A Holy Shield: Alternate Ancient Israel

I am by no means an authority, but I should think continuing this thread is fine.

This seems like an interesting TL. I'll be keeping on eye on it.
 
I'll just go ahead with this.

The Edom Campaign: The Fury of One Thousand Suns

Gaza_painting_-_David_Roberts.jpg


Israeli Forces attack Gaza​

Ancient Empires: Israel by Solomon Andrews, Copyright 2015


Even as Solomon and his army were falling back, his generals continued to advance elsewhere. In the South-East the Israeli's secured a victory over the Edomites while in the West the Palestinians retreated into Gaza. When his Generals heard of his defeat and wanted to assist Solomon's army, Solomon instead asked that they advance against Gaza move to cut off the Edomite supply line. To the Gaza offensive Solomon took a special interest. It is said that about that time Solomon was looking to secure his position. Some of the tribes were sympathetic to the Edomites and Palestinians and Solomon feared they would break away, and destroy all Saul built if the war was not ended soon.

As the 923 came to a close the situation both inside and outside Gaza became desperate. In Israel Solomon continued to battle with the Edomites, with the ruins of Al-Quan trading sides repeatedly. In Gaza the food ran out and the other animals were quickly devoured. The Israeli's were not doing much better when the Palestinians cut the Israeli supply lines in early October. Finally in December of 923 the Israeli general issued a fateful order, I have found a stone slab recording what came next. It says the order was 'to unleash the fury of a thousand suns'.

It didn't take long for the Israeli's overcame the walls of Gaza and entered the city. The defenders were quick to fall and the Israeli's then ordered all women and children to evacuate the city. The men were imprisoned while the Israeli's prepared for a counterattack. A day later the Palestinian Army appeared to the East. Some estimates put the numbers at 70,000 Palestinian versus 50,000 Israeli's while others put the numbers substantially lower. Whatever they were the Israeli's were definitely outnumbered by all accounts. They Palestinians did not waste time with a siege however and attacked after a short rest. The walls, already broken by the previous days attack, fell without a fight and the Israeli's resorted to urban fighting not seen for almost another 2000 years.

The Israeli position was again stressed when their prisoners from the previous day were released. All seemed lost, until a sudden, massive storm front came. Rain was dumped relentlessly on the city, and before long there was a flash flood. The Israeli's, while also dodging the water, pushed the enemy into the flood, sweeping away all who were not killed. The battle ended with a Israeli victory but at a high price. Solomon however had a important victory.
 
I will put this on hold again while I look into the area and time period. I will mainly be looking for the countries, cities, political situation and history of the region. If any of you have any resources I can use it will be much appreciated.
 
I continue to find this very interesting, but there are two things that make it hard. THe first is that I think you read miliotary campaigns of the day too much through a modern lens. Assuming the House of David is historical, its armies would have been tribal levies and mercenary retainers. There would not have been generals or the communication system to coordinate separate campaigns through the royal centre. Even reading the Biblical accounts (which were written much later), the theme is named individuals fighting out individual battles against specific targets. It may simply be a matter of phrasing, but I just cannot see Solomon's generals communicating with him over whether to remove troops from one front to the other, or evacuating civilians from surrendering cities to fortify them against counterattack. That's modern war.

The other is purely semantic, and I will echo previous posters: There are neither Israelis nor Palestinians in the first millennium BCE. There are Israelites, Canaanites, Philistines, Edomites and various others. Palestinians and Israelis have been in existence since around 1900, using the words earlier is anachronistic.
 
The other is purely semantic, and I will echo previous posters: There are neither Israelis nor Palestinians in the first millennium BCE. There are Israelites, Canaanites, Philistines, Edomites and various others. Palestinians and Israelis have been in existence since around 1900, using the words earlier is anachronistic.
I second the motion
 
Top