SPQA: conceptualizing Bronze Age republics

I've lately been doing some reading about early Assyria, and one of the articles I came across was Mogens Trolle Larsen's The Old Assyrian City-State (in Hansen's Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures). The period covered by Larsen's article is the 20th and 19th centuries BC, before Assyria became an imperial state and when it was restricted to the city of Ashur and one or more port-colonies.

According to Larsen, government during this period was divided between a priest-king, an assembly of notables with legislative and judicial function, and a limmum (spelled limmu in many sources) who was chosen annually by lot and who was in charge of taxation and finance. In the Assyrian Empire, the limmum was a royally appointed sinecure, but during the city-state period, he had the power to set tax rates, detain people and seize property as security. Moreover, authority was seen to come from "the City," and in official letters, "the City" was actually named before the king. Larsen believes that the kings may have been first among equals during this period, with substantial power but subordinate to the assembly as a whole.

There are obvious parallels between the city assembly and the Roman Senate, and the limmum (whose name was given to his year in office) seems like a hybrid of the consuls and the urban praetor. Two conceptual shifts would be required, however, for a true republic: getting rid of the king, and changing the method of selecting the limmum from casting lots (which is generally a surrogate for the gods' choice) to popular election.

The first shift doesn't seem impossible -- what's necessary is for the limmum to take power under circumstances where he either can't or doesn't want to make himself king. Possibly he could be seen as holding power in trust for an absent king, or there might be political reasons why he can't take the throne such as a perceived absence of legitimacy. Alternatively, we could change the constitutional structure of Ashur to include two limmums, much like the Roman consulate, with neither trusting the other to hold sole power after the king is overthrown.

The second seems harder, but also not impossible. Larsen suggests that the Assyrian colony of Kanesh had a popular assembly in addition to the senate, which could be called into session at the senate's will. If something like this existed, or could come into existence, in Ashur itself, then approval by the freemen's assembly might become a means of securing legitimacy after the king is overthrown. There's also the possibility of a Solon-like reformer or a military assembly, the latter more likely if the limmum and senate depend on the army to secure them against a return of royal authority.

One other possibility: changing the selection method from casting lots to popular election might be a way for a ruling limmum to stay in power year to year rather than being replaced at random. So maybe a shift to election, or at least selection by vote of the senate, might follow naturally after a limmum takes power in his own right.

In any event, all this makes me wonder why there weren't any Bronze Age republics. The consensus view of the Bronze Age is that it was a time of increasing social stratification, but this is no bar to republican government -- the Roman Republic was highly stratified (quite likely more so than under the Principate) and the class structure was formalized in law. Nor is republican government any bar to imperialism or a militarized state, as again demonstrated by Rome. So does anyone have a notion why Rome, Athens and Carthage had republican governments but Assyria didn't, or for that matter why senatorial assemblies weren't more widespread outside Ashur (there's some evidence of them in Iron Age Babylonia and Phoenicia, but not during the Bronze Age)? I'd like to imagine Hezekiah boasting of standing off the Assyrian Republic (while the Senate and People of Assyria conversely boast of the tribute received from him) but I have a nagging feeling there's something I'm missing.

Jonathan Edelstein

"Who is wise? He who learns from all." -- Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1
 
Very interesting. Perhaps the real obstacle is the divine authority to the King, so heavily ingrained in Mesopotamian culture so as to make it harder to get rid of him, even if he is only a figurehead. Such a belief did not exist in such polities as Rome and the fact that the King was foreign did not assist in keeping his position strong.
 
ImmortalImpi may have hit the head here:
With Mesopotamian Bronze Age Culture in general most Kings also included a Chief Priest aspect which lent divine authority to their rule as King.
In order to get your Romanesque republic you need a way to separate this out i.e. to create a Pontifex Maximus post carrying the king's religious/sacred duties while keeping a King as font of civil authority (for later replacement by the Limmu).

For detail I recommend asking the AH members who would know vastly more than me about this timeframe - LeoCaesius and Robertp1865 in particular.
 
My knowledge in the area is scarce but how about the King losing the divine authority - i.e. an earthquake killing off the royal family.
That may make room for the notable assembly to take all power. If no one family among the nobles are able to advocate their primacy the republic may come around.
 
Very interesting. Perhaps the real obstacle is the divine authority to the King, so heavily ingrained in Mesopotamian culture so as to make it harder to get rid of him, even if he is only a figurehead. Such a belief did not exist in such polities as Rome and the fact that the King was foreign did not assist in keeping his position strong.

So I was missing something. Thanks for pointing it out.

The Assyrian king of this period was indeed a priest-king -- something like a Sumerian ensi. There's a twist, though: in theory, according to Larsen, the actual king of the city was the god Ashur himself, and the hereditary ruler bore the title "steward of Ashur." In The Professor's words, he was a bit of a pontifex maximus, albeit one with civil power.

So it might be possible, then, to decouple the king's priestly role from his civil role. Assyria would still have a titular king -- Ashur -- but the merely human chief priest would be stripped of civil power and become subordinate to the limmum and city assembly much as the ensis ultimately became subordinate to the lugals. He would still bear the same title, and would still have great influence in the city as representative of the patron god, but would not be a "king" in any meaningful sense. The former royal family might even come to support the republic in return for its religious position being guaranteed against all rival claimants.

