Ulai River, c.1120 BC

[Duncan Head]

Battle: Ulai River, c.1120 BC

Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar I) vs Elam (Hutelutush-Inshushinak)

Background
As the Kassite dynasty of Babylon collapsed, the Elamite king Shutruk-Nahhunte invaded and carried off the holy statue of Marduk, the city's patron god. When the Second Dynasty of Isin replaced the Kassites and established its control over Babylonia, King Nebuchadnezzar I of that dynasty (c.1126-1104) campaigned in the east both to recover territory and to restore prestige by returning the god to his home city.

See John P Nielsen, "Nebuchadnezzar I's Eastern Front", in The ancient Near East in the 12th-10th centuries BCE: culture and history (2012), online at https://www.academia.edu/2955053/Nebuchadnezzar_Is_Eastern_Front

Numbers: Unknown.

Sources:
1.  Stele of Šitti-Marduk – This is a kudurru, or boundary-marker, which records a grant of privileges to Šitti-Marduk, chief of the Kassite tribe of Bit-Karziabku. in return for his services in this battle. Translated and discussed by Jeff Cooley in Mark W. Chavalas (ed.), Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation – online at https://www.academia.edu/1247581/The_Shitti-Marduk_Stele_2006

Translation:
(12-16) (When) Marduk, King of the Gods, ordered him (Nebuchadnezzar) to avenge Akkad, he raised his weapons. From Der, the sanctuary of An, he launched an attack 30 leagues (deep). In (the month of) Tammuz he took to the road.
(17-21) The radiant heat burned like fire and it was as if the roads were blazing like flames. There was no water in the watering-pastures and the watering places were cut off. The very finest of the horses stood (still) while the legs of the heroic soldier buckled.
(22- 4) (But) the finest king was marching, the gods bearing him! Nebuchadnezzar advances - he has no equal! He does not fear the hardships of the field - he extends the daily marches!
(25-34) Šitti-Marduk, lord of the house of Bit-Karziabku, whose chariot was on the right flank of the king, his lord, did not delay and he kept control of his chariot. The potent king sped and he reached the bank of the Ulai River. The kings met and they both waged war. Fire ignited between them. The sun's face was obscured by their dust. Dust storms whirled about, the storm pranced. During the storm of their battle the soldier in the chariot could not see (his) second who was with him.
(35-41) Šitti -Marduk, lord of the house of Bit-Karziabku, whose chariot was on the right flank of the king, his lord, did not delay and he kept control of his chariot. He did not fear combat and he descended on the enemy. Into his lord's enemy's (positions) he penetrated deeply. At the command of Ishtar and Adad, the lords of combat, he routed Hultelutish, the king of Elam. He (Hultelutish) disappeared.
(42-3) So the king, Nebuchadnezzar, stood triumphantly. He seized Elam. He looted its property.

2: Letter of Nebuchadnezzar to the Babylonians –  a letter from Nebuchadnezzar to the citizens of Babylon, telling of his recovery of Marduk, is preserved in a fragmentary later document. A translation, taken from Benjamin R Foster Before the Muses, is online at http://etana.org/node/556

Translation:
The great lord Marduk, who] was angry at all the holy places for a long time, took [pity] on Babylon. He gave me in his majesty the [sublime] command, [in?] the awe-inspiring sanctuary [Esagila] he ordered me to take the road of march to [the land of] Elam.

I gave reverent heed [to the command of the great lord] Marduk, assembled the army of Enlil, Shamash, and Marduk, and set forth towards [the land of] Elam. On I went, traversing distant [ways], waterless roads, night and d[ay. At the] Ulaya River, the enemy, the vile Elamite, [blocked] the water places in the gr[oves ] the troops [ ] traversed. I could give no water, nor could I relieve their fatigue. He advanced, hurtling his arrows, weapons [brandished] in battle. Through the might of Enlil, [Shamash, and Marduk, which] has no [equ]al, I overwhelmed(?) the king of Elam, defeating him. ...His army scattered, his forces dispersed, [ ] deathly still, he(?) ravaged his (own) land, abandoned his strongholds, and disappeared.

I hastened on [ ] I beheld the [great lord] Marduk, lofty warrior of the gods, and the gods of the land [of Babylonia whom?] he commanded to convene with him. I raised [ ] ... and set up a wailing, I brought the great lord [Marduk] in procession and set out on the road to his homeland.

