DBA Resources

Army Notes

A Bow of Contention?

Notes on the Akkadian Empire and Its Army (DBA I/IIa)

By Robert Hanks

The wargaming community is blessed with a host of generous souls who selflessly share the fruits of countless hours of research. This sharing is one of the crucial cornerstones of the hobby and enriches us all by bringing vibrant authenticity to our historical re-enactments. The recent article, The Akkadian Empire and Its Army, penned by Vitor Hugo is worthy of our praise both for bringing light to an often overlooked era and for introducing information from sources outside of the English Language. Bravo, Vitor!

Over the last few years I, myself, have been carrying on a sporadic research of this period, primarily with a focus on Sumeria on the eve of Sargon Iıs reign. Unfortunately, my research has not included the works of non-English authors and I found the views expressed by Vitor to be very thought provoking. I have made extensive use of the internet and relied heavily on the Wargames Research Group and Osprey publications and would like to share the following observations and conclusions.

Most of what we conclusively know about the Sumerians and Akkadians is derived from archaeological research. Numerous cuneiform records and more sparse discoveries of contemporary art, monuments and other artefacts are the basis of all our knowledge. The most reliable pictorial sources we have for information on the armies of Sumeria and Akkadia are the various victory stelas. The evidence presented by these sources does not bear out Vitorıs theory on the Akkadian bow.

Sargonıs Victory Stela, circa 2330 BC, depicts dress identical to the contemporary Sumerian model. His parasol bearer wears leather "tutittu" protecting the torso and a fleecy "kaunakes" kilt. Sargon is armed with a mace, the weapon of a traditional Sumerian king and wears a helmet patterned on those of earlier Sumerian rulers. It is a clear indication that every effort was made to emulate the traditional Sumerian army and institutions. Sargonıs assumption of the traditional title "King of Kish" and the installation of his daughter, Enheduanna, as high priestess of Nannar prove no less. His only distinction is his beautifully groomed beard indicative of his Semitic heritage. The absence of the Akkadian bow indicates that was not a weapon of choice in the time of Sargon I.

Of the eight Akkadian figures depicted on the Victory Stela of Narum-Sin circa 2100 BC, four are pikemen, three are bowmen with axes and Narum-Sin, himself, is equipped as a bowman. All of the figures wear copper or bronze helmets identical to the earlier Sumerian heavy infantry design with an additional flap of leather to protect the neck. One could conclude that these represent the "guard" portion of the Akkadian army that was half heavy infantry and half heavy bowmen. The high percentage of bowmen on the stela, and the adoption of the weapon by the king, indicates that it was a weapon of status in the time of Narum-Sin. In fact, it is the composite bow that makes its first appearance on this stela and did not exist before this time. It was a major technological improvement over the simple bow, having double the range and could penetrate leather armour.

If Sargonıs rapid conquest of Mesopotamia was not due to his adoption of the bow, what was the secret of his unprecedented success? A careful analysis of the known military facts can produce some plausible conclusions.

Sargon employed a very large number of retainers. The records state that his bodyguard in Agade amounted to 5,400 men. We know from an earlier record, circa 2600BC, that the King of Kish had a large household of only 600 men. Presumably, most of Sargonıs retinue was infantry because each city in Sumer maintained only about 60 battle cars. Furthermore, his earliest victory stela indicates that much of his bodyguard was equipped as axemen. Could not this huge force of professional heavy infantry, no less than one quarter of his army, be used to chop holes in the opposing blocks of citizen spearmen, beating their polearms aside and rendering them defenceless? The Spanish sword and buckler men against pike formations employed similar tactics; tactics that, for a time, made the Spaniards invincible.

It was during Sargonıs reign that the battle car ceased to be the major weapon for breaking the enemy. There are two logical explanations for this occurrence, the first being the rugged terrain, on which many of his foreign campaigns was fought, rendered them impractical. The second is a direct result of his subjugation of the Sumerian equestrian class.

The principle retainers of the native Sumerian rulers were the equestrian class that fought from battle cars as shock troops. In the course of the incessant rebellions against Sargonıs rule, many of these warriors were killed and the rate of replacement would have been slow. Furthermore, Sargon replaced many of the Sumerian nobles with Akkadians and his relatives, thus effectively disenfranchising his opposition. His ruthless suppression of the equestrian class led to the abrupt abandonment of the battle car. The effectiveness of this weapon was later proven by the rapid rise of the chariot.

The Akkadian era also saw the gradual decline of the citizen pikeman. The erin summa was heavily equipped by the standards of the time. A bronze or copper helmet, leather cross-belts to protect the chest, a heavy, layered woollen kilt and a body-length shield carried by the front rank rendered him impervious to fire from the simple bow. Training enabled him to fight in large block formations and perform simple evolutions. He was the backbone of the Sumerian/Akkadian army. However, during Sargonıs campaign to conquer Sumeria and the subsequent rebellions the pikeman was presumably the principle casualty. Replacement took training and hastily raised levies may have had to fall back on traditional Sumerian weaponry. We know that the principle weapon used in Sumeria prior to technological advancement was the simple bow. It is easy to use and does not require complicated manoeuvres.

It is highly unlikely that the bow was as important in Sargonıs reign as Vitor implies. However, by the time of Narum-Sin, it was, undoubtedly, of vital importance. In all probability, the Akkadian era saw the adoption of the bow, not as a brilliant innovation, but as an expedient substitution that later became more viable following technological advancement.

Bibliography

Wise, T. Ancient Armies of the Middle East. London: Osprey Publishing. 1990. [Offers a very brief explanation of the Akkadian rise to power, making sweeping statements for which no pictorial evidence is provided. This text may be the account that helped to formulate Vitorıs position on the bow.]

Stillman, N., Tallis, N. Armies of the Ancient Near East 3,000BC to 539BC. Worthing: Wargames Research Group. 1984. [Offers a very thorough account with lots of pictorial evidence taken from archaeological sources of which I have seen many examples on the internet.]

DBA Resource Page Ancient Army Lists, Sumerian and Akkadian (3000-2004 BC) DBA 1

Pearson, G. Skirmishing With Sumerians. De Bellis Multitudinis Web page

Author Unknown, The Worldıs First Armies, The Armies of Sumer and Akkad, 3500-2200 BC. [This is an excellent internet article for which I have unfortunately lost the source. If anyone is aware of the authorıs name please let me know.]

| Top of Page | Army Notes | DBA Resources |

Comments, questions or suggested additions to this page can be sent to Chris Brantley, brant@erols.com.

Last Updated: Oct. 27, 2001