Bloodthirsty Assyrians

Andrew Brown
NES R1B 004
Brown

In this reading, we get a taste of just how much has happened since the Babylonian era, and the time of Uruk before that. It is remarkable how the size and complexity of political organization in the region grew exponentially. An era of disconnected city-states, declaring autonomy in their relatively limited regions, have given way to empires.
The Assyrian Empire, which Empires discusses in excruciating detail, is larger and more dynamic than even the Babylonian empire under Hammurabi’s kingship. Instead of squabbling with it’s neighbors, as Hammurabi had done, the Assyrian Empire does business from the Mediterranean Sea, to Anatolia, to Memphis, Egypt; the Assyrians truly redefined the concept of scale of influence.
The text goes into various reasons for the success of the Assyrian Empire. While chapter 1 was not assigned and so I may have missed the explanation for this, it is difficult to describe how the Assyrians amassed so much land and power. However, it is clear that, once the Assyrians were in power, they dominated the region.
Principal to the successes of the Assyrians was their army, which was built on conscripted Assyrian citizens, mercenaries, and, basically, slaves of fallen governments. The Assyrian army was in a constant state of conquest. This constant state of conquest had the effect of ensuring that the army was experienced in war. Additionally, it was through conquest (i.e. tribute) that Assyria funded its empire: silver and gold valuables, horses, and slaves. Horses were very important because the Assyrian army relied heavily on chariots, at first, and later mounted archers. Even on numerous occasions when the Assyrian army would encounter defeat, the empire was essentially too big to fail; there was always war to be waged on another front or another successor to take the throne. However, this was also the cause of its decline, as the army eventually came to be spread too thinly over the Fertile Crescent.
While, at first, the relationship between the Assyrian Empire and its tributary states was purely exploitative, as time passed, we see the incorporation of foreign cultural aspects into Assyrian culture. Additionally, the Assyrians took more of an interest in foreign states, often installing Assyrian officials in governmental roles in them. After many centuries of repeatedly conquering the states of the Fertile Crescent, the Assyrians finally realized how to truly unite the peoples. It was this unification that allowed other empires to more easily assume command of the entire region, all at once. Perhaps this was also the case with the coming to power of the Assyrians. Could the success of the Assyrian Empire be due to the scaffolding set up by Hammurabi and the Babylonians?

Greater centralized power through benign conquests.

The aggressive means of Assyrian expansion, specifically militaristic, is necessary for the advent of its empire. Their tactical placement of citizens in locations to gain power in foreign areas (in the last millennium BC) was more specialized than details of conquests from Hammurabi’s reign, but Frances Johannes provides a realistic view for the ‘natural evolution’ from ancient city-states into empires. He admits that such advancements cannot be placed on a linear scale, although the ancient textual evidences may do so. I agree considering ‘Assyria’s patient policy of re-conquest’ (66) is not as radically harsh as their warfare patterns. This slow integration is reminiscent of Hammurabi’s more gentle conquests, which occurred more than 1000 years previously. Assyrian kings allowed some previous Armenian, but loyal to Assyria, rulers to keep some power, but they were placed into a hierarchy. This is also something done during Hammurabi’s time, with Shamas-Azir for example.

The larger population of Assyria (as opposed to emerging Babylon), allowed for more effective draft of citizens. Although Hammurabi was also strict with his military force, it seems nothing like the specialized military force of Assyria. However, these areas were low populated areas to begin with, so the he slow re-integration of power only strengthened the politics for loyalty to the state and an effective army. This allowed for the “growing adherence to the empire”, which Johannes attributes in part to the development of local elites (73). In conclusion, the possible influence of less invasive conquests (from Hammurabi) allowed for a more benign re-conquest during 8^th century Assyria. However, it allowed for a greater local power that further strengthened the empire, which mimics the increasing power of city-states caused by Hammurabi’s non-invasive techniques.

