[Editor’s Note: We are pleased to present chapter 2 from a book entitled Anachronisms: Accidental Evidence in Book of Mormon Criticisms. It is presented in serialized form in this volume of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship.]

Chapter 2: Warfare in the Book of Mormon

Accounts of warfare in the Book of Mormon have also been the focus of criticism. In 1834, Eber Howe dismissed the accounts in the book of Alma as entirely overblown and lacking any historical credibility or authenticity. According to Howe,

The knight errantry of Don Quixote bears no parallel, nor does the history of the Peloponnesian wars speak of such generals, nor of such brave achievements, as the Book of Alma.—Besides, in the sixty-nine years, many large cities were founded and built, fortifications were erected, military costumes of great splendor were manufactured and worn.—Their implements of war consisted of swords, spears, scimitars, javelins, bows and arrows, slings, etc. We can see no propriety in the omission by the author of the use of guns and ammunition. We think it would have been as credible as most of the events of the narrative.¹

It is not clear what Howe meant by “military costumes of great [Page 52]splendor.” Presumably, this refers to the headplates and breastplates introduced on a wider scale by Captain Moroni, which Howe assumed must have been made of metal (Alma 43:38, 44). Another writer, who had clearly never read the Book of Mormon, dismissed it because (as he mistakenly claimed) the text mentions “gunpower” and “pistols and other fire-arms” in an ancient American setting.² The numbers of battle deaths have been seen by some as unrealistic and too high.³ Others claim that the kinds of weapons mentioned in the text were never used in pre-Columbian times.⁴ For years, accounts of large-scale, high-stakes warfare in ancient America were considered entirely out of place and rejected by many mainstream archaeologists.⁵ Thus, for a time, some readers echoed the once-popular view that the ancient Maya were essentially peaceful and did not engage in significant warfare until a few centuries before the Spanish Conquest.⁶

Subsequent research and new discoveries about pre-Columbian culture and history required these earlier views to be revised, substantially modified, or abandoned altogether. For warfare, the degree of confirmation is judged based on known historical and cultural precedent or archaeological discoveries.

1. Fortifications

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: The Book of Mormon indicates that various kinds of fortifications were constructed (Alma 48:8–9; 49:2–4; 50:1–4). Some critics have claimed that the descriptions of fortifications in the Book of Mormon are implausible or inconsistent with evidence from ancient America.⁷

Response: Archaeological discoveries now show many examples of Mesoamerican fortifications that are similar to those described in the Book of Mormon text (figure 15).⁸ Some examples date to the time of the Book of Mormon.⁹

Figure 15. Mesoamerican fortification.

2. Early Warfare

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Warfare was common in the Book of Mormon from an early period and throughout much of its history (2 Nephi 5:34; Enos 1:24; Jarom 1:3; Omni 1:3, 10; Alma 16:1; 62:44; Helaman 4:4; Mormon 1:8). Some critics have claimed that warfare in any meaningful sense [Page 53]was never practiced in ancient America until just a few centuries before the arrival of the Europeans. According to one writer, “Warfare in any recognizable pattern did not have any prominence until several hundred years after the Book of Mormon is supposed to have finished, and then it certainly was not the warfare that is portrayed in the Book of Mormon in either purpose or method.”¹⁰ According to the same author,

The whole concept of warfare in the Book of Mormon is foreign to known patterns. Wars of conquest were unknown for the simple reason that the gaining of new territory for occupation was unknown. There was plenty of room for all. When warfare for conquest did emerge, it was during the Aztec period when these strange people started to prey upon their neighbors for the purpose of capturing prisoners to serve as human sacrifices.¹¹

“Archaeologists,” states another, “assert that, during the Book of Mormon period, warfare was almost totally unknown in the Americas, except for ceremonial purposes (as practiced by the Aztecs).”¹² Another describes the Book of Mormon’s accounts of warfare as being “diametrically opposed” to the evidence from Mesoamerican archaeology.¹³ As late as 1989, one writer claims,

Although the Maya are believed, on the evidence of wall paintings, to have made occasional raids on other people, possibly to obtain sacrificial victims, they were on the whole a peaceful people. Their ceremonial centres had no [Page 54]fortifications, and were for the most part located in places incapable of defence.¹⁴

Response: Research shows that the ancient Maya—once thought by scholars to have been relatively peaceful—were extremely warlike. Warfare, sometimes very serious and socially altering warfare, was a significant part of their culture.¹⁵

