The importance of military interventions is not only attested in the empire’s celebratory texts, but also in its administrative texts. The current image of the Assyrian empire, then, is that of a military machine bringing terror and destruction throughout the Near East. Admittedly, the continuity and number of Assyrian campaigns led by the king or his generals are impressive. On top of that, there was the less celebrated, but equally demanding, series of minor conflicts, patrols, garrisons, and so on. In the critical formative phase of the empire (under Shalmaneser III, Tiglath-pileser III, and Sargon II), the practice of leading one campaign per year seems to have been followed. Campaigns were only pursued in the summer, when it was easier for the army to cross mountains and rivers, and to gather supplies. This effort naturally weighed on the Assyrian population, since the Assyrian army was essentially a corvee army, with very few auxiliary troops sent from the allies in the areas attacked. There were few professional soldiers, which were enlisted in small specialist corps. The Assyrian army was led by court functionaries. Just like the king himself, the latter normally combined political and military activities and expertise.
Despite their obvious approximations and exaggerations, celebratory inscriptions provide more information regarding the size of the Assyrian troops than administrative texts. It appears that in the ninth century bc the majority of conflicts were fought with an army of 10,000/20,000 men per side. These numbers give us an idea of the size of Assyrian expeditions in the more demanding campaigns. An extreme case was that of the battle of Qarqar, where the Syrian confederation put together an army of 4,000 chariots, 2,000 cavalrymen, 1,000 camels, and 55,000 infantrymen. In this case, the Assyrian army was definitely smaller, but not by much.
Sources from the eighth to the seventh century bc lack precision and reliability on this issue. For instance, Sennacherib was clearly exaggerating when he claimed that his army killed 150,000 men in the Babylonian and Elamite armies during the battle of Halule. However, it is true that the armies of the seventh century bc were far larger (at least five times more) than the ones of the ninth century bc. Consequently, the number of casualties increased. Moreover, the number of deaths by natural causes, which were an equally severe problem at the time, needs to be added to the number of people killed in battle. The build-up of losses, which amounted to a few thousands per year, was enormous, especially when compared to the number of inhabitants considered above. The final passage of the letters to Ashur of Sargon and Esarhaddon declare that ‘1 charioteer, 2 cavalrymen, 3 infantrymen’ were killed, a statement indicating that the kings were trying to exorcise in a ceremonial way a very serious problem.
The army was subdivided into various specialist troops. Especially in the eighth century bc, the mass of infantrymen was generally divided into archers and soldiers with spear and shield. Chariot troops continued play an important role, but it was not as decisive as in the Late Bronze Age. The cavalry thus became the main mobile element of the Assyrian army. The latter also had to adapt to the type of enemy encountered. In fact, there were substantial differences between armies with chariots and heavy infantry (Babylonia, Elam, and the Syro-Levantine states), and armies mainly composed of archers and cavalrymen (such as the Iranian tribes), or troops with camels (such as the Arabs). Pitched battles remained relatively rare, and expeditions generally peaked in the siege of enemy citadels. Consequently, sappers, who also had to clear mountain routes and organise the crossing of rivers, played an important role in the Assyrian army. They operated siege engines (such as battering rams and siege towers), which were placed in front of city walls through ramps or dikes.
Weapons are documented in celebratory reliefs and through actual archaeological finds. The Assyrian cities stored large amounts of weapons and chariots in their armouries. The Assyrian army predominantly needed horses and bronze, a fact that explains the frequent expeditions in the north. These expeditions were meant to ensure these important resources, following a circular process. Other information on the Assyrian army, such as its exact organisation, its hierarchy, its subdivisions into fixed modules, and their displacement on the battlefield remain badly attested. It has been suggested, for instance, that chariots were divided into squadrons of 53 chariots (106 men), but this reconstruction is based on a single source. However, the latter was not necessarily recording the standard practice.
In keeping with the ideology of kingship of the Middle Assyrian period, the leadership of the army was a responsibility of the king (or a general acting on his behalf). Alongside the king, there were court dignitaries and state administrators, allowing us to catch a glimpse of their hierarchy. Of the five highest-ranking dignitaries, the first one was the turtanu. This term is commonly translated as ‘general’ or ‘generalissimo’, due to his visibly important role, but it actually meant ‘second (in command)’ or ‘deputy’, indicating the most important assistant of the king. Then, there was the nagir ekalli (‘palace herald’), the rab safe (‘chief cupbearer’), the rab sa resi (‘chief eunuch’), the masennu (abarakku in the old reading, a ‘supervisor’), and the sukkallu (‘steward’). All these titles show that their origin was in the palace environment, but their functions now covered the entire state and military administration of Assyria.
These high-ranking functionaries ruled over the most ancient and prestigious provinces in Upper Mesopotamia, such as the one of Harran/Til Barsip. The latter was the most important one and was in the hands of the turtanu. All other provinces were also given to state functionaries, as we will see later on. The people holding these high-ranking offices managed to get a hold of them after a long activity (or, better, a career) at the service of the king, mainly in two categories: as Sut ziqni, literally, the ‘bearded ones’; and as sut resi, ‘eunuchs’. The latter were appreciated both for their loyalty and their inability to produce any heirs who could take over their wealth and positions. It seems that there were no fixed sectors in the administration of the state (at least in terms of management). This aspect allowed the king to personally keep the entire system under his control. The relationship between the king and his functionaries was direct and personal. It was centred on loyalty and sealed through an oath, placing each functionary at the mercy of the king’s personal opinion on his work. This situation encouraged a sense of envy and rivalry among functionaries, resulting in constant defamations and accusations. Through the latter, personal fortunes were built and destroyed in a matter of seconds. Consequently, those who felt suspected, unfairly accused, or fell in disgrace, developed a syndrome of the ‘rightful sufferer’. Generally, this led to a marked preference for a more cautious and conformist behaviour, strictly following the king’s will.
The local administrations had a completely different structure. Minor centres maintained their old structure, with a ‘mayor’ (hazUnu) and a group of ‘elders’ (slbuti), responsible for the administration of justice and economic issues (namely, the relations with the central administration). The practice of using judges in disputes, favouritisms, and various kinds of oppressions spread in both sectors. In these instances, an appeal to the king was allowed. However, in practice, this opportunity to appeal to the highest power in the kingdom, justice personified from the point of view of the population, must have been relatively unrealistic. This appeal to the king is attested in a story, ‘The Poor Man of Nippur’. The latter managed to beat the local authorities by appealing to the king. To a certain extent, this fictional picture and reality could have coincided. This could have been true especially since the king was seen as a fair judge not because of his particular love for justice, but rather because he generally had to solve far more intricate disputes. Therefore, the king’s occasional intervention against the moderate power games of his low-ranking functionaries could have been beneficial for his popular image.
World History
