King+David’s+Treatment+of+Conquered+Peoples

toc

In II Samuel King David is often seen employing “harsh’ measures against conquered people groups. He adopted such punitive measures as genocide, enslavement, exploitation of the native population (II Samuel 8:2). Occasionally going so far as to annihilate an entire people group (I Samuel 27:9,11). But when you look at David in the context of his culture and God’s mandate to Israel, his actions are justifiable. = **David** =

**Depopulating**
A tactic David sometimes employed was to eradicate part or all of a native population (II Samuel 8:2) (I Samuel 27:9,11). An example of this is seen after his victory over the Moabites (II Samuel 8:2). David pressed the defeated Moabites to the ground, measuring off two-thirds for execution with set of cords. The language in the text is reminiscent of surveying a piece of land. [i] Giving credence to the interpretation that the Moabites were forced to lie on the ground where two out every three soldiers were selected for killing. Another interpretation is David had the land itself “surveyed,” depopulated two-thirds of the surface area’s male population. [ii] By killing off an enemy population David was able marginalize the nation’s ability to fight, open their territory to Israeli occupation, or frighten his other enemies into capitulation.

**Tribute**
A more common procedure for David was to levy tribute (II Samuel 8:6) and forced labor (II Samuel 12:31) from his conquered subjects. After the defeat of the Ammonites, for example, he impressed the population to build bricks. Forcing monetary contributions and labor could be used as a punitive measure for resistance, while at the same time it provided David and his soldiers with compensation for the campaign. David was also known to hamstring his enemies horses after a battle. In his victory over the Arameans of Zobah (II Samuel 8:4) David hamstrung all but one hundred of the captured chariot horses. By hamstringing the horses David rendered them incapable of fully extending their stride and consequently, unsuitable for battle. [iii] Which To an enemy commander whose army is built around chariots, as was the case with the Arameans, this can be an insurmountable liability [iv].

= **Culture** =

**Assyrians**
A comparative middle eastern culture to Israel are the Assyrians. [v] Although they did not reach their peak until the 8th Century, two hundred years after David, they still had a tremendous influence. [vi] The Assyrian’s treatment of conquered enemies was a strategic political and psychological statement. [vii] If the enemy surrendered they only had to face tribute levies and possible deportation. Assyria often deported conquered people groups away from their homeland to disaffect nationalistic sentiment. If a people group decided to resist, the Assyrians showed no mercy. Entire populations would be decimated. Victims were brutally tortured while they died. [viii] The strategy behind the Assyrian’s treatment of captives was to serve as a warning to others. [ix]

**Hittite**
Another contemporary middle eastern culture were the Hittites. Their standard policy in dealing with conquered nations was to enslave the populace, take their livestock and any other valuables, then burn the city. After the enemy was subdued the Hittites would levy tribute and a quota of soldier for use in future campaigns. [x] The Hittite’s were not particularly concerned with integrating their subjects into their culture.

**Egypt**
The Egyptians practiced two different strategiems when dealing with defeated peoples. One was to assimilate the enemy into the Egyptian culture, as was the case with Nubia, Egypt’s vassal to the south [xi]. This policy required harsher measures in direct proportion to how hard the enemy resisted “Egyptianization.” [xii] Egypt’s second policy was to establish vassals as trading partners and regular sources of tribute. [xiii] This necessitated the Egyptians keep relations as pain free as possible and their vassals infrastructure intact. The Israelites themselves were no strangers to the process. During the 14th Century B.C. all of Canaan were ‘technically” tributaries under Egyptian rule, including the Israelites. [xiv] Additionally, to the Egyptians, paying of tribute was also seen as a ceremonial act of submission, inserting a cultural stigma apart from the monetary loss. [xv]

= = = **Mosaic Tradition** =

**Canaanite Enemies**
Israel had a unique attitude toward the treatment of conquered peoples rooted in the Mosaic Law. In Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 20:10-20) the Mosaic Law makes a distinction between the treatment of nations located within the territory allocated to Israel and those outside. The pagan nations occupying the land given to Israel were to be exterminated; man, women, and child without exception (Deuteronomy 20:16). The idea was of //consecrating// the enemy to complete destruction, a concept shared by other middle eastern cultures during this period as evidenced by the Inscription of Mesha, a ninth-century king of Moab. [xvi] Additionally, David’s practice of hamstringing or houghing captured horses (II Samuel 8:4) also had its roots in Israeli culture. During the conquest God had encouraged Joshua in hamstringing enemy horses (Joshua 11:6). It was a useful strategy in demobilizing the Cannanite nations that relied on chariot technology. Its been argued that David hamstrung the horses because Israel only had a limited supply of chariots and had no use for the extra horses. However, Yigael Yadin, in //The Art of Warfare In Biblical Lands// demonstrates Israel most likely did have a sizable chariot force and could have used the replacement horses after the battle. [xvii] Implying David resisted taking the horses to fulfill the Mosaic stipulation against Israel’s kings multiplying horses (Deuteronomy 17:16). [xviii]

**Non-Canaanite Enemies.**
In dealing with nations outside the Promised Land, Israel was expected to show more benevolence. Israel was to first give these nations the chance to surrender(Deuteronomy 20:10). The enemy could save their lives by for the enemy surrendered they were allowed to live in exchange for tribute and labor (Deuteronomy 20:11). Otherwise, the Israelites were commanded to execute all males, sparing only the women, children, and livestock (Deuteronomy 20:14).

[i] Ronald F. C. Youngblood, //1,2 Samuel//, vol. 3, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1973), 903. [ii] Ibid. [iii] Ibid., 3:905. [iv] Yigael Yadin, //The Art of Warfare In Biblical Lands//, vol. 2 (London, England: McGraw -Hill Book Company, Inc, 1963), 285. [v] Lawson K. Younger, //Ancient Conquest Accounts// (Sheffield, England: Almond Press, 1990), 61. [vi] Ronald F. C. Youngblood, //1,2 Samuel//, 3:233-234. [vii] Lawson K. Younger, //Ancient Conquest Accounts//, 66. [viii] Ibid., 98. [ix] Ibid., 66. [x] Ibid., 137. [xi] Ibid., 186. [xii] Ibid., 184-186. [xiii] Ibid., 186. [xiv] Marc Van De Mieroop, //A History of The Ancient Near East//, Second. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 165. [xv] Ibid., 251. [xvi] Andrew Hill and John H. Walton, //A Survey of the Old Testament//, Third. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 2009), 226. [xvii] Yigael Yadin, //The Art of Warfare In Biblical Lands//, 2:285-287. [xviii] Ronald F. C. Youngblood, //1,2 Samuel//, 3:905.

media type="custom" key="7874141"

media type="custom" key="7874143"