Ideological Power in the Assyrian Empire

Chapter four “The Centre of Assyrian Government” focuses mainly on the political structure of the Assyrian Empire. The chapter breaks down into subdivisions that give details about the royal ideology that governed the reign. In addition, the chapter stresses the importance of the palace, court and temple. This chapter demonstrates two aspects of ideological power. On the other hand, it also shows the conflicts created by the vast concentration of power.

Ideological power is shown through the king’s religious duties. The norms in this case are seen through his religious ceremonies. Joannes affirms: “The king was the head of the clergy since, since he was the chief priest… and regularly participated in many ceremonies” (Joannes 83). Religion in Assyria played an important role.

Another aspect of ideological power is demonstrated through the definition of royal identity. In this case, one can see the definition of a meaning. The king was seen as the supreme individual that had absolute power. He was able to “monopolized a meaning” (Mann 22). The meaning of a divine a king was the source of the ideological power. The king in this case was able to exploit this meaning in order to influence the society of Assyria.

On the other hand, conflicts arose in the court due to the vast amount of power wielded by the people. The diviners and other people took advantage of their powerful status. On page 85 Joannes affirms that the diviners not always agree and had no hesitations in denouncing each other (85). This is relevant to the letter presented almost at the end of the chapter. According to Joannes, the letter has two sides (Joanness 105).The letter from Adad-Sum-Usur praises the king Ashurbanibal and describes his reign in a positive way. The other side portrays the dependency of Adad-Sum-Usur and his son from the king. In the letter, Adad-Sum-Usur argues that he and his son devote their entire lives to service the king. Adad-Sum-Usur begs the king to accept his son in the court. In this case, if the king did not know how to read the letter and one of the people in the court read it, it’s possible that the person could have been able to influence the king. It is interesting that the outcome was not beneficial for his son; he ended up being delegated by the king. ( Joannes 105)