Captain Moroni’s Stratagem: Straight from the Scriptures

Chris Alvarez, “Captain Moroni’s Stratagem: Straight from the Scriptures,” Selections from the Religious Education Student Symposium 2008 (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2008), 99–114.

Captain Moroni’s Stratagem: Straight from the Scriptures

Chris Alvarez

The scriptures contain both spiritual and historical information. Diligently reading the scriptures often teaches more than can be learned through any other media. One example of someone who likely learned from the scriptures is Captain Moroni. Captain Moroni fortified the Nephite lands, regained them when they were lost, and taught the Nephites to follow the commandments. His military strategies “never had been known” among his people (Alma 49:8).

One aspect of Moroni’s strategy that is often our focal point is the defensive fortifications that he built. Moroni’s fortifications were revolutionary. When the Lamanites first came into contact with these fortifications, they “were astonished exceedingly, because of the wisdom of the Nephites in preparing their places of security” (Alma 49:5). The Lamanites had expected an easy victory because of their numbers, and, with their newly applied armor, they felt prepared to defeat the Nephites. However, Moroni was more prepared.

Had Moroni not had the insight to use these fortifications, the Nephite nation would probably have been defeated and possibly destroyed at this point in their history. The first of Captain Moroni’s battle strategies described in the Book of Mormon involved armor, not fortifications. Even though his army had armor, many soldiers were found dead at the end of the battle. “Now the number of their dead was not numbered because of the greatness of the number; yea, the number of their dead was exceedingly great, both on the Nephites and on the Lamanites” (Alma 44:21). There were so many dead that they could not number them all. This fact is not to be taken lightly, considering that the Nephites had been known to number their dead well into the thousands.

Had battles like this been allowed to continue, the Nephite population would have been wiped out by the end of the war. The Lamanites would undoubtedly have survived because they were far more numerous than the Nephites. The Lamanites consisted of the descendants of Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, as well as Nephite dissenters (the Amalekites, Zoramites, and descendants of the priests of Noah). This was a large group. The descendants of the priests of Noah alone “were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites” (Alma 43:14), and they were only a fraction of the whole. The Lamanites felt that they had a clear advantage over the Nephites, however, Moroni’s fortifications turned the tide. The Nephites were facing an army many times their size that was bent on their extinction. Within the defenses of these fortifications, the Nephites were safe from the Lamanites. The Lamanites, on the other hand, were frustrated. The Lamanites “had supposed, because of the greatness of their numbers, yea, they supposed that they should be privileged to come upon them as they had hitherto done. . . . They supposed that they should easily overpower and subject their brethren to the yoke of bondage, or slay and massacre them according to their pleasure” (Alma 49:6–7). The Lamanites were thrilled at the thought of being able to destroy the Nephites. They had more people, and they even had armor; they couldn’t lose. But to their frustration, the Nephites were prepared for them. In the first battle, because of Moroni’s fortresses, “more than a thousand of the Lamanites were slain; while, on the other hand, there was not a single soul of the Nephites which was slain” (Alma 49:23).

Moroni’s fortifications are described as being built “in a manner which never had been known among the children of Lehi” (Alma 49:8). This does not mean that the Nephites had never fortified their cities before this time. Jarom stated, over three hundred years before Captain Moroni’s time, that the Nephites had “begun to fortify our cities” (Jarom 1:7). He does not go more in depth than this, moving to a description of the workmanship of the Nephites. From this account, we know that city fortification was not unknown before the time of Moroni. Yet Moroni’s fortifications had never been seen among the children of Lehi. This does not mean that they had not been seen in other places. In fact, these fortifications bear a striking resemblance to the fortified cities in and around Israel before the time of Lehi’s voyage. Captain Moroni’s excellent knowledge of fortifications modeled after the ancient Israelites may have come from the plates of brass.

Fortifications of the Old Testament

Fortified cities. In ancient Israel, fortifications were built to protect cities from attackers. The Israelites adopted the Canaanite practice of fortifying all towns, no matter the size or importance, with walls and ramparts.[1] “The fortifications of this period were typical, consisting of a massive retaining wall built of stone and a glacis faced with a layer of hard lime plaster that covered the slope of the mound.”[2] Most of the fortifications of this period included a glacis, a wall, at least one tower, and gates.

