Alma 48

Alma 48:1

1 And now it came to pass that, as soon as Amalickiah had obtained the kingdom he began to inspire the hearts of the Lamanites against the people of Nephi; yea, he did appoint men to speak unto the Lamanites from their towers, against the Nephites.

Alma 48:2

2 And thus he did inspire their hearts against the Nephites, insomuch that in the latter end of the nineteenth year of the reign of the judges, he having accomplished his designs thus far, yea, having been made king over the Lamanites, he sought also to reign over all the land, yea, and all the people who were in the land, the Nephites as well as the Lamanites.

Amalickiah was an ambitious man. He had achieved his goal of becoming the king of the Lamanites, but his desire for expansion was not satisfied. As one who came from the land of Zarahemla, he knew that land, and thought to gain control of it also. It is perhaps not surprising that he should desire this, as our first picture of him is attempting to become king in the land of Zarahemla. It appears that that original desire did not diminish over time.

Alma 48:3

3 Therefore he had accomplished his design, for he had hardened the hearts of the Lamanites and blinded their minds, and stirred them up to anger, insomuch that he had gathered together a numerous host to go to battle against the Nephites.

Alma 48:4

4 For he was determined, because of the greatness of the number of his people, to overpower the Nephites and to bring them into bondage.

As king of the Lamanites Amalickiah had influence not just in the city of Nephi, but in all of those cities that were in the hegemony beholding to the city of Nephi. The army he could raise was far larger than that which could be expected from a single city. When the Aztec monarch raised an army from the multiple cities of the Tetzcocas, Aztecs and Chichimecs, the number of the military force reportedly numbered 700,000 men (Ross Hassig. Aztec Warfare. University of Oklahoma Press, 1988, p. 55). Amalickiah’s army might not have been that large, as this number comes from much later in history and from a densely populated area. However, it would not be surprising if this combined army were around 500,000 men.

Alma 48:5

5 And thus he did appoint chief captains of the Zoramites, they being the most acquainted with the strength of the Nephites, and their places of resort, and the weakest parts of their cities; therefore he appointed them to be chief captains over his armies.

Alma 48:6

6 And it came to pass that they took their camp, and moved forth toward the land of Zarahemla in the wilderness.

The Lamanites at this time had several populations of dissenting Nephites. The most recent defectors were the Zoramites, and Amalickiah uses their more recent knowledge of the land of Zarahemla by placing them as chief captains. Thus the strategy of the army could be directed by those familiar with “their places of resort, and the weakest parts of their cities.” This information would be extremely valuable to any army of conquest.

Alma 48:7

7 Now it came to pass that while Amalickiah had thus been obtaining power by fraud and deceit, Moroni, on the other hand, had been preparing the minds of the people to be faithful unto the Lord their God.

Alma 48:8

8 Yea, he had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort; throwing up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies, and also building walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their lands; yea, all round about the land.

Mormon is crafting the conflict by examining the preparations on both sides of the coming conflict. Having shown the preparation of Amalickiah to come to war, Mormon now turns to Moroni’s efforts. Moroni is fighting a different type of war than Amalickiah. Amalickiah is waging a war of conquest, and Moroni is waging a war of defense. As we begin this description of a major Lamanite/Nephite war, we should understand some of the realities of military actions in Mesoamerica:

“City-states generally controlled relatively modest areas, so they confronted attacking armies at the outskirts of the city, and the defenders’ defeat in battle meant defeat of the city-state. The attackers could immediately follow up such a victory by sacking the city. Empires and multicity groupings, by contrast, controlled relatively large areas and intercepted attacking armies at their borders, where the loss of a battle meant only a tactical defeat rather than the loss of the entire polity. The defenders could simply fall back, regroup in friendly territory, and renew the fight. Thus complex polities could not be easily conquered in their entirety; the attackers could onoly chip away at the borders, cine each side’s main centers remained far from the battle, and transport and logistical constraints made deep penetration of hostile territory very difficult. Nevertheless, the advantage lay with the aggressor: defenders risked their armies and their polities.” (Ross Hassig. Aztec Warfare. University of Oklahoma Press, 1988, pp. 23-24).

