Political Power in King Hammurabi of Babylon

In King Hammurabi of Babylon by Marc Van De Mieroop, political power from Michael Mann’s “Society as organized power networks” is evidently presented in the first chapter of the biography. Michael Mann defines political power as deriving from “the usefulness of centralized, institutionalized, territorialized regulation of many aspects of social relations” wherein the “regulations and coercion” are “centrally administered and territorially bounded” to state power, a definition that proves true in the case of the city-states early on before Babylon.

Mieroop mentions that the commonalities of the city-states include a palace, temple, and a house of patron deity of the city at the center of the state (1-2). Deliberately, the palace and/or temple serve as the political source of power in which the palace and/or temple are the centers of administration. At the same time, we see the latter of Mann’s definition when Mieroop discusses territorial control becoming more common (2). Mieroop also points out the different states at the time: Hammurabi’s kingdom “controlled the very northern part of Babylonia;” King Rim-Sin “unified the south and center of Babylonia;” as well as the state of Eshnunna whose kings “consolidated power from the Zagros mountains down to the river plane” (3-4). While some states were stronger than others, the point I think Mieroop is trying to make is that the political source of power plays a major role in the success of the state. If it were not for the central administration, city-states would constantly take over each other barbarically. Another example is if one city-state did not have a central administration, it would quickly become conquered by a state with a central administration. Each state had kingdoms, which would not have happened were it not for the political power present in those states.