War in the name of....? || erase evidence of defeat?

Feb 2019
1
Panamá
#1
Hi. It's a pleasure to be able to write in this forum.

I would like to ask two questions:

1) In the Ancient Near East there was a custom that some king would send his army to fight but that the king himself would not go? That is to say, that in the name of the king they would fight and then the monarch would be awarded the victory.

2) is there some kind of evidence where the ANE kings wanted to erase the evidence of some military defeat or some shameful event for them?

Thank you very much, I remain attentive to your comments!
 
Nov 2010
7,269
Cornwall
#2
Not sure about 'awarding' victory. the king is always the one who 'conquers' in the eyes of history.

Couple of general points - in the general timescale we are talking about, it wasn't always wise for any king to go off to distant lands and leave other people in charge - good way to get deposed. Secondly a lot of rulers forbade their chroniclers - who by definition were biased - to tell tales of defeats. For example Charlemage did so for Roncesvalles.

And welcome by the way
 
Jan 2015
5,220
Ontario, Canada
#3
Hi. It's a pleasure to be able to write in this forum.

I would like to ask two questions:

1) In the Ancient Near East there was a custom that some king would send his army to fight but that the king himself would not go? That is to say, that in the name of the king they would fight and then the monarch would be awarded the victory.

2) is there some kind of evidence where the ANE kings wanted to erase the evidence of some military defeat or some shameful event for them?

Thank you very much, I remain attentive to your comments!
The Battle of Kadesh fought by Ramesses II is notorious for propaganda making the battle seem like an Egyptian victory.

Another example appears to be the Battle of Qarqar fought between Shalmaneser III and a coalition of states in the west. Shalmaneser III exaggerates the size of the enemy army, claims he won a total victory and claims that he killed 14,000 to 29,000 of the enemy. This is cast into doubt by historians because Shalmaneser III because if he won such a massive victory then why did he have to return multiple times to fight these enemies again.
 

Similar History Discussions