Hammurabi's Superior Leadership

In his biography of King Hammurabi of Babylon, Marc Van De Mieroop described the Hammurabi’s diplomatic conquest of the area of Mesopotamia and his governance of the conquered territories. Fast forward a few centuries, and the Assyrian empire rose to power, led by a lengthy list of various kings, including Ashurbanipal II, Shalmaneser III, Sargon II, and Tiglath-Pileser III, as detailed by Francis Joannes in his book The Age of Empires. These two empires managed to gain and retain power in different ways, though it seems like Hammurabi’s diplomatic rulership worked better than the expansionist policies of the Assyrian rulers.

One of Hammurabi’s greatest assets were his diplomatic skills and his ability to negotiate. By forming numerous alliances with various competing kingdoms including Mari and Ekallatum, he was able to use their resources to his benefit and conquer vast territories, which he would have been unlikely to do so had he worked alone. In contrast, I saw few mentions of diplomacy or formations of alliances in the Assyrian empire. I believe the Assyrian rulers would have benefited from the increased manpower and resources associated with forming alliances, especially since Joannes describes numerous failed campaigns by various Assyrian kings.

In the area of governing territories once they were annexed, Hammurabi again seems to have the superior policies. Van De Mieroop mentions how Hammurabi would personally intervene in people’s disputes from time to time. In his kingdom, Hammurabi was the ultimate arbitrator. In contrast, the kings of Assyria placed local governors in the territories, who they granted a significant degree of autonomy in some cases. The degree of separation between the central powers and the territories resulted in the territories having less loyalty to the empire of Assyria. This is shown in an example Joannes provides where the king of Assyria would march the army through the empire on annual campaigns to “renew” his sovereignty over them, which would quickly disappear once the army left (32).

While Hammurabi and the collective Assyrian kings were both able to establish dominance over vast territories, Hammurabi’s methods seem to have worked better in maintaining control over those territories.