Israel’s Wilderness Camp Modeled on the Persian Military Formation

The opening of the book of Numbers provides detailed instructions for the arrangement of the wilderness camp’s layout. The Tabernacle stands at the center, surrounded first by the Levitical clans, forming an inner defensive perimeter.^[1] For the outer defensive perimeter, the twelve tribes^[2] organized by their ancestral houses, are arranged into four larger units, each comprised of three tribes:

On the east, in front of the Tabernacle, are the Aaronides and Moses (Num 3:38).

Under the banner (דגל, degel)^[3] of Judah, are the tribes of Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun (Num 2:3-9).

On the south, on the right side of the Tabernacle, the Kohathites (Num 3:29)

Under the banner (­­­­­­דגל) of Reuben, are the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, and Gad (Num 2:10-16).

On the west, behind the Tabernacle, the Gershonites (Num 3:23)

Under the banner (­­­­­­דגל) of Ephraim, are the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin (Num 2:18-24).

On the north, on the left side of the Tabernacle, the Merarites (Num 3:35)

Under the banner (­­­­­­דגל) of Dan, are the tribes of Dan, Asher, and Naphtali (Num 2:25-31).^[4]

This strategic way of organizing the camp provides a double layer of protection for the Tabernacle and its sacred contents. Where did this idea for the organization of the wilderness camp come from?

Egyptian Military Encampments? Probably Not

Given that at this point in the biblical account, the Israelites have just left Egypt, some scholars have posited that the Egyptians were the inspiration behind this way of organizing the camp. However, there are two reasons why this is unlikely.

The Shape of the Camp

Jacob Milgrom identifies the model for the Israelite camp in the Egyptian military encampment of Ramses II (13th century B.C.E.), characterized by a square layout with the Pharaoh’s tent at the center.^[5] In the biblical description, however, while the Tabernacle is square, the tribes are positioned at the four cardinal points (north, south, east and west), and the overall shape of the camp itself is not indicated.

Moreover, Israel’s traditional military camp had a round or circular shape. For instance, the Israelite encampment against the Philistines is referred to as הַמַּעְגָּלָה (hama‘galah) in 1 Sam 17:20, implying a circular shape, and Saul’s camp is likewise described as being arranged בַּמַּעְגָּל (bama‘gal), with Saul sleeping at the center and his soldiers encamped around him (1 Sam 26:5, 7).^[6] The traditional form of military camps likely also shaped the Priestly imagination of the wilderness camp.

In Mesopotamia, circular-type military camps were favored in Assyria—and likely in Neo-Babylonia as well—particularly after the eighth century B.C.E.^[7] As will be discussed below, Persian military camps were also reportedly round or oval in shape. The forms of both Israelite (monarchic) and Mesopotamian camps suggest that the biblical wilderness camp was more likely envisioned as round or oval, rather than square.

The Dating of This Account

Furthermore, identifying an Egyptian military campaign from the 13^th century B.C.E. as the model of the Israelite wilderness encampment does not align with the dating of this text, which is generally attributed to the Priestly source (P), widely dated to the exilic or post-exilic period. More recently, the description of the Israelite camp, particularly in Num 1-4, is often assigned to a relatively late stage of P, suggesting a date in the mid to late Persian period.^[8]

The critical question, therefore, is not whether the biblical account reflects a historical reality rooted in the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1500-1200 B.C.E.), but rather what the Priestly author(s) envisioned when portraying the wilderness camp in their own Persian-period context. This dating invites us to consider the Persian royal military camp as a likely model that influenced the biblical imagination.

The Persian Mobile Camp

The practice of mobile encampment held special significance for the Achaemenid dynasty, the rulers of the Persian Empire (ca. 550-330 B.C.E.), who developed a highly sophisticated royal camp system. Descended from pastoralists who migrated seasonally to follow favorable climates for their herds, the Achaemenid kings maintained this mobility even as rulers of a vast empire.

The Persian kings undertook regular seasonal movements between the major cities, including Susa, Ecbatana, Persepolis, and Babylon.^[9] As Pierre Briant, a Professor at the Collège de France, notes, the empire had no fixed capital—“the capital was where the king was,” often in the form of a mobile royal camp.^[10]

When the Persian king traveled, he was accompanied by a large retinue—officials, soldiers, guests, friends, and family. When the king was on the move, the whole royal camp moved with him.^[11]

The Organization of the Camp

Serving as a mobile capital, the royal camp required careful organization. The Greek historian Xenophon (431-354 B.C.E.) provides a vivid portrayal of Cyrus the Great’s royal camp:

^{Xenophon, Cyropaedia 8.5.2} “We will relate here in how orderly a manner his train packed up, large though it was, and how quickly they reached the place where they were due. For wherever the great king encamps, all his retinue follow him to the field with their tents, whether in summer or in winter. ^[12]

Details are given about the placement of the king’s tent and all of the royal retinue surrounding it, with an emphasis on everyone knowing their proper place within the camp:

^{Xenophon, Cyropaedia 8.5.3} At the very beginning Cyrus made this rule, that his tent should be pitched facing the east; and then he determined, first, how far from the royal pavilion the spearmen of his guard should have their tent; next he assigned a place on the right for the bakers, on the left for the cooks, on the right for the horses, and on the left for the rest of the pack-animals And everything else was so organized that everyone knew his own place in camp – both its size and its location.

