’s. Hawkwood and his men were now in prison, but that was not going to last long. Hawkwood managed to escape along with many of his knights. How Hawkwood did it remains unknown, but when Sterz had found out, he pursued Hawkwood.  Hawkwood and his men were on the run looking for money to pay for the men locked up in Perugian prisons. Sterz chased Hawkwood relentlessly until he had to give up. The only problem was that Hawkwood not only escaped Sterz’s grasp, he was now in the arms of the city of Genoa, which happened to seat the most powerful rulers in Italy.

Wealth and Prestige: Glory Days!

Sir John Hawkwood arrived in Milan with open arms to a man named Bernabo. He was the leader of Milan, or co-leader with his brother Galeazzo. Bernabo was a military man who led his men with the sword. So why did Bernabo want Hawkwood to lead his army? He needed an insurance policy.

Bernabò Visconti, lord of Milan.

Bernabò Visconti, lord of Milan. (Public Domain)

Bernabo was eyeing some lands to the south and he needed Hawkwood to lead an army as its general, unofficially, and at the same time mentor a person by the name of Telemachus. Both men rode out of Milan with the newly-created “Army of Saint George” numbering ten thousand in October of 1365.

Battle between condottieri.

Battle between condottieri. (Public Domain)

Their destination was the lands of Siena, where they burned and looted for over twenty miles. They also torched Santa Colomba, Marmoraia, Buonconvento, Roccastrada, Berardenga, and the abbey of San Galgano. In addition, Hawkwood defeated a militia raised by Siena, captured its leader, and ransomed him for 10,000 florins. Later Hawkwood changed his mind and brought the ransom down to 500 florins. Hawkwood left the company of Saint George in 1366.

Bernabò and his wife, Beatrice

Bernabò and his wife, Beatrice (Public Domain)

Hawkwood served the duke of Milan again from 1368 to 1372 and then for the Pope from 1372-1377. Hawkwood’s service to the Pope was one of wealth and prestige, for the mercenary extorted a large sum of money from the raids he conducted on Tuscany, which resulted in about 130,000 florins in 1375.

An Ambassador by the name of Peruzzi wanted the people of Florence to rise up against this marauder, but they would not listen and instead gave Hawkwood an annual pension of 1,200 a year with no taxes attached. One can safely say that Hawkwood bled the bank nearly dry in Florence, sparking one of the most famous wars in Italian history, the “War of the Eight Saints.”

Hawkwood not only made more money and gained some lands in Romagna, but he was also unfortunately involved in the atrocity of killing civilian populations of Faenza and Cesena. Overall, the war allowed Hawkwood to take advantage of the Pope’s money. Florence had paid him an enormous amount of money and now the Pope had to pay up to show his support.

After the war, Hawkwood served the Republic of Florence in 1377, but not exclusively. His contract was to command an army of 800 lances and 500 archers for one year. Hawkwood and his men received a double payment each month, making Hawkwood’s share 3,200 florins every month, while each lance got 42 florins, and his archers received anywhere between 16 and 28 florins. Besides his annual pay, Hawkwood sold the entire city of Faenza for 50,000 or 60,000 florins. The mercenary from Essex was making money hand over fist.

Fresco of Italian soldiers from 1467.

Fresco of Italian soldiers from 1467. (Public Domain)

With all the wealth and prestige gained by his mixed bag of adventures, Hawkwood was presented another prize— Donnina Visconti, the illegitimate daughter of Bernabo, Duke of Milan. Bernabo gave Hawkwood even more in estates and money as well as gifts of jewelry. The wedding was just more than the union of two peoples in holy matrimony; it was a political union, in which Bernabo now had the most powerful man in Italy in his hip pocket through marital ties. Hawkwood was beyond rich for he owned lands throughout Italy, received a huge pension, along with the money he made by raiding and extorting the various provinces in Italy, including the Vatican.

Hawkwood continued his bold ways throughout Italy, for after the wedding he extorted money out of the Bolognese. He then attacked Faenze, the city that he had sold two months earlier!

In 1381, Hawkwood got a request to be King Richard II of England’s ambassador to the Roman court. However, one of his biggest victories came at the battle of Castagnaro in 1387, in which he showed why the use of longbow and dismounted knights in English fighting tactics won the day, but more than that, it was a series of battles that made Sir John Hawkwood a name to be remembered. Nevertheless, all good things must end, and for Hawkwood, so did life. At the height of his power and wealth, he died of a stroke in 1394.

Sir John Hawkwood, however you take him, was a king among mercenaries.

Featured image: Detail of Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood by Paolo Uccello (1436). (CC BY-SA 3.0)

By Cam Rea

References

Bradbury, Jim. The Routledge companion to medieval warfare. New York: Routledge, 2007.

Caferro, William. John Hawkwood: an English mercenary in fourteenth-century Italy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

Froissart, Jean. The Chronicles. London: MacMillian and Co, 1895.

Leader, Temple John. Sir John Hawkwood: Story of a Condottiere. London: Urwin, 1880.

Saunders, Frances Stonor. The Devil’s Broker: Seeking Gold, God, and Glory in Fourteenth-Century Italy. New York: Harper Perennial, 2006.

Villalon, L. J. Andrew, and Donald J Kagay. The Hundred Years War: (Part II) Different Vistas (History of Warfare). Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2008.

Wagner, John A. Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. New York: Greenwood Press, 2006.