Text
Befit-Sheri recorder of the gods
“A table of hard-wood was set out, and on it a bowl of carnelian filled with honey, and a bowl of lapis lazuli filled with butter. These he exposed and offered to the Sun.”
0 notes
Text
Schwinning and Harten-Buga say a bronze spearhead hitting the bone at a sharp downward angle would have been able to wedge the femur apart, cracking it in half like a log. “When we modeled it, it looks a lot more like a handheld weapon than a horse fall,” Schwinning says. “We could even recreate the force it would have taken—it’s not actually that much.” They estimate that an average-sized man driving the spear with his body weight would have been enough.
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Siege machines
One of the earliest inventions to overcome fortifications was the battering ram, which dates from at least 2500 B.C. By 2000 B.C., it was a normal implement of warfare. The ability to secure large spear blades to long beams allowed engineers to pry stones loose from the walls until a breach was achieved. The Hittites used the technique of building an earthen ramp to a low spot in the wall and then rolling large, covered battering rams into place to attack the wall at its thinnest points.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr000d.htm
0 notes
Photo
The Battle of the Tollense River, 1250 BC
0 notes
Photo
David Chipperfield, Neues Museus, Berlin, Germany, 1997-2009 VS Treasury of Atreus | Tomb of Agamemnon, Mycenae, Greece, 1250 BC
165 notes
·
View notes
Photo
An attack on a strongly walled city. The defenders, within crenellated turrets, are shooting arrows at the Assyrians. The battering ram of the Assyrian siege engine has repeatedly hit and nally broken the city’s wall; bricks are falling. An Assyrian archer, standing within a wooden tower is shooting arrows at the enemy, within a short distance from the turrets, and he is guarded by a shield held by another soldier. Ashurnasirpal II stands behind the siege engine and shoots arrows at the foes. On his le side, a soldier holds a long spear and a shield to protect the King from the enemy’s arrows. Behind the King, another soldier holds a shield, arrows, and a quiver of arrows. A royal attendant holding a bow, quiver, and mace stands behind the attackers.
0 notes
Quote
The throne room, Room B, of the North-West Palace was lined with war scenes of the so-called “victors and the vanquished” theme, depicting Ashurnasirpal II engaging in various military activities and charging his enemies. This room was not chosen haphazardly, it is the core of the King’s court! All have to see and absorb the message.
0 notes
Link
Thus, anyone who was following the uphill road which led to the citadel, was observing that every house was in a higher position than the previous one. Because of this scalar urban distribution of the buildings of the lower city and the citadel, each Trojan house or generic building was at the same time a small fort manned by Trojan warriors, which the attackers would have to conquer. It was a difficult operational task, because the next house was always on a higher position and thereby its roof offered an ideal base for the Trojan archers, slingers and javeliners while the ground floor would be protected by cuirassed and other heavy troops.
0 notes
Link
Jared Kushner, the Trump son-in-law who’s the next president’s ‘eyes and ears’ - Los Angeles Times
0 notes
Text
Ḫattušili III (~1274~1249), Son of Muršili I
https://web.archive.org/web/20131104112704/http://www.hittites.info/history.aspx?text=history%2fLate+Late+Empire.htm
Ḫattušili's seizure of the throne sowed the seeds of the end of the Hittite Empire. But even in its slow demise the empire would remain a great power for a further two generations. In fact, it would see its greatest material splendour under the reign of Ḫattušili's son. How, then, can we speak of the the destruction of the empire at this early date? After all, Ḫattušili was hardly the first member of the Great Family to usurp the throne. What was so unique about his coup?
A comparison with the coups of earlier rulers will reveal an extremely important difference: armies. Without any known exceptions, previous usurpers came to the throne through assassination, not civil war. The reason for this was fairly straight forward. Until the empire, armies were led by generals who were appointed by the king on a campaign-by-campaign basis. Therefore a general had little opportunity to build up a power base against his sovereign.
The vassal treaty system would ultimately undermine this system. Šuppiluliuma I introduced the widespread use of the treaty to control vassal kings. His reasons were undoubtedly sound. He made treaties with kings of distant lands which he could not reasonably incorporate into the closely controlled provincial system. But, from the very beginning, this system demonstrated a dismal record for maintaining a vassal's loyalty. Even worse, as we have seen, this system was internalized by Muwattalli II when he created the kingdom of Ḫakpiš for Ḫattušili. This may have meant a reduction in imperial expenditure on this deeply troubled region, but it also meant that there was now an army whose loyalty was centered around the vassal king, rather than upon the Great King. Whether or not he realized it, Muršili III undoubtedly had the right idea when he tried to eliminate this threat to his authority. In the end, however, Muršili proved unable to undo the damage done by his father. Ḫattušili used the army of Ḫakpiš to defeat the imperial army and seize the imperial throne.
0 notes