Greater centralized power through benign conquests.

The aggressive means of Assyrian expansion, specifically militaristic, is necessary for the advent of its empire. Their tactical placement of citizens in locations to gain power in foreign areas (in the last millennium BC) was more specialized than details of conquests from Hammurabi’s reign, but Frances Johannes provides a realistic view for the ‘natural evolution’ from ancient city-states into empires. He admits that such advancements cannot be placed on a linear scale, although the ancient textual evidences may do so. I agree considering ‘Assyria’s patient policy of re-conquest’ (66) is not as radically harsh as their warfare patterns. This slow integration is reminiscent of Hammurabi’s more gentle conquests, which occurred more than 1000 years previously. Assyrian kings allowed some previous Armenian, but loyal to Assyria, rulers to keep some power, but they were placed into a hierarchy. This is also something done during Hammurabi’s time, with Shamas-Azir for example.

The larger population of Assyria (as opposed to emerging Babylon), allowed for more effective draft of citizens. Although Hammurabi was also strict with his military force, it seems nothing like the specialized military force of Assyria. However, these areas were low populated areas to begin with, so the he slow re-integration of power only strengthened the politics for loyalty to the state and an effective army. This allowed for the “growing adherence to the empire”, which Johannes attributes in part to the development of local elites (73). In conclusion, the possible influence of less invasive conquests (from Hammurabi) allowed for a more benign re-conquest during 8^th century Assyria. However, it allowed for a greater local power that further strengthened the empire, which mimics the increasing power of city-states caused by Hammurabi’s non-invasive techniques.