King Hammurabi vs the Kings of Assyria

In Van de Mieroop’s biography of the life of King Hammurabi, Hammurabi was characterized as a just king who was skilled in diplomacy and one who treated his subjects (even the conquered ones) fairly. Some conquered regions were annexed into the greater kingdom while others remained somewhat sovereign. However, Hammurabi and Babylon would still benefit from these un-annexed and annexed territories; he would receive soldiers from them as well as “goods” such as barley. In return, he would provide for the people by building temples and being the custodian of the gods, protecting them from invading armies, building canals, etc. Hammurabi’s character stands in stark contrast to those of the Assyrian kings, such as Ashurnasirpal II.

In the descriptions of how these kings dealt with conquered lands, it is said that these people were required to pay an annula contribution and align their politics with those of Assyria, but would be allowed to keep their own dynasties and have internal autonomy. However, in reality, this was not the case. Some kingdoms cooperated, but some regions had to be compelled by force. This way, the kings of Assyria could maintain the income they got from these regions and still get soldiers from among these people.

Also, Joannes talks about the Assyrian policy of terror and cruelty. When conquering lands and people, the kings of Assyria used cruelty to terrify enemies in situations where it would be difficult to win against them in battle, or if the people were not willing to give up. For example when King Ashurnasirpal was attempting to conquer the capital of Bit-Zamani, he resorted to “bringing the war to the gates of the town” by laying siege to the city. Also, the “heads of the vanquished and prisoners” were impaled around the city in order to spread terror among the people. The reasoning behind this practice is that this terror would remain with the people, making future conquests of the region easier.

Because of these practices, the Assyrian kings were seen as people who waged war without feelings, whereas King Hammurabi was seen as compassionate. Furthermore, these kings justified their actions by saying that they had the support of the god Ashur to wage these wars and to triumph over other humans. King Hammurabi, on the other hand, used similar justifications for establishing justice in the land by the creation of his famous law code.