14 - Beacon Lights of History - Ancient Achievements by John Lord

In the third installment of the Beacon Lights of History series, Lord delves into the remarkable achievements of the ancient world, exploring pivotal developments in law, the fine arts, and science. He brings to life iconic figures such as Cicero and Cleopatra, revealing their enduring impact on history. Summary by KHand.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Section fourteen of Beacon Lights of History, Volume three, Ancient
Achievements by John Lord. This LibriVox recording is in the
public domain recording by k hand The Military Art, Part one, Weapons, Engines, Discipline,
thirteen hundred to one hundred eighty. In surveying the nations
of antiquity, nothing impresses us more forcibly than the perpetual

(00:23):
wars in which they were engaged, and the fact that
military art and science seem to have been among the
earliest things that occupied the thoughts of men. Personal strife
and tribal warfare are coeval with the earliest movements of humanity.
The first recorded act in the Hebraic history of the
world after the expulsion of Adam from Paradise, is a murder.

(00:43):
In patriarchal times, we read of contentions between the servants
of Abraham and of Lot, and between the petty kings
and chieftains of the countries where they journeyed. Long before
Abraham was born, violence was the greatest evil with which
the world was afflicted. Before his day, mighty conquerors arose
and founded king kingdoms. Babylon and Egypt were powerful military
states in prehistoric times. Wars more or less fierce, were

(01:07):
waged before nations were civilized. The earliest known art, therefore,
was the art of destruction, growing out of the wicked
and brutal passions of men, envy and hatred, ambition and revenge,
in a word, selfishness. Race fought with race, kingdom with kingdom,
and city with city in the very infancy of society.

(01:27):
In secular history, the greatest names are those of conquerors
and heroes in every land under the sun, and it
was by conquerors that those grand monuments were erected, the
ruins of which astonish every traveler, especially in Egypt and Assyria.
But wars in the earliest ages were not carried on
scientifically or even as an art. There was little to
mark them except brute force. Armies were scarcely more than

(01:50):
great collections of armed men led by kings, either to
protect their states from hostile invaders, or to acquire new territory,
or to exact tribute from weaker nations. We do not
read of military discipline or of skill in strategy and tactics.
A battle was lost or won by individual prowess. It
was generally a hand to hand encounter in which the

(02:10):
strongest and bravest gained the victory. One of the earliest
descriptions of war is to be found in the Iliad
of Homer, where individual heroes fought with one another, armed
with the sword, the lance, and the javelin, protected by shields, helmets,
and coats of mail. They fought on foot or from chariots,
which were in use before cavalry. The war horse was
driven before he was ridden in Egypt or Palestine, but

(02:33):
the Aryan Barbarians in their invasion rode their horses and
fought on horseback like the modern Cossacks. Until the Greeks
became familiar with war as an art. Armies were usually
very large, as if a great population of a country
followed the sovereign who commanded them. Rameses the Great, the
Siostras of the Greeks, according to Herodotus, led to nearly
a million of men in his expeditions. He was the

(02:56):
most noted of ancient warriors until Cyrus the Persian arose,
and was nearly contemporaneous with Moses. The Trojan War is
supposed to have taken place during the period when the
Israelites were subject to the Ammonites and about the time
that the Philistines were defeated by David, the Greeks were
forced by war to found colonies in Asia Minor. After
authentic history begins, war is the main subject with which

(03:17):
it has to deal, and for three thousand years history
is simply the record of the feats of warriors in generals,
of their conquests and defeats, of the rise and fall
of kingdoms and cities, of the growth or decline of
military virtues. No arts of civilization have preserved nations from
the sword of the conqueror, and war has been both
the amusement and the business of kings. From the earliest ages,

(03:38):
the most valued laurels have been bestowed for success in war,
and military fame has eclipsed all other glories. The cry
of the mourner has been unheeded in the blaze of conquest.
Even the aspirations of the poet and the labors of
the artists have been as naught, except to celebrate the
achievement of heroes. It is interesting, then, to inquire how
far the ancients advanced to the arts of war, which

(04:00):
include military weapons, movements, the structures of camps, the discipline
of armies, the construction of ships and of military engines,
and the concentration and management of forces under a single man.
What was that mighty machinery by which nations were subdued
or rose to a greatness on the ruins of states
and empires. The conquest of Rameses, of David, of Nebekinezzar

(04:21):
of Cyrus, of Alexander, of Hannibal, of Caesar, and other
heroes are still the subjects of contemplation among statesmen and schoolboys.
The exploits of heroes are the pith of history. The
art of war must have made great progress in the
infancy of civilization, when bodily energies were most highly valued,
when men were fierce, hardy, strong, and uncorrupted by luxury,

(04:43):
when mere physical forces gave law alike to the rich
and the poor, to the learned and the ignorant, and
when the avenue to power led across the field of battle.
We must go to Egypt for the earliest development of
art and science in all departments, And so far as
the art of war consists in the organization of physical
force for conquest or defense under the direction of a
single man, it was in Egypt that this was first accomplished.

