Hammurabi's Diverse State

Marc Van De Mieroop seemed to agree with and compliment King Hammurabi’s leadership skills and more importantly his ruling techniques in Chapter 7 of King Hammurabi of Babylon. Hammurabi many times called himself the Good Shepherd, and Van De Mieroop agrees that the name is appropriate. 33 years into his rule Hammurabi directly controlled the area of the Persian Gulf to 400 Km north up the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Though this was a very large territory, the people of each individual city felt more allegiance to their city than to Hammurabi’s state as a whole. Hammurabi seemed to not only accept this, but he understood it as well. He himself would often refer to his Amorite heritage.
Though Hammurabi’s influence and power were strong and unquestionable throughout the region, The culture of each region remained somewhat distinct. While the entire region believed in the same pantheon of gods, each city still had its own deity for which they believed was the most important. This deity would have been the same one for which temples in that particular city had believed was the most important. Also, Hammurabi’s state did not have a uniform language. Though Babylonian was the official language, and the language most people would write in, Sumerian and Akkadian were still spoken in large regions of the empire.
Hammurabi saw himself as a leader of a diverse group of people. He did not try to force Babylonian culture onto the territories he conquered and controlled. Rather he saw the role of King as a position to protect and care for the people he ruled. He believed it was his duty to ensure all the people in his state lived as plentiful lives as they could, regardless of which city or territory they were from.

Law in Babylon

In Marc Van De Meiroop’s King Hammurabi of Babylon, we learn that King Hammurabi did his part in providing laws for his beloved land. While there may have been instances that lead us to believe he may not have been the “best” king in terms of justice, the provision of a code of laws says otherwise.

Although having laws is not unique to King Hammurabi, we see that he does his part as king by providing such laws. These laws portray his want for justice in Babylon. Some of the laws are based off of previous laws enforced from previous rulers. In order to make his own set of laws seem more original, he would make laws that parallel previous ones, such as the ruled based off of “’an eye for an eye…’” (104-105). Other times, he would simply paraphrase rules like the rule about the ox found in the kingdom of Eshnunna (109).

The laws were separated into different categories, with each category divided into subcategories. This shows how organized the king wanted his laws to be, making it easier to be read and for rules to be found. Making it easier to read and/or find shows that he genuinely wanted others to be aware of the rules and not that he wrote them for the sake of writing them.

Laws are the fundamental building blocks for a society. If the rules enforced were non-existent, Babylon would not have been as prosperous as it seemed to be.

Code of Hammurabi

The Code of Hammurabi is one of the earliest known and respected law codes containing 282 entries covering anything from inheritance to theft. Hammurabi’s last contribution has taken significance beyond history and it has given meaning to the human community. Through Van De Meiroop and the Code of Hammurabi itself, I believe that the Code demonstrates to us just how much the ancient Babylonian government interacted and regulated the lives of its citizens. At the time Hammurabi created these laws, he “was the ruler of a large territory that incorporated several previously independent states” (Meiroop 79). However, the legal jurisdiction of the codes he established was felt within every incorporated state. This was evident even though many of the incorporated states ran very independently. Meiroop believes that the “inhabitants of cities felt a strong connection to their place of birth. They were first and foremost people of Ur, Larsa, Babylon, etc., rather than inhabitants of a great state” (Meiroop 79).
The laws that were codified are so broad and covered almost every aspect of the peoples’ lives. There are laws regulating incest, adultery, and even marriage. There are laws that regulated people’s economic relationships, especially with regards to trade. There are laws that regulated religious beliefs and even laws dealing with the divine rights associated with Hammurabi and the deities. The myriad of laws showed concrete evidence of how the central Babylonian government not only had far-reaching influence, but also attempted to regulate the morality of its citizens.
“The king had to be the ‘good shepherd’ of his land, he had to care for his people as if they were a defenseless flock” (Meiroop 82). Hammurabi definitely fulfilled this aspect of his kingship through the creation of the Code and his laws are modern in so many ways.

"Good Shepherd"

In Chapter 7, Van de Mieroop describes a king's role as being a "good shepherd," one who takes care of the defenseless people and provides food and security to all. Mieroop seems to believe that as the king of the extensive territory in southern Mesopotamia, Hammurabi succeeded in fulfilling this role as a "good shepherd." And assuming that what is written on the inscriptions are true, Hammurabi seems to have been a benevolent ruler, providing food, water, and security to his people. However, it is quite ironic that Hammurabi, who took over this whole territory through warfare, is claiming to bring peace to his people. Perhaps after he had overthrown the original rulers of these cities he was able to bring wealth and abundance to the people, consequently creating peace in his empire. But he seems to forget that in order to help the "defenseless flock" he had brought on violent wars in which many people lost their lives and terrified those survived. Although Hammurabi's intentions were good in that he wanted to bring peace and wealth to the people in southern Mesopotamia, he did so at the expense of many people's lives. Therefore, although evidence exists that Hammurabi did numerous beneficial things for his people, such as erasing debts, building canals, providing safety, food, and water, and much more, I feel as if he started off on the wrong foot, bringing violence and death.

