Julius Caesar in the Book of Mormon

[morgan.deane]

16 hours ago, JarMan said:

I've pointed out Romanisms in the Book of Mormon before, but this is a really obvious one. What's staggering here is not just the similarities, but the order in which they are listed. The second passage is from Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars. How did that find it's way into Alma?

Alma 50

1 And now it came to pass that Moroni did not stop making preparations for war, or to defend his people against the Lamanites; for he caused that his armies should commence in the commencement of the twentieth year of the reign of the judges, that they should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites.

2 And upon the top of these ridges of earth he caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities.

3 And he caused that upon those works of timbers there should be a frame of pickets built upon the timbers round about; and they were strong and high.

4 And he caused towers to be erected that overlooked those works of pickets, and he caused places of security to be built upon those towers, that the stones and the arrows of the Lamanites could not hurt them.

5 And they 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 near the walls of the city.

 

Book 8

9 He commanded the camp to be fortified with a twelve-foot rampart, a breastwork to be built on in proportion to the height of the same, a double trench fifteen feet wide in each case to be dug with perpendicular sides, turrets three stories high to be set up at frequent intervals and connected by covered cross-bridges, having their front faces protected by a breastwork of wattles. His object was to hold the camp against the enemy by the double ditch and a double rank of defenders: one rank, posted on the bridges, from the greater safety afforded by height, could hurl its missiles with greater range and confidence; the other, posted on the actual rampart nearer the enemy, would be covered by the bridge from the showers of missiles. At the gateways he set doors and higher turrets.

There is nothing unique about the military science described by the Gallic Wars. Earthen ramparts are the strongest fortification based on an easily available substance. Then you have to protect the soldiers so you build breastworks. Spikes on the breastworks and trenches discourage the enemy from trying to climb them. It also channels them towards the only available entrance. And throwing or shooting things from that high into a small area like a gate is very effective.

You'll find similar fortifications among North American Indians and ancient China as well as Roman Europe as others have shown. That's just off the top of my head. Two different accounts showing similar military science suggests that science was common among ancient peoples, not that Joseph Smith copied from the Gallic Wars. They are similar across cultures and regions because their decisions were based on the same fundamental military principles.

Edited January 6, 2025 by morgan.deane

[CV75]

16 hours ago, JarMan said:

I've pointed out Romanisms in the Book of Mormon before, but this is a really obvious one. What's staggering here is not just the similarities, but the order in which they are listed. The second passage is from Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars. How did that find it's way into Alma?

Alma 50

1 And now it came to pass that Moroni did not stop making preparations for war, or to defend his people against the Lamanites; for he caused that his armies should commence in the commencement of the twentieth year of the reign of the judges, that they should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites.

2 And upon the top of these ridges of earth he caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities.

3 And he caused that upon those works of timbers there should be a frame of pickets built upon the timbers round about; and they were strong and high.

4 And he caused towers to be erected that overlooked those works of pickets, and he caused places of security to be built upon those towers, that the stones and the arrows of the Lamanites could not hurt them.

5 And they 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 near the walls of the city.

 

Book 8

9 He commanded the camp to be fortified with a twelve-foot rampart, a breastwork to be built on in proportion to the height of the same, a double trench fifteen feet wide in each case to be dug with perpendicular sides, turrets three stories high to be set up at frequent intervals and connected by covered cross-bridges, having their front faces protected by a breastwork of wattles. His object was to hold the camp against the enemy by the double ditch and a double rank of defenders: one rank, posted on the bridges, from the greater safety afforded by height, could hurl its missiles with greater range and confidence; the other, posted on the actual rampart nearer the enemy, would be covered by the bridge from the showers of missiles. At the gateways he set doors and higher turrets.

Regarding your question, I would say Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars got into Alma the same way View of the Hebrews (E. Smith) and the Spaulding Manuscript (S. Spaulding) did. 

[JarMan]

11 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

There is nothing unique about the military science described by the Gallic Wars. Earthen ramparts are the strongest fortification based on an easily available substance. Then you have to protect the soldiers so you build breastworks. Spikes on the breastworks and trenches discourage the enemy from trying to climb them. It also channels them towards the only available entrance. And throwing or shooting things from that high into a small area like a gate is very effective.

You'll find similar fortifications among North American Indians and ancient China as well as Roman Europe as others have shown. That's just off the top of my head. Two different accounts showing similar military science suggests that science was common among ancient peoples, not that Joseph Smith copied from the Gallic Wars. They are similar across cultures and regions because their decisions were based on the same fundamental military principles.

I'm gonna disagree with you here. I think Roman military science in the first century BC was revolutionary in the ancient world. What isn't being considered here by all of the armchair generals (not to mention the author of the Book of Mormon) is the underlying social, economic, and administrative structures needed to support the massive earth moving and construction endeavors described by Caesar and Mormon. At minimum there needs to be:

Iron Tools

Moving huge amounts of earth efficiently, cutting down forests, and working and fastening the wood requires a lot of iron tools. And since iron tools don't make themselves, there needs to be a vast:

Industrial Economy

Mining, smelting, and iron working takes a lot of labor, access to raw materials, and specialized knowledge developed over centuries. The ability to support this type of economy depends on having a very strong and somewhat efficient:

Administrative State

Without a government capable of generating income, protecting key societal interests, building public infrastructure, and maintaining order, large scale economies just aren't possible. And with all of the mouths to feed in this sort of society, there has to be a vast:

Agricultural Economy

The agricultural economy has to generate a huge surplus in order to feed the military, administrative, and industrial sectors of society. In addition, there needs to be efficient ways to convey large amounts of food and other resources over long distances requiring:

Complex Transportation Systems

Yes, roads. And also harbors. Domestic beasts of burden would also sure help here (though not a required feature). And these systems had to have some level of security else they're overtaken by bandits and pirates. With all of these many societal roles, there needs to be a huge supply of:

Labor

In the ancient world, a lot of menial labor was performed by slaves. Slaves were often acquired through conquest of distant lands. What this really means is that you need to have an:

Empire

Which, of course, Julius Caesar did have. Moroni and the Nephites didn't, though. Nephite society did not have slavery. Can we name another ancient society capable of huge building projects that didn't rely on slavery? Maybe there are some (I can't think of any offhand) but slavery was definitely the norm.

