Hammurabi's Ideology

In my last blog post, I argued that Hammurabi falsely claimed himself as a "just" king when in reality, he had brought on many wars and destruction to many cities. Upon reading tonight's chapters, however, I am beginning to think that Hammurabi declared himself as a "just" king not out of propaganda or false pretenses - he truly believed that he was a king of justice, a king who brought peace. Perhaps I had the preconceived notion that the ideology he lived by at the time would be similar to those we live by today, in which the words peace and nonviolence are often interchangeable. It seems likely that during Hammurabi's time - as Van de Mieroop explains - "military action [was] a justified means to bring peace and justice to the conquered lands" (122). In other words, military action was acceptable if it was used to subsequently bring peace and justice. Hammurabi perceived the people of neighboring cities as a "defenseless flock" and presumably, he must have wanted to "save" them from their oppressive/violent/unjust rulers even if that meant using violence and force. And after taking over these lands, he did provide them with food, water, and security, and spent much of his time administering often "petty" conflicts among the citizens regarding farm lands and robbery and so on, which says a great deal about how much he cared about his people's affairs. Furthermore, Hammurabi eliminated many rival kings during his time, and gained control over all of southern Mesopotamia. In the epilogue of his law code, he declares that he "put an end to battles" (123). Clearly, he believed that through his battles, he had put an end to many potential battles in the future, bringing peace and justice to the land for years. Therefore, in Hammurabi's perception, he truly was a "just" king, although modern readers may perceive him as a rather violent ruler who resorted to propaganda.