Laws of the Land

In King Hammurabi of Babylon by Marc Van De Mieroop, the author explains the code of laws that were established by the Mesopotamian king. The Laws of Hammurabi give unique insight into the Babylonian society under King Hammurabi’s rule. His code presents the customs, morals, and business practices of the time. These laws especially provide insight in the realms of authority, political culture, and commerce. While strict, the powerful King Hammurabi shows that he cares about the welfare of his people through his code.

Hammurabi explains that the gods charged him with maintaining a just and orderly society, and he decrees the necessary laws for his kingdom to follow. He maintains his devotion to the gods while arrogantly exalting his own achievements and conquests. He establishes harsh penalties for bearing false witness in court, for accusations without evidence, for stealing, for inflicting injuries, and for many other offenses. These punishments often take their form in an execution, ensuring that Hammurabi’s laws would be respected, if not feared. Such repercussions serve to deter crime, and ensure that perpetrators are not likely to act again, therefore benefiting the Babylonian society. Hammurabi’s laws also assume that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, which protected his people from being convicted without the presentation of proper evidence. Hammurabi’s code protects women, specifically in the realm of marriage and divorce, and also regulates wages for various types of labor.

King Hammurabi sets forth the laws to rule an organized and fair society without neglecting the well-being of the common Babylonian. He shows that an immense amount of power can be utilized to essentially establish a culture’s values. The Laws of Hammurabi demonstrate how useful such a written code can be for a civilization, and serve as an example to other empires after Hammurabi’s time.

Reasons for the Stelas

Chapter Eight describes the characteristics of the Code of Hammurabi and the specific laws that it consists. A key characteristic of the stela is the usefulness of it. De Mieroop states that, verdicts were based off of “common sense” “No legal justification such as reference to a law or to a precedent, was needed” (108). The question of what exactly was the reason behind the creation of these tablets is in question.

De Mieroop does not seem to give any clear –cut, possible explanations as to why the Hammurabi has these set of codes but reading the evidence it is possible infer certain potential reasons for them. He mentions that in the epilogue Hammurabi has to audiences he addresses to, the people and future kings. An excerpt from the epilogue that is directed to his “people” audience is, “Let a wronged man who has a court case come to the statue of me as King of Justice… let my stela make his court case clear to him…” (110). It is possible that Hammurabi wanted his codes to be supreme and the standard for the people under his rule. He probably believed that his codes were the most just and fair. And being a king he probably had his subjects at his best interest he wanted everyone to be treated fairly. If everyone follows these standards then everyone will be at peace and no conflict can arise because it can be dealt with following the codes of the stelas.

By this time Hammurabi has conquered many kingdoms and so having such a vast kingdom that is composed of other kingdoms that were previously ruled by different kings, the codes is a good way to have easier control over all of the lands having everyone under the same laws. This creates uniformity in the courts and among the people. This forces the people to follow his rules and reduces conflict between him and his newly conquered kingdoms. This law can help with the future kings and can ensure that what Hammurabi has created can last for many future generations. This was probably a huge concern for him was making sure that his kingdom will last and thrive after his death. In his epilogue he specifically states that he wants future kings rule the people the way he wants the people to be ruled, “May he guide his people correctly… remove the evil and wicked…make his people happy” (110). Here Hammurabi seems to have the best interest of his people and for the future of his kingdom and these codes are his way of attempting to ensure a successful future for his kingdom.

Hammurabi: A King of the People

In “Governing the New State”, Van de Mieroop transitions from a historical account of Hammurabi’s military reign to a description of his governance within his newly acquired territory. He places an emphasis on Hammurabi’s challenge of unifying the different cities under a specific national entity. It is an interesting dilemma that has been seen throughout history, with the acquisition of territories leading to enforced changes in core values in the areas of religion, language, and political preferences. In this large territory of Babylonia, people were forced to assimilate to new environments that promoted different ideals that they were accustomed to. Hammurabi’s role was to oversee this transformation of an individualistic, city-based identity, to one that encouraged nationalistic values.
According to Van de Mieroop, Hammurabi embraced this challenge and truly strived to be a ruler of the people. He writes, “The king was indeed a conscientious ruler, who wanted the land to prosper and people to receive their fair share”. Through the governmental strategies that Hammurabi utilized, it is obvious that he placed a great deal of importance in being involved in almost every aspect of government, from military strategies to judicial rulings. It can be seen that King Hammurabi’s ability to unify this great territory was largely due to the love he had for his people, and the emphasis he placed on justice for all.