(05:06):
About seventeen hundred years before Christ, as the chronologists think,
by Rameses the Great. This monarch, according to Wilkinson, the
greatest and most ambitious of the Egyptian kings, to whom
the Greeks gave the name Siostras, showed great ability in
collecting together large bodies of his subjects and controlling them
by a rigid military discipline. He accustomed them to heat

(05:28):
and cold, hunger and thirst, fatigue, and exposure to danger.
With bodies thus rendered vigorous by labor and discipline, they
were fitted for distant expeditions. Rameses first subdued the Arabians
and Libyans and annexed them to the Egyptian monarchy. While
he inured his subjects to fatigue and danger, he was
careful to win their affections by acts of munificence and clemency.

(05:51):
He then made his preparations for the conquest of the
known world, and collected an army, according to Diodorus Sicilus,
of six hundred thousand infantry, twenty fourth thuds and cavalry,
and twenty seven thousand war chariots. It is difficult to
understand how a small country like Egypt could furnish such
an immense force. If the account of the historian be
not exaggerated, Rameses must have enrolled the conquered Libyans and

(06:13):
Arabians and other nations among his soldiers. He subjected his
army to a stern discipline and an uncomplaining obedience to orders,
the first principle in the science of war, which no
successful general in the world's history has ever disregarded, from
Alexander to Napoleon. With this powerful army, his march was irresistible.
Ethiopia was first subdued and an exaction made from the

(06:36):
conquered of a tribute of gold, ivory, and ebity. In
those ancient times, a conquering army did not resettle or
colonize the territories it had subdued, but was contented with
overrunning the country an exacting tribute from the people. Such
was the nature of Babylonian and Persian conquests. After overrunning
Ethiopia and some other countries near the straits of Babelmanebb,

(06:57):
the conqueror proceeded to India, which he over ran beyond
the Ganges and ascended the high table land of Central Asia,
then proceeding westward, he entered Europe, nor halted in his
devastating career until he reached Thrace. From thence he marched
to Asia Minor, conquering as he went, and invaded Assyria,
seating himself on the throne of Ninus and Simirimus. Then

(07:19):
laden with booty from the Eastern world, he returned to
Egypt after an absence of thirty years, and consolidated his empire,
building those vast structures at Thebes, which for magnitude have
never been surpassed. Thus was Egypt enriched with the spoil
of nations and made formidable for a thousand years. Rameses
was the last of the pharaohs who pursued the phantom
of military renown or sought glory and distant expeditions. We

(07:43):
are in ignorance as to the details of the conquests
and the generals who served under Rameses. There is doubtless
some exaggeration in the statements of the Greek historian, but
there is no doubt that this monarch was among the
first of the great conquerors to establish a regular army
and to provide a fleet to co operate with his
land forces. The strength of the Egyptian army consisted mainly
in archers. They fought either on foot or in chariots.

(08:06):
Cavalry was not much replied upon, although mention is frequently
made of horsemen as well as of chariots. The Egyptian
infantry was divided into regiments, and Wilkinson tells us that
they were named according to the arms they bore, as bowmen, spearmen, swordsmen,
club men, slingers. These regiments were divided into battalions and companies,
commanded by their captains. The infantry, heavily armed with spears

(08:30):
and shields, formed a fealanx, almost impenetrable, of twelve men deep,
who marched with great regularity. Each company had its standard bearer,
who was an officer of approved valor. The royal standards
were carried by the royal princes or by persons of
the royal household. The troops were summoned by the sound
of trumpet and also by the drum, both used from
the earliest period. The offensive weapons were the beau, the spear,

(08:53):
the javelin, the sword, the club or mace, and the
battle axe. The chief defensive weapon was the shield of
about three feet in length covered with bowls hide, having
the hair outward and studded with nails. The shape of
the bow was not essentially different from that used in
Europe in the Middle Ages, being about five feet and
a half long, round and tapering at the edges. The
bow string was of hide or catgut. The arrows of

