The End of the Bronze Age

Well thought out but slightly less well argued. The author covers many areas so, perhaps, it's difficult to cover some important areas in depth. He provides convincing evidence that the large cities and civilizations of pre-catastrophe Eastern Mediterranean 'countries' used a lot of chariots. I was less convinced as to the ways they were used. Chariots are specialty weapons systems that can only be used under fairly limited situations. They are useless on rough, rocky ground and can be easily defeated by simple technologies such as birms and ditches. They would even have really difficulties traveling over flat farmland cut up by the usual irrigation channels. On the other hand, large numbers of chariots were produced and used. How and Why? The author mentions Kadesh where supposedly huge chariot armies clashed. While this was happening, apparently most of the Hittite infantry stayed behind, perhaps to provide stiff defense for the important citadel of Kadesh. In that the Hittites apparently struggled during the fight, why weren't large numbers of infantry called forward?So I think we, and the author, must be missing something pretty big. A chariot attack against fixed infantry must have always been a loser. The infantry had bows, too, and, as any shooter will tell you, it is far easier for a man standing on solid ground to hit a moving target than it is for a man in a moving, bumpy, unstable vehicle to hit a standing man. Chariot against chariot fights, however, are duels between equals. Therefore we are missing something.Prior to the Spanish Conquest, the Mexica of Tenochtitlan waged so-called 'Flowery Wars' against certain enemies like the Tlaxcalteca. The wars were not for conquest but were contests of bravery in which captives--many sliced and wounded--were collected for the important purpose of sacrifice to the Gods. Outright killing of an enemy warrior on the battlefield was undesirable because the Gods required living victims. When the Spanish arrived, with their lethal steel weapons and techniques, the Mexica didn't seem to learn the obvious lesson. They still fought to wound and collect captives. This put the far less numerous Spaniards in a highly positive position. The Spaniards fought to kill, the Mexica didn't. The fight lasted over two years but, if the Mexica changed at all, it was slowly and too little, too late. Warfare, for the Mexica, had become cultural and religious and it was very tough to change.Is it possible that something like this happened in a large area of the Eastern Mediterranean? Chariots were prestige items and large armies of chariots were REALLY great prestige. This attitude could have spread widely. Is it possible that there was something like a gentleman's convention that chariots would decide the issue--kind of like letting two champions decide the issue of a battle without putting far more warriors at risk?Following this logic, the ground may have been carefully chosen for a collision of chariots--preferably flat land of suitable size with a minimum of obstacles--maybe some obstacles were actually removed before the fight. Infantry would have been present primarily to make sure that things didn't get totally out of hand. Let the chariots fight it out and let the victorious chariot army decide the issue. Yes, there were losers and there was a price to be had, but basically, for 400 years, there was little change in the basic distribution of power.But there must have ALWAYS been those--barbarians and non-rule players--who wouldn't respect ancient conventions. Strong infantries were necessary to keep them at arm's length. So what might have changed? Invention of a slashing, stabbing sword? New-fangled armor? Sure. But--remembering the Vikings--what may have really changed was adoption of effective transport, ocean-going vessels, by acquisitive foreigners. After all, Helen's beauty [and the riches of Troy] launched 1,000 ships.

I have one concern with this book, that I will state at the outset: it is more than ten years old. I'd be fascinated to know what the author thinks of advances in our knowledge of the bronze age in the interval between publication and the present time.That said, this is one of the most we reasoned and best supported books arguments about the end of the bronze age I have come across. Virtually every assertion the author makes is footnoted, so that you can follow the references, though often these are in German or French (note: with on-line translators available today, this is not so big a problem as it was in the past, if you are really determined to see what is being said in other languages). Basically, the author makes the point that he does indeed know the material that he is dealing with.Interestingly, he is prepared to turn the "heroic" (or Homeric) tradition of warfare on its head. Rather than the heros we are used to from the Illiad using chariots as "battle taxi's" to get into combat and then fighting man to man, Drews posits the idea that in fact bronze age warfare between established kingdoms was largely a case of hundreds, even thousands, of chariots being used as archery platforms, with small groups of "chariot runners" finishing off crews who are incapcitated. He does a good job of suggesting that in this sort of warfare, massed infantry played little part offensively. The battles between the great kingdoms where won or lost by the chariotry, mass infantry was only of use where chariots could not operate, or in sieges.While all historians marshal their arguments to make their point, I have to confess that the details that Drews goes into in studying the records of Mycene, Hittites, Egypt and Nuzi, does make for a convincing idea that the chariotry was considered the arm of decision in these kingdoms prior to the end of the bronze age.Drews then studies the weaponry of the times, and the battle tactics of the "barbarians" (being largely the places we have only archeological records, rather than written records from) and puts forth the conclusion that the weapons they had (small javelins that would have been good for targeting horse teams and slashing swords that would have been more than a match for some of the clubs or short daggers and swords carried by chariot runners) would, in association with offensive infantry tactics provided a recipe that would have overthrown in short time the antiquated military theories of the great kingdoms.The exception, in the area, he points out, is Assyria, which did have large infantry forces.Equally telling, is the way that infantry subsequent to the catastophe that saw the end of so many great civilisations, DOES become the main combat arm.Overall, the book is very readable and very well reasoned. The only cause for four stars instead of five, is, as noted at the outset, the age of the work.

If you are up for detailed evidence, and thoughtful, balanced argument regarding the nature and causes of the Late Bronze Age collapse - enjoy!Delivery: Well-packaged and quick.

Approximately 1200 B.C. a great catastrophe destroyed the ancient civilization in Eastern Mediterranean. R.Drews wants to explain why this was possible. First he explains regarding the sources why earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, economic systems collapses, mass migrations and iron weapons are not the cause. Then he shows discussing very intensiv the important sources the real cause: Big masses of infantry with javelins and new swords type Naue II fighting against the charity of the palaces in Greece, Anatolia and Palestine change the world of war totally. The big armies of chariots which determined warfare for three hundred years loose their force. That`s it. His arguments based on a lot of persuading sources are very good. Better then anything else on the book market. Please compare the book of E.H.Cline "1177 B.C: The Year Civilization Collapsed". It is a pleasure to read his fine arguments and to understand the change of warfare. There remains only one question - ok the new weapons are a solution for fights on a battlefield - but how did they conquer the heavily fortified cities, which had thick walls and massive gates?

A fantastic book and a must read for anyone interested in ancient history.

Bought for Mom for her 90th and she loves it.

molto interessante, una completa descrizione della catastrofe e un buon tentativo di dare una risposta, anche se non sembra definitiva