The Importance of the Code of Hammurabi

Civilizations need to establish laws that assure justice and order. Laws not only help to establish a code of conduct that everyone must follow but also tells us about a particular region or country's administration. The Code of Hammurabi enables us to learn more about the past societies, and in this case the Babylonian society and how it was administered in terms of legal issues. The laws regarding legal issues, crimes and family conflicts can portray the everyday life of the citizens of Babylonia.

One of the important aspects of the Code of Hammurabi is that it depicts an image of culture and society in Babylonia. According to the article, Laws of Hammurabi (LH) the society was divided into three social classes (72). “The first group was the free person (awilu)” (72). “The second was the commoner (muskenu) and the third class was the slave (wardu or amtu)” (72). Making these distinctions, one can argue that the laws were applied differently and that they were different based upon the class.

One area of important significance found in the Code of Hammurabi is the legal system. The king Hammurabi has stated in the prologue: “Hammurabi, the pious prince, who venerates the gods, to make justice prevail in the land” (LH 76). It is evident that justice was one of the most important issues at that time. One example is law number three on page 81. It says “if a man comes forward to give false testimony in a case but cannot bring evidence for is accusation, if that case involves capital offense, that man shall be killed” (81). Laws ensured that order and justice prevailed in Babylonia.

The Code of Hammurabi is important to history because it offers an insight of the people in Babylonia. We can also compare this ancient code of laws with our justice system. The Code of Hammurabi presents an image of the human past.

Glory for Hammurabi

There are several reasons to believe that Hammurabi might not have been a good leader, perhaps because of his strict laws and impossible rulings, but in the grand scheme of things, it is fair to say that Hammurabi was actually a very good king to the people of his city.

An example of this is the fact that he made Babylon a centralized location for individuals to come forth and live as a society, in social and political ways. He led the society to success, by watching out for the poor and the weak, and also from any corruption by individuals who were of higher economic status. He also brings together the city in a way, which shows city loyalty. His laws dispersed to all citizens of the city and unified them, instead of simply affecting a certain class of society.

An example of his supposed good deeds and ideology, which says that he will rectify anything, that goes wrongfully for the good man, is the stelae. This showcases some sort of legitimacy to the claim that he is a good and just king, and somewhat idolizes him as well.

Some say that the stelae may have been instated in order for him to idolize and glorify himself, whether it be fair or not. He may have thought that because these laws were so public and visible that it would give him more legitimacy than he may have deserved, or just clear up doubts about his leadership. However it is fair to interpret that because Hammurabi really did work so hard in his city, to protect his citizens and instate positive and just laws, that he deserved some sort of prize or recognition of his work as a good king.a

A Miltary Style

While there many diverse ways of ruling over land, some ways can be seen to work more efficiently than others. King Hammurabi had a certain way of ruling which he was partial to; he governed the land with his strength and force. Hammurabi’s laws are described as “the longest and best organized of the law collections of Mesopotamia” (71). Whether or not his methods used the best type of incentives to keep peace throughout the land is debatable. But there is no doubt that these laws were extremely effective.

King Hammurabi was a military leader. Consequentially, he ruled the same way he would manage a military group; with utmost control and discipline. Observing this unforgiving tactic in law is quite shocking. Not only does it yield deathly results but it also brings in other aspects of people’s character that might not have been punished usually.

It is interesting that Hammurabi not only penalized those people who physically went against the law but also those who wronged verbally. One of Hammurabi’s laws states that “If a man accuses another man and charges his with homicide but then cannot bring proof against him, his accuser shall be killed” (72). Under his laws, a man would be held accountable for his words just as much as any other action. To betray and falsely accuse someone of wrongdoing was as bad a crime as any other. This harsh system might have been put in place because of his military point of view. In war, a betrayal could lead to a person’s death just as easily as a bullet could.

The harsh policies Hammurabi employed were gruesome. He used the battle-like way of thinking to push his laws forward and onto his subjects. Despite all criticism, it worked; Mesopotamia had one of the most incredible set of laws put in place during King Hammurabi’s rule.