(09:16):
the archers averaged about thirty inches in length and were
made of wood or reeds, tipped with a metal point
or flint, and winged with feathers. Each bowman was furnished
with a plentiful supply of arrows. When arrows were exhausted,
the bowmen fought with swords and battle axes. His defensive
armor was confined chiefly to the helmet and a sort
of quilted coat. The spear was of wood with a

(09:37):
metal head, was about five or six feet in length
and used for thrusting. The javelin was lighter for throwing.
The sling was a thong of plaited leather, broad in
the middle with a loop at the end. The sword
was straight and short, between two and three feet in length,
with a double edge tapering to a sharp point, and
used for either cut or thrust. The handle was frequently
inlaid with precious stones. The metal used in the manufacture

(10:00):
of swords and spear heads was bronze hardened by a
process unknown to us. The battle axe had a handle
about two and a half feet in length, and was
less ornamented than other weapons. The curis or coat of armor,
was made of horizontal rows of metal plate about an
inch in breadth, well secured together by bronze pieces. The
Egyptian chariot held two persons, the charioteer and the warrior,

(10:22):
armed with his bow and arrow and wearing a curess
or coat of mail. The warrior carried also other weapons
for close encounter when he should descend from his chariot
to fight on foot. The chariot was of wood, the
body of which was light strengthened with metal. The pole
was inserted in the axle. The two wheels usually had
six spokes, but sometimes only four. The wheel revolved on

(10:43):
the axle and was secured by a lynch pin. The
leathern harness and housings were simple, and the bridles or
reins were nearly the same as are now in use.
The Egyptian chariot corps, like the infantry, says Wilkinson, were
divided into light and heavy troops, both armed with bows,
the former chiefly employed in harassing the enemy with missiles,
the latter called upon to break through opposing masses of infantry.

(11:06):
The infantry, when employed in the assault of fortified towns,
were provided with shields under cover of which they made
their approaches to the place to be attacked. In their attack,
they advanced under cover of the arrows of the bowmen
and instantly applied the scaling ladder to the ramparts. The
test tuto, a wooden shelter, was also used, large enough
to contain several men. The battering ram and movable towers

(11:28):
resembled those of the Romans a thousand years later. It
would thus appear that the ancient Egyptians, in the discipline
of armies, in military weapons offensive and defensive, in chariots
and horses, and in military engines for the reduction of
fortified towns, were scarcely improved upon by the Greeks and Romans,
or by the Europeans in the Middle Ages. Yet, the
Egyptians were an ingenious rather than a warlike people, fond

(11:50):
of peace and devoted to agricultural pursuits, more warlike than
they were the Assyrians and the Persians. Although we failed
to discover any essential difference in the organism of armies
or in military weapons, the great difference between the Persian
and the Egyptian armies was in the use of cavalry.
From their earliest settlements, the Persians were skillful horsemen, and
these formed the guard of their kings. Under Cyrus, the

(12:13):
Persians became the masters of the world, but they rapidly degenerated,
not being able to withstand the luxurious life of the
conquered Babylonians. And when they were marshaled against the Greeks,
and especially against the disciplined forces of Alexander, they were
disgracefully routed in spite of their enormous armies, which could
not be handled, and became mere mobs of armed men.
The art of war made a great advance under the Greeks,

(12:35):
although we do not notice any striking superiority of arms
over the Eastern armies. Led by Seostras or Cyrus, the
Greeks were among the most warlike of all the races
of men. They had a genius for war. The Grecian
states were engaged in perpetual strifes with one another, and
constant contention developed military strength, and yet the Greeks, until
the time of Philip, had no standing armies. They relied

(12:56):
for offense and defense on the volunteer militia, which was
animated by intense patriotic ideas. All armies, in the nature
of things, are more or less machines moved by one
commanding will, but the Greek armies owed much of their
success to the individual bravery of their troops, who were
citizens of states under constitutional forms of government. The most
remarkable improvement in the art of war was made by

(13:17):
the Spartans, who, in addition to their strict military discipline,
introduced the phalanx files of picked soldiers, eight deep, heavily
armed with spears, sword and shield, place in ranks of
eight at intervals of about six feet apart. This phalanx
of eight files and eight ranks sixty four men closely
locked when the soldiers received or advanced to attack, provided

(13:39):
nearly impregnable and irresistible. It combined solidity and the power
of resistance with mobility. The picked men were placed in
the front and rear, for in skillful evolutions, the front
often became the rear and the rear became the front.
Armed with spears projecting beyond the front, and with their
shields locked together. The phalanks advanced to meet the enemy
with regular step and to the cadence of mens music.