Point Lost in Details

Of any reading that we have had in this class, I think that these first chapters of The Age of Empires by Francis Joannes were by far the most difficult to extract meaning from, particularly the second chapter. The text is overwhelmed with the names of places, people, and groups, many of which play an unimportant role in the point that is being made and are mentioned only once or twice. To add to the confusion, names of rulers are repeated, are long and unwieldily, or bare much in common with other names. While the reading was difficult and frustrating for me, I do not mean to completely dismiss Joannes, who presents all of the details, presumably for an audience that is looking for them; however it is certainly possible that this wealth of data could have been presented in a more readily understood manner.

To pick a chapter nearly at random, the only full paragraph on page 30 contains 17 distinct proper nouns, corresponding to places, people, groups, and states. For an average sized paragraph this is far too much information to take in and properly retain, and the point of the paragraph, something to do with Assyria’s access to the Mediterranean, is cluttered and all but lost. Among these 17, 5 states are mentioned which, at least in the text surrounding the paragraph, are never mentioned again. Unfortunately, it is not immediately apparent which states will go on to play an important role later, and it is impossible to decide which states or people should be remembered for future reference.

Names of leaders are also difficult to follow, though not necessarily at the fault of Joannes. Sometimes we see two rulers with the same name, for example Shalmaneser III and Shalmaneser IV. Other times we see names that are far too long to remember, such as king Marduk-zakir-shumi, or Merodachbaladan II. Though Joannes obviously cannot control the names of the people, and does a good job of offering full detail, it remains a problem that it is very difficult to understand what he is saying. I think that a better job could have been done of outlining the most important details and the major themes in order to provide a continuity that does not get lost in the details.

Torture is the Key to Success?

Ritik Malhotra

Near Eastern Studies R1B Lecture 4

Response Paper: The Age of Empires (Ch2, Ch3)

Torture is the Key to Success?

In his depiction of the Assyrian empire in ancient Mesopotamia, presented in chapters two and three of The Age of Empires, Francis Joannes details multiple aspects that made the empire so famous and powerful during its time. In his tale, Joannes describes the absolute power of the Assyrian army, able to gain imperial control of territories across the land. I find it highly interesting that it was the brutality and methodology that the army utilized when at war with other armies, described as the “policy of terror” (59), that made them so powerful and feared. Such a tactic, which is looked down upon today, proved to be highly effective for the Assyrian empire and its conquest in ancient times.

Joannes describes the Assyrian army as one that tried to “set an example” (59) by making their presence well known wherever they conquered a territory. For example, the Assyrian army was known to “impale or flay” prisoners, “cut the hands and heads from [their] corpses to make into trophies,” and publically humiliate defeated kings (59) all to show the public that they were capable of such feats, which only instilled fear in others. This goes hand in hand with the army’s policy of trying not only to “defeat foes, but also to weaken them as much as possible” and essentially make their lives as miserable and torturous as possible (58-59)

The Assyrian army was effective in using this notion of fear to instill themselves as a powerhouse in the ancient times and “gain permanent superiority over its adversaries from the moral standpoint as well” (57). This was one of the empire’s driving strategies of success as it used imperialism and publicizing its victories to generate a form of propaganda to bring together the people and unify them in a way.

The Side Products of Absolute Power

As many classmates mentioned previously in their response papers, the images of the emperors of Assyria described in the book appeared to be drastically different from that of King Hammurabi. King Hammurabi was depicted to be a very benevolent and considerate king that truly loved his people, while the Assyrian kings were seen as terrifying dictators that used all kinds of means to control their subjects. The Assyrian kings obviously believed that rigorous rules and harsh punishments would help maintain their empires forever; but they made a mistake by neglecting all the negative effects caused by their ruling.

First of all, they focused too much on keeping the society in order that the economy did not get a chance to prosper. The Assyrian kings, unlike Hammurabi, did not want to preserve the culture and lifestyle of the conquered lands. Instead, they applied strict rule to make sure they would stay as a part of their great empire forever. They used the fear method to make people be afraid of the king and therefore follow the rules closely. On the other hand, the Assyrian kings utilized their army to an extreme. Most of their empire was expanded through militaristic means. This explained the fact that, despite of their unpopularity, the Assyrian empire still expanded to far corners of the Middle East. But as I mentioned, the economic aspect of the empire slacked off, partly because people did not have the incentives to gain extra, since they were too busy keeping themselves alive; also because the rigorous rules did not allow much economic activities going on.