In 2005, Mayan archaeologist David Webster wrote,

Right up through the late 1960s most archaeologists still bought heavily into the ‘peaceful Maya’ perspective. Classic Mesoamerican societies (AD 250–900) were more generally envisioned as both peaceful and theocratic, and no one thought about Preclassic (2500 BC–AD 250) war at all. Leaving aside those pugnacious Mexicans and Maya who lived in the few centuries prior to the arrival of the Spaniards, ancient Mesoamerica seemed to be singularly free of conflict (except for a bit of raiding for sacrificial victims), thus contrasting strongly with virtually every other early civilization.¹⁶

Then a major shift in these views occurred. “Today, in a startling turnabout, warfare is all the rage. The Maya are often portrayed as compulsively warlike.”¹⁷ In other words, “The ‘peaceful Maya’ were not peaceful at all” and “prove to have been warlike to their deepest Preclassic roots.”¹⁸ Reasons for this change include archaeological evidence for ancient fortifications, research on monumental art illuminating Mesoamerican weaponry, and the decipherment of Mayan inscriptions, which include many words associated with warfare.¹⁹

3. Wars of Conquest

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: The text speaks of wars of conquest in the Book of Mormon (Alma 43:4–8; 44:8). Some critics have claimed that wars of conquest were unknown to ancient Americans.²⁰

Response: It is now known that wars of conquest were a common element of Mesoamerican culture.²¹ According to Mayanist Simon Martin, warfare could take various forms in Mesoamerica. The objectives of combatants could include simply “making a show of force and testing the strength of a rival, to efforts at their complete conquest or annihilation.”²²

[Page 55]4. Armor

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Armor became an important component of Jaredite and Nephite warfare (Mosiah 21:7; Alma 3:5; 43:21; 46:13, 21; 3 Nephi 3:26; 4:7). Some critics have claimed that reference to armor in pre-Columbian times is erroneous.²³

Response: Various types of native armor are described in Spanish historical sources of battles and shown in Mesoamerican art going back to the Preclassic period.²⁴ According to Ross Hassig, “quilted cotton armor (ichcahuipilli) was a common element of battle attire in Mesoamerica . . . it was constructed of unspun cotton tightly stretched between two layers of cloth and sewn to a leather border.” Extending to the mid-thigh, this armor “was so thick (one and a half to two fingers) that neither an arrow nor an atlatl dart could penetrate it.”²⁵

5. Pre-Columbian Swords

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: The Book of Mormon has numerous references to “swords” (Omni 1:2; Mosiah 9:16; 10:8; Alma 2:12; 43:18, 20; 60:2; Helaman 1:14; Mormon 6:9). Some critics have claimed that swords were unknown in pre-Columbian times, or that the ancient sword-like weapons shouldn’t really be identified as true “swords.”²⁶

Response: The Mesoamerican sword—known to the Aztecs as the macuahuitl (see figure 16) and labeled by the Maya as the [Page 56]hadzab—was described by many Spanish witnesses who encountered its deadly effectiveness. This was a flat piece of hardwood with edges on both sides into which sharp pieces of obsidian were set. Representations of this weapon sometimes portray the blades with staggered placement along both sides of the wood, and in other representations closely fit together. In such cases “there can be no doubt that the intention . . . was to make a continuous blade (or edge), and not a row of teeth.”²⁷ Such swords could inflict serious wounds and could dismember or even decapitate an opponent.²⁸ Spaniards who fought against the Aztec and the Maya frequently called it a “sword” and modern scholars also regularly label this weapon as such.²⁹ Sharp wood-bladed swords were also used by some South American Andean peoples³⁰ and were also known to some cultures of the North American southwest³¹ and the southeastern Woodland.³²

Figure 16. Aztec warriors led by an eagle knight, each holding a macuahuitl. (Wikimedia Commons, s.v. “Florentine Codex IX Aztec Warrior,” commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2923185.)

6. Swords (in Book of Mormon Times)

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Some commentators have more specifically claimed that there is no evidence for pre-Columbian swords during the period covered by the Book of Mormon.³³

Response: Although some scholars believed that Mesoamerican swords were not used until just a few centuries before the Spanish arrival, Olmec and Maya art not discovered until the twentieth century shows that this weapon was known much earlier, dating back as early as 1200 BC.³⁴

7. Steel Swords (OW)

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: The Book of Mormon states that Laban, a military leader living in Jerusalem around 600 BC, had a sword with a blade made of “precious steel” (1 Nephi 4:9). Critics have claimed there were no steel swords in the ancient Near East until centuries after Lehi would have left Jerusalem. According to one commentator, “This is the earliest account of steel to be found in history.”³⁵ Another states, “Laban’s sword was steel, when it is a notorious fact that the Israelites knew nothing of steel for hundreds of years afterwards.”³⁶ Even as late as the 1960s, an author boldly declares, “No one believes that steel was available to Laban or anyone else in 592 B.C.”³⁷

[Page 57]Response: Archaeologists have recovered steel swords from several sites in the land of Israel dating to the Pre-exilic period. These include a meter-long sword from Vered Jericho from the time of King Josiah, shown in figure 17. “Metallurgic analysis of a sample taken from the blade proves that it was made of ‘mild steel,’ and that the iron was deliberately hardened into steel, attesting to the technical knowledge of the blacksmith.”³⁸ Other examples have subsequently been found.³⁹

Figure 17. Israelite sword, found at Vered Jericho, dating to the seventh-sixth century BC. (Photo by Lauren Perry, used with permission.)

