22

Not the first instance of warfare, which surely predates recorded history, but of an organized war between civilizations. For the purposes of this question I'll define a war as:

  • Defined scope: the war had a beginning, and end, and specific belligerents. Not an ongoing state of hostility between people groups.
  • Dedicated fighting force: the war was fought by a military of some kind, rather than armed commoners who skirmished when they happened to meet.
  • State-driven: Military action was enacted by one or more governments. (One state campaigning against disorganized tribes would count.)

The earliest war I can find a description of is Sargon's conquest of Sumer at the Battle of Ur in c. 2271 BC, which led to the establishment of the Akkadian Empire. I suspect there were earlier documented conflicts in Sumer or other very early agricultural civilizations.

Travis Christian
  • 1,850
  • 2
  • 17
  • 23
  • 1
    See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_before_1000 – Opt May 29 '12 at 15:26
  • 2
    IMHO, Sargon was just another City-state ruler in Mesopotamia who happened to be more successful than most. Internectine warfare between city-states in that area is as old as the cities themselves. – T.E.D. May 29 '12 at 16:28
  • @Sid Though the list provided within your link (wikipedia) does seem to include what the OP has ask for, I find it very near incomplete in that it is lacking greatly in detail/explanation/factual evidence. – E1Suave May 29 '12 at 17:18
  • How do you define "a state"? Many historical records tell about kings of certain peoples attacking other peoples. They usually mention kingdoms, but under that they usually mean certain territory, controlled by a king. They are also not specific about whether the wars were by military or not. Usually among any people there were specific men who did fight, even if not paid or conscripted. – Anixx May 30 '12 at 03:24
  • 3
    It seems to me that there is a problem with all three definitions. Most wars, even today, don't have a beginning, but rather gradually ramp up. The actual starting point is often an almost arbitrary event. The only exception is when there is a declaration of war. A dedicated fighting force? Are farmers conscripted into the military "a dedicated fighting force" or "commoners who skirmished?" Most ancient civilizations would have been too small to support a true standing army. – Kevin Keane Aug 18 '15 at 07:18
  • 3
    And the concept of "state" is really only about 200 or so years old. When we talk about Enmebaragesi (the ruler during the war between Sumer and Elam), we are talking about a leader of, at best, a small town (roughly 5 miles by 2 miles) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_%28Sumer%29 . In this context, we should probably look at him more akin to a tribal chief or warlord than what we today consider to be a king. That would make this war a war between "disorganized tribes". The earliest entities that seem to meet your definition would be Rome, or possibly Egypt. – Kevin Keane Aug 18 '15 at 07:31
  • 2
    @KevinKeane The modern concept of a nation-state dates back to the Treaty of Westphalia (a bit older than 200 years ago, mid 17th) true, but the very definition of a state is a unified self-governing political entity, and one of those that can engage in armed conflict with another of its type is a concept vastly older than the 30 Years War. – RI Swamp Yankee Aug 19 '15 at 16:19

5 Answers5

16

The earliest written reference to a war was between Sumer and Elam in 2700BCE.

The earliest battle we have a written account for is Megiddo... Thutmose III vs. The Caananites, lead by the city of Kadesh. The Egyptians won, and tossed up a bunch of monuments to celebrate the victory, wrote a bunch of scrolls on the topic, and so knowledge of the battle was passed down to the present. The earliest archaeological record of warfare was also in Egypt, but between those who lived on the lower nile and those who lived on the upper nile in Sudan.

RI Swamp Yankee
  • 11,192
  • 47
  • 57
  • 1
    The answer was incomplete - added a link to an article about the Sumer-Elam war. – RI Swamp Yankee Jan 18 '13 at 13:19
  • 1
    Interestingly enough, this same battlefield is the site prophesied in Revelations as the site of Armageddon (from the Hebrew har megiddōn) the final battle between good and evil. Just saying. ;-) – Pieter Geerkens Aug 19 '15 at 19:59
  • 2
    @PieterGeerkens it's "har megiddo", not "har megiddon". It literally means "Megiddo mountain", which is in fact a tiny non-impressive hill. As a native Hebrew speaker, the term "har megiddo" does not have any end-of-days connotations to me. It's just a place name. There's a nice hummus place next to it. So no, this is absolutely not "interestingly enough". Just religious texts appropriating stuff that is not theirs. – Gimelist Jan 05 '19 at 08:01
2

Hamoukar in Northern Mesopotamia is the first city that we have archeological evidence of it having been destroyed through warfare.

Hundreds of slings and clay balls were found in 2005. They are evidence of the oldest-known large-scale organized warfare: the destruction of the city is dated circa 3500BCE.

The archaeologists reported finding collapsed mud-brick walls that had undergone heavy bombardment and ensuing fire.

This battle is supposed to have been part of the southern Mesopotamian civilisation overtaking the northern one.

Fruit Monster
  • 428
  • 2
  • 12
  • 26
Evargalo
  • 5,873
  • 1
  • 29
  • 33
  • 1
    I'd like to see description of exactly how "heavy bombardment and ensuing fire" is distinguished from natural damage through earthquake. I'm not saying it cannot be done, but I'd like to know just how "definitive" that interpretation is. – Pieter Geerkens Jan 05 '19 at 08:15
  • There's a difference between local raids and warfare. This is also in prehistory. – John Dee Jan 07 '19 at 03:33
0

The Mahabharata War ( a.k.a. the Kurukshetra War) is said to have taken place more than 5000 years ago.