All of these requirements (and more) make the massive building projects described in Alma 49 and 50 unrealistic and anachronistic for the Nephites, in my view. And it's also the reason that these types of projects are actually not ubiquitous in military history.

 

 

[webbles]

5 hours ago, JarMan said:

I'm gonna disagree with you here. I think Roman military science in the first century BC was revolutionary in the ancient world. What isn't being considered here by all of the armchair generals (not to mention the author of the Book of Mormon) is the underlying social, economic, and administrative structures needed to support the massive earth moving and construction endeavors described by Caesar and Mormon. At minimum there needs to be:

Iron Tools

Moving huge amounts of earth efficiently, cutting down forests, and working and fastening the wood requires a lot of iron tools. And since iron tools don't make themselves, there needs to be a vast:

Industrial Economy

Mining, smelting, and iron working takes a lot of labor, access to raw materials, and specialized knowledge developed over centuries. The ability to support this type of economy depends on having a very strong and somewhat efficient:

Administrative State

Without a government capable of generating income, protecting key societal interests, building public infrastructure, and maintaining order, large scale economies just aren't possible. And with all of the mouths to feed in this sort of society, there has to be a vast:

Agricultural Economy

The agricultural economy has to generate a huge surplus in order to feed the military, administrative, and industrial sectors of society. In addition, there needs to be efficient ways to convey large amounts of food and other resources over long distances requiring:

Complex Transportation Systems

Yes, roads. And also harbors. Domestic beasts of burden would also sure help here (though not a required feature). And these systems had to have some level of security else they're overtaken by bandits and pirates. With all of these many societal roles, there needs to be a huge supply of:

Labor

In the ancient world, a lot of menial labor was performed by slaves. Slaves were often acquired through conquest of distant lands. What this really means is that you need to have an:

Empire

Which, of course, Julius Caesar did have. Moroni and the Nephites didn't, though. Nephite society did not have slavery. Can we name another ancient society capable of huge building projects that didn't rely on slavery? Maybe there are some (I can't think of any offhand) but slavery was definitely the norm.

All of these requirements (and more) make the massive building projects described in Alma 49 and 50 unrealistic and anachronistic for the Nephites, in my view. And it's also the reason that these types of projects are actually not ubiquitous in military history.

 

 

Caesar is not doing a massive thing in the passage you cited.  This is a normal Roman fort that is built every single night.  He only made it a little bit bigger with a few changes.  There appears to be 3 legions with him right now.  A legion has about 9,600 soldiers (including the socii).  So he had 28,800.  Throw in some camp followers (Caesar was usually pretty good in limiting camp followers because it slowed down his marches) and say there is 30,000 total people.  So the fort in the passage was built in a single evening with a maximum of 30,000 workers.  But he wouldn't use all 30,000 because there is a massive army across the valley.  Most of his men would be ready to defend.

The image that Zosimus posted is an extremely anachronistic image of what the fort would look like.  Roman camping forts looked nothing like that.

I don't see how you think Mormon could not build similar style structures over the course of several years when Caesar could do it in one night with less than 30,000 people.  The massive building projects described in Alma 49 and 50 are not impossible.  They are done all the time around the world back then.  An example of an iron age fort is the Celtic Hillforts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillfort.  They look really similar to what Mormon is supposedly doing.  They had ramparts and wooden stockades (in some places even stone).

Edited January 7, 2025 by webbles

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 1/6/2025 at 1:05 AM, JarMan said:

Okay. Why do you suppose there is such a similarity here, not just with the general design of the fortifications, but also with the order of things being described?

The only time that the order of elements in two texts that you are comparing matters is when you are making claims of direct dependence (i.e. plagiarism). That is, this isn't really a claim about a "Romanism in the Book of Mormon" but a claim that the Book of Mormon draws directly from this other text. In other words, if this isn't about a specific claim of plagiarism, then the order doesn't mean anything. If you are trying to argue that there is plagiarism here, then we have a whole different set of problems - because the Caesar text has dozens of places where it discusses towers, turrets, ramparts, and so on (it is a book about military campaigns after all). To argue that it was this specific entry out of all them that is plagiarized is problematic for a variety of reasons.

At the same time, it is difficult to accept, at face value, that this set of ideas represents a "Romanism". That is, that we should understand all accounts of digging ditches, building earthen ridges with wooden palisades on top, and elevated towers for better attacks on the enemy are all specific to Roman literature on warfare - especially for an account written in 1830. All of these features were a regular part of forts in early America - especially during the war of 1812 (which is relatively close to the time when the Book of Mormon was published). Were the early American forts "Romanisms"? Were contemporary descriptions of them "Romanisms"?

I don't think that you really understand the argument you are trying to make beyond the idea that you have found similarities in your digital searching, and think that they mean something. We do have a term for that ...