Glacis. A main component to ancient fortifications was a glacis, a mound of earth that sloped upward from the ground to the wall, which, as noted above, was coated with hard lime plaster. This bank of earth “exposed attackers to the defenders’ fire and made it difficult for them to breach the lower part of the wall.”[3] In addition to the glacis, a moat often surrounded the city, keeping back the enemy’s archers and preventing use of a battering ram. There were only two ways to get past a moat with a battering ram or other wall-destroying device: finding a way “to bridge the moat or fill[ing] it up at certain points—all while under fire.”[4]

Walls. On top of the glacis were the walls, which were commonly built with stone or brick and had to be tall to avoid scaling and thick to avoid breaching. Walls built tall and thick could defend a city; however, without means of offense, any defense will eventually fall. Archers were the main line of offense for a fortified city. Bows and arrows were long-range weapons and therefore the most useful weapons from the top of fortifications. Rocks could also be dropped on the enemy. The only weapons capable of hitting the defenders, aside from slinging a rock, were arrows. Therefore, the walls were built to allow archers to fire at the attackers without being hit by enemy missiles. In ancient Israel and surrounding countries, a crenelated parapet protected the archers. This was basically a series of stone shields, resembling teeth, built into the top of a wall. With this structure, archers could hide behind a “cap,” one of the shields, when not firing arrows through an “embrasure,” the gap between the caps. This way, the archers could attack the enemy while remaining solidly defended.[5]

Towers. Towers were another key component of fortifications. In many ancient fortifications, towers were regularly placed along the wall. These towers connected to, but protruded slightly from, the wall and allowed defending archers a wider range of fire. With these towers, the archers could fire on an enemy that had reached the walls from the side while remaining safe in the protection of the parapet. While an archer on the wall would have to expose himself to enemy fire in order to shoot at someone directly beneath him, an archer on the tower could fire toward the foot of the wall without extra exposure. In case an enemy made it to the foot of a tower, there were balconies protruding from the tower with holes in the floor through which the defenders could fire downward at the enemy.[6] This allowed the archers to be able to hold off an enemy from almost any angle.

Gates. Finally, and perhaps most important, was the entrance, the most vulnerable part of the city’s defenses. The entrance was a gap in the wall or perhaps a bridge over a moat. In ancient Israel, fortified cities were often on the top of a steep hill. This made them difficult to approach to begin with. The attacking army would need to follow a path in order to make their way up the incline. Taking advantage of this, the defenders would often cause the path to approach on the defenders’ right. This exposed an approaching army’s right side. The opponents were generally righthanded, so they would have their shield on their left, leaving them vulnerable to attack. If the entrance was on flat ground, then the gateway was often angled, forcing the attacking party to turn in order to enter, again exposing their right side.

Other means of defending the entrance included the structure of the entrance itself. The entrance to a city would have a door to stop the attackers from entering. These doors “were made of wood and usually plated with metal to prevent their being set on fire by enemy torches.”[7] Usually double doors, they would need to be strengthened in the middle. This was accomplished by fitting them “with huge bolts [that] usually took the form of a heavy beam which ran right across the back of the double doors, and was held in position by sockets in both doorposts.”[8]

If an army managed to make its way to the doors, it would find itself bombarded from several directions by the defenders’ arrows. There were often two large towers on either side of the gate that contained balconies and parapets, allowing the archers to fire toward the entrance. The defending army could attack from varying directions, including from the towers’ two or more floors and the roof over the gate.

Once inside the gate, there were more obstacles. In most cases, large pillars would obstruct the hallway just within the entrance. These pillars would create a bottleneck effect, making a traffic jam as the attackers tried to get through a suddenly smaller passageway. This decreased the flow of the enemy to a more manageable number and allowed the defenders the chance to cut them off as they forced their way through.[9] All in all, the most carefully watched and well protected part of a city was the entrance.