The other side effect is the dissatisfaction of the Assyrian people. History has proven that, the more cruel the ruling, the more rebellious the people. Even though the kings did everything to make sure that people would stay under control, it is not hard to imagine that, eventually people would run out of patience and they would sum up their courage to rebel. The downfall of such an empire is inevitable, because its theory is ultimately against human nature.

Though the quick downfall of the Assyrian empire is reasonable because of its false way of ruling, the Hammurabi’s reign, despite his relatively benign ruling, didn’t last for that long either. It’s hard to explain why that is, maybe it’s just that absolute power, no matter what way it is approached, is not an effective way of ruling altogether.

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.

Examining the Assyrian Empire through the Lens of Mann

Nearly 1,000 years after King Hammurabi’s death, history sees a new kingdom rise to power: the Assyrian empire! First beginning under the reign of Ashur-dan in 934 B.C. to the annexation of Assyria by the Babylonians in 610 B.C., the Assyrian empire triumphed as one of the strongest powers of the Near Eastern region for over 300 years. How this kingdom came to hold such power for a considerably long time period may be explained by sociologist Michael Mann’s four main sources of power; that is, of course: military, ideological, economic and political. The might of the military and an economic authority, as demonstrated by Assyria’s love of conquest and expansion, is most clearly depicted as potential sources of power in The Age of Empires by Francis Joannes.

The first attempt to expand the Assyria territory began in 911 B.C. by Adad-nerari II who wanted to “secure the eastern and northern frontiers against the mountain tribes” and “to regain possession of the plain of Upper Mesopotamia” (29). Seven campaigns and a treaty with Babylon later, the kingdom of Assyria had successfully established a means to access Iran and the western areas of Syria (29). These decisions made by earlier kings to expand the empire through military force (and diplomacy) most certainly influenced rulers like Ashurnasippal II to carry out a “policy of terror” and scorched earth to establish the empire’s rule. In addition, Ashurnasippal II also mandated that “adversaries who submitted were compelled to pay an annual tribute” known as maddattu to his empire. He further expanded this rule to neighboring kingdoms, promising them internal autonomy in return for their loyalty and alignment with the empire. These early policies of military takeovers (for more land) and economic taxes (for more loyalty) most certainly set up how future kings would run the empire and established early on the power of the Assyrian empire.

Fall of Assyria

Ronak Patel

Near Eastern Studies R1B

Response Paper; Age of Empires (Ch. 2-3)

Francis Joannes’ book Age of Empires begins by describing the political history of Assyria and then continues by describing how leaders controlled the vast territory they acquired. A common trend is the seemingly nonstop warfare that was dominated this era in the Near East. There has been a clear shift in power from economic and ideological power to military power. Joannes claims that “The fact that Assyrian expansion ran out of steam was also the sign of an internal crisis that was brewing, for the fruits of conquest had been badly shared out in Assyria itself, to the almost exclusive profit of the king (34). I believe the fall of the Assyrian empire was not caused by the Assyrian kings’ dominant claim over the fruits of expansion, but because of the system set up.

Joannes also mentions that provincial governors had the right to distribute the levies they collected between the central government, their local defense, and their own use (69). Giving governors the power to decide how much money they would distribute to each of these interests is a direct conflict of interest to central powers. More than likely the governors kept more money for their own personal use, and for their own local armies, curbing the potential dominant state of central power. Also, Joannes mentions that “members of the royal family and high court dignitaries formed their own households around them, managing their own possessions on the one hand, but also having a finger in supplying the state” (69). This seems like an oligopoly amongst the royals that could hinder the advancement of central power. If these individual royal had sufficient power, they could hinder any possible structural changes to the economic or political system that may have been better for the state in general, but detrimental to the royals themselves.

Combine both of these instances with the continuous warfare that plagued the Assyrian empire, and there is bound to be trouble.

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.