Purpose of the Code of Hammurabi

It was estimated that the Code of Hammurabi was created after King Hammurabi’s thirty-eight year of rule, and it consists of a prologue, a series of 275-300 laws, and an epilogue (Van De Mieroop 100-102). Some of the most famous codes involving the concept of “’an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’” (Van De Mieroop 104), which basically means that whatever the crime, the punishment will be of equal severity (or sometimes, the punishment will be exactly the same as the crime). Obviously, the laws were not that simple: of course, if one is of higher status is committing the crime to one of a lower status, the punishments are definitely less severe, and vice versa. Only if they were of equal status did their punishments equal, and this was of great importance; in fact, this equality of punishment and crime is one of the reasons why the Code of Hammurabi is of great importance. This established a sense of justice in King Hammurabi’s rule, and Hammurabi has not failed to mention over and over that he was the just king who was the “’good shepherd’” (Van De Mieroop 98).

However, Van De Mieroop makes a very compelling argument that the purpose of the Code of Hammurabi was not to be our version of the Constitution, or the Laws of Napoleon. First of all, there were inconsistencies in the laws that were mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi. For example, “[o]ne law demands the death penalty when something is accepted for safekeeping without a proper document, because the recipient is a thief. A related law in another section of the code gives a totally different verdicts, however: ‘If a man gives goods for safekeeping without witnesses or contact and they deny that he gave it, that case has no basis for a claim’” (Van De Mieroop 106). Obviously, such inconsistency would obviously provide for some very colorful arguments in a court of justice, and so, it is probably not a law book that the people there relied on for criminal and civil justice. In addition, not all the possibilities of legal affairs were brought up in the Code of Hammurabi, and not only that, some of the simplest crimes don’t have any indication of a punishment in the codes. For example, there are codes where there is false accusations of murder, etc., but it never actually discusses the punishment for actual murder (Van De Mieroop 106-107). Finally, in documents of the court of law, it appears that the Code of Hammurabi is never actually used as the basis for the verdict, and many new “laws” have been formulated by Hammurabi himself given certain cases. Also, some of the same cases were given different punishments as a result, and so, the Code of Hammurabi was probably not used to totally standardize the punishments that are given.

Therefore, the real question is, what is its purpose? Van De Mieroop stated that possible purposes was for Hammurabi to help his people find solace in these codes that if a particular person was wronged, he or she will find justice in the near future, and all wrongs will be righted. In addition, Van De Mieroop suggests that these codes were for the reference of future kings and that these codes should be used as a guide for the rulings of future kings (Van De Mieroop 110-111). However, another possibility that Van De Mieroop probably forgot to consider was that this was possibly ANOTHER tactic for Hammurabi to control what information and history comes out of his ruling area. Because Hammurabi was dealing with so many of these small cases of injustice, he may have created these codes in order to paint a better picture of himself as a just ruler when he is not. Even if these codes were used for solace of a particular person who was wronged, they aren’t used in the court of justice, and so, why would anyone feel better about it? In addition, these codes of ruling can’t be used as guides since they are so specific to particular cases. In fact, it seems like these are the accomplishments of Hammurabi out of recent cases that he might have had to dealt with. This could be a record of the punishments he dealt out in specific cases. Yes, he has stated that these were to show that he is a just king, and indeed it does- but if someone has to explicitly say it, wouldn’t that be censorship and record-twisting to make it seem like he was a better ruler? Perhaps this was all a publicity device used to promote him as a good king for future generations.

The Signs of a Good King

At the beginning of chapter 7, Van De Mieroop notes that Hammurabi was “the ruler of a large territory that incorporated several previously independent states” (79). He also signifies that this very kingdom stretches 200 kilometers south of the Persian Gulf coast from the capital. It is apparent that Hammurabi is an influential figure, a person that is looked at to have some sort of authority and power. However, the king did a lot to gain this power. On page 84, Van De Mieroop describes that the king was responsible for many things: from grander projects to repairing temple building, to paying for fancy thrones, chariots and statues.

But what does it take to be a good king? According to Van De Mieroop, the gods chose the king to be in charge of the land and once they were pleased with the appointed king’s duties, they would provide prosperity to the land in return. Thus, it is fair to say that Hammurabi was a good leader. He was able to capture the southern region and developed Babylon into a political center. The people in Hammurabi’s kingdom prospered as a result of his hard work and determination. For example, in chapter 8, “Hammurabi, the Lawgiver, it is mentioned that Hammurabi viewed himself as a king, “one who protects his people, especially the weak among them, from injustice and abuse by the powerful” (101).