Jericho, an Ancient Exam​​ple

The most familiar fortress of the Old Testament is the city of Jericho. This fortress followed the ancient norm quite well. Archeologists have discovered that it had a glacis, a wall, and a tower. The glacis rose approximately fifteen meters (forty-nine feet) above the surrounding plain.[10] The wall was built on the highest point of the glacis, about twenty-six meters (eighty-five feet) from the base of the glacis.[11] The wall itself was about five meters tall (seventeen feet) and completely surrounded the ten-acre city. The tower was about seven meters tall (twenty-three feet), and the diameter varied between seven and eight meters (twenty-three to twenty-six feet) from the base to the roof.[12] The Israelites, upon arriving at Jericho, found themselves staring at a fortress, the top of which was twenty meters (sixty-six feet) above where they stood. To put this in context, the Israelites faced a monstrosity that was around eleven times the height of a man after they had been traveling in the desert for forty years and living in tents; they probably had not seen many real cities in quite some time. This great fortress must have seemed undefeatable. The Israelites would not have been able to defeat it without divine inspiration. Thus, it would have been a logical choice for Captain Moroni to use as a blueprint for his own fortifications.

Fortifications of Captain Moroni

Glacis. Like ancient Israelite fortifications, Moroni’s defenses employed the use of a glacis and a moat. Moroni fortified the city of Ammonihah by casting “up dirt round about to shield them from the arrows and stones of the Lamanites” (Alma 49:2). Later, probably as soon as he had time between battles, Moroni caused that his armies “should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities” (Alma 50:1). The dirt for these heaps came from the land directly in front of them, thereby creating a ditch while making the glacis. These ditches were obviously as effective as moats, as the Lamanites found themselves frustrated by them. The Lamanites tried to fill them in, but “instead of filling up their ditches by pulling down the banks of earth, they were filled up in a measure with their dead and wounded bodies” (Alma 49:22).

Walls. On top of the glacis, Moroni’s walls followed Israel’s defensive strategies with amazing accuracy. His walls, although of a different material, were “built up to the height of a man, round about the cities” (Alma 50:2). However, unlike the stone fortifications of Israel, the majority of Moroni’s walls were made of works of timbers. His first fortifications mentioned were “small forts” with “walls of stone to encircle them about” (Alma 48:8); however, this is the only time walls of stone were mentioned. Although the reason for this change in materials is unknown, it is possible that building walls of stone took too long to be replicated for every city, and building them out of wood was necessary for a faster process, or perhaps there wasn’t an abundance of stone in the area.

Moroni also added a crenelated parapet-like structure to his walls. His parapets are described as “a frame of pickets built upon the timbers round about; and they were strong and high” (Alma 50:3). The purpose for these pickets is not recorded, but it can be assumed that they served a dual purpose: to defend the archers and to discourage opposing armies from scaling the walls. The walls of Moroni’s forts were only to the height of a man, so a man could probably climb over them, especially with a rope or ladder. However, the pickets would both add extra height to the walls and make them more dangerous for whoever was scaling the wall because they could fall and skewer themselves.

Towers. After the pickets were built, Moroni had the Nephites build towers. After building the pickets, “he caused towers to be erected that overlooked those works of pickets” (Alma 50:4). The kind of tower is unknown. It is possible that the tower was within the city and used for seeing farther and possibly allowing a farther shot with an arrow, however, it doesn’t seem like this is case. Were the tower within the city, it would probably be difficult to fire over the walls to hit the towers. But Moroni “caused places of security to be built upon those towers, that the stones and the arrows of the Lamanites could not hurt them” (Alma 50:4). If he had cause to build places of security, the people on the towers must have been vulnerable to the attacks of the Lamanites. In addition, the towers “were prepared that they could cast stones from the top thereof, according to their pleasure and their strength, and slay him who should attempt to approach the walls of the city” (Alma 50:4). If the towers were not on the outer part of the wall, the angle would not be right for those in the tower to hit anyone at the base of the wall. With the tower protruding from the wall, as in ancient times, those on the wall needed some sort of defense; therefore, this is most likely the course Moroni took.

Entrance. The entrance was, of course, the only bridge over the moat, so Moroni could control how the Lamanites entered the city. As in Israelite fortresses, a small entryway caused the enemy to enter the city in a line, instead of a mass, shrinking their numbers to a more manageable amount. This allowed the Nephites to pick them off easily. The Lamanite army was many times the size of the Nephite army; however, because they were forced into the entrance a few at a time, their forces were thinned out, allowing the Nephites to even the odds.