The "Greatness" of the Empire

Francis Joannés writes about the expansion of the Assyrian Empire, who under various rulers expanded to far corners of the Middle East. With their size and reputation of a very aggressive army, some might believe that the Assyrian Empire was very powerful and mighty. The word empire can be defined as “supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority” (Dictionary application from Apple). But was their rule that “supreme”? Examples presented by Joannés have led me to believe that the Assyrian Empire was not in fact that supreme.

The Assyrian army was irrefutably a force not to be reckoned with. With all the king’s subjects required to be in service for some time and with all the practice from the multitude of attacks the Assyrian lead, the army was very well trained in the art of gaining superiority. A lot of care and effort was put into the strategic use of the army, showing that Assyrians power was simply through the blunt use of force and terror. But what I believe is that for an Empire to be recognized as great, it must reflect prosperity of the subjects. This simply was not the case. Mass deportations occurred due to the attack of the Assyrian Army, possibly affecting up to 4.5 million people. These deportations were most definitely not favorable for the living conditions of the deported and the cities that they had to become assimilated into; it seems that the economic situation was not beneficial and lead to famines and entire villages selling their land. On top of the lack of economic prosperity, many cities were not even able to fall into unfavorable economic situations, as evidence of intense massacres was also occurring.

It seems that Assyria believed that simply having muscle will gain you control over all land. While this might have worked for some cities and provinces, the repression was not able to be subdued for too long. It was also quite impressive to see that some areas, like Babylon, would simply not give up, which probably enlightened others to revolt. What we see with the Assyrian Empire is a change of attitude, where the definition of dominance and power falls completely under military rule, neglecting the power of diplomacy that Hammurabi was so easily able to use. With a very weak political infrastructure that lead an even weaker administration, Assyria was doomed from quite early on. One hopes that people will become educated in the mistakes of Assyria, but as later historical events around the world show, history does repeat, ruining the lives of many innocent civilians all because of the hunger for power.

Expansionism and the Assyrians

While reading The Age of Empires by Francis Joannes, the most difficult part by far was keeping track of the names of the rulers and what they accomplished (or failed at) in each time period of the Assyrian Empire. The history is presented in a very fast paced manner where the discussion switches from one ruler to the next every few paragraphs. But the major point in the first few chapters is about the military expansions of the Assyrian Empire. Starting in the year 934 B.C. various Assyrian rulers initiated military campaigns to both secure and expand the borders of their empire. From their behavior we can tell that the Assyrians had a much different view on their treatment of conquered people, then Hammurabi did during his rule of the Babylonian kingdom. The Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II, who ruled from 883 to 859 B.C. “carried out a policy of terror and scorched earth,” and “[wore] down foes’ resistance [] procuring for Assyria material resources which it needed to pursuer its war effort” (Joannes 30). From this fact we can see that the Assyrians most likely did not respect their conquered peoples’ enough to want to incorporate them as equal members of their society, and rather just saw them as a resource of wealth and power. This is opposed to Hammurabi who took active steps to respect his constituents as a diverse group of people with a variety of needs.

Assyria Overextending its Power

In chapters 2-3 of the Age of Empires, Joannes shows how Assyria rose and fell in power. Assyria through primarily military means, conquered huge amounts of territory and most importantly collected yearly tribute that would fund his military campaigns. The Assyrian empire used effective, but brutal violence as means to check their vassal territories. In some cases, they would kill all male warriors to eradicate any threat, deport people to maintain control over the conquered population, and destroy any local landmarks to deprive the conquered territories of traditional structure. However, Assyria was often trying to crush rebellion that was often too distant for Assyria to crush effectively. Babylon was a constant source of trouble for the kings of Assyria. Baylonia often fervently resisted Assyria and often with the help of Elam. Assyria appointed many new kings or viceroys to Babylon after crushing the rebellion there.

Assyria’s royal power was also inherently weak. Rebellion at home led by the powerful landowning nobles who supplied soldiers and supplies to the king’s military campaigns often led to new kings and the lost of Assyrian power over the distant territories.

