Battle between Cimmerian cavalry, their war dogs, and Greek hoplites, depicted on a Pontic plate

Military Actions as an Economic Decision in the Ancient World

War is expensive. It has always been costly to raise and equip an army, supply them during their movements and sieges. War also has a high price on the productivity of the land involved. Fields may be burned or lay dormant. Farmers are removed from the fields to serve in the army. Timber and earth are removed to build siege engines and siege works. Soldiers also require pay for their time and services. Unfortunately, war often exacts a high price from those who are innocent bystanders. Property is destroyed, families are shattered, women may become victims of rape, and in ancient times one of the primary places where slaves are taken is as a prize of conquest.

In the ancient world war was both expensive to persecute and a profitable enterprise. The primary basis of wealth in the ancient world was land, and when an empire could expand the land that it occupied it could increase the wealth it acquired from that land. One option that territories could take when an army approached was to become a vassal territory, paying tribute to the empire or king to give itself the guarantee of peace. If a territory resisted then the sack of a city would bring out both the wealth of the city in gold, silver, and other precious items (often stored in temples or noble dwelling places) but also the stored agricultural products. As mentioned above the slave trade was also a part of the economic system in the ancient world, and cities like Tyre were places where slaves were sold. Certain cities, like Jerusalem or Tyre and Sidon, would give access to frequently used land or maritime trade routes which were also sources of wealth.

Although pride and egos certainly played a part in conflict in the ancient world, so did economics. The Babylonians in their siege of Tyre, which is reported to have lasted thirteen years, would have expended an excessive amount of capital and yet failed to capture the city. It is plausible that the city agreed to become a vassal of Babylon, giving access to its ports as well as tribute but it is also plausible that this was ultimately a loss of resources for Babylon. It would be in Tyre’s interest to end the siege, even if the city was in no imminent danger of falling, to have access to both overland trading routes and renewed access to their ‘daughter cities’ which provided the food and water for the city. Tyre could import food and water, perhaps from Egypt, but this would be at a much higher cost.

For most of history war was looked on as an economic decision. An empire, like Assyria or Babylon, constantly searched for more resources and revenue but also had to balance that with maintaining control over their territory they already controlled. There were always forces both external and internal who looked for weakness and attempted to weaken the hold of these large empires on their vassals. The actions of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Samaria, Tyre, or even Jerusalem in this time often have economic considerations.