3: Hymn to Marduk – A fragment of a hymn, preserved in a later Assyrian document, describes a victory of a Babylonian king over the Elamites. It is translated and discussed by Takayoshi Oshima in "A Forgotten Royal Hymn to Marduk and its Historical Background", JANES 32 (2010) – online at https://www.academia.edu/1471438/A_Forgotten_Royal_Hymn_to_Marduk

Translation:
. . . when he (Marduk) heard my prayer, he turned his head to me.
. . . his heart became calm, he found peace for me,
. . . the Elamites who were not afraid of his great divinity,
. . . against his magnificent divinity, they spoke insolently.
. . . your weapon reached him, the vainglorious Elamite,
. . . his army, you scattered his horde,
. . . you brought his numerous people to an end like glowing ashes.
. . . The great [. . .], you leveled like a deluge.
. . . you laid waste, you had his land be in ruins,
. . . you leveled, you turned into a ruin.


Commentary:
Disambiguation
The Ulai, Ulaia or Ulaya (the classical Eulaios) is a river which runs past the Elamite city of Susa; it is identified with either the modern Karkheh or the Karun. This battle of the Ulai river is not to be confused with the better-known battle of the Ulai in 655 BC, when the Assyrians defeated the Elamites.

This King Nebuchadnezzar (or Nebuchadrezzar, Nabu-kuduri-usur) of Babylon is not to be confused with his better-known namesake the Chaldaean Nebuchadnezzar II. Our Nebuchadnezzar I was the most prominent king of the Second Dynasty of Isin, who replaced the Kassites as Kings of Babylon.

Šitti-Marduk, for whom our main source for the battle was written, can also be found spelled as Shitti-Marduk, Ritti-Marduk, or LAK-ti-Marduk.

The Elamite king, Hutelutush-Inshushinak, can also be found as Hultelutish or Huteludish.

And with that out of the way...

Campaign
The Babylonian month of Tammuz is equated to June-July. Nebuchadnezzar set out from Der on the eastern border of Babylonia and marched about 300 kilometres south-east towards Susa in the blazing heat of an Iraqi-Iranian summer. Šitti-Marduk describes the heat that "burned like fire", and both he and the Letter stress the shortage of water. Neither says why Nebuchadnezzar marched at such a harsh season, but it may have been to surprise the Elamites.

Battle
The Letter gives us the information that the Elamites deployed at the Ulai river to cut the Babylonians off from water, probably to prevent their access to the river itself. It also suggests that the Elamites attacked first – "he advanced, hurtling his arrows" (an odd choice of verb by the translator, there; perhaps the text implies "swiftly loosing" his arrows?).

Šitti-Marduk says that the battlefield was obscured by swirling clouds of dust; this must have been quite common in battles of the period, with armies and above all large numbers of chariots manoeuvring over dry plains, but was perhaps worse than usual in the summer conditions of Tammuz. Cooley's translation of the Šitti-Marduk stele speaks only of his "chariot", singular; Nigel Tallis in Armies of the Ancient Near East describes him as commander of the right-flank chariotry, and it seems more likely that he decided the battle at the head of a force of chariots rather than a single vehicle.

According to both Šitti-Marduk and the Letter, the defeated Elamite king "disappeared". Potts, in The Archaeology of Elam, mentions a theory that he may in fact have survived, but notes that this is based on inscriptions that are hard to date and may actually come from before the battle. So it seems likely that Hutelutush-Inshushinak died either in the battle – in which case his body was not identified – or in its aftermath.

[Andreas Johansson]

Acc'd to the letter, the Elamite king's "army scattered, his forces dispersed, [ ] deathly still, he(?) ravaged his (own) land, abandoned his strongholds, and disappeared." The ravaging of his own land (scorched earth tactics?) presumably took place after the battle, after his army scattered, so unless he had undead tendencies it seems he survived the actual battle at any rate.

[Duncan Head]

It's the "he(?) ravaged" that may be the issue there - it does not seem to be completely clear to the translator who's doing  the ravaging. I don't know if it could be "they" ("the Elamites"), for instance.

[Patrick Waterson]

Well researched, Duncan, and very well presented.

It's the "he(?) ravaged" that may be the issue there - it does not seem to be completely clear to the translator who's doing  the ravaging. I don't know if it could be "they" ("the Elamites"), for instance.

