Militaristic Regime of Assyria

In comparing the rules of the Assyrian empire and of King Hammurabi of Babylon, militaristic power takes prominence, but the overarching methods differ markedly. While both domains expanded dramatically through military campaigns, Hammurabi’s rule was ultimately characterized by his being the “just king”, ensuring justice for the abused. The prevalent method that defined the Assyrian empire however was a policy of terror and a forceful militaristic regime that demanded obedience through violence and thus disallowed the permeation of power throughout the empire.

The periodic expansion and retraction of the Assyrian empire epitomizes Michael Mann’s definition of authoritative and extensive power. The empire’s supremacy was constantly undermined by the mistreated and manipulated people of conquered areas through rebellions and revolts. The empire’s yearly campaigns to terrorize its conquered lands and the constant rebellions in said lands show the instability of the empire’s fringes (Joannes 59). Furthermore, the swiftness with which some annexed states shed their nominal Assyrian command and the need for constant military presence to prevent this regression proves the lack of lasting power the empire held over its periphery (Joannes 32).

The use of fear as a psychological weapon prevented the Assyrian empire from ever truly consolidating its defeated lands into the empire itself and from forming a cohesive reign that would not tear itself apart. The strategy of terror employed to keep annexed land subordinate involved the brutal torture and horrific mutilation of enemy bodies in the hopes that fear would keep people subservient (Joannes 59). However, this subservience needed to be demanded because of the forced tributes and booty required of conquered lands to offer to the empire. This constant abuse of the people eventually led to each area rebelling and the need to reestablish control over states through more campaigns and more wars.