8. Steel Swords (NW)

Status: Unconfirmed

Critics’ Claim: Steel swords are mentioned among the Jaredites (Ether 7:9), and may possibly have been had among the Nephites (2 Nephi 5:14).⁴⁰ Many commentators have claimed that steel swords were unknown in pre-Columbian times.⁴¹

Response: There is currently no evidence for steel swords in the Americas during pre-Columbian times.⁴²

9. Scimitars (OW)

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: The “cimeter” (or scimitar) was used by the Nephites and Lamanites as a weapon of war (Enos 1:20; Mosiah 9:16; 10:8; Alma 2:12; 27:29; 43:18, 20, 37; 44:8; 60:2; Helaman 1:14). Some have claimed that scimitars would have been unknown to the Nephites and Lamanites because this weapon was not invented until centuries after Lehi and his family left Jerusalem. “The cimeter, a Turkish weapon, [was] not known until after the time of Mohommed.”⁴³ “The use of the word ‘scimiter’ does not occur in other literature before the rise of the Mohammedan power and apparently that peculiar weapon was not developed until long after the Christian era. It does not, therefore appear likely that the Nephites or the Lamanites possessed either the weapon or the term.”⁴⁴

[Page 58]Response: Cimeters (or scimitars), were swords with a curved blade (see figure 18). According to one Old Testament scholar, it is likely that the “typical early Israelite sword was a sickle sword, which had a handle attached to a straight shaft that continued into a curved blade. The instrument was shaped somewhat like a harvesting sickle—thus the name—except that the sword was sharpened on the outside of the blade rather than the inside.”⁴⁵ According to Charlie Trimm, “The most common sword in Egypt was the sickle-sword (Khopesh sword), which looked like a harvesting sickle (somewhat like a scimitar) and was used during the Middle and New Kingdom. However, the outer edge rather than the inner edge was sharpened for slashing their enemy. They tended to be rather short.”⁴⁶

Figure 18. Khopesh sword dedicated to Ramasses II. (Louvre Museum, Wikimedia Commons, s.v. “Khopesh sword dedicated to Ramasses II-E 25689,” commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Khopesh_sword_dedicated_to_Ramasses_II-E_25689-IMG_2660.JPG.)

Scholars routinely refer to this weapon as a “scimitar” in commentary and translations.⁴⁷ Similar weapons were known and used by the Hittites and armies of Mesopotamia.⁴⁸ An Egyptian cylinder seal discovered in 1925 at Beth Shean portrays a Canaanite god presenting a “scimitar sword” to Ramesses II.⁴⁹

Some biblical scholars hold that the Hebrew term kidon found in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls actually refers to a scimitar.⁵⁰ This has led some to translate David’s words to Goliath as: “You come against me with a sword [hereb] and spear [hanit] and scimitar [kidon], but I come against you with the name of Yahweh Sabaoth, god of the ranks of Israel” (1 Samuel 17:45).⁵¹ Trimm also notes “a set of six swords taken as plunder in Sennacherib’s relief of his conquest of Lachish are slightly curved (more like a scimitar than the sickle sword) while another set of swords taken as plunder are straight.”⁵² The evidence [Page 59]suggests that several kinds of curved swords, which scholars have characterized as scimitars, were known in the ancient Near East and ancient Israel in Pre-exilic times and would have been part of the cultural heritage of Lehi and his family.⁵³

10. Scimitars (NW)

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Some critics have claimed that there were no “cimeters” (or scimitars) in pre-Columbian times in the Americas (see Enos 1:20; Alma 2:12; Helaman 1:14).⁵⁴

Response: Curved knives and swords, which would reasonably qualify as “cimeters” (scimitars), are shown in pre-Columbian art.⁵⁵ A Mayan monument dating to AD 613 from Tonina, Mexico portrays a warrior posing with a curved “scimitar-like flint blade.”⁵⁶ Ross Hassig, a specialist on Mesoamerican warfare, has discussed a Toltec weapon portrayed on Mayan monuments and codices, which he calls a “short sword.” It was a curved weapon inset with sharp obsidian blades along the edge that could be characterized as a scimitar.⁵⁷ A similar weapon appears to be portrayed on Olmec monuments at San Lorenzo (1200 BC).⁵⁸