There will be a few differences in the Nephite defense of their lands from what Hassig describes, particularly in the location of conflicts. Most of the Nephite defenses take place at fortified sites rather than in open battle. One of the reasons for this difference is the geography of the land of Zarahemla which made it difficult to amass a defensive army in the borders of the land. Hassig is speaking of central Mexico where there is a larger amount of more level territory. In the land of Zarahemla we have the Sidon river valley, and Nephite controlled territories on the other sides of the mountains that formed the valley. This configuration made it difficult for the Nephites to move large armies horizontally across their territory. We have seen that the Lamanites are able to use three different approaches to Nephite territory. They can come up the coast towards Ammonihah, directly into the Sidon valley through Manti, or along the far side of the mountain range into Antionum and on to Jershon. With three possibilities for an attack point, and with the difficulty of rapidly moving troops across the mountains to each of those attack points, Moroni’s tactics had to concentrate on defensive positions rather than a large confrontation. Nevertheless, the concept of the defense of the territory still holds. The Nephites had a friendly territory in which to operate, and the loss of one city will not conclude the war, as will be evident as this war continues.

Moroni’s construction of specific defenses was a continuation of a long-standing practice of the Nephites:

“At the beginning of their history the Nephites put up a mobile defense against their enemies, making skillful use of the wilderness to "fortify against them with their armies" (Jacob 7:25). This method was never given up, as we can see in the ordering of the evacuation of the land of Jershon which "gave place in the land . . . for the armies of the Nephites, that they might contend with the armies of the Lamanites" (Alma 35:13). But in the third generation the Nephites "began to fortify our cities, or whatsoever place of our inheritance," a project rendered necessary and possible by the great increase of population (Jarom 1:7-8). From this time on the strategy of fortified cities and "places of security" (Alma 50:4) becomes the rule, though the fighting is still mostly done in the wilderness. Of recent years students have come to realize that the earthen mounds, circles, walls, and hill-forts that are virtually the only surviving remains of many an Old World civilization actually represent the normal and typical life of ancient people, and from them they have reconstructed manners of living and warfare that exactly correspond to those described in the Book of Mormon. (Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 3rd ed. [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988], 416.)

The types of fortifications Mormon describes fit into a pattern that is known to have existed in Mesoamerica:

“When Cortez crossed southern Mexico during his epic journey to Honduras, he discovered fortifications around the Laguna de Terminos area very similar to those Moroni erected in the first century B.C. (Alma 53:1-5) in the east coastal lowlands only a few score miles from Cortez's route. The Book of Mormon describes a ditch being dug around the protected area; the excavated earth was piled inward to form a bank. Atop it a fence of timbers was planted and bound together with vines. That very arrangement is now well documented archaeologically. The National Geographic Society-Tulane University project at Becan in the center of the Yucatan peninsula has shown the pattern to be very old. Webster's interpretation of the excavations sees a massive earthen rampart around that center somewhere between A.D. 250 and 450, during the period when the final Nephite wars with the Lamanites occurred. The impressive size of this defensive construction is shown by Webster's observation that from the top of the embankment (not counting the probable timber palisade on top) to the bottom of the ditch the distance was nearly 35 feet. "An enemy force caught in the bottom of the ditch would have been at the mercy of the defenders, whose most effective weapons under the circumstances would have been large rocks." Moreover, "the extreme width of the defense provides additional protection, for heavy missiles can be thrown only with great difficulty from the embankment to the outside edge of the ditch in most places. To throw 'uphill' from the outside is almost impossible. Defenders, possibly screened by a palisade, could have rained long-distance missiles on approaching enemies using spearthrowers and slings." Compare these statements with Alma 49:22: "But behold . . . [the attacking Lamanites] were swept off the fortification by the stones and arrows which were thrown at them.” (John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985], 261.)

Alma 48:9

9 And in their weakest fortifications he did place the greater number of men; and thus he did fortify and strengthen the land which was possessed by the Nephites.

