Historical: We do not have a lot of information in the Book of Mormon about the political organization of the Lamanites. Using our understanding of the general Mesoamerican political situation, we may add context to these passages. One of the most important aspects of the Nephite political situation that we have been examining is the idea that there is a confederacy of independent city-states that have all accepted the governance of a particular city. That model is the basic understanding of Mesoamerican political alliances, and it is a very effective model to describe the types of problems we see in the Nephite world.
In the Lamanite world we had a glimpse of a very similar organization when we examined the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. That story took place in Lamanite territory, and introduced us to kings of cities, and an over-king governing the political alliance among the cities having their own king. In these verses we have yet another picture of the loose control of an over-king over the city-states under his influence.
Mormon gives us an editorial explanation for the reason that some of the Lamanite people refused to go to war against the Nephites. From Mormon’s vantage point of four hundred years after the fact, and his focus on the issue from Nephite documents, we cannot trust his analysis of the reason that certain Lamanites refused to fight against the Nephites. Certainly this incident came fairly soon upon the heels of the major defeat of a large Lamanite army at the hands of Moroni, but it is very doubtful that Mormon’s sources would have an accurate assessment of the Lamanite reasons for reluctance, even if their most recent defeat might be a logical assumption on Mormon’s part.
The Lamanites who were defeated by Moroni were a combination of the Zoramites and the Lamanites who lived in the region near the city of Antionum. This area lies somewhat distant from the city of Nephi where Amalickiah goes to deal with the over-king of the Lamanites. We cannot be certain that the defeated army was officially attached to the king of the Lamanites, and was more probably a regional army from some city in that area that was attempting to expand influence.
The picture that is painted in these verses has the over-king decide to declare a war against the Nephites, and to assume that he has the right to call up a militia from his dependent city-states. Regardless of the reason, the discernable fact is that some of the dependent city-states refused to comply. This tells us that the control of the Lamanite king over his dependent city-states was as fragile as was the control of Zarahemla over the dependent Nephite city-states.
Mesoamerican kings did not have police forces that could ensure the enforcement of the edicts of the central government, and the dependent city-states could make attempts to separate themselves from the hegemony of the dominant city state. In such cases of rebellion, the response of the over-king was a punitive military action against the rebellious city (Ross Hassig. Aztec Warfare. University of Oklahoma Press. 1988, p. 25-26).
This is precisely what we see happening. While Mormon does not tell us that the rebellious Lamanites who refuse to go to war against the Nephites all belong to a single city-state, or to various city-states, the general picture of Mesoamerican politics is highly suggestive that this would be the case. Just as in the case of Aztec military reprisal against rebellious city-states, we see in these verses the Lamanite over-king mounting precisely such a retaliatory military expedition.
What remains unexplained is the reason that the king in Nephi would be so ready to move against the Nephites, and why he would be so trusting of a newly arrived Nephite turncoat in the person of Amalickiah. Mormon does not give us this information, but we may piece together enough of a background to begin to understand this event.
The first piece of the puzzle is the background of the king of the Lamanites in the city of Nephi. We do not know if this is the same king who was established in Nephi when the Lamanites drove out the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, and the king of the Lamanites who changed his name to Anti-Nephi-Lehi. Even were it not the same king, it would be the immediate successor, and of the same lineage. As we remember from the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, this king was connected with a set of apostate Nephites. (see Alma 24:1 and Alma 24:29)
We have seen multiple times in the Book of Mormon where the apostate Nephites are the first to desire to conquer the Nephites, so it does not seem out of the ordinary at all that this king of the Lamanites who was of an apostate Nephite lineage should also be quick to desire some type of vengeance on or dominance over the Nephites.
The last question is why Amalickiah was allowed a role in the punitive army sent against the rebellious Lamanites. This is a little more complicated, because Amalickiah will use this position in the army as a base for a future move against the king of the Lamanites. How does an outsider presume to be able to have such influence?
To understand the acceptance of Amalickiah we must remember what we know of Amalickiah’s history among the Nephites. First, we know that Amalickiah was the focal point of a movement for a king among the Nephites, and indeed was proposed to be that king. The legitimacy of his claim to kingship was probably based on his lineage, and possible as Sorenson has suggested (John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985], 163). When he comes to the king of the Lamanites he brings with him his legitimacy of lineage and his “right” to be a king. Thus he arrives with a form of legitimacy that would at least be respected in the Lamanite world. As a “fellow-apostate” he might easily achieve sympathy from the Lamanite king. This combination of similarity of goals and the luster of kingship that Amalickiah brought with him would be sufficient incentives to explain his rise to prominence in the Lamanite king’s view.