11. Daggers

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: The prophet Jacob mentions “daggers” in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 2:9). Some have claimed that daggers were unknown in pre-Columbian times.⁵⁹

Response: Daggers of various kinds are well attested in pre-Columbian times and they are often portrayed in Mesoamerican art.⁶⁰

12. Battle Axes

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Some critics have claimed that battle axes (Enos 1:20; Mormon 6:9) were unknown in pre-Columbian times.⁶¹

Response: Evidence from archaeology and pre-Columbian art attests to the existence of the battle ax as an important weapon among the Classic Maya (figure 19).⁶² According to Francis Robicsek,

The battle axes of the Classic Maya were of two main [Page 60]varieties, those made of a single piece of stone, usually flint, and wooden hafted axes spiked with either a single heavy head or with two or three separate blades of obsidian. Besides being a regular attribute of the armor of the common warrior, axes were also often depicted as ceremonial implements of the priest-sacrificer and were probably used in ritual decapitations. . . . Axes which may have been used either in battle, sacrifice, or simply as insignia of office, are frequently shown on painted vases of northern Peten and the Usumacinta Valley.⁶³

Figure 19. Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, wielding an axe (tepoztli), in a scene from plate 19 of the pre-Hispanic Borgia Codex. (Mario E. Fuente Cid, Wikimedia Commons, s.v. “Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli Codex Borgia,” commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli_Codex_Borgia.svg.)

Robicsek further notes that “most of these axes seem to be composite weapons, some of them highly decorated with separate wooden handles and blades of flint or obsidian as inserts. Very rare, unique findings are the full size battle axes, flaked of a single piece of stone, which represent the height of ancient Maya weaponry.”⁶⁴

13. Javelins

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Some critics claim that javelins (Jaron 1:8; Alma 51:34; 62:36) were unknown in pre-Columbian times.⁶⁵

Response: Mesoamerican javelins of various kinds were known throughout Mesoamerican history.⁶⁶ Among the Aztecs “the javelin sometimes had two or three branches with points, so as to strike [Page 61]several wounds at once.”⁶⁷ Javelins are also shown on Classic Maya vase paintings.⁶⁸

14. Spears

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Some critics have claimed that spears (Alma 17:7) were unknown in pre-Columbian times.⁶⁹

Response: Pre-Columbian peoples had spears (see figure 20).⁷⁰

[Page 62]

Figure 20. Codex Mendoza folio 67r showing warriors with spears. (Bodleian libraries, University of Oxford, garystockbridge617.getarchive.net/media/codex-mendoza-folio-67r-91e91c.)

15. Bow and Arrow (in Book of Mormon Times)

Status: Partially Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: The “bow” (Enos 1:20; Mosiah 9:16; 10:8; Alma 2:12; 3:5; 17:7; 43:20; 44:8; 49:2, 4, 19, 22, 24; 50:4; Helaman 1:14; 16:2, 6; Mormon 6:9) and “arrow” (Jarom 1:8; Mormon 6:9) were a significant component of the armament of the Nephites and Lamanites. Some have claimed that the bow and arrow were unknown in ancient America during the time in which the Book of Mormon took place.⁷¹

Response: Archaeological evidence suggests that the bow and arrow were known much earlier in Mesoamerica than was once thought.⁷² According to archaeologist Kazua Aoyama, “notched and un-notched prismatic blade points made from Pachuca green obsidian were present in the Valley of Oaxaca beginning in the Middle Formative period.”⁷³ He found evidence of arrow points at the site of Aguateca during the Late Classic Maya period. Aguateca was destroyed in AD 810. He also discovered additional evidence for the weapon even earlier, during the Early Classic (AD 400–600) at Copan.⁷⁴ This evidence led him to conclude that “the bow and arrow could have existed in the Maya Lowlands earlier than has been previously suggested.”⁷⁵

16. Quivers

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Some critics claimed that “quivers” (Jarom 1:8) were unknown in ancient America.⁷⁶

Response: Quivers were known and used in pre-Columbian warfare. In fact, “Maya warriors were reported to carry two quivers” in some historical sources.⁷⁷

[Page 63]17. Bow of Fine Steel (OW)

Status: Partially Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Many critics have claimed that Nephi’s reference to a bow of “fine steel” (1 Nephi 16:18) is out of the place in the ancient world.⁷⁸