(14:00):
If beaten, it retired in perfect order. After battle, each
soldier was obliged to produce his shield as a proof
that he had fought or retired as a soldier should.
The Athenian phalanx was less solid than that of Sparta militidaise,
having decreased the depth to four ranks in order to
lengthen his front, but was more efficient in a charge
against the enemy. The Spartan phalanx was stronger in defense,

(14:23):
the Athenian more agile in attack. The attack was nearly irresistible,
as the soldiers advanced with accelerated motion, corresponding to the
double quick time of modern warfare. This was first introduced
by militdes at Marathon. Philip of Macedon adopted the Spartan phalanx,
but made it sixteen deep, which gave it a greater
solidity and rendered it still more effective. He introduced the

(14:45):
large oval buckler and a larger and heavier sphere. When
the phalanx was closed for action, each man occupied but
three square feet of ground. As the pikes were twenty
four feet in length and projected eighteen feet beyond the front,
the formation presented in a ray of points such as
had never been seen before. The greatest improvement effected by Philip, however,
was the adoption of standing armies instead of the militia

(15:07):
heretofore used throughout the Grecian states. He also attached great
importance to his cavalry, which was composed of the flower
of the nobility, about twelve hundred in number, all covered
with defensive armor. These he formed into eight squadrons and
constituted them as his bodyguard. The usual formation of the
regular cavalry was in the form of a wedge, so
as to penetrate and break the enemy's line, a maneuver

(15:28):
probably learned from the Epimanidas of Thebes, a great master
in the art of war, who defeated the Spartan phalanx
by forming his columns upon a front less than their depth,
thus enabling him to direct his whole force against a
given point. By these tactics, he gained the great victory
at Leuctra. As Napoleon likewise prevailed over the Austrians in
his Italian campaign. In like manner, Philip's son Alexander, following

(15:52):
the example of Epiminodus, concentrated his forces upon the enemy's
center and easily defeated the Persian hosts by creating a panic.
There was no resisting of phalanx sixteen files deep with
the projecting pikes, aided by the heavily armed cavalry, all
under the strictest military discipline and animated by patriotic ardor.
This terrible Macedonian phalanx was a great advance over the

(16:14):
early armies of the Greeks, who fought without discipline in
a hand to hand encounter with swords and spears. After
exhausting their arrows, they had learned two things of great importance,
a rigid discipline and a concentration of forces, which made
an army a machine. Under Alexander, the grand phalanx consisted
of sixteen thousand, three hundred eighty four men, made up

(16:34):
of four divisions and smaller phalanxes. In Roman armies we
see a still farther advance in the military art as
it existed in the time of Augustus, which required centuries
to perfect the hardy physique and stern nature of the Romans,
exercised and controlled by their organizing genius, evolved the Roman legion,
which learned to resist the impetuous assaults of the elephants

(16:55):
of the East, the phalanx of the Greeks, and the
Teutonic barbarians. The endammable courage of the Romans, trained under
the severest discipline and directed by means of an organization
divided and subdivided and officered, almost as perfectly as our
modern corps and divisions and brigades and regiments and companies
and squads, marched over and subdued the world. The Roman

(17:17):
soldier was trained to march twenty miles a day under
a burden of eighty pounds, to swim rivers, to climb mountains,
to penetrate forests, and to encounter every kind of danger.
He was taught that his destiny was to die in battle.
Death was at once his duty and his glory. He
enlisted in the army with little hope of revisiting his home.
He crossed seas and deserts and forests with the idea

(17:38):
of spending his life in the service of his country.
His pay was only a denarious daily equal to about
sixteen cents of our money. Marriage for him was discouraged
or forbidden. However insignificant the legionary was as a man,
he gained importance from the great body with which he
was identified. He was both the servant and the master
of the state. He had in a tense esprit de corps.

(17:59):
He was bound up in the glory of his legion.
Both religion and honor bound him to his standards. The
golden eagle, which glittered in his front, was the object
of his fondest devotion. Nor was it possible to escape
the penalty of cowardice, or treachery or disobedience. He could
be chastised with blows by his centurion, and his general
could doom him to death. Never was the severity of
military discipline relaxed. Never was the severity of military discipline relaxed.