The Persian royal camp was organized with a double-layered defense system designed to protect the royal tent at its center. The royal tent's placement reflected both practical concerns and ideological significance, symbolizing the center of royal power:^[13]

^{Xenophon, Cyropaedia 8.5.8} Accordingly, he himself first took up his position in the middle of the camp in the belief that this situation was the most secure. Then came his most trusty followers, just as he was accustomed to have them about him at home, and next to them in a circle he had his horsemen and charioteers.”

While the inner circle was formed by royal servants, the king’s entourage, and guards stationed directly around the king's tent, the outer perimeter consisted of heavily armed troops equipped with large shields:

^{Cyropaedia 8.5.10-11} To the right and left from him and the cavalry was the place for the targeteers; before and behind him and the cavalry, the place for the bowmen. The hoplites and those armed with the large shields he arranged around all the rest like a wall, so that those who could best hold their ground might, by being in front of them, make it possible for the cavalry to arm in safety, if it should be necessary.

Like the Persian camp centered on the king’s tent, the Israelite camp is organized around YHWH’s tent—the Tent of Meeting—also pitched facing east (Num 3:38) and surrounded by an inner circle of consecrated personnel (the priests and Levites) and an outer circle of the twelve tribes arranged in a militarized configuration.

Around Cyrus’s tent, the specialized groups were stationed at the cardinal points; likewise, the Tent of Meeting is enclosed by the four Levitical groups at the cardinal points–as YHWH’s consecrated servants, they protected the Tabernacle (Num 1:50-53; 3:21-38) and prepared YHWH’s meals (sacrifices). Notably, just as Cyrus’s bakers were placed to the south, the Kohathites—encamped south of the Tabernacle (Num 3:29)—are associated with preparing the showbread (1 Chr 9:32).

The Royal Tent as Administrative and Judicial Hub

The Persian Great Kings continued to govern the empire while traveling with their royal tents, engaging in administrative duties and public appearances. As discussed above, the royal tent functioned as the imperial court in motion, effectively serving as a mobile capital.^[14]

Similarly, the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness narrative serves not only cultic but also administrative roles. While primarily built as YHWH’s sanctuary for ritual worship, it also functions as YHWH’s mobile court, serving as the center of political and military command during the period of wilderness:

• YHWH issues orders for the census (Num 1:1–2; 26:1–2), the army’s formation (Num 2:1), and the dispatch of scouts (Num 13:1) from this tent.
• Marching signals and encampment commands are given from the tent (Num 9:16; 10:5–8).
• The tent functions as the meeting place (and thus is called the Tent of Meeting, אהל מועד, ’ohel mo‘ed) between YHWH and Moses, Aaron, and the assembly. Trumpet calls from the tent summon the entire congregation for communal decisions (Num 10:3).^[15]
• YHWH resolves leadership disputes (Num 16) and judges and delivers punishments (Num 14:26–38) at the Tent.

The Degel as a Military Unit

The outer formation of the Israelite wilderness camp is structured under four main military units, each called a דֶּגֶל, degel, often rendered as “standard” or “banner,” with three tribes grouped under the banner of a representative leading tribe, stationed at the four cardinal points in the outer circle around YHWH’s tent. For example:

^{במדבר ב:ג} וְהַחֹנִים קֵדְמָה מִזְרָחָה דֶּגֶל מַחֲנֵה יְהוּדָה לְצִבְאֹתָם וְנָשִׂיא לִבְנֵי יְהוּדָה נַחְשׁוֹן בֶּן־עַמִּינָדָב.

^{Numbers 2:3} Camped in front, to the east: the banner of the camp of Judah, troop by troop. Chieftain of the Judites: Nahshon son of Amminadab.^[16]

The use of the term degel, here paired with מַחֲנֵה (machaneh), “camp,” to refer to military unit only appears in the context of the wilderness encampment and the description of the marching formation of each of the tribal units (Num 10:14, 18, 22, 25).