Strategies of Warfare

The defense of these cities was only half of Captain Moroni’s strategy. Even with his fortifications, Moroni lost several cities to the Lamanites. He managed to regain these cities through brilliant strategies. However, although his plans had not been seen by the Lamanites, their prototype had been used before. The Israelites used strategies in conquering many cities. Like the Nephites, the Israelites often faced horrible odds and still managed to come out on top, partially because of their unique plans. Carlton wrote, “The men were poorly armed and were no match for the Canaanites and other indigenous tribes in a pitched battle, but by stealth and cunning, with small groups of highly trained warriors, they were often able to overcome their opponents. Even in the early days of the monarchy, during the battles against the Philistines, we find that by the stratagems of skilled leaders the Israelites were often triumphant over the superior numbers of their enemies.”[13]

There were three main tactics employed interchangeably by the Israelites: ruse (deceptive trickery), stratagem (a military maneuver to deceive or surprise an enemy), and siege (cutting off supplies to starve the enemy out of a city).[14]

Conquering by Ruse

Attacking armies have been known to resort to ruse to gain possession of a city. The best-known ruse in the Old Testament is that of Gideon in his battle against the Midianites. For this battle, described in Judges 7, Gideon sent the majority of his army home before the combat began. He reduced his army from thirty-two thousand to three hundred. He gave each of his men a trumpet and a lamp. He then had the army surround the camp of the Midianites. When the time was right, Gideon had them blow their trumpets, hold up their lamps, and yell. The Midianite camp burst into chaos, and the Midianites began fighting among themselves before fleeing. Gideon then followed the Midianites and destroyed them.

This particular ruse, while well planned and carried out, would not have worked for the Nephites. When the Lamanites were within their cities, there were “no hopes of meeting them upon fair grounds” (Alma 52:21). With the Lamanites protected within the walls, it would be nearly impossible for the armies of the Nephites to surround and frighten them with noise and lights. Therefore, Moroni was forced to resolve “upon a plan that he might decoy the Lamanites out of their strongholds” (Alma 52:21).

When Moroni wanted to free his people who had been taken prisoner, he assigned Laman, a descendant of Laman, to go to the Lamanites and convince them that he was one of them. This was remarkably easy, as all he had to say was, “Behold, I am a Lamanite. Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites and they sleep; and behold we have taken of their wine and brought with us” (Alma 55:8). There were odd things about the situation, including the fact that Laman took the time to acquire wine while escaping and then managed to escape from the Nephites, but the Lamanites must have greedily assumed one of their own would never lie. For whatever reason, “when the Lamanites heard these words they received him with joy” (Alma 55:9). Of course, they were actually receiving the wine with joy, but it got the job done. Laman gave them the wine and they got drunk and fell asleep. This allowed the Nephite prisoners to receive weapons and surround the Lamanites. The Lamanites unequivocally surrendered. This ruse allowed Moroni to get his people back without shedding blood or exchanging prisoners.

Conquering by Stratagem

One of the best examples of stratagem in the Old Testament is Joshua’s attack on Ai. After three thousand of his men were defeated when they attacked Ai, Joshua developed a stratagem. Joshua picked thirty thousand “mighty men of valour” (Joshua 8:3) and had them “lie in wait against the city, even behind the city: go not very far from the city, but be ye all ready” (Joshua 8:4). Joshua then took the rest of the people with him and told them that “I, and all the people that are with me, will approach unto the city: and it shall come to pass, when they come out against us, as at the first, that we will flee before them, (For they will come out after us) till we have drawn them from the city; for they will say, they flee before us, as at the first: therefore we will flee before them” (Joshua 8:5–6). Joshua predicted that the people of Ai would follow them. He then informed those who would be hiding that after the enemy had been lured away they should set the city on fire. He put his plan into action, and it worked. When the king of Ai saw Joshua’s small force, he ordered all the men in the city to go out to attack them, and the Israelites fled. Once the people of Ai left the city, those lying in wait entered the city and burned it. This sent the people of Ai into confusion and panic and allowed the Israelites to destroy them.