Response: There is no evidence for the existence of bows made entirely of steel in the ancient Near East, but on several occasions the King James translation mentions a “bow of steel” without qualification (2 Samuel 22:35; Psalms 18:34; Job 20:24). The word translated as “steel” in these passages is the Hebrew nhwsh, which actually means “bronze” (as it is rendered in more modern translations). Moreover, the bronze bow in these passages does not refer to a weapon made completely of metal, but rather to a composite bow decorated with metal or reinforced at the nock and grip of the weapon with bronze.⁷⁹ In the older English of the King James translation, “steel” had a broader range of meaning than it does today and could refer not only to carburized iron, but also to bronze, which is a hardened or “steeled” alloy of copper and tin.⁸⁰

Thus, if the Book of Mormon followed KJV idiom in its discussion of Nephi’s “steel bow,” then the status of this item would actually be confirmed. Yet because of uncertainty regarding the meaning of “of” (whether the text means “partially of” or “completely of” steel) and also the ambiguity regarding the meaning of “steel” (whether it refers to “modern steel” or to another hardened-metal alloy like “bronze”), this item has been designated as only partially confirmed.

18. Fiery Darts (OW & NW)

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Nephi makes reference to the “fiery darts of the adversary” (1 Nephi 15:24). Some have claimed that such a reference would have been out of place in pre-Columbian times.⁸¹

Response: Nephi’s reference to fiery projectiles appears in a sermon that took place during Nephi’s journey in the wilderness in the Old World. Thus, technically speaking, the text doesn’t necessitate the existence of fiery darts in a New World setting. The distinction is irrelevant, however, because fiery projectiles were used anciently in both Near Eastern and Mesoamerican warfare.⁸²

[Page 64]19. Slings

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Nephites and Lamanites made use of slings during their battles (Mosiah 9:16; 10:8; Alma 2:12; 3:5; Alma 17:7, 36, 38; 18:16; 43:20; 49:20). Some have claimed that slings were not used in pre-Columbian warfare.⁸³

Response: Slings were used in both Mesoamerica and South America. In Mesoamerica the sling was used as a weapon at least as early as Olmec times, and the Maya had a word for sling by at least 1000 BC.⁸⁴

20. Shields

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Warriors in the Book of Mormon had many kinds of shields (Alma 43:19, 21; 44:9; 46:13; 49:6, 24; 3 Nephi 3:26; Ether 15:15, 24). Some have claimed that such references are anachronistic.⁸⁵

Response: A variety of shields are attested in Mesoamerican art (figure 21) and known from later historical sources (figure 22).⁸⁶ Shields were also used by pre-Columbian peoples of South America⁸⁷ and North American southwest.⁸⁸

Figure 21. Warrior figure with shield, classic Maya, Jaina style. (The Cleveland Museum of Art, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. James C. Gruener, 1990.178, clevelandart.org/art/1990.178.)

Figure 22. Aztec figure with two feathered shields. (Wolfgang Sauber, National Museum of Anthropology, Teotihuacán, Wikimedia Commons, s.v. “Teotihuacán – Figur mit Federschilden,” commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Teotihuac%C3%A1n_-_Figur_mit_Federschilden.jpg.)

21. Arm Shields

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: The Nephites had arm shields to protect themselves in battle (Alma 43:19, 38). Later, they are said to have had bucklers which are also a form of arm shield (3 Nephi 3:26). Some have claimed that pre-Columbian peoples never had arm shields.⁸⁹

Response: Arm Shields are described in Spanish accounts of battles with the Maya and the Aztecs and are shown in pre-Columbian art.⁹⁰

22. Headplates

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: The Nephites and Jaredites had headplates or helmets (Alma 43:38, 44; 46:13; 49:24; Helaman 1:14; 3 Nephi 4:7; Ether 15:15), but such were allegedly unknown in pre-Columbian times, according to some critics.⁹¹

[Page 65]Response: Just as a breastplate is designed to shield the chest, a headplate is essentially armor.⁹² They are never said to have been made of metal in the Book of Mormon, so headplates of any material would suffice. Battle accounts in the Nephite record show that this piece of headgear could be broken into pieces by a fierce and determined opponent (Alma 43:44).

