More precise follow-up: What kind of unit organization was there? How many men would, for example, the Akkadian army use for putting down a rebellion? Meeting other armies in the field? Were there standing professional armies? What was the command structure like, and who made up each rank?

Interesting question. I wonder how historians think the violence in The Iliad measures up. I remember studying it at school and our classics teacher saying that it couldn't be relied upon because of the difference in time between Homer's record and the events depicted, and that corruptive elements like references to iron creeping in.

As mentioned earlier, it varies greatly depending on country and specific period. I have a translation of Sun Tzu's Art of War from the 1990s that included lots of wonderful detail in the commentary about war in Bronze Age China (the Warring States Period IIRC). I'm about 90% sure it was the Ralph D. Sawyer edition . It described in great detail the use of three man chariot cavalry (driver, archer, and spearman/lancer), equipment, as well as combined cavalry/infantry tactics. It seemed radically different from any accounts I'd heard of Bronze or Iron Age techniques in Europe or Egypt.

One thing that would be constant for any Bronze Age culture would be the brutal nature of a soldier's life, at least by our standards. Starvation and disease consistently took more lives than straight up combat until the Modern Era (WWI I believe). Without modern medical care, even a small injury could easily lead to infection and death. A good army would include doctors or barber/surgeons who knew how to clean wounds, perform amputations, and give at least rudimentary care. Most killing would be done in close melee, which would have a very distinct impact on one's psyche.

All in all, not a picnic. But still it offered at least the promise of a life superior to that of a peasant in many cultures.

Caveat on Sawyer's translation: Mister Sawyer does not appear to be on the faculty of any university, so I can not speak to his scholarship and his work does not appear to be peer reviewed. All I can say is that as a layman I enjoyed his work immensely.

Can you define a century and country?

Edit: enough with the downvotes. Warfare changed a lot between the start of the Early Bronze Age and the end of the period, and it varied between nations.

Most evidence from the bronze age is incredibly spotty. You can look at archaeological evidence, such as burial sites or monuments like the Vulture Stele or the Narmer Palette, but that only gives you depictions of the type of armour and weapons, without clear information on the types of troops, their movements on the battlefield, or any insight into command structure or tactics.

Even when you get to written sources, such as the glorification of the battle of Kadesh (the first peace treaty in recorded history) by Ramessess II, tend to focus on the heroics of Ramessess rather than making any mention of his troops out how they fared in battle.

Think of how the Old Testament describes battle scenes. That's the sort of detail you get from even the best sources. "They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it"... Etc.

It isn't until the later Greeks (Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenephon, etc) that you start getting reliable accounts of his battles worked from a tactical standpoint. Even then, the authors are writing for an audience with a passing knowledge of what ancient warfare was like.