Given the lacunae, we are reduced to guessing.  My guess, for what it is worth, is that Nebuchadnezzar ravaged the land and the Elamites abandoned their remaining strongholds and fled to inaccessible areas, not daring either to contest or submit to Nebuchadnezzar.

Curiously enough, we also have a record of a campaign against Elam by Nebuchadnezzar 'II', and therein lies a coincidence.

1: In the twelfth year of the reign of Nabuchodonosor, who reigned in Nineve, the great city; in the days of Arphaxad, which reigned over the Medes in Ecbatane,
2: And built in Ecbatane walls round about of stones hewn three cubits broad and six cubits long, and made the height of the wall seventy cubits, and the breadth thereof fifty cubits:
3: And set the towers thereof upon the gates of it an hundred cubits high, and the breadth thereof in the foundation threescore cubits:
4: And he made the gates thereof, even gates that were raised to the height of seventy cubits, and the breadth of them was forty cubits, for the going forth of his mighty armies, and for the setting in array of his footmen:
5: Even in those days king Nabuchodonosor made war with king Arphaxad in the great plain, which is the plain in the borders of Ragau.
6: And there came unto him all they that dwelt in the hill country, and all that dwelt by Euphrates, and Tigris and Hydaspes, and the plain of Arioch the king of the Elymeans, and very many nations of the sons of Chelod, assembled themselves to the battle.
7: Then Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians sent unto all that dwelt in Persia, and to all that dwelt westward, and to those that dwelt in Cilicia, and Damascus, and Libanus, and Antilibanus, and to all that dwelt upon the sea coast,
8: And to those among the nations that were of Carmel, and Galaad, and the higher Galilee, and the great plain of Esdrelom,
9: And to all that were in Samaria and the cities thereof, and beyond Jordan unto Jerusalem, and Betane, and Chelus, and Kades, and the river of Egypt, and Taphnes, and Ramesse, and all the land of Gesem,
10: Until ye come beyond Tanis and Memphis, and to all the inhabitants of Egypt, until ye come to the borders of Ethiopia.
11: But all the inhabitants of the land made light of the commandment of Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, neither went they with him to the battle; for they were not afraid of him: yea, he was before them as one man, and they sent away his ambassadors from them without effect, and with disgrace.
12: Therefore Nabuchodonosor was very angry with all this country, and sware by his throne and kingdom, that he would surely be avenged upon all those coasts of Cilicia, and Damascus, and Syria, and that he would slay with the sword all the inhabitants of the land of Moab, and the children of Ammon, and all Judea, and all that were in Egypt, till ye come to the borders of the two seas.
13: Then he marched in battle array with his power against king Arphaxad in the seventeenth year, and he prevailed in his battle: for he overthrew all the power of Arphaxad, and all his horsemen, and all his chariots,
14: And became lord of his cities, and came unto Ecbatane, and took the towers, and spoiled the streets thereof, and turned the beauty thereof into shame.
15: He took also Arphaxad in the mountains of Ragau, and smote him through with his darts, and destroyed him utterly that day.
16: So he returned afterward to Nineve, both he and all his company of sundry nations being a very great multitude of men of war, and there he took his ease, and banqueted, both he and his army, an hundred and twenty days.
Book of Judith, 1.1-16

Looking through Cooley's article, it is interesting to note that Bit-Habban and Namar, the foci of the stele in that they lose their traditional hold over Bit-Karziabku thanks to Šitti-Marduk's services, were both prominent during the 8th century BC, with several Assyrian campaigns being mounted against them, but Bit-Karzibaku was not.  This could be because it had lost its independence or because it had not yet acquired it.  If the former, the survival of the boundary stele is a mystery.

The Hymn to Marduk is 'Standard Babylonian' written in 'neo-Assyrian script', i.e after 1,000 BC.  Standard Babylonian was a literary convention with a very long life (the last examples are datable to AD 74/75).  Neo-Assyrian script is specific to post-1,000 BC.  The theory is that this is a later copy of a differently-scripted original, and one would expect a higher survival rate among later copies, but is it really a copy rather than an original?

Nebuchadnezzar's letter to the Babylonians is itself "A fragmentary manuscript from the Late period" - assumed to be a recopied older document, but only assumed to be.

My question (because I have been unable to determine this): what, if anything, actually demonstrates this to be a campaign by 'Nebuchadnezzar I' rather than 'Nebuchadnezzar II'?