Hammurabi's Ruling Ideology

Van De Mieroop makes a few interesting claims about Hammurabi's ideology as king. From chapter 7 he points out that the ideology of the time surrounding kingship greatly impacted him and his own personal goals for what kind of ruler he should be, and in chapter 8 Van De Mieroop also shows how his personal beliefs are expressed in the legacy he tries to leave behind in the testamentary stelae we now call the Code of Hammurabi. First, the ideology that influenced the way he ruled was probably a mix of cultural and historical precedent of what a good king should be and do, which was heavily overladen with religious tones. Hammurabi, according to Van De Mieroop, saw a specific king-shaped mold into which he had to fit himself and a lot to live up to. Primarily, there is the image of a good shepherd taking care of his flock (82). But this image of protector and caretaker was multifaceted: it involved maintaining external and internal peace, justice(83-84), and also prosperity by appeasing the gods and thus guaranteeing blessings (84). Hammurabi, on the one hand, is persuaded by his own ideology of kingship of his personal responsibility, but he also uses this ideology to reinforce his kingship as essential to the people's well-being (84). The two sides of the ideological coin are also seen through his commemorative stelae which are there to give himself glory and legitimacy through his claims of accomplishments and election as king by the gods (101), and to assure the "wronged man" that he shall have justice (110). Hammurabi's ideology of kingship give him the mandate and the means of being a just king.

The Code

The prologue to The Code of Hammurabi fills up about three pages of text. Within these three pages contains praise of Hammurabi and his accomplishments. In order for the people to approve of Hammurabi’s right to rule, comparisons and exaggerations are made to show how Hammurabi is an influential and just ruler who can provide Babylon with follow-able laws.

When just observing the aesthetic features of the stela, in which the Laws were inscribed, the narrator states the visual impact magnified the authority of the composition. The stela was large and five columns were used just for the prologue, showing how the structure even shows the importance and great significance of these laws. The laws were publically displayed to show Hammurabi’s “righteous and just rule, to being consolation to anyone seeking justice, and to serve as an example for future rulers “(74). Therefore, the importance of the laws in daily life and in providing justification of Hammurabi as a just ruler is shown through the visual aspects of the stela.

The prologue, itself, also provides justification for Hammurabi as a ruler of his people. Associations with gods and how they appointed him, his role as a protector, and his ideological duties are all mentioned. It seems to be a narcisstic text, but it could have also been the way the people were accepting of the rules. Exaggerations are made, showing Hammurabi as greater than a human being. For example, the prologue narrates him as “he who has mastered all wisdom."

All in all, Hammurabi was mentioned in this way in order for the people to be in his favor.

City Loyalty

I was struck by the idea of fierce city loyalty in the beginning of chapter 7. I wish Mieroop would have gone into more detail about the underlying reasons behind this affiliation. In modern times, people generally associate themselves with a larger region than just their city, unless they live in a major city such as New York, L.A., etc. Since each city had its own patron god, I wonder if each city also had its own unique characteristics from other cities nearby. For example, most people wouldn't mistake a New Yorker for a Philadelphian or Bostonian, at least if you're from the East Coast. It's interesting to think that these affiliations ran just as strongly then as they do today. Cities were basically free-standing entities because most rulers of kingdoms weren't very effectual in dispersing power equally. In this way, I could see why someone's city would be so important to them. The city meets all the needs of the people more efficiently than the state could. There didn't seem to be much loyalty to emperors outside of the immediate bureaucracy of the palace.

Immortality

The discussion of the purpose behind the stela that Hammurabi built is an interesting one. I ultimately liked the sections from the law code that were pulled out to explain Hammurabi's motivation. It would make sense that Hammurabi would want to be remembered. He was a king who had struggled through battles, wars, and conquests. He was a king who spent countless hours delivering verdicts on cases large and small. He was a king who watched over his kingdom with a close eye. It is understandable that he would want something to commemorate his effort. The stela seems to be that thing. It is what the walls of Uruk were for Gilgamesh. The stela may not be the sole reason Hammurabi is well rembered to this day but it definately seems to have helped him establish his legacy. The fact that the code was quoted or referred to in almost every chapter of this biography speeks volumes about how much this stela has influenced the modern perception of his rule. The fact that the law code was not really needed was probably not too worrisome to Hammurabi, though it is a little ironic.

