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.