If these sources are in fact a record of Nebuchadnezzar 'II's conquest of Elam, we do at least learn the fate of the Elamite king:

"He took also Arphaxad in the mountains of Ragau, and smote him through with his darts, and destroyed him utterly that day."

[Andreas Johansson]

It's the "he(?) ravaged" that may be the issue there - it does not seem to be completely clear to the translator who's doing  the ravaging. I don't know if it could be "they" ("the Elamites"), for instance.

In Akkadian, the form of the verb should tell us the if the subject is sg or pl, but I guess the query may precisely mean that the verbal ending is missing.

[Duncan Head]

My question (because I have been unable to determine this): what, if anything, actually demonstrates this to be a campaign by 'Nebuchadnezzar I' rather than 'Nebuchadnezzar II'?

That's not something I had actually considered, because (though the Hymn is certainly ambiguous) the Šitti-Marduk stela is universally associated with Nebuchadnezzar I in everything I've looked at, from L W King's Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum (1912) and Brinkmann's Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia to the current description on the BM website. However:

- Judging from Potts, the Elamite king Hultelutish is independently dated to around this period;
- Bahrani here briefly suggests that the divine symbols on the stone and lack of other images puts it earlier than a kudurru of Marduk-Nadin-Ahhe;
- It looks as if the language of the inscription has been extensively discussed and fitted into the Middle rather than Late Babylonian era  - cf. Cooley's "high literary style ... considered by many scholars to be the high point in the literary art of the Middle Babylonian period". Has anyone read Hurowitz's article - http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/zava.1992.82.issue-1/zava.1992.82.1.39/zava.1992.82.1.39.xml ?

It seems as if almost every Mesopotamian king of any prominence had to thrash the Elamites, so the coincidence is not in itself all that surprising.

Oh, and one thing more - the Letter does refer to the return of Marduk to his homeland after the battle. This fits with Nebuchadnezzar I recovering the statue that had been carried off at the end of the Kassite period, but did Nebuchadnezzar II have any similar requirement?

[Patrick Waterson]

Good points.

If the dating of Hultelutish is reasonably firm (and it is the right Hultelutish*) that would be a strong point in the earlier Nebuchadnezzar's favour. 

*Kings of Elam post-639 BC are summarised here as Shuttir-Nakhkhunte, Khallutush-In-Shushinak and Atta-Khumma-In-Shushinak.  Khallutush-In-Shushinak looks remarkably like Hutelutush-Inshushinak, albeit not much like Judith's 'Arphaxad', but I gave up trying to get sensible correspondences out of Septuagint names some time ago.  We do at least seem to have a king with the right name in Nebuchadnezzar 'II's period, and one who calls himself the traditional "Khallutush-In-Shushinak" - one of the last two to do so.

I am curious about the suggestion that Marduk-Nadin-Ahhe's kudurru would be 'later'.  The Šitti-Marduk stela has pictures on one side and writing on the other, while the Marduk-nadin-ahhe stela has a row of pictures, some writing and rather a mess in the lower portion.  The latter looks as if time has been less kind to it.  Puzzling ... although we do have another Marduk-nadin-ahhe kudurru in much better condition in the British Museum, which seems to resemble very closely the Šitti-Marduk stela.  Curiouser and curiouser ...

The lingusitic assignation may be good, or it may be a case of a misplaced example serving as a misleading exemplar.  We see various cases of out-of-place language and epigraphy, not least in the Assyrian tablets found at Kanesh (Kultepe), which despite what is said in the article about being 'old Assyrian' are written in Assyrian of the middle 8th century BC in both usage and epigraphy*.  'Middle Babylonian' may be as accurate as 'Old Assyrian' in this respect.

*Because there is frequent reference to a king named 'Sargon' (Sharru-kennu), it has been assumed Sargon of Akkad is meant and the tablets perforce belong to that period, but named in one of the tablets is Mannu-ki-ashur, commander of the bodyguard of Sargon II (722-705 BC).  A no longer extant History of Assyria by Prof D. Wiseman refers to this, and to the 8th century BC nature of the Assyrian characters and language used.

Oh, and one thing more - the Letter does refer to the return of Marduk to his homeland after the battle. This fits with Nebuchadnezzar I recovering the statue that had been carried off at the end of the Kassite period, but did Nebuchadnezzar II have any similar requirement?