Comparing Two Kings

Hammurabi is much different from Gilgamesh is a number of ways. First, what we know and how much we know about the two men is different. Much of What we know about Gilgamesh comes from the story of his epic, which means we know very little actual facts about Gilgamesh. What we know of King Hammurabi is much different. Hammurabi made sure much of his accomplishments were written down and recorded, writing allot of it himself. We therefore know he began his rule of Babylon at a relatively young age, and he remained in control for forty-three years.

We know very little of Gilgamesh’s military conquests, at least from The Epic of Gilgamesh, but we can recognize him as a very physical many times violent person. What we know of Hammurabi is much different. Hammurabi was described as many as a just and peaceful person, but his Military expeditions would speak otherwise. King Hammurabi even at as a young king was one of the most successful military leaders of the ancient world. At the time Hammurabi ascended to the throne Babylon was simply one of many city states in the region, and of those not even conceivably the most powerful and influential. By the end of his reign he had extended his power to cover much of the Mesopotamian crescent.

Hammurabi was also very concerned about how his people perceived him. He above all else wanted to be known as a fair and just leader. This is very different from what we know of Gilgamesh. He ruled his people so harshly they had to pray to their gods to usurp power from him. Hammurabi and Gilgamesh are two different examples of how power was used and conceived of in ancient Mesopotamia.

Mann and Hammurabi

In the beginning of Van De Mieroop's biography of Hammurabi we have a very different way of discussing power in the ancient near east. He primarily focuses on the political and military sources of power established in Mann's The Sources of Social Power and barely even talks about economic or ideological power.

The emphasis on military and political power seem to stem from the scale in which Hammurabi extends. It covers a vast region with multiple competing city-states and several centers of power rather than the focus on Uruk in Liverani and Gilgamesh. These sources discussed only one major center out of the main context of its neighbors, and therefore ideology and economics can be shown to have much greater influence because they act at a much more local level. Ideology only extends as far as the ideas and other powers supporting them can travel and not lose meaning, i.e. the boundaries of a state or the kingdom of Gilgamesh. Similarly, economics do involve long distance trade, but when the economies of all the states were not dependent on international trade and instead dependent on the local economies of its region. In Hammurabi, the scope the lands affected by Hammurabi are much greater and different powers come into play such as the balance of power politics between rival, neighboring city-states and diplomacy between allies and enemies. Primarily, the impetus behind the political machinations is usually military might. Military power is much more global because it enables the expansion of the state and is a mobile power, unlike economics, politics (which is far reaching but tied to the regions under that government) and to some extent ideology (which is tied to a population, but can spread to others).

Respectable for Many Reasons

It is apparent that the one and only King Hammurabi gained power early in life as he succeeds his father in command. As a warrior, he eventually changed the political outlook of the world and established his very own state that “stretched some 400 kilometers” (viii preface). Hammurabi seemed to have the trust of his people and much influence over them in all of his complex conquests. Unlike what we were used to in The Epic of Gilgamesh, King Hammurabi is a man of peace and wisdom, who seems to focus most on gaining agricultural control because production depended very heavily on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The first thing I think about is the production of barley and wool in the Liverani reading because it was so crucial to the economy. Hammurabi strikes me as a very calm, clever leader, who thinks before he acts. Hammurabi also seems to understand what needs to be accomplished and succeeds in all his endeavors, which gains the trust of his people and fellow companions.

Another aspect of Hammurabi’s life that makes him respectable is that he is very involved in the community, especially that of the military. Gilgamesh is unsuccessful because he is a selfish leader who only cares about gaining fame and recognition. Hammurabi remains focused on the task at hand and centralizes his thoughts on improving the “internal development of his kingdom.” He always attempts to make his kingdom a better place and is seen as an overall good leader. According to the biography by Marc Van De Mieroop, “the ruling family of Upper Mesopotamia saw Hammurabi as a useful ally, but not as an equal” (Mieroop, 9).

Comparing Texts

In chapters 3-5 of the book King Hammurabi of Babylon, Marc Van De Mieroop describes Hammurabi’s first years as a king and his early military campaigns that extended his kingdom. Chapter one focuses on his relations with other powerful kingdoms that controlled the area. On chapter two Mieroop tells us about Elam; a kingdom far east that sought to expand its controlled areas but failed to do so due to Hammurabi’s response and alliance with other territories. On chapter three, Mieroop inform us about Hammurabi’s first military expedition that enabled him to defeat and control the kingdom of Larsa that was located on the south. When reading King Hammurabi of Babylon, one can draw observations that were pointed out in the past texts that we have read in the class.

