Rulers

The history of these kingdoms seems more violent than the reign of Hammurabi. Mieroop did mention how many kings were fighting each other and that there were constant battles. What is interesting is how was Hammurabi able to rule a kingdom so long without much chaos as one could put it. Yes, there were two periods during his reign, one in the beginning and the other towards the end where he had campaigns against Larsa, Eshnunna and such. Though he was still able to stay in power for over forty years.

From Ashurnasirpal II to Shalmaneser III these kings did have successful careers at one point though it was short compared to Hammurabi. From this reading it seems like much of their years during their rule they were in battle with trying to conquer land than spending ten plus years of focusing on internal development. Not to say they were not successful but there is a difference in their reigns versus Hammurabi’s. With Hammurabi he spend many years in the first part of his rule on internal development of Babylon which I think makes a huge difference in terms that he has ensured support from his own people so when he does start to put his focus away from development and towards conquering other lands he won’t have to worry about any internal problems that could arise in his own kingdom unlike in Assyria where under Shamshi-Adad V rule a rebellion occurred which added more problems to the already declining state. It is hard to pin point exactly what was different in Hammurabi’s style of rule versus others and to make that the reasons for their failures and successes. In many ways Hammurabi’s style was very similar to others at the same time there are instances where other forces could have an affect such as the epidemics of plague during Shalmaneser V reign. So the question stilly lies as to what made Hammurabi so successful?