Not that we can see, unless the inscription in question is actually his rather than that of an earlier eponymous predecessor.  He did however make a big thing of rebuilding the showcase Temple of Marduk in Babylon - the Esagila.  While he might have done this anyway, it would be entirely in keeping with giving a homecoming deity some revamped quarters.  Exactly how the deity would have gone astray is another question, although Babylon had received a combing from the Assyrians in the not too distant past, and subsequently around 614-612 BC the resurgent Elamites might have picked up Marduk as part of a job lot in Asshur, Nineveh or elsewhere.

Possibly the strongest argument for placing this campaign and battle under Nebuchadnezzar I is the fact that Šitti-Marduk's stela is actually a kudurru, which is generally associated with the Kassite period.  To my mind this would be a conclusive argument if the association of 'Kassite' kings with the 'Kassite' period were actually verifiable.

[stevenneate]

What are the chances this discussion could be turned into an article for Slingshot? Looks like the 'hard' work is already done.  We also don't see too many co-authored articles so it may be a way to encourage others to put finger to keyboard and 'find a friend'.

We seldom see the Babylonians and Elamites make an appearance in Slingshot and this is an excellent and informative discussion of something that would be little known to most, and yet may encourage others to delve into the Bronze Age BC's.  It seems a natural progression for "Mesopotamian Notes".

Add a bit at the end covering what can be gleaned about the respective armies of the period and I will turn it into a figure game.  The figures for these armies crowd my shelves like the 'fleeing hordes of Elam running before the might of Marduk', and I am always looking for an excuse to use them for something.  As for terrain, a river, some hills and the odd palm or pomegranite grove and I'm away, riding dryshod over the floating bodies of Elamites....  You know, I would have made for a great designer of stele for conquerors!

Great work
Steve

[Duncan Head]

I have wondered before whether any of these battle accounts might be the basis of a Slingshot article, but the thing that's put me off has always been that they are all based on large chunks of other peoples' translations. I don't want to be breaching anyone's copyright in print, and even if it doesn't do that, presenting swathes of translated source material feels a bit like cheating.

[Erpingham]

I have wondered before whether any of these battle accounts might be the basis of a Slingshot article, but the thing that's put me off has always been that they are all based on large chunks of other peoples' translations. I don't want to be breaching anyone's copyright in print, and even if it doesn't do that, presenting swathes of translated source material feels a bit like cheating.

I'm probably not the one to give an objective position, as I have converted one of these battle articles into a Slingshot article, but I do think they can work if they are a way of bringing the information out.  I have a number of "Battle of....." books which contain translations of the sources and I think they can be useful if the article text provides commentary.  Often, the commentary on a translation is weak on the military details.  patrick seems to have developed a small industry in demonstrating the poor choices translators have made when they translate militay details and sometimes the lack of understanding of the translator of the military context makes for poor renderings of obscure passages.  So someone expert in contemporary military history can help re-interpret.  Where it does get tricky is if there are several detailed sources to be contrasted, because you risk presenting big slabs of text - not the most readable option.  So brief  (ish) texts or a single shorter account are best for this approach, I think.  On copyright, I deliberately used an out-of-copyright translation in the text, cross referencing with a more modern translation.  But I'm not sure we would use enough of a translation on the fair use criteria for copyright to be an issue.

On this particular battle, I'm not sure I'm seeing sufficient military detail to make much out of (though the dust part is interesting on a battlefield visibility front).  The main controversy seems to be Patrick's revisionist approach to dating all Near Eastern history, which is going to move us away from the military into the details of translations and maybe even archaeology and art criticism.

[Duncan Head]

Good points, Anthony, and that makes me feel a bit better about the idea of writing up one or more of these battles.

But I'm inclined to agree that this one may not be the best battle to pick for an article, as others have a lot more tactical info recoverable from the sources. Corinth and Alabanda, for example, may be better candidates: they have been on my unwritten list of "things I might at some point get round to writing articles about" for some time, as they are little-known battles in a popular period (that I personally know more about than I do about C12th BC) with decent order-of-battle info.

[Paul Innes]

Hi everyone, I like the idea of battles like this being converted into articles for Slingshot, perhaps with more than one author.  I do take the point Duncan makes about the difficulties with this particular example, though...

[Patrick Waterson]

I would be happy to co-author with Duncan any time.  Not sure that he needs my input, though: he is usually pretty good just by himself.

