the Hagarenes, and, perhaps, occasionally overran the district on the side of the Euphrates, which Hadadezer, king of Zobah, considered as his own. His efforts "to recover his border at the river Euphrates" first brought him into coUision with David, perhaps by an attack which he made on the roaming Eastern tribes. David defeated not merely his army, but that of Da- mascus too, which came too late with succor, and put Israelitish garrisons into the towns of the Damascenes (see Micbaelis, Hut, belhrum Dav. e. regt Nesibeno, in his Commentatt, Soc, Gott, 1768, ii, 71 sq.). In this career of success, we see, for the first time in history, the uniform superiority over raw troops of a power which is always fighting; whose standing army is ever gaining experience and mutual confidence. 4. Another victory, gained " in the valley of salt," ought, perhaps, to be reaid, as in 1 Chron. xviii, 12, and in the superscription of Psa. Ix, "over the EdomUe$,'' not "over the Syriant:^ The difference of the Hebrew textual letters is very slight, Q*nK and D'IK. The verse which follows (2 Sam. viii, 14) seems to tell the result of this victory, viz. the complete subjugation and garrisoning of Edom, which, like Moab, was incor- porated with David's empire. Immediately before this last conquest, as would appear, he wrote the 60th Psalm ; and as that Psalm gives no hint of his achieve- ments against the king of Zobah and the Damascenes, this is a strong ground for believing that those suc- cesses were not gained till somewhat later in time. 5. After David had become master of all Israel, of the Philistine towns, of Edom, and of Moab, while the Eastern tribes, having conquered the Hagarenes, threatened the Ammonites on the north, as did Monb on the south, the Ammonites were naturally alarmed, and called in the powers of Syria to their help against a foe who was growing dangerous even to them, and whom they had provoked by a gross insult (see Lake- macher, De barha Ugatis Datf. odroto, in his Observatt. Philol. X, 145 sq.). The coalition against David is de- scribed as consisting of the Syrians of Bethrehob and of Maacah, of Zobah, and of Tob. The last country appears to have been In the district of Trachonitis, the first two immediately on the north of Israel. In this war we may believe that David enjoyed the impor- tant alliance of Toi, king of Hamath, who, having suf- fered from Hadadezer's hostility, courted the friend- ship of the Israelitish monarch (2 Sam. viii, 9, 10). We are barely informed that one division of the Israel- ites under Abishai was posted against the Ammonites ; a second, under Joab, met the confederates from the north, 80,000 strong, and prevented their junction with the Ammonites. In both places the enemy was re- pelled, though, it would seem, with no decisive result. A second campaign, however, took place. The king of Zobah brought in an army of Mesopotamians, in ad- dition to his former troops, and David found it neces- sary to make a levy of all Israel to meet the pressing danger. A pitched battle on a great scale was then fought at Helam — ^far beyond the limits of the twelve tribes — in which David was victorious. He is said to have slain, according to 2 Sam. x, 18,' the men of 700 chariots, and 40,000 horsemen; or, according to 1 Chron. xix, 18, the men of 7000 chariots, and 40,000 footmen. If we had access to the court-records of Ha- math, we should probably find that Toi had assembled his whole cavalry to assist David, and that to him was due the important service of disabling or destroying the enemy's horse. Such foreign aid may explain the general result, without our obtruding a miracle, for which the narrative gives us not thf least warrant. The Syrians henceforth left the Ammonites to their fate, and the petty chiefs who had been in allegiance to Hadadezer hastened to do hp™age to David. 6. Early in the next season Joab was sent to take ven- geance on the Ammonites in their own home by at- tacking their chief city, or Kabbah ot Ammon. The
DAVID
606
natural tttength of tlieir border conld not keep out vet- eran troops and an experienced leader ; and though the siege of the city occupied many months (if, indeed, it was not prolonged into the next year), it was at last taken. It is characteristic of Oriental despotism that Joab,when the city was nearly reduced, sent to invite David to command the final assault in person. David gathered a large force, easily captured the royal town, and despoiled it of all its wealth. His vengeance was as much more dreadful on the unfortunate inhabitants than formerly on the Moabites, as the danger in which the Anmionites had involved Israel had been more Im- minent The persons ci4)tured in the city were put to death by torture ; some of them being sawed in jdeces, othen chopped up with axes or mangled with luurows, while some were smothered in brick-kilns (2 Sam. xil, 81 ; 1 Chron. xx, 3). This severity was perhaps ef- fectual in quelling ftiture movements of revolt or war ; for, antU insurrections in Israel embolden them, for- eign foes after this remain quiet. Othen, however, understand that these prisoners of war were merely put to hard labor with the various instruments named. (See Danz, De mitigcUa Dcaddu m Anunomku crudeU^ tcOe, Jen. 1710 ; Nimptsch, De A mmotdHt a Dap. abique crudeikaie sub jugum mi$i%s^ Lips. 1781). The royal crown, or ** crown of Milcom,*' was placed on David*s head (2 Sam. xii, 80), and, according to Josephus (^Ant, vii, 5), was alwa}^ worn by him afterwards. The He- brew tradition (Jereme, Qu. Heh, ad 1 Chron. xx, 2) represents it as having been the diadem of the Am- monite god Milcom, or Moloch ; and that Ittai the Git- tite (doing what no Israelite could have done, for fear of pollution) tore it ttom. the idol's head and brought it to David. Th« general peace which followed was commemorated in the name of '^ the Peaceful" (Solo- mon), given to the son bom to him at this crisis.