It seems that the first three chapters are solely devoted to praising Hammurabi as a king and his greatness. Hammurabi was portrayed to be more of a conqueror instead of an invader. The difference between the two is quite subtle; unlike an unwelcomed invader, Hammurabi was apparently the heroic conqueror who brought peace and prosperity to the originally tormented land. He had everything that a “good ruler” was expected to have: he was benevolent, courageous, considerate, and wise.
First of all, Hammurabi was gallant enough to conquer the land of Larsa. With the help from Mari, Hammurabi defeated Elam who was originally in charge of Larsa. This action also shows that Hammurabi was not a ferocious figure; instead, he believed in collaboration and allies. After succeeding, instead of taking complete control over the land and becoming a tyrant, Hammurabi chose to conserve the traditions in Larsa. He did not force the people to comply to his new codes or laws; rather, he respected their culture and therefore let them keep most of it. From the way the book was written, it sounds like that Hammurabi was welcomed by the people in Larsa because of his greatness. As one of the classmates mentioned in an earlier post, Hammurabi gained strength from his “non-invasive” tactics.
Other wonderful things Hammurabi did included the cancelation of debt, building temples and other infrastructures, and avoiding quarrels with other tribes. Despite the ancient time he lived in, Hammurabi possessed many characteristics that people still look for in leaders around today. His deeds were commemorated and still praised today. But then again, we are only able to see one single aspect in this book. Hammurabi’s flaws are not depicted yet, but it certainly doesn’t mean he has none, because no one is perfect and it is especially hard to be flawless as a king.
No comments:
Post a Comment