Alma 48:10

10 And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians.

The Nephites were not simply fighting a defensive war, they were fighting a war for their lives. Once again, the analogy to the later Aztec conflicts can provide us some light on the situation in the land of Zarahemla:

“It is widely agreed that in preindustrial populations virtually the entire male population capable of bearing arms took part in military affairs and that no one was exempt from war service among the Aztecs. The makeup of the Aztec army, moreover, has been estimated at 90 percent of the male population. Nonetheless, while virtually all males were mobilized in nonstate societies, in states, this was likely to be true only in emergencies or defensive actions. Estimates of 90 percent participation are instructive for the cities attacked by the Aztecs….” (Ross Hassig. Aztec Warfare. University of Oklahoma Press, 1988, p. 59).

The Nephite situation was clearly one of defense, and with the size of the Lamanite army to be arrayed against them, clearly an emergency. It is in this light that we should understand the entrance of the stripling warriors into the fray. They would not have been used in an offensive war, but in a critical defensive struggle, they were certainly among those capable of bearing arms.

Alma 48:11

11 And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery;

Alma 48:12

12 Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people.

Alma 48:13

13 Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood.

Textual: The source for Mormon’s description of Moroni is not clear. These verses read like a synopsis Mormon has created out of the evidence before him. It is unlikely that these specific words were found on Mormon’s source plates, so what they appear to represent is Mormon’s feeling for Moroni the man based on the information that was on the plates. It would not be unusual for the physical prowess of Moroni to be described as part of the descriptions of the military actions, so that is a theme that is quite likely to have been on the plates, even if not in these words. The evidence for Moroni’s longing for freedom for his people is certainly part of the source, because Mormon has given us at least some of that material in the discussion of the Title of Liberty. When Mormon peeks into the mind of Moroni to tell us that he “was a man of a perfect understanding,” he must be referencing material that he did not elect to put in our current text. There must have been more material about Moroni on the plates, and Mormon has had to abridge that information, as he has all of the rest of the material.

What we can learn from these verses is that Mormon had been reading his sources for years before beginning to write. He had obviously developed a tremendous respect for the historical chief captain Moroni, a respect that is not only reflected in these verses, but is logically the reason for naming his own son after the man he had come to know through his reading.

Alma 48:14

14 Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives.

Alma 48:15

15 And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger;

Alma 48:16

16 And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.

Verse 14 paints a picture of the Nephite understanding of their relationship to war. They believed that they could and should defend themselves, but they should not be the ones to “give an offense.” While this verse presents the information is a very clear and concise form, Mormon had noted the basic belief in defense in Alma 43:12-14.

The next two verses indicate that the Nephites believed that if they righteously followed this commandment that they Lord would be with them when they did have to defend themselves. Mormon specifically notes that the Lord “would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies.” Of course Mormon had recently written about just such an event when Moroni inquired of Alma where the Lamanite army would strike after breaking off their attack on Jershon (Alma 43:23).

This commandment and promise from the Lord concerning the relationship of his people to other potentially hostile peoples has apparently been repeated on multiple occasions. Most recently the Lord spoke to the Saints in this dispensation:

Doctrine and Covenants 98:32-37

32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.

33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;

36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.

37 And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children's battles, and their children's children's, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.

First we note in verse 32 that this law was given to Nephi. Mormon does not tell us the source of the Nephite belief, but we learn it from the Doctrine and Covenants. Apparently this is one of the foundational beliefs of the Nephite nation, and continued from the time of their founder, Nephi. The verses in the Doctrine and Covenants echo the more concise concepts in our verse in the Book of Mormon, even to the promise in DC 98:37 that the Lord would “fight their battles” with them. This is quite clearly parallel to Mormon’s description of the Nephite belief in the participation of the Lord on their behalf in their wars.

Textual: The interesting aspect of these verses is not that they presents completely new information, but that they appear at this part of the narrative. Mormon was speaking of Moroni just prior to this explanation of Nephite understanding, and he returns to Moroni in the next verse. We must suspect, therefore, that these verses are prompted because of Moroni, and because Moroni follows them in his defense of his people’s liberty. These become not a discussion of Nephite belief, but of Moroni’s faithfulness to those beliefs.