[morgan.deane]

12 hours ago, JarMan said:

I'm gonna disagree with you here. I think Roman military science in the first century BC was revolutionary in the ancient world. What isn't being considered here by all of the armchair generals (not to mention the author of the Book of Mormon) is the underlying social, economic, and administrative structures needed to support the massive earth moving and construction endeavors described by Caesar and Mormon. At minimum there needs to be:

Iron Tools

Moving huge amounts of earth efficiently, cutting down forests, and working and fastening the wood requires a lot of iron tools. And since iron tools don't make themselves, there needs to be a vast:

Industrial Economy

Mining, smelting, and iron working takes a lot of labor, access to raw materials, and specialized knowledge developed over centuries. The ability to support this type of economy depends on having a very strong and somewhat efficient:

Administrative State

Without a government capable of generating income, protecting key societal interests, building public infrastructure, and maintaining order, large scale economies just aren't possible. And with all of the mouths to feed in this sort of society, there has to be a vast:

Agricultural Economy

The agricultural economy has to generate a huge surplus in order to feed the military, administrative, and industrial sectors of society. In addition, there needs to be efficient ways to convey large amounts of food and other resources over long distances requiring:

Complex Transportation Systems

Yes, roads. And also harbors. Domestic beasts of burden would also sure help here (though not a required feature). And these systems had to have some level of security else they're overtaken by bandits and pirates. With all of these many societal roles, there needs to be a huge supply of:

Labor

In the ancient world, a lot of menial labor was performed by slaves. Slaves were often acquired through conquest of distant lands. What this really means is that you need to have an:

Empire

Which, of course, Julius Caesar did have. Moroni and the Nephites didn't, though. Nephite society did not have slavery. Can we name another ancient society capable of huge building projects that didn't rely on slavery? Maybe there are some (I can't think of any offhand) but slavery was definitely the norm.

All of these requirements (and more) make the massive building projects described in Alma 49 and 50 unrealistic and anachronistic for the Nephites, in my view. And it's also the reason that these types of projects are actually not ubiquitous in military history.

 

 

Your argument was that Joseph Smith copied ramparts, breastwork, and throwing stones or missiles from an elevated position from the Gallic Wars. None of your new points change that. Some fortifications are bigger, more elaborate, and use different or additional materials. We usually see wooden palisades built on top of earthworks replaced with stone castles. We see things like a glacis, gate houses, portcullis, or extra curtain walls. But it doesn't change the underlying military logic of ramparts, breastworks, and elevated positions. It just makes them fancier based on the amount of men and material the government can invest. Of course societies that weren't ancient Rome still knew that walls were good for defense and had the tools to move dirt.  

The Book of Mormon in the war chapters includes the first mentions of multiple armies, the use of military specialists, and what I argued in my first book is a revolutionary fortification building program. At several points the armies are so extensive they either have to "deliver" "the people from famine" (Alma 53:7)or the soldiers are starving themselves (Alma 61:16). After the war chapters ended the government had to reorganize itself (Alma 62:47). So Nephite society was at the limits of their societal capability but not outside of it. As I argued in my recent paper about Moroni's letter, being pushed to those limits is likely why the king men found a receptive audience for their rebellion. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-unwritten-debates-in-moroni1s-letter/ Sorenson found increased building activity during this period in his in Nephite history in the region around Zarahemla so there is some archaeological evidence to match the textual evidence. 

Like I said, there is no reason to look to the Gallic Wars for Joseph Smith's inspiration or repudiation of the text. The text is consistent with their level of society and military science. If you want to introduce all sorts of things like the Nephites didn't have legions (though Moroni did introduce heavier armor) and Zarahemla wasn't the size of Rome then they were different of course. But you only mentioned three really basic things that are seen throughout a variety of ancient societies, and the text at this time shows a great deal of evidence that the Nephites weren't so simple any more. 

Beyond that you might want to look into a few more things. For example, while slave labor is important, its often a myth they were necessary for large building projects. The laborers that built the Pyramids had daily wages and were provided medical coverage. In fact, they were often very well paid. There are lots of large bronze age earth works: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1569843223000614   

[morgan.deane]

I haven't studied this yet, but I think there is a fruitful line of research into "Caesar in the Book of Mormon."  When the random Nephite soldier scalped Zarahemnah, put the scalp on his sword, and gave a speech (Alma 44:12-14), it reminded me of the brave centurions that Caesar cited in his works. I think comparing the accounts of brave centurions with the brave Nephite soldier would be interesting and lead to further insights into the text.

I haven't done the study of course so I can't say for sure, but it could suggest that Mormon was relying on a primary source from Moroni that relied on the same literary techniques as Caesar. That might have interesting implications for Moroni's assertion that he doesn't seek power. We might look more closely at one of the only experiences in the text that comes from the common soldier. (The bored soldiers on guard duty in Alma 55 is another. While not a soldier, the beaten female servant of Morianton is an ultra rare mention of a both a female and commoner.)  We might consider if this person was Moroni's bodyguard, and if the impromptu sermon made him a zealot. Battle pauses are rather rare, though not unheard of. So maybe the scalping story was an ahistorical literary insert. In that case we might look at this event as a George Washington chopping down a cherry tree type story. 

We shouldn't shy away from learning about Julius Caesar and applying what we learn to the Book of Mormon. I just don't think the OP really did it very well. (Sorry) 

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

I'm gonna disagree with you here. I think Roman military science in the first century BC was revolutionary in the ancient world. What isn't being considered here by all of the armchair generals (not to mention the author of the Book of Mormon) is the underlying social, economic, and administrative structures needed to support the massive earth moving and construction endeavors described by Caesar and Mormon. At minimum there needs to be:

Iron Tools

Moving huge amounts of earth efficiently, cutting down forests, and working and fastening the wood requires a lot of iron tools. And since iron tools don't make themselves, there needs to be a vast:

Industrial Economy

Mining, smelting, and iron working takes a lot of labor, access to raw materials, and specialized knowledge developed over centuries. The ability to support this type of economy depends on having a very strong and somewhat efficient:

Administrative State

Without a government capable of generating income, protecting key societal interests, building public infrastructure, and maintaining order, large scale economies just aren't possible. And with all of the mouths to feed in this sort of society, there has to be a vast:

Agricultural Economy

The agricultural economy has to generate a huge surplus in order to feed the military, administrative, and industrial sectors of society. In addition, there needs to be efficient ways to convey large amounts of food and other resources over long distances requiring:

Complex Transportation Systems

Yes, roads. And also harbors. Domestic beasts of burden would also sure help here (though not a required feature). And these systems had to have some level of security else they're overtaken by bandits and pirates. With all of these many societal roles, there needs to be a huge supply of:

Labor

In the ancient world, a lot of menial labor was performed by slaves. Slaves were often acquired through conquest of distant lands. What this really means is that you need to have an:

Empire

Which, of course, Julius Caesar did have. Moroni and the Nephites didn't, though. Nephite society did not have slavery. Can we name another ancient society capable of huge building projects that didn't rely on slavery? Maybe there are some (I can't think of any offhand) but slavery was definitely the norm.

All of these requirements (and more) make the massive building projects described in Alma 49 and 50 unrealistic and anachronistic for the Nephites, in my view. And it's also the reason that these types of projects are actually not ubiquitous in military history.

What you are describing isn’t revolutionary. The only revolutionary thing about is that the Romans were doing this with mobile military camps because they were well-trained and disciplined. Moroni was doing it with cities and, quite bluntly, these were amateur hour fortifications for a city or town compared to the fortifications of the Mediterranean world at the same time. The wall of Uruk in the epic of Gilgamesh were more impressive. So were the walls of all kinds of cities at the time of the Nephites and even millenia beforehand. The wood and stone walls for towns and cities were much more formidable. Compared to this Moroni’s fortifications were not impressive.

And no, the fortifications described require only some basic stuff like having labor available. Again, the Romans could build palisade camps in a few hours. While the peasants wouldn’t be as skilled it is pretty easy for any government to grab some peasant and local farming laborers and move some earth and build a palisade. You don’t need a vast transportation system or administrative state to pull this off. An independent town can do it.

Also King Benjamin says that he has not ‘suffered his people to make slaves of each other’. That is not that odd. They might have avoided debt slavery of their own people based on that comment but it really says nothing about whether they enslaved foreigners which they might have done. We know the Lamanites raided for slaves. There were almost no societies at the time that didn’t have some kind of non-free person. I doubt the Nephites were an exception. Some of the things Jesus taught wouldn’t have made sense if slavery were unknown.

[JarMan]

9 hours ago, webbles said:

Caesar is not doing a massive thing in the passage you cited.  This is a normal Roman fort that is built every single night.  He only made it a little bit bigger with a few changes.  There appears to be 3 legions with him right now.  A legion has about 9,600 soldiers (including the socii).  So he had 28,800.  Throw in some camp followers (Caesar was usually pretty good in limiting camp followers because it slowed down his marches) and say there is 30,000 total people.  So the fort in the passage was built in a single evening with a maximum of 30,000 workers.  But he wouldn't use all 30,000 because there is a massive army across the valley.  Most of his men would be ready to defend.

The image that Zosimus posted is an extremely anachronistic image of what the fort would look like.  Roman camping forts looked nothing like that.

I don't see how you think Mormon could not build similar style structures over the course of several years when Caesar could do it in one night with less than 30,000 people.  The massive building projects described in Alma 49 and 50 are not impossible.  They are done all the time around the world back then.  An example of an iron age fort is the Celtic Hillforts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillfort.  They look really similar to what Mormon is supposedly doing.  They had ramparts and wooden stockades (in some places even stone).

This was not a normal Roman fort as built every night with a few changes. Three-story turrets set up at intervals with covered cross-bridges takes a massive amount of engineering, labor, and raw materials. This was definitely not constructed in one night.

The massive amount of timber used by Caesar makes his fortifications more than simply hillforts. While earth can be moved with primitive tools, timber working as described by Caesar requires iron tools and all the social/economic/administrative foundations of an iron age empire. Particularly since he was forging new frontiers away from the established cities.

The Nephites fortified every city, built new cities, and also many new forts. The cities were likely larger than the forts Caesar described. This was all done within a year or two. Unless you believe the Nephites had iron age technology and institutions, the fortifications would have been impossible to construct in that amount of time or probably even in any amount of time.

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The only time that the order of elements in two texts that you are comparing matters is when you are making claims of direct dependence (i.e. plagiarism). That is, this isn't really a claim about a "Romanism in the Book of Mormon" but a claim that the Book of Mormon draws directly from this other text. In other words, if this isn't about a specific claim of plagiarism, then the order doesn't mean anything. If you are trying to argue that there is plagiarism here, then we have a whole different set of problems - because the Caesar text has dozens of places where it discusses towers, turrets, ramparts, and so on (it is a book about military campaigns after all). To argue that it was this specific entry out of all them that is plagiarized is problematic for a variety of reasons.

At the same time, it is difficult to accept, at face value, that this set of ideas represents a "Romanism". That is, that we should understand all accounts of digging ditches, building earthen ridges with wooden palisades on top, and elevated towers for better attacks on the enemy are all specific to Roman literature on warfare - especially for an account written in 1830. All of these features were a regular part of forts in early America - especially during the war of 1812 (which is relatively close to the time when the Book of Mormon was published). Were the early American forts "Romanisms"? Were contemporary descriptions of them "Romanisms"?

I don't think that you really understand the argument you are trying to make beyond the idea that you have found similarities in your digital searching, and think that they mean something. We do have a term for that ...