-Ruby Lin

Empire Evolution

The Assyrian Empire exploited the mechanism that it had: size and strength. Of course, it is obvious that an empire would use its superior size and strength to conquer and quell any civil uprisings, but unlike many of the empires prior to the Assyrians, the Assyrians made sure that their empire would be the it would have to final word in every matter. Unlike Hammurabi's Babylonia, there was not a mutual understanding and coalition between Babylonia and it's conquered territories, but rather, Assyria made
that it's conquered nation knew that Assyria was it's final authority. They used unconventional means to keep their subordinates in line and make sure that they abide by the laws.

One way the Assyrians accomplished this was through military force in which they oppressed their conquered neighbors and made sure that the wouldn't rise up against the empire. Utilizing their huge military force, the Assyrians used tactics that disheartened their opponents such as public humiliation, cruel and unusual punishment, and mass killings. This tactic was a means of controlling the people and making sure that they wouldn't rise against the empire, as happened to both Uruk and Babylonia.

Another tactic was to divide the conquered states into territories and make them pay tribute, The Assyrians had no problem in killing whole cities and razing them. So for those who were conquered, it was more about staying alive than to be obedient. Through this cruel method, the Assyrians revolutionized the way in which order and obedience was maintained in the conquered territories. It would pave the way future empires would keep a iron grasp on their conquered nations. Ultimately, such inhumane means of maintaining obedience would collapse the mighty Assyrian empire. However, such methods of military cruelty, oppressive tributes and taxes, and sheer brute strength is what made the Assyrian empire so dominant in Ancient Mesopotamia.

The Rise of Empires

In The Age of Empires written by Francis Joannes, the region of ancient Near East went through several phases of empires, whether the Assyrian empire in the northern part of Mesopotamia and the Babylonian empire in the south. In chapters 2 and 3 of the book, the author discusses the history of the Assyrian empire and its control on the territory. The empire expanded its territory from the ‘Assyrian triangle’ of Ashur, Nineveh, and Arbela to much more through the centuries of the first millennium BCE. These expansions appear to me as precursors to the later vast expansion of the Greek, Hellenistic, empire or the Roman empire, which were quite remarkable in the history. The cities had stored up enough resources and trained enough troops to begin forming campaigns across larger areas. This process is quite interesting to observe and compare with later empires because in later empires, we could notice that the empires encompassed twice or three times the area of the Assyrian empire, possibly due to the better development in agricultural technology and the better administration from the center through improved transportation (roads or canals).

One very important characteristic to notice in the Assyrian empire is its use of policy of terror. The kings, in their campaigns to the surrounding lands, not only sought to defeat the enemies, but also to weaken their morale. They would cut the heads and hands of the enemies to terrify other people from becoming rebellious. Moreover, they employed the method of deportations, which mobilized populations around to mix the different races and also to weaken their identities. I feel that this method (policy of terror) was a very effective way to legitimize their power in the society for a short period of time, albeit at great cost. The structure is thus fragile in nature as the people developed hatred and dissatisfaction for the central agency. Not only did many people (over millions!) were deported to different regions, but also many of them did not survive the journey. Although the empire might have maintained “order” in the region for the time, this would finally lead to the empire’s collapse in the end as they were very prone to rebels and internal conflicts.

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.

Connections between Nineveh Library and the Bible

It’s interesting to see the documentation and history as presented by the kingdoms and dynasties in Age of Empires, compared with the information and stories from the Bible. If the Bible was the only source of historical information regarding these empires from the BC era, then it would be highly questionable in its accuracy. It could much more easily be looked at as fictional or tales as opposed to reliable information on accurate events. Chapters 1-3 of Age of Empires by Francis Joannes, Joannes uses information from the Bible to actually prove events and information from these societies to back up his reasoning and sources. This leads to the observation that the Bible must actually be a reliable source of information.

The power and dominance of empires such as Nineveh and Babylon, and the history of cities such as Ur are evidence for the accuracy of the documents found at Nineveh that are enlightening us on these events. In addition though, the discovery of the texts from Nineveh are evidence for the accuracy of the history and information from the Bible as well. There is not a lot of information and documentation from this period of time, so all that is coherent and aligning is important for historical accuracy and understanding. Joannes says, “Biblical predictions had come true: the power of the great capitals of Assyria and Babylonia had been shattered; these towns, and above all knowledge of their history, had disappeared under piles of bricks and earth” (13). Historical figures such as Noah and Job were mentioned in the Nineveh library, which increases the Bible’s reliability.