Various kinds of headgear are portrayed in Mesoamerican art dating from the Postclassic back to Preclassic times.⁹³ Some warriors wore [Page 66]quilted woolen caps while others (elite warriors) wore helmets made from pieces of wood or bone.⁹⁴ Helmets could also be ornamented with feathers, precious metal, gems, and other regalia, depending on the status of the individual. While more ostentatious forms shown in pre-Columbian art were likely used for ceremonial purposes, the helmet was “not primarily decorative but was a functional, protective piece of the combat uniform.”⁹⁵ It was “proof against sling-stones and offered some protection against atlatl darts and shock weapons.”⁹⁶

23. Breastplates

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: The Book of Mormon says warriors had breastplates (Alma 43:19, 21, 38, 44; 44:9; 46:13; 49:6, 24; Helaman 1:14; Ether 15:15). [Page 67]Some critics have claimed that breastplates were unknown in pre-Columbian times.⁹⁷

Response: Breastplates were an important component of Nephites and Jaredite warfare, although they were not universally used. While they afforded some protection, they could be pierced by a fierce and determined attack (Alma 43:44). Various kinds of breastplates were known and used in pre-Columbian warfare in Mesoamerica.⁹⁸

24. Breastplates (of Copper and Brass)

Status: Partially Confirmed (1845–1965)

Critics’ Claim: When they encountered the ruins of the Jaredites, the people of King Limhi found “breastplates, which are large, and they are of brass and of copper, and are perfectly sound.” (Mosiah 8:10). Some claim that metallic breastplates of copper and/or brass were unknown in pre-Columbian times.⁹⁹

Response: These metal breastplates may have been uncommon and possibly elite objects, but it is not clear from the account whether they were ornamental or functional. Their undamaged condition and their discovery in association with the gold plates of Ether suggests they may not have been used in battle. The fact that the search party brought them back as a testimony to the king of what they had seen indicates that metal breastplates were unusual.

According to one Spanish chronicler, some Inca warriors wore decorative defensive gear and “would usually wear the most attractive and rich adornments and jewels; this included wearing fine plumes of many colors on their heads and large gold and silver plates on their chests and backs; however, the plates worn by poorer soldiers were copper.”¹⁰⁰

The Spanish conquistadors described decorative armor, which included a breastplate that was ornamented with precious metal. According to Juan Diaz, an “Indian dressed him [their leader, Juan de Grijalva] with a breastplate and bracelets of gold, lace-shoes ornamented in gold, and on his head he placed a gold crown which was of very delicate leaves of gold.”¹⁰¹ Another source reports that “they began by giving him gilded shoes; afterwards leggings, and cuirasses [i.e. breastplates], and all the parts of the iron and steel armor a cuirassier ordinarily wears when going into battle, only these were made of gold, beautifully worked; this done the cacique paid homage to Grijalva.”¹⁰²

[Page 68]These items may have been made of wood that was then covered with gold.

Some of the armor in use among the Tabascans must have been exceedingly rich, judging by that which was presented to Juan de Grijalva by the cacique of that province. It consisted of greaves for the knees and legs made of wood and covered with sheets of gold, head pieces covered with gold plates and precious stones, among which was a visor, of which the upper half was of jewels linked together, and the lower half of gold plates; then there were cuirasses of solid gold, besides a quantity of armor-plates sufficient to cover the whole body.¹⁰³

Daniel Brinton observes,

Nowhere else do we find such complete defensive armor. It consisted of helmet, body pieces, and greaves for the legs and arms, all of wood, covered neatly with copper or gold plates, so well done that the pieces looked as if they were of solid metal.¹⁰⁴

25. Armies

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Some critics have claimed that actual armies (Mormon 6:7) were unknown in pre-Columbian times.¹⁰⁵

Response: Armies were ubiquitous in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.¹⁰⁶

26. Large Armies

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Some critics claim that, contrary to the Book of Mormon, large armies (Alma 2:27; Mormon 1:11; 2:9, 25; 6:11–15) in pre-Columbian times were unknown.¹⁰⁷

Response: Critics have often exaggerated the size of armies mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon mentions armies numbering in the thousands (Alma 2:19; 3:26; 28:11; 56:28; 57:6; 58:8; 62:12–13) and tens of thousands (Alma 3:26; 28:2; 56:28; Mormon 1:11; 2:9, 25) and on one exceptional occasion an army of 23 groups of ten thousand units each, or 230,000 (Mormon 6:10–15).

Ether indicates that during a lengthy war of many years over two [Page 69]million men, women, and children had been killed (Ether 15:2), but this seems to include civilians and not only combatants. While it is possible that these numbers, like those found in other ancient accounts of warfare, may be exaggerated, historical accounts of Mesoamerican warfare contain comparable numbers that are consistent with what is found in the Book of Mormon.¹⁰⁸ Furthermore, recent discoveries made possible via LiDAR technology have demonstrated that the overall population in ancient Maya settlements was much larger than previously suspected.¹⁰⁹

27. Large Battle Casualties

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: In addition to large armies, critics have claimed that the reported number of battle casualties in the Book of Mormon are unbelievably high.¹¹⁰