(18:24):
Military exercises were incessant in winter as in summer, in
the midst of peace. The Roman troops were familiarized with
the practice of war. It was the spirit which animated
the Roman legions, and the discipline to which they were inured,
that gave them their irresistible strength. When we remembered that
they had not our fire arms. We can but be
surprised at their efficiency, especially in taking strongly fortified cities.

(18:46):
Jerusalem was defended by a triple wall, the most elaborate fortifications,
and twenty four thousand soldiers, beside the aid received from
the citizens, and yet it fell in little more than
four months before an army of eighty thousand under Titus.
How great must have been the military science that could
reduce a place of such strength in so short a
time without the aid of other artillery than the ancient

(19:07):
catapult and battering ram. Whether the military science of the
Romans was superior or inferior to our own, no one
can question that it was as perfect as it could be.
Lacking any knowledge of gunpowder, we surpassed them only in
the application of this great invention, especially in artillery. There
could be no doubt that a Roman army was superior
to a feudal army on the brightest days of chivalry.

(19:29):
The world has produced no generals greater than Caesar, Pompey, Sulla,
and Marius. No armies ever won greater victories over superior
numbers than the Roman, and no armies of their size
ever retained in submission. So vast an Empire, and for
so long a time. At no period in the history
of the Roman Empire were the armies so large as
those sustained by France in time of peace. Two hundred

(19:51):
thousand legionnaires and as many more auxiliaries controlled diverse nations
and powerful monarchies. The single province of Syria once boasted
of a military force equal in the number of soldiers
to that wielded by the Emperor Tiberius. Twenty five Roman
legions made the conquest of the world and retained that
conquest for five hundred years. The self sustained energy of

(20:11):
Caesar Ingaul puts to the blush the efforts of all
modern generals, unless we except Frederick the Second, Marlborough, Napoleon Wellington,
Grant Sherman, and a few other geniuses whom warlike crises
have developed. Nor is there a better textbook on the
art of war than that furnished by Caesar himself in
his commentaries. The great victories of the Romans over Barbarians,

(20:33):
over Gauls, over Carthaginians, over Greeks, over Syrians over Persians
were not the result of a short lived enthusiasm, like
those of Attila and Tamerlane, but extended over a thousand years.
The Romans were essentially military in all their tastes and habits.
Luxurious senators and nobles showed the greatest courage and skill
in the most difficult campaigns. Antony, Caesar, POMPEII and Lucullus

(20:57):
at home were enervated and self indulgent the head of
their legions. They were capable of any privation and fatigue.
The Roman legion was a most perfected organization, a great
mechanical force, and could sustain furious attacks after vigor, patriotism
and public spirit had fled. For three hundred years, a
vast empire was sustained by mechanism alone. The legion is

(21:17):
coeval with the foundation of Rome, but the number of
the troops of which it was composed varied at different periods.
It rarely exceeded six thousand men. Gibbon estimates the number
at six thousand, eight hundred twenty six men. For many
centuries it was composed exclusively of Roman citizens. Up to
the year BC one O seven, no one was permitted
to serve among the regular troops, except those who were

(21:39):
regarded as possessing a strong personal interest in the stability
of the republic, Marius admitted all orders of citizens, and
after the close of the Social War b. C. Eighty seven,
the whole free population of Italy was allowed to serve
in the regular army. Claudius incorporated with the Legion the
vanquished Goths, and after him the barbarians filled up the
ranks on account of the degeneracy of the times. But

(22:01):
during the period when the Romans were conquering the world,
every citizen was trained to arms, like the Germans of
the present day, and was liable to be called upon
to serve in the armies. In the early age of
the Republic, the Legion was disbanded as soon as the
special service was performed, and was in all essential respects
of militia. For three centuries we have no record of
a Roman army wintering in the field. But when southern

(22:22):
Italy became the seat of war, and especially when Rome
was menaced by foreign enemies, and still more when a
protracted foreign service became inevitable, the same soldiers remained in
activity for several years. Gradually the distinction between the soldier
and the civilian was entirely obliterated. The distant wars on
the Republic, such as the prolonged operations of Caesar and
Gaul and the civil contests, made a standing army a necessity.

(22:46):
During the civil wars between Caesar and Pompei, the legions
were forty in number under Augustus, but twenty five Alexander
Severus increased them to thirty two. This was the standing
force of the Empire from one hundred and fifty thousand
to two hundre dred and forty thousand men stationed in
the various provinces. End of Section fourteen.