Age of Empires gives us the history of Assyria in Chapter 2, highlighting the victories and failures of the empire and the changes in rulers etc. Assyria was a great empire during this time, but was cruel and harsh in its punishment and brutality. They didn’t have the same sort of stable allies that the time period before seemed to have, and murder and war was much more common and normal that it seems to have been previously. Nineveh was described as a “lions’ den” and they were thought of as “a hunting-ground for bloodthirsty wild beasts”. That’s quite a strong description, and shows the fear and intimidation that they put in the other nations. This also aligns with the story of Daniel from the Bible who was thrown into a literal lions’ den, proving the ferocity of these people.

Laney Homet

Hammurabi's Code

Throughout the Code of Hammurabi I noticed that the punishments used for crimes were all very similar, and they all consisted of the taking of life, or material loss. It seemed strange that the punishments were one of two options because today our justice system has such a wide, and seemingly endless range of possible consequences for crimes. In the Code of Hammurabi, the punishments seemed like they would truly cause a person to think twice before acting because they would either be committing a crime that is punishable by death, or one that could end up their having to repay several times more than what they took. By putting monetary value on all the punishments that were not death, it could be assumed that people would abide by the laws more because they could lose several years crop, or loads of silver. This is far unlike our justice system today because, aside from the complete incorporation of religion into the judicial system, instead of maybe going to jail for week or a few months like today, the perpetrator would have to sometimes pay several times the monetary cost of their crime.

Instead of putting the burden of punishment costs on the shoulders of the innocent and victims through the price of prison systems, the cost is inflicted upon the guilty. This provides for a much more cost effective judicial system. With this method, a criminal doesn't go to a prison and get regular meals and a bed to sleep in, he is forced to either face death or have to turn over large amounts of silver and/or crop yields. By doing this there is a far greater incentive for people to not commit crimes because the burden is on their shoulders if they do, instead of on the rest of the people. With religion so deeply integrated into the laws, not only does the criminal have the burden on themselves, but the promise of holy punishment is an even greater motive to behave.

King of Justice?

Chapters 7 and 8 describe how Hammurabi governed his extensive territories. One of his most defining characteristics as king is recognizing and respecting the many cultures that his territories encompass. During the time, many people feel an attachment first and foremost to their city before any king. Each city had its own customs and gods that they especially worship. Hammurabi is a way adopted their culture by claiming that the gods of their city selected him to be their king and that he will help them build temples for the gods that they worship. His adaptation of other cultures is similar to that of Genghis Khan, though in Khan’s case, it was countries, not cities. By adopting their culture, Hammurabi is better able to make his subjects identify with him.

Chapter 7 goes into further detail of the complexity of the administration of Hammurabi’s rule. Hammurabi makes his role as king visible to his subjects by directly taking a role in mediating disputes no matter how small or big. He sends numerous letters to the “registrar” or the person keeping track of the ownership and tenancy of land and the “sheriff”. However, the extensiveness of his territories and thus the over-extent of his control are evident in his impatience in letters demanding a person to be summoned quicker to him or an issue to be resolved. The problems of having a king deal directly with his subjects’ issues, instead of a bureaucracy doing so, in such an extensive area is showing.

Although Hammurabi likes to be portrayed as the King of Justice, modern-day readers may not see him as thus. His code of laws, as described in the biography, acted not as a standard for enforcers of justice to follow, but as an emblem of his own judiciousness. The laws also do not dispense “an eye for an eye” punishment as Hammurabi himself describes. Instead, they explicitly state instances where punishments are harsher for lower-class peoples and more lenient for higher-class people. But then again, readers must also remember that Hammurabi’s code of laws is still the first of its kind. It is still one of the first of its kind to establish a sense of justice for all peoples.

-Ruby Lin