In the Book of Mormon, Moroni used this tactic in attacking fortifications. Moroni first used it to retake the city of Mulek, sending Teancum with a small number of men to walk past Mulek while Moroni and his army hid in the wilderness. As with the people of Ai, the Lamanites came out to attack Teancum’s troops. While this took place, Moroni and his army went and took possession of Mulek. Moroni then took part of his army and went to help Teancum. Meanwhile, Teancum’s army had joined with Lehi and his army. The Lamanites were terribly afraid of Lehi, so they turned and ran away when they saw him, thinking that he was after them. Finally, Moroni’s and Lehi’s armies sandwiched the Lamanites between them and won.

Conquering by Siege

Siege warfare is one of the safest ways to take fortifications. A siege does not waste the lives of the men, nor does it cost too much energy. It simply involves starving the defenders into submission. The Assyrians used this tactic to take Samaria. The siege took three years before they finally managed to overthrow the city, but they did eventually accomplish the task.

A siege, however, does not always work. If the inhabitants of the city are prepared for the siege, they can triumph over their enemies. A city can win a siege simply by lasting longer than its opponent. Syria “came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him” (2 Kings 16:5). Ahaz was the king of Jerusalem at this time, and he managed to keep the city, despite being besieged, because he was prepared with food and water. The outcome of a siege depends solely upon the preparedness of those inside the wall.

In the Book of Mormon, the Nephites besieged the city of Cumeni. Helaman, a commander in Captain Moroni’s army and the current prophet and keeper of the brass plates, described this incident, saying that they “did surround, by night, the city Cumeni, a little before they were to receive a supply of provisions” (Alma 57:8). They waited for the Lamanites’ provisions to arrive, camping outside the city. They kept guards and slept, prepared for the Lamanites to attack, “which they attempted many times; but as many times as they attempted this their blood was spilt” (Alma 57:9). When the provisions finally did arrive, Helaman described the logical thing to do in this situation, saying, “And we, instead of being Lamanites, were Nephites; therefore, we did take them and their provisions” (Alma 57:10). The Lamanites, having never had a city besieged, were not prepared for this tactic and lasted only a few days.

Spiritual Stratagems

Spiritual lessons of ancient warfare. In addition to physical strategies, Moroni had a great understanding of the spiritual blessings the Lord will give those who are obedient to the commandments. One specific blessing mentioned is physical strength in battle. In Leviticus, the Lord promises: “If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them . . . I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land. And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and our enemies shall fall before you by the sword” (Leviticus 26:3, 6–9).

The Lord will make all who obey His commandments strong, and they will be able to triumph over their enemies, despite the odds. Of course, if people do not keep the commandments, the results are the opposite: “I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: . . . and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy” (Leviticus 26:25).

King David testifies of the Lord’s strengthening of the obedient:

God is my strength and power: and he maketh my way perfect. . . . He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms. . . . Thou hast enlarged my steps under me; so that my feet did not slip. I have pursued mine enemies, and destroyed them; and turned no again until I had consumed them. And I have consumed them, and wounded them, that they could not arise: yea, they are fallen under my feet. For thou hast girded me with the strength to battle: them that rose up against me hast thou subdued under me. Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies, that I might destroy them that hate me. . . . Thou also hast delivered me from the strivings of my people, thou hast kept me to be head of the heathen: a people which I knew not shall serve me. (2 Samuel 22:33, 35, 37–41, 44)

The Lord gave King David balance and strength so that he could triumph over his enemies, including Goliath.

Not only is it important to follow the commandments, it is also helpful to listen to the prophet. In the Old Testament, there are many examples of the Lord helping His people through prophets. When Elisha was the prophet, he assisted Israel’s king through revelation. At this point in time, Syria was warring against Israel, and the king of Syria “took counsel with his servants, saying, In such and such a place shall be my camp” (2 Kings 6:8). The king supposed that his plot would work because the armies of Israel would not be able to find his armies. Unfortunately for him, Elisha told the king of Israel, “Beware that thou pass not such a place; for thither the Syrians are come down” (2 Kings 6:9). This insight from the Lord through His prophet allowed the Israelites to stop the Syrians more than once. The king of Syria, not knowing the ways of the Lord, blamed his servants for revealing secrets, to which one responded, “Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, telleth the king of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bedchamber” (2 Kings 6:12). Elisha, through the power and revelations of the Lord, was able to know the secret plans of the Syrians.

