The "Greatness" of the Empire

Francis Joannés writes about the expansion of the Assyrian Empire, who under various rulers expanded to far corners of the Middle East. With their size and reputation of a very aggressive army, some might believe that the Assyrian Empire was very powerful and mighty. The word empire can be defined as “supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority” (Dictionary application from Apple). But was their rule that “supreme”? Examples presented by Joannés have led me to believe that the Assyrian Empire was not in fact that supreme.

The Assyrian army was irrefutably a force not to be reckoned with. With all the king’s subjects required to be in service for some time and with all the practice from the multitude of attacks the Assyrian lead, the army was very well trained in the art of gaining superiority. A lot of care and effort was put into the strategic use of the army, showing that Assyrians power was simply through the blunt use of force and terror. But what I believe is that for an Empire to be recognized as great, it must reflect prosperity of the subjects. This simply was not the case. Mass deportations occurred due to the attack of the Assyrian Army, possibly affecting up to 4.5 million people. These deportations were most definitely not favorable for the living conditions of the deported and the cities that they had to become assimilated into; it seems that the economic situation was not beneficial and lead to famines and entire villages selling their land. On top of the lack of economic prosperity, many cities were not even able to fall into unfavorable economic situations, as evidence of intense massacres was also occurring.

It seems that Assyria believed that simply having muscle will gain you control over all land. While this might have worked for some cities and provinces, the repression was not able to be subdued for too long. It was also quite impressive to see that some areas, like Babylon, would simply not give up, which probably enlightened others to revolt. What we see with the Assyrian Empire is a change of attitude, where the definition of dominance and power falls completely under military rule, neglecting the power of diplomacy that Hammurabi was so easily able to use. With a very weak political infrastructure that lead an even weaker administration, Assyria was doomed from quite early on. One hopes that people will become educated in the mistakes of Assyria, but as later historical events around the world show, history does repeat, ruining the lives of many innocent civilians all because of the hunger for power.