[Sharur]

What are the chances this discussion could be turned into an article for Slingshot? Looks like the 'hard' work is already done.  We also don't see too many co-authored articles so it may be a way to encourage others to put finger to keyboard and 'find a friend'.

We seldom see the Babylonians and Elamites make an appearance in Slingshot and this is an excellent and informative discussion of something that would be little known to most, and yet may encourage others to delve into the Bronze Age BC's.  It seems a natural progression for "Mesopotamian Notes".

Add a bit at the end covering what can be gleaned about the respective armies of the period and I will turn it into a figure game.

Been slow to respond here, but I've only been visiting erratically the past couple of weeks. I wholeheartedly agree with Steve that this would make an excellent Slingshot article.

I have wondered before whether any of these battle accounts might be the basis of a Slingshot article, but the thing that's put me off has always been that they are all based on large chunks of other peoples' translations. I don't want to be breaching anyone's copyright in print, and even if it doesn't do that, presenting swathes of translated source material feels a bit like cheating.

But isn't this exactly what happens with every battle from the ancient world not recorded in English? There are ways of presenting the material in an article so you don't have to use only translated quotations, of course.

In this case, it's also worth going back to the other versions available, including King's original of the kudurru text from 1912, which provides the most recent transliterated text as far as the online sources seem to suggest. I found an online copy here, although this doesn't include the first introductory page (which at least has no original text on it). If you pay them cash, you can download a PDF version of the complete book, I think. According to Roux (Ancient Iraq (3rd Edition), Penguin, 1992, pp. 277-278 & Footnote 21, p. 472), the complete version in King's book runs from pages 29-36, so the full transliteration and translation are available online at least.

I suggest this, as from the opening part of Duncan's quotation (line 15 of the original), the "he launched an attack 30 leagues (deep)" is translated by King as "he marched for thirty double hours", while Roux (p.277) gave "he (the King of Babylon) made a leap of thirty double-leagues". This suggests there's some uncertainty in how the text should be translated in this part, and (given I've not made a thorough check, and Roux doesn't give a full translation) there may be more. For example, I also note that King (lines 25-26) translated Ritti/Shitti-Marduk as being "the captain of his chariots" (plural; "his" being Nebuchadnezzar's).

On this particular battle, I'm not sure I'm seeing sufficient military detail to make much out of (though the dust part is interesting on a battlefield visibility front).

But I'm inclined to agree that this one may not be the best battle to pick for an article, as others have a lot more tactical info recoverable from the sources.

To be fair, the combined texts present a highly-detailed campaign and battle report, with an exemplary order of battle, by the standards of other ancient Mesopotamian warfare texts from this period and before!

[Patrick Waterson]

I suggest this, as from the opening part of Duncan's quotation (line 15 of the original), the "he launched an attack 30 leagues (deep)" is translated by King as "he marched for thirty double hours", while Roux (p.277) gave "he (the King of Babylon) made a leap of thirty double-leagues". This suggests there's some uncertainty in how the text should be translated in this part, and (given I've not made a thorough check, and Roux doesn't give a full translation) there may be more.

The difference may lie in the reading KAS-GID (he marched ana 30 KAS-GID): one translator evidently read this as a Sumerian ideogram while the other may have attempted to see an Akkadian equivalent.  My Akkadian and Sumerian are very rudimentary and I do not know enough to do more than guess here.

For example, I also note that King (lines 25-26) translated Ritti/Shitti-Marduk as being "the captain of his chariots" (plural; "his" being Nebuchadnezzar's).

Academics do go to great lengths to avoid even the hint of scatology in nomenclature.   Strangely enough, in line 34 'chariot' is rendered 'narkabti', a term familiar from the Amarna letters, but in lines 26, 27, 36 and 37 '(isu) ma-gar-ra-shu' is translated as 'chariots', 'chariot', 'chariots' and 'chariot' respectively.  At a guess 'sha[r] (isu) ma-gar-ra-shu' is meant as 'chariot commander' so can be understood as 'commander of chariots' (lines 26 and 36; the double mention incidentally allowed the translator to note that a syllable had been repeated by mistake in line 36).

To be fair, the combined texts present a highly-detailed campaign and battle report, with an exemplary order of battle, by the standards of other ancient Mesopotamian warfare texts from this period and before!

Very true: I suspect however that Duncan may prefer the level of detail to be found in the classical period.