Alma 48:17

17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, he devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.

Alma 48:18

18 Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah, yea, and even the other sons of Mosiah, yea, and also Alma and his sons, for they were all men of God.

Mormon ends his paen to Moroni. It is interesting that Mormon should focus so particularly on Moroni, but then place him on equal footing with Ammon and the other sons of Mosiah, as well as Alma (the Younger) and his sons. Perhaps the difference is that Moroni is a righteous man, and also a military man. Mormon would have particular feelings for such a man, given his own military responsibilities, and his own desires to serve the Lord.

Alma 48:19

19 Now behold, Helaman and his brethren were no less serviceable unto the people than was Moroni; for they did preach the word of God, and they did baptize unto repentance all men whosoever would hearken unto their words.

Alma 48:20

20 And thus they went forth, and the people did humble themselves because of their words, insomuch that they were highly favored of the Lord, and thus they were free from wars and contentions among themselves, yea, even for the space of four years.

Having mentioned Alma’s children, Mormon specifically mentions Helaman along with the other sons of Alma. Mormon notes that while Moroni was doing his best militarily, these righteous men also assisted in the cause by preaching the gospel. Mormon attributes the peace in the land to the righteous preaching of these brothers. We remember that Alma had apparently taught them that the best way to calm contentions was through the preaching of the word (Alma 31:5).

Historical: Mormon notes that the effectiveness of the preaching brought four years of peace. These four years refer to four years from this time, and explicitly refer to internal peace rather than external peace. While we see conflict with the Lamanites, we do not get internal difficulties again for four years (Alma 50:25).

Alma 48:21

21 But, as I have said, in the latter end of the nineteenth year, yea, notwithstanding their peace amongst themselves, they were compelled reluctantly to contend with their brethren, the Lamanites.

Alma 48:22

22 Yea, and in fine, their wars never did cease for the space of many years with the Lamanites, notwithstanding their much reluctance.

Mormon knows the history even as he is telling it. He full well understands that this is the beginning of a long series of conflict with the Lamanites, and he prepares us for that part of Nephite history by giving us the indication of what is to come.

Alma 48:23

23 Now, they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all—they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God.

Alma 48:24

24 Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, yea, and had dissented from their church, and had left them and had gone to destroy them by joining the Lamanites.

Mormon ended verse 22 noting that the Nephites were reluctant to fight against the Lamanites. These verses give us the conflicting emotions of the Nephites, the sorrow at the shedding of blood, but the necessity to defend their wives and children.

Social: When Mormon describes the potential effects of the conflict with the Lamanites, he notes that the Nephites are protecting themselves from the “barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren.” Mormon tells us no more about what this “barbarous cruelty” might have been. We may expect that it entailed something more than the casualties associated with battle since that kind of death, while tragic, is not typically described as “barbarous.” Indeed, the Nephites would be killing Lamanites in much the same way, and it would be unreasonable to assume that death in war is barbarous when the enemy does it, but understandable when we do it (though all cultures do have something of that opinion).

It is possible that we are seeing here another oblique reference to the practices of military conquest among Mesoamerican peoples, particularly the Maya. Not only were may of the captives subjected to human sacrifice, which is barbarous in and of itself, but they also frequently subjected their captives to torture (Linda Schele and Mary Ellen Miller. The Blood of Kings. George Braziller, Inc. 1986, pp 217-8). In the cultural context of Mesoamerican war, there were certainly precedents for the fear of “barbarous cruelty” that might befall Nephites taken captive by the Lamanites.

Alma 48:25

25 Yea, they could not bear that their brethren should rejoice over the blood of the Nephites, so long as there were any who should keep the commandments of God, for the promise of the Lord was, if they should keep his commandments they should prosper in the land.

This verse ends Mormons homily on the Nephite attitude toward war. After noting that they were reluctant to fight, Mormon notes that they will indeed fight to preserve their families, their freedom, and their way of life and religion.

Textual: There is no chapter break in the 1830 edition.