Response: The book of Mormon mentions battle deaths in the thousands (Alma 2:19; 28:11; 60:22) and on rare occasions in the tens of thousands (Alma 3:26; 28:2; Mormon 6:10–15). Mormon reports that after one exceptional battle over 230,000 Nephites combatants, including their families, were killed. This compares favorably with some evidence from Mesoamerica which report similar numbers.¹¹¹

28. Millions of War Deaths

Status: Partially Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Some have claimed that the report of millions of war deaths (Mormon 6:10–15; Ether 15:2) in the Book of Mormon are impossible.¹¹²

Response: During a lengthy Jaredite war over a period of many years over, “two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and children” were slain (Ether 15:2). By way of comparison, during the An Lushan Rebellion in China, during the Tang Dynasty, it is estimated that over a period of just ten years between 13 and 36 million people may have died.¹¹³ Mormon recorded that the Nephites at the battle of Cumorah had twenty-three units of ten thousand each (Mormon 6:10–15). Assuming that the victorious Lamanite armies had comparable numbers, the war deaths during this conflict would have also been substantial. Historical accounts describing pre-Columbian examples of war deaths in the millions are known.¹¹⁴

[Page 70]29. Fainting for Loss of Blood

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Helaman recounts how some 200 of his young warriors “fainted because of the loss of blood” following battle (Alma 57:25; cf. Ether 14:30; 15:9, 29, 32). It has been claimed that this account is unlikely based upon scientific evidence.¹¹⁵

Response: Helaman and his men viewed the survival of these wounded warriors as miraculous. Gregory Smith, a medical doctor and researcher, has also documented examples of individuals who fainted after blood loss and thereafter recovered showing, contrary to what some have argued, that such recovery is also scientifically attested.¹¹⁶

30. Prearranged Battles

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: It has been claimed that Mormon’s request of the Lamanite king to allow his people time to gather for battle at a prearranged time and location (Mormon 6:2–3) was absurd and would not make sense militarily.¹¹⁷

Response: The native historian Fernando Alva Ixtlilxochitl related that the Toltec people of Mexico on one occasion agreed to a set time for battle ten years in advance.¹¹⁸ The timing of Mesoamerican battles was sometimes based on astronomical calculations and dates that were believed to hold religious or cosmic significance. “The Maya looked to the gods for the exact time to launch a war, and the gods expressed their will by the movements of the stars. . . . Priests, consulting their books, could predict the time of eclipses and their first nighttime appearance of planets such as Venus and Mercury; such astronomical events were taken to represent the divine mandate to begin a war.”¹¹⁹

31. Wars of Extermination

Status: Partially Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: The Book of Mormon recounts how the Jaredites destroyed themselves as a people through endemic warfare (Ether 15:29). Centuries later, the Lamanites and the Nephites engaged in decades of warfare resulting in the extinction of the Nephites as a [Page 71]nation (Mormon 6). Some critics have claimed that wars of extermination (Alma 45:11) never happened in pre-Columbian times.¹²⁰

Response: There is growing evidence that Mesoamerican warfare has resulted in the destruction and even the extinction of different groups at various times, lending plausibility to descriptions of similar events in the Book of Mormon.¹²¹ Simon Martin suggests that ancient Maya armies may have sometimes been large enough to enact complete annihilation. “This would certainly conform to comparative historical data worldwide, where engagements range from minor skirmishes to major campaigns, and objectives can vary from merely making a show of force and testing the strength of a rival, to efforts at their complete conquest or annihilation. There is no reason not to assume similar variation among the Maya.”¹²²

Archaeological evidence for this kind of warfare may be found at some sites in the Maya Lowlands (although not yet on the scale cited in the Book of Mormon). Bruce Dahlin, discussing the abandonment of some Late Classic Maya sites, suggests that “these site abandonments were caused by military defeat in wars of annihilation. In addition to pillaging, such catastrophic abandonments almost certainly imply massacres, running off, or enslaving and forcibly removing entire urban populations, plus rendering the site itself physically (and probably spiritually) uninhabitable.” Buildings were likely burned and stormed as portrayed in the mural of Chichen Itza. “It is reasonable to ask why the victors would want to do such a thing. Ethnic hatred, enslavement, desperation in capturing and holding an enemy’s material resources (specifically cultivable land), or simply providing a terrifying object lesson to other potential enemies come immediately to mind.” He thinks that “Chunchucmil, by virtue of its rich environmental diversity and especially its strategic location, had a near-monopoly over regional trade which its defeat and annihilation was intended to break.”¹²³ Although they date centuries after the time of the Book of Mormon, Dahlin’s analysis of archaeological evidence at a series of abandoned Mayan sites in the northern Yucatan is interesting and may provide insight into Lamanite motivations in the destruction of the Nephites.¹²⁴