Notably, the term degel was also employed to designate a unit within the Persian army, particularly among units of mercenaries. Judean mercenaries at the garrison at Elephantine, among other groups, were organized into degel units under Persian commanders.^[17] For example:

¹ On the 18^th of Elul, that is the 28^th day of Paḥons, year 15 of King Xerxes said ² Ḳoniya b. Zadok, an Aramaean of Syene, of the military detachment (דגל, degel) of Warizath, to Mahseiah b. Yedoniah, an Aramaean of Syene, ³ of the military detachment (דגל) of Warizath, saying: I came to you and you have given to me the gateway of your house to build ⁴ 1 portico(?) there. This portico is yours. It adjoins my house at its upper corner.^[18]

Similar degel units are attested during the Persian period at Memphis-Saqqara, in Egypt—composed of both Egyptians and Jews—and at Arad.^[19]

Thus it is likely that the Priestly author(s) drew upon this model when envisioning the Israelite wilderness camp as organized into four degel divisions.^[20]

Decamping, Marching, and Encamping

The Persian royal tent and YHWH’s tent also share similarities in their movement. According to Xenophon, Cyrus established detailed regulations governing the process of dismantling and transporting the royal tent:

^{Cyropaedia 8.5.4} And when they come to pack up again, everyone gets together the things that it is his business to use and others in turn pack them upon the animals, so that the baggage-men all come at the same time to the things they were appointed to transport, and all at the same time pack the things upon their several animals. Thus the amount of time needed for striking a single tent suffices for all.

The organization of YHWH’s tent is similar to Xenophon’s description, where those who pack and those who carry are distinct: the Aaronite priests are responsible for covering and packing the sacred objects, while the Kohathites are tasked with carrying them (Num 4:4–15).

Similarly, Numbers (ch. 4) assigns specific duties to each of the Levitical clans for dismantling and transporting different parts of the sanctuary. Aaron and his sons are responsible for covering and preparing the sanctuary furnishings for transport (Num 4:5–15), since only they can come into direct contact with the sacred objects inside the Tabernacle. The Kohathites are charged with carrying the most sacred objects, such as the ark, table, lampstand, and altars (v. 15).^[21] The Gershonites transport the tabernacle’s curtains, coverings, screens, and cords (v. 24-26).^[22] While the Merarites are tasked with carrying its structural components (v. 31-32).^[23]

Xenophon also notes instructions for reassembling the camp:

^{Cyropaedia 8.5.5–6} The unpacking also is managed in this same manner; and in order to have all the necessaries ready at the right time, each one has assigned to him likewise the part that he is to do. In this way the time required for doing any one part is sufficient for getting all the provisions ready. And just as the servants in charge of the provisions had each his proper place, so also his soldiers had when they encamped the places suitable to each sort of troops; they knew their places, too, and so all found them without the slightest friction.^[24]

The instructions for the Israelite encampment conclude with:

^{במדבר ד:מט} עַל־פִּי יְ־הֹוָה פָּקַד אוֹתָם בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁה אִישׁ אִישׁ עַל־עֲבֹדָתוֹ וְעַל־מַשָּׂאוֹ וּפְקֻדָיו אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה יְ־הֹוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה׃

^{Numbers 4:49} Each one was given responsibility for his service and porterage at the command of YHWH through Moses, and each was recorded as YHWH had commanded Moses.

Just as in the Persian military camp, each person in the Israelite camp knows their role and responsibilities, resulting in orderly and efficient transport of the tabernacle from place to place.

Similar Camp Marching Procedures

Similarities between the Persian and Israelite camps are also evident in their marching regulations. The Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus (1^st century CE) describes the Persian procedure as follows:

^{History of Alexander, 3.3.8–10} “It was an ancestral custom of the Persians not to begin a march before sunrise. When the day was already bright, the signal was given from the King’s tent with the trumpet … Now the order of march was as follows. In front, on silver altars was carried the fire which they called sacred and eternal.”^[25]

The Israelite camp also began its march in the morning (Num 9:21a, וְיֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה הֶעָנָן מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר וְנַעֲלָה הֶעָנָן בַּבֹּקֶר, “And at such times as the cloud stayed from evening until morning, they broke camp as soon as the cloud lifted in the morning.” See also Exod 13:21). The command for movement came through the two silver trumpets sounded by the priests at YHWH’s tent (Num 10:3–6), paralleling the trumpet signal from the Persian king’s tent.

The Persian “sacred and eternal” fire leading the march evokes the divine pillar of cloud and fire guiding Israel at the front (Exod 13:21–22):

^{שמות יג:כא} וַי־הֹוָה הֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם יוֹמָם בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן לַנְחֹתָם הַדֶּרֶךְ וְלַיְלָה בְּעַמּוּד אֵשׁ לְהָאִיר לָהֶם לָלֶכֶת יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה. ^יג:כב לֹא יָמִישׁ עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן יוֹמָם וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ לָיְלָה לִפְנֵי הָעָם.