One observation that is relevant to Liverani’s composition is the importance of trade. On page five of the book, Marc Mieroop asserts that kings such as Shamshi-Adad tried to conquer cities that had central roles on international trade (5). On the same page, he mentions that expansions that took place to the west of the river Tigris as well the controlled routes to the Mediterranean yielded great economic benefits (5). On the second chapter, Marc Mieroop makes another argument that can be linked to both The Epic of Gilgamesh and Uruk: The First City. He mentions that Elam (a powerful kingdom that was located on east of Babylonia) “controlled one of the few trades routes used to import tin…and lapis lazuli, a dark-blue stone that was highly prized for the production of jewelry” (15-16). In these early chapters, Marc Mieroop highlights the importance of trading. This argument links to earlier texts that we have approached. This tells us that trade became an important tool that it enabled the kings to expand their kingdoms.

The importance of trade is mentioned in King Hammurabi of Babylon, Epic of Gilgamesh and Uruk: the First City. On the other hand, there is a difference in the argument about the political structure of Mesopotamia. In other words, Marc Mieroop argues that the city-states that prevailed before Hammurabi’s reign began to dissolve (Mieroop 2). This tells us that Mesopotamia experienced a new age when referring to its political structure. Taking into account Marc Mieroop book, one can see military expansions that took place during Hammurabi’s time.

The Greatest King of Babylon

Hammurabi’s reign as King of Babylon was significant in shaping his legacy in Ancient Mesopotamian history. He mastered the positions of diplomat, warrior, and ruler in order to position himself as the ultimate leader. In the first few chapters of Mieroop’s, “King Hammurabi of Babylon”, he emphasizes the importance of Hammurabi’s societal and military prowess in shaping his legacy as king. Mieroop first describes the importance of Hammurabi being able to clear the debts of the people in his kingdom. This allowed him to start his reign with a so-called “clean slate”, something that must have been highly appreciated and welcomed by the citizens of Babylon. This was probably seen as a significant economic boost in the kingdom and it further justified Hammurabi’s position as a prominent political leader. Hammurabi was also known for his gracious relationship with the Gods, something that was seen in a very positive light among his people. He also succeeded in the military realm as well, with the conquering of Elam and Larsa providing important economic benefits for the people of Babylon.
If we were to compare Hammurabi’s time as king with Gilgamesh’s mostly fictional account as king, we would see a few differences in the way they chose to utilize their power. Gilgamesh was first hated by his people and completely misused the power that was given to him, only to later realize that this power was a gift and that he should be using it to better the lives of his people. Hammurabi, on the other hand, began as a compassionate and politically dominant leader who acted on behalf of his people for the best of his people. Hammurabi also valued his relationship with the Gods more than Gilgamesh did, and that could have played a role in how much his people respected him, and how fortunate he would be in his political aspirations.

Comparing Gilgamesh and Hammurabi

King Hammurabi of Babylon: A Biography is the second large piece of literature that we are reading, and after reading the Epic of Gilgamesh, it is difficult not to compare the rule of King Gilgamesh and King Hammurabi. These two kings were obviously very influential in their respective kingdoms, with King Hammurabi being the King of Babylon and King Gilgamesh being the King of Uruk. Gilgamesh is apparently an earlier ruler than Hammurabi, but they both had done magnificent accomplishments for their respective kingdoms while they were in power. It is interesting, though, that the biography of Hammurabi portrays Hammurabi as one of the greatest rulers of the ancient times with very positive reviews from its people. However, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, many of Uruk’s residents wanted Gilgamesh to leave them alone, that he wasn’t being a very good king, and that the city-state would be better off without his oppressive and tyrannical rule. And so, we can see that Gilgamesh was portrayed in a very negative light even though it appears as if Gilgamesh and Hammurabi have accomplished a lot.

Gilgamesh had many accomplishments throughout the years, especially in the beginning period of his rule. Gilgamesh was the one who helped build the massive walls around Uruk as well as the city itself. He was able to build magnificent temples to the various gods (Hammurabi did as well). He helped landscape and develop the land of Uruk and helped to cultivate the land so that it was fertile and ready for growing crops.

On the other hand, we also analyze Hammurabi’s accomplishments as King of Babylon. One of his first acts as king was to “establish justice in the land”, and basically, he cancelled any outstanding debts from individuals, and the palace took most of the burden of debt. Debt was a widespread problem in Babylon, and there were outrageous interest fees, etc. tacked onto the money borrowed, and basically, the peasants who were already on the edge of bankruptcy. So, they essentially could never pay it back, and they began offering their life and liberty to these creditors. Hammurabi did this to gain the support of his people and help them get a clean slate again on their lives. In addition, Hammurabi took care of the gods by constructing temples, statues, etc., and the people of Babylon were also treated justly with certain written codes and regulations that made sure that the laws were fair and equal to all. Hammurabi also had many community construction projects, like the construction of irrigation canals, and he was able to keep the kingdom relatively safe and the people felt protected and in peace.