Also see: Mahabharat War

E1Suave
  • 3,830
  • 1
  • 32
  • 48
moonstar
  • 276
  • 1
  • 5
  • 9
    I always thought that was fiction. Now I am confused. Do we have reliable evidence (other than wikipedia and religiously biased websites --which may be correct, not doubting that but I question their motives) that this war happened? – Apoorv May 29 '12 at 16:10
  • 1
    "Civilization" = "Writing", and there was no known literate civilization before 3500 BC. So anything that supposedly happened before then could not possibly qualify for the purposes of this question. – T.E.D. May 29 '12 at 16:19
  • 3
    @TED I am not sure that "Civilization" = "Writing" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_Empire#Language – E1Suave May 29 '12 at 17:06
  • 2
    @ Monstertruck- Unfortunately,anything related to ancient India or the vedic period is tied to religion and references are drawn from ancient texts. If you are not a believer, they don't make a lot of sense. Let me see if I can find more suitable evidence. I do remember seeing research a few years ago that dated the Rig Veda to be 8000 yrs old. – moonstar May 29 '12 at 17:09
  • 6
    @ T.E.D-I would be more comfortable if this "no known literate civilization" claim is made with reference knowledge gathered by the Western world using "Western" literary and thought constructs.Also just a point of interest, civilization does not have to mean writing. Certain knowledge (e.g. Vedas) was traditionally passed down by word of mouth.I am not trying to cloud history with religion but trying to offer a perspective that the knowledge that we are privy to is not absolute and there are cultures whose study may expand our knowledge-base.So, I would say civilization=culture not writing. – moonstar May 29 '12 at 17:09
  • 9
    @moonstar2001 - Oral tradition is not history - pre-historical literally means before the advent of writing. Any battle passed down by word of mouth alone is, by definition, outside history. Archaeology and linguistics can fill in the gaps, and push back knowledge of pre-historic cultures... but stories passed down by word of mouth is not a definition of history as we're using it here. – RI Swamp Yankee May 29 '12 at 17:36
  • 1
    @RISwampYankee - The Mahabharata was written in Sanskrit. The Vedas were passed down orally. That said, I understand what you are saying. – moonstar May 29 '12 at 17:55
  • 3
    @E1Suave - Yes, that is the one counter-example. However, the Inca did have a record keeping system called Quipu ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu ), which probably encoded non-numeric information that has not been fully deciphered. Given that most of the Indus valley script appears to have been bookeeper's records, its possible Quipu qualifies as much as the Indus valley script does. – T.E.D. May 29 '12 at 21:09
  • @TED Good point :–) – E1Suave May 29 '12 at 21:45
  • 4
    @moonstar2001, the only reason we cannot rely on oral traditional history is because there is no way to preserve it for much later generations (except with audio recordings which is only a privilege we have these days) and certainly no way to prove or disprove it. That is why most court systems these days, including that of India, do not accept hearsay evidence. – Apoorv May 30 '12 at 00:10
  • 5
    Anybody who has ever played Telephone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers ) knows exactly why one cannot rely on oral traditions. – T.E.D. May 30 '12 at 14:30
  • 2
    @T.E.D."'Civilization=Writing'" : The Olmec's use of of writing is quite contraversial-but no one disputes that the Olmecs were indeed a 'Civilization': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec#Writing ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascajal_Block; Going back even further: Norte Chico civilization:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norte_Chico_civilization#Development_and_absent_technologies-apparently 'illiterate' but a civilization nonetheless. In pre-Columbian America there are other examples as well. "Civilization" requires more than just culture, but writing is not a prerequisite. –  Aug 07 '13 at 01:35
-2

The Mahabharat war in Kurukshetra has been astronomically dated to 3067 BCE. Refer to the work done by B.N.Narahari Achar (Univ of Memphis). There is astronomical consistency in the text with regards to occurrences of eclipses, comet movements and lunar phases. The Mahabharat war is the oldest recorded war in history. The story of the war is recorded as the world's longest epic by Vyasa. The Bhagvad Gita - revered text of the Hindus is embedded in this epic.

Upanayna Veda
  • 13
  • 2
  • 2
    The first mention of the Mahabharat only dates to 400bce. No contemporaneous documents of the war remain, and no archaeological evidence the war occurred. Furthermore, what academic consensus there is on its historicity place it much later, in the iron age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata#Historical_context – RI Swamp Yankee Aug 17 '15 at 20:22
  • Wikipedia says: "Mahabharata as a conflict that arose from a dynastic succession struggle between two groups of cousins of an Indian kingdom called Kuru, the Kauravas and Pandavas, for the throne of Hastinapura." All the names and the city name here in Sanskrit, of Indo-European origin. So the war could not happen before Indo-Europeans invaded India. Indo-European unity is believed to exist till 3000 BC. So this war could not happen earlier, but at least some centuries later. – Anixx Aug 19 '15 at 17:52
-2

Chinese traditional history includes a war between the Yellow Emperor and the Flame Emperor. The main battle is called the Battle of Banquan. This is supposed to be before the two of them joined forces to fight Chiyou. Tradition puts the date at sometime before the 2500 bc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Banquan

user5001
  • 1,373
  • 1
  • 11
  • 19