32. Post-Decapitation Movement and Breathing

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Some critics of the Book of Mormon have claimed that [Page 72]the account of the beheading of Shiz and his subsequent movements and apparent attempts to breath (Ether 15:30–31) is unlikely.¹²⁵

Response: The account of Shiz’s death—though surprising to most readers—is actually consistent with a neurological phenomena known as decerebrate rigidity. This physiological reaction that was not documented scientifically until 1898—sixty-eight years after the Book of Mormon was published.¹²⁶

33. Remains of Book of Mormon Battles

Status: Unconfirmed

Critics’ Claim: Some critics have claimed that if the kinds of battles recounted in the Book of Mormon actually took place, that scholars would have identified remains of such battles.¹²⁷

Response: No such remains have been identified as being associated with the battles mentioned in the Book of Mormon. However, it is not clear how a reader would definitively identify such battle remains, even if one could determine where such conflicts took place. Nor is it clear what one could reasonably expect to survive from such battles. The challenge of identifying battle remains is not merely a challenge for archaeology relating to the Book of Mormon, but for the archaeology of warfare more generally. This includes the issue of human remains¹²⁸ as well as the recovery and identification of weapons and other archaeological evidence of pre-modern warfare.¹²⁹

34. Trumpets

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Trumpets are mentioned in the Book of Mormon sometimes in connection with battle (Mosiah 26:25; Alma 29:1; Ether 14:28). Some critics have claimed that trumpets were unknown in pre-Columbian times.¹³⁰

Response: Various kinds of horns and trumpets were known in pre-Columbian times. Some that were used for battles are shown in Mesoamerican art.¹³¹

35. Cords

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Nephite armies made use of cords for various [Page 73]purposes (Alma 62:21, 23, 36). Some critics have claimed that cords were unknown in pre-Columbian times.¹³²

Response: Fiber from maguey, agave, and rushes were used to make cords and ropes in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.¹³³

36. Ladders

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: The Nephites made strategic use of ladders (Alma 62:21, 23) in capturing cities. Some have claimed that ladders were unknown in pre-Columbian warfare.¹³⁴

Response: Ladders were known and sometimes used in ancient American warfare.¹³⁵ Diego Duran stated that when besieging enemy cities the Aztecs prepared “many kinds of ladders . . . some of wood, some of rope” in order to scale the walls.¹³⁶ Battle scenes portrayed on the murals of the Temple of the Jaguars at Chichen Itza show “scaling ladders”¹³⁷ and ladders are also represented on Classic Maya art at Bilbao and Piedras Negras in Guatemala.¹³⁸

37. Tents

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: Jaredite, Nephite, and Lamanite armies had tents (Alma 2:20, 26; 51:34; 52:1; Ether 9:3). Some critics have claimed that references to tents in the Book of Mormon are anachronistic in ancient America.¹³⁹

Response: Several kinds of tents were known and used by Mesoamerican armies.¹⁴⁰ According to the Spanish historian Fuentes y Guzman, the Quiche Maya of highland Guatemala during their pre-Columbian wars with other Maya groups had “tiendas de algodon” or cotton tents for their officers.¹⁴¹

38. Rations

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: It has been claimed that references to rations in the Book of Mormon (Alma 55:1) are out of place in an ancient American context.¹⁴²

Response: Rations were an essential element in organized [Page 74]Mesoamerican warfare. Ross Hassig discusses various kinds of foods that were used for rations in Aztec armies.¹⁴³

39. Bands of Raiders and Plunderers

Status: Confirmed (1966–2024)

Critics’ Claim: It has been claimed that the idea of raiders and plunderers (Helaman 11:27–31) in pre-Columbian times is out of place.¹⁴⁴

Response: Raiding and plundering was a common practice in Mesoamerican warfare in pre-Columbian times. Hassig mentions “guerilla style fighting during periods of political upheaval which set-piece conventional armies were poorly suited to counter.”¹⁴⁵

Summary of Results

During the first fourteen years following the publication of the Book of Mormon (1830–1844), seventeen problematic items relating to ancient warfare and the Book of Mormon were noted by critics, none of which could be confirmed (figure 23). During the second period (1845–1965), that number had risen to twenty-seven (figure 24). From 1966 to 2024, however, while the number of items rose to thirty-nine, by 2024 thirty-two had been confirmed, five partially confirmed, and two remained unconfirmed (figure 25).

[Page 75]

Figure 23. Anachronisms for warfare in the Book of Mormon (1830–1844).

Figure 24. Anachronisms for warfare in the Book of Mormon (1845–1965).

Figure 25. Anachronisms for warfare in the Book of Mormon (1966–2024).