Now, if we go back to the Epic of Gilgamesh, even though Gilgamesh also respected the gods and constructed the city (which included many of the community projects made by Hammurabi), the people of Uruk did not feel safe at all. Gilgamesh was a tyrant, and he ruled oppressively, giving him the ultimate power to do whatever he wanted to, including making the young men work endlessly with no clear purpose as well as forcing the newly-wedded wives to have sex with him on the first night of their marriage. He did not protect the welfare of his people, and he let his own greed take over with this amount of power.

I think in comparing Hammurabi and Gilgamesh, Hammurabi was definitely looking to gain the support of the peasants and the general population as well as making the laws of the land as fair as possible. It gave out definite rules and regulations, and even though he helped to conquer Elam and Larsa, he became favorable to the people by also getting rid of their debt and using the same laws to govern. In addition, Hammurabi was also very accomplished by uniting the city-states into one coherent, united kingdom. Although, we cannot forget to realize that Gilgamesh and Hammurabi ruled eight-hundred years apart from each other, and thus, Hammurabi (the later ruler) was the actual pioneer who helped to start these ideals (they were not the norm).

Changing societies

In Van de Mieroop’s book, King Hammurabi, the author gives a lay out of where the prominent cities are located in the Middle East and the significances of some of the cities. He gives a brief background information of King Hammurabi and other important kings. The most interesting part is the later section of the first chapter goes in to detail of how kings operated in the Middle East.

At this time there are many more states located close to each other which seem to bring more conflict among neighboring states. Mieroop described how “conflict was a regular part of their interactions” because of the proximity of the states there was tension over the land as that was an increasing demand with the rising population (2). This burden is put on the kings so it was common for one state to take over territory of another. This made the states seem “that they were constantly at war wit each other” (2) This situation is so different compared to the time period earlier when Uruk first became a city. Wars were not a constant occurrence and the focus seems to be more on how to sustain the city and not how to expand. Meiroop mentioned how Shamshi-Adad “seem to have been occupied with continuous campaigning against people from the Zagros mountains” (8). It seems that after civilization has been established, it had developed from a community of people with the temple as the center to whole cities. As the cities became more developed and there were establishments of kingships the cities were able to put focus beyond trying to make the city sustainable. I cannot say that this fact but it is an idea that could explain how characteristics of societies changed. The perfecting of civilization allowed room for kings to expand and go out to conquer other land, search for anything beyond the walls of the city searching for any usuable land or new resources to support their state.

The Two Kings

Marc Van De Mieroop sheds light on the workings of Babylon under King Hammurabi’s rule in the first three chapters of his book King Hammurabi of Babylon. In particular Van De Mieroop relates how Hammurabi aspired to be seen as a benevolent king to his people. In the first chapter he mentions that Hammurabi canceled debts, honored the gods, and protected his people in order to achieve his goal. Hammurabi is especially proud of the “mighty wall [he] built” (Van De Mieroop 14) to defend the city of Sippar. This instance bears quite a resemblance to one of Gilgamesh’s proudest claims about his own kingdom: the great wall of Uruk.

I found it interesting that when Hammurabi waged war with Rim-Sin, he mentioned in a message to his troops that he “did not attack without the approval of the god”. Specifically he communicated with the gods Shamash and Marduk. Like Gilgamesh seeking Shamash’s help to defeat Humbaba, Hammurabi consulted the gods before a campaign as well.

However, unlike Hammurabi, Gilgamesh was much more concerned with power than appearing a generous ruler. In fact, it was his tyranny which sparked the people of Uruk to appeal to the gods for help, thus setting up The Epic of Gilgamesh. The two kings waged different types of campaigns as well. Gilgamesh conquered mythical creatures, journeyed to the end of the earth in search of immortality, and was accompanied by Enkidu, who was also more than human. Hammurabi fought battles against other powers in the Mesopotamian region, and successfully defeated the armies of Elam and annexed the kingdom of Larsa.

Gilgamesh claims that no one “can rival his kingly standing” (Epic of Gilgamesh I. 45) because of his godly advantages over humans and the fact that he is the goddess Ninsun’s son. On the other hand, Hammurabi asserts that the gods have appointed him King, and that he is under their command.