^{Exodus 13:21} YHWH went before them in a pillar of cloud by day, to guide them along the way, and in a pillar of fire by night, to give them light, that they might travel day and night. ^13:22 The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not depart from before the people.

During the day, the Persian sacred fire likely produced smoke that could be seen from a distance as a pillar of cloud; at night, the fire reflected in the smoke may have appeared as a pillar of fire. In the Wilderness narrative, fire and cloud often function interchangeably by day and night, suggesting that the cloud may, in fact, have been imagined from smoke produced by the fire.

A clear example of the interchangeable function between the fire and smoke is also found in Curtius Rufus’s description of Alexander the Great’s military reforms:

^{History of Alexander, 5.2.7} When he [Alexander] wished to move his camp, he used to give the signal with the trumpet, the sound of which was often not readily enough heard amid the noise made by the bustling soldiers; therefore, he set up a pole on top of the general's tent, which could be clearly seen from all sides, and from this a lofty signal, visible to all alike, was watched for, fire by night, smoke in the daytime.”

This description closely resembles the fire and cloud atop the Tabernacle that signal the time to march:

^{במדבר ט:יז} וּלְפִי הֵעָלוֹת הֶעָנָן מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יִסְעוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבִמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכׇּן־שָׁם הֶעָנָן שָׁם יַחֲנוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

^{Numbers 9:17} Whenever the cloud lifted from over the tent, then the Israelites would set out; and in the place where the cloud settled down, there the Israelites would camp.

Just as Alexander’s signal was designed to be visible to all, Exodus 40:38 explicitly notes that the fire and cloud were לְעֵינֵי כׇל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל,­­­­ “seen by all the house of Israel.” Curtius Rufus attributes the innovation of the fire/smoke signal to Alexander, yet it was likely influenced by Persian military practice.^[26]

Priestly Contact with the Persian Military Camp

Thus far, I have highlighted the parallels between the Israelite wilderness camp as portrayed in the Bible and the Persian royal military camps described by various Greek and Roman authors.^[27] These similarities suggest that the Priestly scribe(s) were well acquainted with the Persian royal camp. This observation prompts an intriguing question: How did the Priestly scribe(s) acquire such knowledge of the Persian royal camp? Did they witness it firsthand?

As noted above, the Persian Great Kings traveled seasonally with their royal camps to major imperial centers such as Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis. Upon the king’s arrival, residents of these cities and surrounding villages—including those along the routes—welcomed him with special ceremonies and tributes.^[28]

The Judean population in Babylonia likely had multiple opportunities to witness these royal processions. Moreover, the Judean diaspora during the Persian period extended beyond Babylonia to other imperial centers, including the king’s seasonal residences at Susa and Persepolis.

More relevant still is that the residents of the province of Yehud (the name of the province of Judea in the Persian period) likely had opportunities not only to witness but even to visit the Persian royal military camp. Since the Persian king Cambyses II’s conquest of Egypt in 525 B.C.E., the region experienced frequent rebellions, with Egypt achieving independence between 404 and 343 B.C.E.^[29]

To suppress these uprisings and reassert control, the Persian kings launched eight major military expeditions to Egypt over a span of roughly two centuries.[30] Notably, during the early and mid-4th century B.C.E.—when some scholars date the composition of the present text—four major campaigns were undertaken by the Persian kings Artaxerxes II and III, occurring at intervals of 10 to 20 years.

While these expeditions were often accompanied by naval forces, the core land army consistently advanced along the Palestinian coastal route via Gaza and the Way of Horus.[31] Provinces along this corridor, such as Samaria and Yehud, functioned as vital supply depots, providing food, tribute, and military provisions. The people of Yehud would not have missed the opportunity to see the royal army on the march.

In particular, the elites—likely including priests—would have had the opportunity to visit the royal camp to deliver supplies or pay tribute to the king and his forces. The Persian royal camp, with its scale, structure, and spectacle—which impressed Greek authors—must also have exerted a significant influence on the Yehudite scribes. It likely served as a compelling model for the biblical authors in their portrayal of the Israelite wilderness camp in the Priestly texts.

Repurposing the Persian Camp Model to YHWH

The Priestly author(s) appear(s) to have appropriated the image of the Persian royal military camp in their depiction of the Israelite encampment, placing YHWH in the role of the Persian Great King. This literary appropriation reflects an ambivalent stance. On the one hand, it reveals a degree of respect for the dominant imperial culture, adopting the royal camp as a symbol of authority and the highest sociopolitical order of the time.

On the other hand, it subtly expresses resistance to imperial power by reimagining that model within a theocratic framework—depicting YHWH as the sovereign leading his people through the wilderness of the southern desert and the Sinai Peninsula, a region that partially overlaps with the route taken by Persian kings and their marching camps.