You have a lot of insights and good things to talk about. Unfortunately, your condescending nature makes discussions with you pretty unenchanting.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, morgan.deane said:

Your argument was that Joseph Smith copied ramparts, breastwork, and throwing stones or missiles from an elevated position from the Gallic Wars. None of your new points change that. Some fortifications are bigger, more elaborate, and use different or additional materials. We usually see wooden palisades built on top of earthworks replaced with stone castles. We see things like a glacis, gate houses, portcullis, or extra curtain walls. But it doesn't change the underlying military logic of ramparts, breastworks, and elevated positions. It just makes them fancier based on the amount of men and material the government can invest. Of course societies that weren't ancient Rome still knew that walls were good for defense and had the tools to move dirt.  

The Book of Mormon in the war chapters includes the first mentions of multiple armies, the use of military specialists, and what I argued in my first book is a revolutionary fortification building program. At several points the armies are so extensive they either have to "deliver" "the people from famine" (Alma 53:7)or the soldiers are starving themselves (Alma 61:16). After the war chapters ended the government had to reorganize itself (Alma 62:47). So Nephite society was at the limits of their societal capability but not outside of it. As I argued in my recent paper about Moroni's letter, being pushed to those limits is likely why the king men found a receptive audience for their rebellion. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-unwritten-debates-in-moroni1s-letter/ Sorenson found increased building activity during this period in his in Nephite history in the region around Zarahemla so there is some archaeological evidence to match the textual evidence. 

Like I said, there is no reason to look to the Gallic Wars for Joseph Smith's inspiration or repudiation of the text. The text is consistent with their level of society and military science. If you want to introduce all sorts of things like the Nephites didn't have legions (though Moroni did introduce heavier armor) and Zarahemla wasn't the size of Rome then they were different of course. But you only mentioned three really basic things that are seen throughout a variety of ancient societies, and the text at this time shows a great deal of evidence that the Nephites weren't so simple any more. 

Beyond that you might want to look into a few more things. For example, while slave labor is important, its often a myth they were necessary for large building projects. The laborers that built the Pyramids had daily wages and were provided medical coverage. In fact, they were often very well paid. There are lots of large bronze age earth works: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1569843223000614   

I don't argue that Joseph or any of his contemporaries wrote the Book of Mormon. I do, however, argue that the author of the Book of Mormon was well-versed in Roman historiography. Which brings me to Moroni's letter. This is clearly taken from Pompey's letter to the Senate as reported by Sallust: https://www.attalus.org/translate/sallust.html#:~:text=[2.82] {2.98M},your enemies and insured your

The Nephites act like an iron age society with some early modern elements sprinkled in. Not at all like pre-historic Native Americans.

[JarMan]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What you are describing isn’t revolutionary. The only revolutionary thing about is that the Romans were doing this with mobile military camps because they were well-trained and disciplined. Moroni was doing it with cities and, quite bluntly, these were amateur hour fortifications for a city or town compared to the fortifications of the Mediterranean world at the same time. The wall of Uruk in the epic of Gilgamesh were more impressive. So were the walls of all kinds of cities at the time of the Nephites and even millenia beforehand. The wood and stone walls for towns and cities were much more formidable. Compared to this Moroni’s fortifications were not impressive.

And no, the fortifications described require only some basic stuff like having labor available. Again, the Romans could build palisade camps in a few hours. While the peasants wouldn’t be as skilled it is pretty easy for any government to grab some peasant and local farming laborers and move some earth and build a palisade. You don’t need a vast transportation system or administrative state to pull this off. An independent town can do it.

Also King Benjamin says that he has not ‘suffered his people to make slaves of each other’. That is not that odd. They might have avoided debt slavery of their own people based on that comment but it really says nothing about whether they enslaved foreigners which they might have done. We know the Lamanites raided for slaves. There were almost no societies at the time that didn’t have some kind of non-free person. I doubt the Nephites were an exception. Some of the things Jesus taught wouldn’t have made sense if slavery were unknown.

I think you're underestimating what it takes to make works of timbers, frames of pickets, and towers. These really requires iron age tools like axes, wedges, and fasteners. Beasts of burden would also be very helpful since trees don't always grow in the places you want to build. The Romans had all that, of course. I don't see how the Nephites did.

[webbles]

16 minutes ago, JarMan said:

This was not a normal Roman fort as built every night with a few changes. Three-story turrets set up at intervals with covered cross-bridges takes a massive amount of engineering, labor, and raw materials. This was definitely not constructed in one night.

The massive amount of timber used by Caesar makes his fortifications more than simply hillforts. While earth can be moved with primitive tools, timber working as described by Caesar requires iron tools and all the social/economic/administrative foundations of an iron age empire. Particularly since he was forging new frontiers away from the established cities.

The Nephites fortified every city, built new cities, and also many new forts. The cities were likely larger than the forts Caesar described. This was all done within a year or two. Unless you believe the Nephites had iron age technology and institutions, the fortifications would have been impossible to construct in that amount of time or probably even in any amount of time.

In the Gallic Wars, there are several references of quick building:

In Book 5, during the Nervii revolt:

Quote

During the night as many as 120 towers are raised with incredible dispatch out of the timber which they had collected for the purpose of fortification: the things which seemed necessary to the work are completed.

This is a single legion (commanded by Cicero) that was surrounded by the Nervii.  They built 120 towers in one night.  Plus, they just survived an attack the day before so they would be tired.

Quote

Disappointed in this hope, the Nervii surround the winter-quarters with a rampart eleven feet high, and a ditch thirteen feet in depth. These military works they had learned from our men in the intercourse of former years, and, having taken some of our army prisoners, were instructed by them: but, as they had no supply of iron tools which are requisite for this service, they were forced to cut the turf with their swords, and to empty out the earth with their hands and cloaks, from which circumstance, the vast number of the men could be inferred; for in less than three hours they completed a fortification of ten miles in circumference; and during the rest of the days they began to prepare and construct towers of the height of the ramparts, and grappling irons, and mantelets, which the same prisoners had taught them.

