What I wrote in my dialogistic paper on what power is was essentially this: that in addition to a strong leader, power needs the support of many and the backup of sound finances in order to survive as a strong force. Power is also a delicate entity, because too much of it can consume a person and turn him from a judicious king into a tyrant. I still believe that power is all of this, but my understanding of power has expanded after this semester. Taking Michael Mann’s argument, I have come to learn that the source of power is derived from 4 things: political, economical, military, and theological. Each Mesopotamian king may have really excelled in one area of power, but in order to really truly thrive as a leader, each ruler would have ideally embodied all four sources of power.
For example, King Hammurabi of Babylon, who was mostly notable as a law giver, also used political power to organize his alliances, military power to decide what nation to conquer, and theological power by paying homage to the gods in his law code. (And of course, he used political power through his laws as well as the treaties he signed with neighboring nations). Shamshi-Adad of Upper Mesopotamian, too, utilized all four sources of power to an extent, but was probably most well known for his political move to split and share his land holding with his two sons.
One thing that has changed about my perception of power is the use of artwork to depict a king’s majesty. Whereas before I may have understood a portrait of a European king to be a sign of his power, deciphering the carvings of Mesopotamia took a slightly different turn for me. Some of the details, such as Naram-Sin as a giant, may be more obvious, but others, such as the inclusion of the severed head, may be more subtle in showing the might and power of a king.
No comments:
Post a Comment