"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.