So, the Nervii (non Roman) built a rampart eleven feet high and a ditch thirteen in depth in 3 hours for a 10 mile circumference.  And they did it with their swords, hands, and cloaks, instead of tools that the Romans would have used which means the Romans could have done it faster.  The siege was a little over 7 days so they also built a bunch of tall towers in that time.

Then there is the famous Battle of Alesia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia), where Caesar surrounded a city with fortifications and then surrounded his own army with more fortifications to stop another army from attacking his back.  It took him less than a month to build all over 25 miles of fortifications.  He first built one set of fortifications around the city, all while being attacked by the army in the city.  Then, when their cavalry escaped, Caesar built another set of fortifications around the previous set of fortifications.  It has several ditches, a moat full of water, towers, rampart, wall, booby traps, etc.  It was an impressive feet.  And it was done in just 1 month with only about 75,000 men.  During the entire time, he is being attacked and he has to send men to get food and timber.

In the specific battle that you quoted from, it says that they were there only for several days before the Bellovaci attempted to flee.  So, maybe it wasn't done in one night.  But it was done really quickly.  And they were being attacked the entire time and they had to forage supplies in enemy territory.

I agree that what Caesar did was beyond what the Nephites could have done.  But they didn't build a 25 mile of fortifications in 1 month while being attacked.  They had plenty of time to build their fortifications.  And the Nervii showed that it is feasible to do large fortifications in a short time without iron tools.

[webbles]

44 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I think you're underestimating what it takes to make works of timbers, frames of pickets, and towers. These really requires iron age tools like axes, wedges, and fasteners. Beasts of burden would also be very helpful since trees don't always grow in the places you want to build. The Romans had all that, of course. I don't see how the Nephites did.

I think you are underestimating what stone age tools can do.  Are iron age tools better?  Yes.  But the Nephites had a lot of time to do what was needed.

[JarMan]

10 minutes ago, webbles said:

I think you are underestimating what stone age tools can do.  Are iron age tools better?  Yes.  But the Nephites had a lot of time to do what was needed.

They apparently fortified all their cities, built new cities, and several new forts in a year, maybe a little more. I doubt any stone age or even bronze age society could have done that. They key is all of the timber working. The number of axe blows it takes to fell a tree, split the wood, shape the wood, and sharpen the wood on a large scale requires iron blades.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I think you're underestimating what it takes to make works of timbers, frames of pickets, and towers. These really requires iron age tools like axes, wedges, and fasteners. Beasts of burden would also be very helpful since trees don't always grow in the places you want to build. The Romans had all that, of course. I don't see how the Nephites did.

It really doesn’t require iron tools. You could do it with bronze or even stone age tools. I am trying to picture why you would build a city somewhere that has no access to timber. That also suggests limited access to water which makes building that city a bad idea.

[webbles]

19 minutes ago, JarMan said:

They apparently fortified all their cities, built new cities, and several new forts in a year, maybe a little more. I doubt any stone age or even bronze age society could have done that. They key is all of the timber working. The number of axe blows it takes to fell a tree, split the wood, shape the wood, and sharpen the wood on a large scale requires iron blades.

It isn't really a year.  It says he commenced in the 20th year of the judges but never mentions when or if he stopped.  The next time we hear about the fortifications is 5 years later when Amalakiah attacks.  So, he had up to 5 years of mostly peace (the Lehi/Morianton squabble is the only thing mentioned).  Also, the only thing that is explicitly said to be wood is the wall.  Both the pickets and the towers do not have their material mentioned.  And it doesn't mention how closely the stakes in the wall were to each other.  There are several forms of palisades where the wall isn't a solid wall but has gaps that a person can go through.  But the gap is small enough that the person can't just rush in.  Nor does it mention the diameter of the wood.

So there is a lot of unknowns and but I think a stone age people could definitely do that.  We know stone age people did create wooden palisades.

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

You have a lot of insights and good things to talk about. Unfortunately, your condescending nature makes discussions with you pretty unenchanting.

*shrug*

In the decades that we have been interacting, you haven't changed at all. The hunt for parallels without using any sort of recognized methodology creates problems - and your unwillingness to address those problems means that the conversations get stale and repetitive.

[webbles]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

I don't argue that Joseph or any of his contemporaries wrote the Book of Mormon. I do, however, argue that the author of the Book of Mormon was well-versed in Roman historiography. Which brings me to Moroni's letter. This is clearly taken from Pompey's letter to the Senate as reported by Sallust: https://www.attalus.org/translate/sallust.html#:~:text=[2.82] {2.98M},your enemies and insured your

I'm having a hard time seeing how Moroni's letter is clearly taken from Pompey's letter.  Yes, they both talk about war.  And yes they both talk about provisioning issues.  But Pompey is complaining about needing to use his own funds and means to pay for his troops; Moroni doesn't mention that.  Pompey talks about all of his conquests as reasons why he should be supported; Moroni doesn't do that.  Moroni talks a lot about how how Pahoran should be building armies and sending them against the enemy; Pompey doesn't mention that.  Moroni talks about commandments, God, etc; Pompey doesn't mention that.

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

The Nephites act like an iron age society with some early modern elements sprinkled in. Not at all like pre-historic Native Americans.

Where do you see Nephites acting like iron age society (besides the timber working which is already discussed)?

[blackstrap]

What would be the size of a  population center in order for it to be considered a " city " ?

100 people ? probably not 

1000 people ? maybe 

10,000 people ? likely so. 

One thing for sure, Moroni was not building cities the size of New York today.  

