It is possible to omit more rudimentary understandings of religious violence from a serious analysis of the development of the holy war concept, which is arguably most relevant to monotheistic traditions.52 However, briefly discussing what war entailed
prior to this gives some insight into the incentive for developing separate institutions of conflict, as well as indicating the capacity for the classification of warfare to alter over time. Whilst it would be beyond the scope of this thesis to comprehensively discuss the role of religion in ancient warfare, a brief, focused examination serves to reveal the drastically different understandings of violence during the period between 3300 BC and 50 AD and the inseparability of faith from organised conflict. As a second component, this examination reveals the irrationality inherent in this approach to warfare. It is naturally difficult to articulate the role of religion in early warfare when the evidence available is so limited. There are, however, some means accessible to construct a reasonable facsimile of the role religion played in ancient, pre- monotheistic warfare. First, we can examine the role of religion in the context most relevant to the development of later legal doctrines of conflict, namely the Middle and Near East. Not only is this geographical region relevant to the growth of monotheism, and ultimately the development of contemporary doctrines for religious conflict, but it is additionally the location of the earliest recorded conflicts of mankind.53
As Cooper notes, it is possible to form an understanding of both war and peace based on royal inscriptions and other archaeological evidence that has been preserved
51 Jonathan Fox, ‘Religion as an Overlooked Element of International Relations’ (2001) 3 International
Studies Review 53, 72–73.
52 Jonathan Fine, Political Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: From Holy War to Modern
Terror (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2015) 66.
55
from this era.54 For instance, the Annals of Thutmosis III, dating from the fifteenth
century BC, go into extensive detail as to how a battle in this period unfolded, and how leaders understood the role of warfare.55 Relatively extensive Cuneiform texts
detailing Babylonian events suggest that gods were understood as ordering their respective civilisations into battle.56 Whilst these do not represent documents
comparable to the religious literature or records of later civilisations, they are sufficient to indicate the general features of warfare during this period, and the central nature of religion to armed conflict through early history. The condition of conflict during this time period is succinctly summarised by Bradford;57 whether Egyptian,
Assyrian, or Sumerian, the cultures of the time all bore some similar general features in their disposition to warfare. They distinguished themselves on the basis of worship, took an organised approach to conflict, and had clear civil and military hierarchies.58
They did not assimilate the people they conquered into their religion, and therefore only dominated any empire they may have created by force for as long as they had the power to do so.59 Yet, even based on the available evidence, it would be erroneous to
simply state region as the root cause of violence in this period, however fearsome and warlike early religions may have seemed.60 It is most likely that competition drove
violence during this time, or at least represented an underlying cause of conflict.61 Yet,
this created a need for the social communities of the time to develop rules and laws that encouraged the use of violence in order to ensure their survival. Given the absence of developed taxonomies of race or nationality during this period,62 as well as the
eponymous role religion played, it can be suggested that it was faith that served this role. Naturally, discussing violence during this period requires generalisation and
54 Jerrold Cooper, International Law: International Law in the Third Millennium (Brill 2003) 241. 55 Richard A. Gabriel, Thutmose III: The Military Biography of Egypt's Greatest Warrior King
(Potomac Books Inc 2011) 99–101.
56 Vladimir Sazonov, ‘Some Remarks Concerning the Development of the Theology of War in Ancient
Mesopotamia’ in Krzysztof Ulanowski (ed), The Religious Aspects of War in the Ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome (Brill 2016) 42.
57 Alfred S. Bradford, With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World
(Pamela M. Bradford ed, ABC-CLIO LLC 2001) 3–8.
58 Ibid 3.
59 Ibid 2; Mu-chou Poo, Enemies of Civilization: Attitudes Toward Foreigners in Ancient Mesopotamia,
Egypt, and China (State University of New York Press 2005) 156.
60 W.J. Hamblin, Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC: Holy Warriors at the Dawn of History
(2006) 21.
61 Zainab Bahrani, Rituals of War: The Body and Violence in Mesopotamia (New York Zone Books
Cambridge) 17.
62 See Zainab Bahrani, ‘Race and Ethnicity in Mesopotamian Antiquity’ (2006) 38 World Archaeology
56
inference based upon extremely sparse written records. Additionally, the time period is expansive, numerous cultures came and went, and societies evolved dramatically; yet there is some basis to assert broad patterns in terms of the role religion played in war as being fairly stable for much of early human history based upon the information available.
Scholars drawing on available evidence have related a number of key themes to warfare in this period. The first theme is theocracy. In the absence of the modern idea of the state, all forms of allegiance were religious in nature. Institutions of kingship existed, and the role of an earthly leader invariably took on the position of a battle leader, as evidenced in Sumerian, Egyptian, and Assyrian cultures.63 However,
a king or chief was never the absolute ruler. The “apex” of such ancient communities was the national god, of whom the earthy ruler was merely a tenant; the god was the “source and soul of the body politic”.64 Treaties were struck between gods, not kings;
wars were declared against a god or the followers of a god.65 Based on the role of
religion in warfare, the conduct of the war had many supernatural connotations.66
These early civilisations additionally subscribed to theomachy, the struggle between gods, which was aligned with earthly war, conquest, and political struggles in a number of cultures, including the cultures of the Hurrians, Babylonians, and Assyrians.67 Gods, or their earthly proxies, decided when to go to war, with their
human followers divining their courses of action through omens and superstitions.68
Ancient religions did not assert that their god or pantheon was the only one in existence, only that theirs were the best.69 This approach was articulated in many early
cultures, for instance, Babylonian and Assyrian recorded history suggest this to be the case. As the armies of these early civilizations set forth to war, they envisioned that their gods were waging war above them, overcoming their deistic rivals.70 The
63 Garrett. G. Fagan and Matthew. F. Trundle, New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare (Brill 2010) 4. 64 T. Fish, ‘War and Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia’ (1939) 23 Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
387, 391–292.
65 Ibid 392.
66 Bahrani (n 61) 222.
67 Beate Pongratz-Leisten, Religion and Ideology in Assyria (De Gruyter 2015) 428–433. 68 Ibid.
69 Bahrani (n 61).
70 See Martha H. Feldman, ‘Assyrian Representations of Booty and Tribute as a Self-Portrayal of
Empire’ in Brad E. Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames and Jacob L. Wright (eds), Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts (Society of Biblical Literature 2011) who notes that in Assyrian depictions of war, Assyrian deities were commonly depicted enslaving foreign gods alongside scenes of conquest.
57
presence of a god in an earthly sense was demonstrated not just by the presence of worshippers, but through cultural artefacts, idols, and temples. Desecration of these sites was an important aspect of any conflict. Destruction of a neighbour’s sculpture or idol was sufficient to provoke war.71 These features suggest that a people’s presence
in an area, access to resources and the importance of a particular location or geography was often understood, at least in part through the presence of these religious artefacts, a primitive forerunner of today’s understanding of territoriality.
Conflict prior to the development of monotheism was therefore highly ritualised, bore supernatural connotations, and was ultimately sacramental for the communities involved. The inclusion of religion meant that wars were not conducted in accordance with direct human agency; the army of a tribe or empire operated under a divine imperative, which not only permitted but frequently required that neighbouring tribes and religions be expunged. As a result of these features, the war was frequently irrational, fought for supernatural reasons that did not serve the long- term interests of any empire or group. This is evidenced in the repeated and rapid expansion and collapse of such societies throughout the period.