Robert Drews (1) (1936–)
Autor von The End of the Bronze Age
Andere Autoren mit dem Namen Robert Drews findest Du auf der Unterscheidungs-Seite.
Werke von Robert Drews
Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite language family : papers presented at a colloquium hosted by the University of… (2001) — Herausgeber — 3 Exemplare
Zugehörige Werke
Collapse and Transformation: The Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age in the Aegean (2020) — Mitwirkender — 5 Exemplare
Getagged
Wissenswertes
Mitglieder
Rezensionen
Listen
Dir gefällt vielleicht auch
Nahestehende Autoren
Statistikseite
- Werke
- 8
- Auch von
- 1
- Mitglieder
- 429
- Beliebtheit
- #56,934
- Bewertung
- 3.8
- Rezensionen
- 8
- ISBNs
- 20
- Favoriten
- 2
He begins briskly, with a review of the known evidence. Archaeologists have discovered that around the end of the 12th century BC, many parts of the eastern Mediterranean experienced sudden population decline and epidemics of cities burned to the ground: Turkey, Cyprus, the entire coast of the Levant, Greece and the Aegean islands, Crete, and even parts of Mesopotamia up to the boundary of the Assyrian empire. The only region that appears to have escaped relatively unscathed is what's now Egypt, but whatever happened was so catastrophic that it marks the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of a long dark age lasting at least half a millennium in most of the area. Prior to the calamity, powerful empires like the Hittites controlled large centralized states with strong, mobile militaries, and afterwards there was basically nothing left of virtually every culture anywhere near the Mediterranean coast: "Altogether the end of the Bronze Age was arguably the worst disaster in ancient history, even more calamitous than the collapse of the western Roman Empire."
Many theories have been proposed to explain this mass collapse - Drews covers theories of earthquakes, large-scale migrations, the introduction of iron weapons and armor, widespread drought, an increase in barbarian raids, and the all-encompassing "general systems collapse". Each is somewhat plausible, and Drews' contention is that the true answer is essentially a combination of most of the above, with a primary emphasis on changes in military tactics. Much like the Mongols' use of heavy cavalry was so revolutionary as to render them nearly unstoppable for many decades across most of Eurasia, the Sea Peoples' use of heavy infantry caught almost every Mediterranean empire completely off guard. At the time, infantry were used only for fighting small, disorganized bands of barbarians; the chariot, driven by a charioteer accompanied by an archer with a composite bow, was the unit of choice for serious wars between powerful states. In ancient battles like Megiddo and Kadesh, they seem to have fulfilled a role vaguely similar to that of tanks in the North African front of World War 2 as fast-moving tactical shock units (it's funny how after thousands of years warfare in that part of the world can be so similar). Unlike in the classical era, where groups of heavy infantry like hoplites/phalanxes/legionaries were the decisive unit in state-to-state warfare, in the Bronze Age most societies organized their foot soldiers primarily into light infantry, and used them mostly against weaker barbarian tribes, in areas unsuitable for chariot warfare, or as auxiliaries and support in chariot warfare.
That particular structure of forces says a lot, not only about what warfare was like, but also the limits of technology and the social structures of Bronze Age civilizations. By the middle of the Iron Age chariots had essentially disappeared from the battlefield, mounted cavalry being a more efficient use of horse but also seemingly more effective in the supporting role so familiar from the infantry-focused wars of the Romans and Greeks. In between was the Bronze Age collapse, and though hard evidence is frustratingly scanty, Drews is convinced that the invasions of the Sea Peoples, with their more advanced armor, javelins, and swords, were the catalyst for the disappearance of the chariot as a viable unit of warfare. Without chariots, most states were essentially helpless before their assaults, and even the "lucky" Egyptians relied on some decisive naval victories to escape most of the damage. While he's weirdly attached to the theory that the Sea Peoples were originally from Sardinia (given the behavior of later civilizations, it seems like the western Mediterranean would be a more pleasant place to pillage than the eastern), his theory that most of the established cultures just couldn't withstand the Sea People's superior way of war seems solid. Again, much like the Mongols were able to completely obliterate much larger and richer empires by virtue of better military prowess, it seems reasonable to think that the same thing could have happened in the same area in the Bronze Age (although the Egyptians managed to fight off the Mongols that time).
The book is written in a dry, scholarly tone, but there's a chill behind its descriptions of sacks, ruins, and conflict: were it not for Egypt's resistance to the Sea Peoples, what, if anything, would have eventually limited their depredations? Unlike the Vikings or the Mongols, they didn't settle in most of the territories they came across, they just destroyed everything they touched. If they had proceeded unchecked until they ran out of steam, we might never have known about them, and the long interregnum of civilization at the end of the Bronze Age might have been gone on for much longer. I would have liked for him to have spent more time on the theory that the stories of the Trojan War are based in part on the Bronze Age collapse, and to have bothered to translate some primary source quotes from the original Italian, Ancient Greek, etc., but otherwise this was an intriguing look at an irritatingly enigmatic period in world history.… (mehr)