[JarMan]

On 1/7/2025 at 8:17 PM, The Nehor said:

It really doesn’t require iron tools. You could do it with bronze or even stone age tools. I am trying to picture why you would build a city somewhere that has no access to timber. That also suggests limited access to water which makes building that city a bad idea.

There's a limited amount of work you could do with wood without using iron tools. You've got to chop down the tree. Cut it up into manageable pieces. Split the logs with wedges. Shape the timbers near the edges to help them fit together. Sharpen the ends for the pickets. Stone age or bronze age tools just aren't up to the task. You would destroy the tools many times before completing the project. Stone is way too brittle and bronze way too soft for the thousands and thousands of blows necessary to make construction of the tool economical. This is borne out in the archaeological record. Timber was used, of course, but not nearly on the scale or efficiency level of the Romans or Nephites because it wouldn't have made sense.

And even once you've harvested the timber, it needs to be fastened together. There are ways to optimize construction that don't require as many fasteners as modern builders use, but if you're gonna build wooden structures efficiently you're definitely gonna need iron fasteners.

As far as building cities near forests, forests can be quickly depleted. The Romans sometimes transported timber 1,000 miles for construction (https://ww2.aip.org/inside-science/muddy-find-shows-how-foreign-timber-helped-build-ancient-rome). And cities are built away from forests all the time anyway, obviously. It's just that they're often built using other materials.

[JarMan]

On 1/7/2025 at 8:27 PM, webbles said:

It isn't really a year.  It says he commenced in the 20th year of the judges but never mentions when or if he stopped.  The next time we hear about the fortifications is 5 years later when Amalakiah attacks.  So, he had up to 5 years of mostly peace (the Lehi/Morianton squabble is the only thing mentioned).  Also, the only thing that is explicitly said to be wood is the wall.  Both the pickets and the towers do not have their material mentioned.  And it doesn't mention how closely the stakes in the wall were to each other.  There are several forms of palisades where the wall isn't a solid wall but has gaps that a person can go through.  But the gap is small enough that the person can't just rush in.  Nor does it mention the diameter of the wood.

So there is a lot of unknowns and but I think a stone age people could definitely do that.  We know stone age people did create wooden palisades.

The 18th year of the reign of the judges ends with the Nephites defeating the Lamanites and making peace with them. But in the beginning of the 19th year the Nephites have internal turmoil which is when Amalickihah left Zarahemla and Moroni raised the title of liberty. This same year we find that Ammonihah had been rebuilt enough to dissuade the Lamanites from attacking. It had been destroyed in the 11th year and left desolate "for many years". Though we don't know how many years "many" are in this case, it's evident that this city was reconstructed from scratch in a relatively short amount of time. It's this same year that we learn the Nephites had fortified every city in the area (Alma 49:13). In the 20th year they begin to fortify all of the other cities they possessed, build new cities, and build new forts on their southern border. It's tough to determine exactly when the fortification projects began and ended, but they could have began as late as the 19th year and ended as early as the 20th year. But I can see how it's possible that it could have begun earlier or ended later.

At any rate, this doesn't change my point. Stone age technology couldn't have done this in any amount of time because it's simply incapable of doing the timber work necessary. It's one thing to put up wooden palisades. It's quite another to build towers, which would have also required fasteners in order to build efficiently. Anything other than wooden towers would certainly take way too long. And to sharpen timbers into frames of pickets? Each individual picket takes several axe blows to sharpen and several more to cut it to length. This is in addition to the blows needed to fell the tree and remove the branches. A frame of pickets would have, at very best, been a total waste of materials, labor, and tools for stone age technology, and at worst, impossible. The only other type of picket material that would make sense would be metal.

[JarMan]

19 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

*shrug*

In the decades that we have been interacting, you haven't changed at all. The hunt for parallels without using any sort of recognized methodology creates problems - and your unwillingness to address those problems means that the conversations get stale and repetitive.

If I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt I would say that you apparently have me confused with somebody else. I spent the first 15 years or so on this forum on the apologetic side. Only in the last few have I been a critic. If I didn't want to give you the benefit of the doubt I'd say that you are so confident can run over anybody with your superior intellect that you don't even bother verifying details about someone before insulting them.

I'm still willing to extend an olive branch, though. If you'd like to engage in polite conversation I'm happy to hear what you have to say no matter how critical.

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

If I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt I would say that you apparently have me confused with somebody else. I spent the first 15 years or so on this forum on the apologetic side. Only in the last few have I been a critic. If I didn't want to give you the benefit of the doubt I'd say that you are so confident can run over anybody with your superior intellect that you don't even bother verifying details about someone before insulting them.

I'm still willing to extend an olive branch, though. If you'd like to engage in polite conversation I'm happy to hear what you have to say no matter how critical.

In looking back, a little bit, I perhaps exaggerated the length of time - it hasn't been decades. But it was back around 2017 (which has been almost 8 years now) when you started discussing Grotius.

I'll try not to be condescending. Perhaps we can start with one specific issue.

You wrote in the OP:

On 1/5/2025 at 11:52 PM, JarMan said:

What's staggering here is not just the similarities, but the order in which they are listed. The second passage is from Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars. How did that find it's way into Alma?

Is this a suggestion of plagiarism? This is a really important point to be clear about because it raises a different set of issues depending on how you answer this question.

1: If the answer to this question is that it isn't plagiarism from a specific source, then my earlier observation is important - why do you think that the ordering of the textual elements is meaningful? I will be the first to agree that ordering can be meaningful when discussing intertextual relationships (and I have discussed this at some length in a couple of my publications) - but that generally means movement from one specific text to another.

