Conclusion

Warfare was a common experience for many communities, and the frequent demands of war on society led to the development of a variety of elements: weapons and other technologies for war, specialists (military elites, mercenaries), institutions (financial and logistical, armies, navies, officers, and magistrates with military powers), physical structures (defensive systems, armories, ship-sheds, etc.). These are susceptible to study in their own right, for what they reveal about the types of warfare that could be conducted and for the consequent demands on society. They can also help to reveal the cultural processes at play, the expectations of what war involved, and beliefs about how it should be conducted. Of course, the study of the conduct of warfare itself can also reveal such values and conceptions.

The study of warfare in antiquity, therefore, not only includes the development of fighting techniques, equipment, and the study of the campaigns of the great commanders, but also the role war plays in shaping society and how it in turn is shaped by cultural processes, structures, and values. By investigating the warfare waged by communities and states in antiquity, we reveal a fundamental element in their identity, organization and historical development. Furthermore, it is clear that warfare is the product both of structural internal impulses and of international dynamics. The chances are high that these broader patterns and interactions influenced specific states’ actions and historical development (Eckstein 2006: 186-88). A case can be made for needing to appreciate both the internal dynamics and the external pressures caused by war. Furthermore, it is important to investigate how war was shaped by the culture and society of the protagonists and also to understand war’s militarizing effects upon their culture, identity and memory.