Moroni’s Spiritual Defenses

Moroni implemented these spiritual tactics in his own battles. He prepared his people to follow the Lord. His goal in the war was “that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians” (Alma 48:10). The Nephites were taught that “by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land” (Alma 48:15)

Moroni also, like King David, gave the Lord credit for his success and rejoiced in his blessings. Once, upon conquering an army of the Lamanites, Moroni said:

Ye behold that the Lord is with us; and ye behold that he has delivered you into our hands. And now I would that ye should understand that this is done unto us because of our religion and our faith in Christ. And now ye see that ye cannot destroy this our faith; . . . yea, ye see that God will support, and keep, and preserve us, so long as we are faithful unto him, and unto our faith, and our religion and never will the Lord suffer that we should fall into transgression and deny our faith. . . . That all-powerful God, who has strengthened our arms that we have gained power over you, by our faith, by our religion, and by our rites of worship, and by our church, and by the sacred support which we owe to our wives and our children, by that liberty which binds us to our lands and our country; yea, and also by the maintenance of the sacred word of God, to which we owe all our happiness. (Alma 44:3–5)

Moroni gave the Lord the credit for his success. He then described why the Lord gave the Nephites the strength to beat the Lamanites. He revealed that the Lord gave them this strength because of their faith and faithfulness in the word of the Lord. He also named supporting their families, their liberty, and their maintaining of the word of God as additional righteous causes. Moroni realized that his success was from God and was based on his obedience to the commandments. Moroni went even further, adding that all happiness comes from the Lord.

Moroni also implemented the strategy of asking the prophet. When the Lamanites fled from the Nephites at Antionum, Moroni did not know where they are going. To discover their plans, he sent out a party of spies. But this was not all. Moroni also knew “of the prophecies of Alma” (Alma 43:23). Knowing that Alma was a prophet, Moroni “sent certain men unto him, desiring him that he should inquire of the Lord whither the armies of the Nephites should go to defend themselves against the Lamanites” (Alma 43:23). Moroni asked Alma where to go because he knew that a prophet could receive revelation. His faith was rewarded as “the word of the Lord came unto Alma, and Alma informed the messengers of Moroni” (Alma 43:34). The Lord helped the Nephites know how to defend themselves. The Nephites were taught “that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni” (Alma 48:16).


Whether physical or spiritual, Moroni’s battle strategies closely resembled the strategies of ancient Israel. These strategies were used during the time period which would have been covered in the plates of brass, which contained “a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah” (1 Nephi 5:12). It is reasonable to assume that Captain Moroni studied the scriptures and used them to lead his people. With an excellent knowledge of the historical and spiritual aspects of the scriptures, Moroni may have learned and applied the strategies of the ancient Israelites for the protection of his people and their lands.

Captain Moroni is one of the greatest heroes to ever walk on the earth. The prophet Mormon offers this tribute: “If all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men” (Alma 48:17). If so great a man read the scriptures and applied what he learned from them to his life, then all of us should do likewise.


[1] Eric Carlton, War and Ideology (New York: Routledge, 1990), 90.

[2] Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson, Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (New York: Continuum Publishing Group, 2001), 258.

[3] Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), 20.

[4] Yadin, Art of Warfare, 21.

[5] Yadin, Art of Warfare, 20.

[6] Yadin, Art of Warfare, 20.

[7] Yadin, Art of Warfare, 22.

[8] Yadin, Art of Warfare, 22.

[9] Yadin, Art of Warfare, 22.

[10] Negev and Gibson, Archaeological Encyclopedia, 258.

[11] Ephraim Stern, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), 680.

[12] Negev and Gibson, Archaeological Encyclopedia, 257.

[13] Carlton, War and Ideology, 88.

[14] Yadin, Art of Warfare, 318.