2: If it is an argument for plagiarism, it runs into a problem of uniqueness. That problem of uniqueness comes in more than one flavor:

2A: Can we find this same set of textual elements (in this same order) in multiple texts - and subsequently, how do you determine that Text A plagiarizes Text B and Not Texts C, D, E, etc. Can we find a similar set of textual elements that meet the same ordering criteria that overlaps this one (with the same outcome)?

2B: Are the elements unique within the source text that you provide? That is, if Text A (the Book of Mormon here) deals with military fortifications in other passages that don't contain the same ordering, then the argument for the ordering in the Book of Mormon text is greatly weakened (see for example Alma 48:8; 49:1, 4, 18-22; 53:3-4). The same is true for Text B - if we can find these same elements scattered throughout Text B (the Caesar text) in a variety of different orderings, then the case for plagiarism is also greatly weakened. To put it in different terms, if both texts are dealing with the same sort of content (thematically - in this case, warfare and its accompanying fortifications) then we would expect to see a significant overlap - especially if the texts are produced relatively contemporaneously. Does your search for parallels simply come from looking for the place where the largest number of these related textual elements occur in roughly the same order?

2C: How does your discussion account for the significant differences between the texts. These differences aren't just limited to the narrow context you offer where the similarities seem to be strongest. Some of this notion is embedded in the challenge to the notion of this as a Romanism. How would you define that term, and what makes this passage of the translation of the Caesar text an example of a Romanism? What are the features of the Book of Mormon text that align to that definition of a Romanism? And further, if the Book of Mormon is trying to use the Romanisms that are found in the Caesar text, is this a pattern in the Book of Mormon, and if not, how do we explain the differences (the non-Romanisms) that we find.

2D: Finally, William Duncan published his translation of the Caesar text in 1753. When we are dealing with language features in texts, and the language is similar but not identical, there are some additional concerns. These military ideas are fairly common in the milieu in which both the translation of the Caesar text and the Book of Mormon are published. What I mean by that is that earthen ridges, towers, and wooden palisades and the like are features of 18th and 19th century military structures and defenses. Does contemporary usage influence both of these publications to use this similar language so that they both participate in a textual tradition instead of having some sort of genealogical connection?

My comments here are deliberately avoiding the question of whether or not the parallels themselves are valid (that's a different issue) and are focusing instead on the notion of a negative check - how would you prove/disprove this suggestion at a methodological or procedural level.

[webbles]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

The 18th year of the reign of the judges ends with the Nephites defeating the Lamanites and making peace with them. But in the beginning of the 19th year the Nephites have internal turmoil which is when Amalickihah left Zarahemla and Moroni raised the title of liberty. This same year we find that Ammonihah had been rebuilt enough to dissuade the Lamanites from attacking. It had been destroyed in the 11th year and left desolate "for many years". Though we don't know how many years "many" are in this case, it's evident that this city was reconstructed from scratch in a relatively short amount of time. It's this same year that we learn the Nephites had fortified every city in the area (Alma 49:13). In the 20th year they begin to fortify all of the other cities they possessed, build new cities, and build new forts on their southern border. It's tough to determine exactly when the fortification projects began and ended, but they could have began as late as the 19th year and ended as early as the 20th year. But I can see how it's possible that it could have begun earlier or ended later.

Ammonihah was not fortified with wooden walls.  It states that it was a ridge of earth (Alma 49:4).  As shown with the Nervii, building earthworks without proper iron tools can still be done extremely fast.

Alma 49:13 does talk about fortifying the cities but then in Alma 49:18 it talks about how the Lamanites can't get into one of these forts because of the high earth bank and deep ditch.  So no wooden walls mentioned.  It isn't till Alma 50:2 that it mentions putting a wooden palisade on top of the ridges of earth.

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

At any rate, this doesn't change my point. Stone age technology couldn't have done this in any amount of time because it's simply incapable of doing the timber work necessary. It's one thing to put up wooden palisades. It's quite another to build towers, which would have also required fasteners in order to build efficiently. Anything other than wooden towers would certainly take way too long. And to sharpen timbers into frames of pickets? Each individual picket takes several axe blows to sharpen and several more to cut it to length. This is in addition to the blows needed to fell the tree and remove the branches. A frame of pickets would have, at very best, been a total waste of materials, labor, and tools for stone age technology, and at worst, impossible. The only other type of picket material that would make sense would be metal.

I'm trying to find reputable sources that talk about how fast stone age technology can do wood work.  So far, I've either found things that are behind a paywall, reddit discussions, youtube videos, etc.  But so far, all of those give the impression that stone age tools absolutely can build a palisade in the time we are talking about.  Do you have sources that show it is impossible?

And wooden towers are not needed.  They could have created mounds of earth as a tower.  The palisade is only to the "height of the man".  The pickets wouldn't make it much higher.

5 hours ago, JarMan said:

As far as building cities near forests, forests can be quickly depleted. The Romans sometimes transported timber 1,000 miles for construction (https://ww2.aip.org/inside-science/muddy-find-shows-how-foreign-timber-helped-build-ancient-rome). And cities are built away from forests all the time anyway, obviously. It's just that they're often built using other materials.

Building next to large cities will definitely deplete the forests.  But most cities are not that large.  For the Nephites, we are talking about much, much smaller cities.  They would not need to transport wood for 1,000 miles.  They would not deplete the forests around them.

6 hours ago, JarMan said:

Timber was used, of course, but not nearly on the scale or efficiency level of the Romans or Nephites because it wouldn't have made sense.

I agree that the Roman empire used timber more than stone age tools could handle.  But the Nephites are not the Romans.  They don't use timber near the amount that the Romans did.  The Roman legions built a wooden fort every single night when they were on a campaign.  There is no indication of that in the Book of Mormon.  The Nephites used wood for their city fortifications.  They weren't trying to build a wooden palisade in a few days.  They had months, if not years to do it.