Could a combination of a weak and unmilitary (but pious) king, a strong limmum and an immediate military crisis be sufficient?

Jonathan Edelstein

"Who is wise? He who learns from all." -- Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1
 
So I was missing something. Thanks for pointing it out.

The Assyrian king of this period was indeed a priest-king -- something like a Sumerian ensi. There's a twist, though: in theory, according to Larsen, the actual king of the city was the god Ashur himself, and the hereditary ruler bore the title "steward of Ashur." In The Professor's words, he was a bit of a pontifex maximus, albeit one with civil power.

So it might be possible, then, to decouple the king's priestly role from his civil role. Assyria would still have a titular king -- Ashur -- but the merely human chief priest would be stripped of civil power and become subordinate to the limmum and city assembly much as the ensis ultimately became subordinate to the lugals. He would still bear the same title, and would still have great influence in the city as representative of the patron god, but would not be a "king" in any meaningful sense. The former royal family might even come to support the republic in return for its religious position being guaranteed against all rival claimants.

Could a combination of a weak and unmilitary (but pious) king, a strong limmum and an immediate military crisis be sufficient?

Jonathan Edelstein

"Who is wise? He who learns from all." -- Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1

Perhaps it could. The idea could come from a combination of larger than usual floods, military crises, and a bad King. These would encourage the Limmum to dethrone the King and instead accept the Divine authority of Ashur. Perhaps a sort of elective system rather like the Consuls could emerge where temporary kings emerge in order to make sure that if they displease Ashur, they can be easily overthrown.

Indeed, in Mesopotamia the King acted more like a viceroy than an actual God. It's much easier to manipulate the divine authority there to serve a pseudo-senate than, say, Egypt.

Also, the quote from Perkei Avot can be added into a signature so you don't have to write it every post.
 
If we want a way to change the system we could go for a Mandate of Heaven sort of belief, it's politically convenient for the administrators and various ruling classes of the kingdom to be able to say that the king/ruler has lost his divine favor and needs replacing.
 
If we want a way to change the system we could go for a Mandate of Heaven sort of belief, it's politically convenient for the administrators and various ruling classes of the kingdom to be able to say that the king/ruler has lost his divine favor and needs replacing.

The easiest way to do that is to adopt the Nomadic view of peer review. The Sassanids got it from the Parthians and perhaps it can be transferred to SPQA.
 
The easiest way to do that is to adopt the Nomadic view of peer review. The Sassanids got it from the Parthians and perhaps it can be transferred to SPQA.

Yep, and the best way to do that is to go out and conquer those who espouse it, even Rome in her efforts to assimilate Greece was in some ways assimilated itself.
 
The easiest way to do that is to adopt the Nomadic view of peer review. The Sassanids got it from the Parthians and perhaps it can be transferred to SPQA.

Or it can simply be inherited. The first few names on the Assyrian King List are called "Kings who Lived in Tents," and they may have been nomadic chieftains who ruled the proto-Assyrian tribe before the foundation of the city. Possibly the relatively greater democratic sensibilities of the city-state period were an artifact of recent nomadic origin. This makes some sense, given that social systems tended to become more autocratic during the Bronze Age, and it suggests that the city-state period would be the last window of opportunity during which republican government might become entrenched.
 
Yep, and the best way to do that is to go out and conquer those who espouse it, even Rome in her efforts to assimilate Greece was in some ways assimilated itself.

That generally works only when you conquer someone more civilized than you. If Assyria conquered a nomadic tribe, it probably wouldn't adopt that tribe's ways, any more than it did so in OTL with the nomadic peoples it subjugated. On the other hand, Assyria became a republic and was itself conquered by nomads -- say, an Amorite or Kassite dynasty -- then the barbarian conquerors might in time assimilate to republican forms. Maybe that would be a way for republican ideology to spread from the Assyrian seed and establish a persistent presence in the Bronze Age world, albeit often subverted or honored in the breach.
 
This is true, but it's basically the issue of ruling over an indigenous population with its own ways and customs, generally there's a give and take in cultural assimilation, the Romans were in some ways behind the Greeks when they conquered them, but politically they were more unified and more stable than the various Greek states as well. To some extent it depends on the conquerors too, but basically the bigger the chunk that an empire bites off the more chance it has of some counter-assimilation.
 
Perhaps it could. The idea could come from a combination of larger than usual floods, military crises, and a bad King. These would encourage the Limmum to dethrone the King and instead accept the Divine authority of Ashur. Perhaps a sort of elective system rather like the Consuls could emerge where temporary kings emerge in order to make sure that if they displease Ashur, they can be easily overthrown.

Or, as I suggested earlier, that elections could be adopted as a way for a ruling limmum (or temporary king) to stay in power longer -- rather than being replaced by lot every year, the limmum could seek approval from the people or the senate to stay in office for successive terms. Of course, given the significance of casting lots, that might carry connotations of the people overriding the will of the gods, so a ceremonial lot (with only one name on it) might continue to be cast after the election in order to show that the gods have ratified the choice.

In any event, what I'm envisioning is the king not being displaced so much as shunted aside. You know, "you're a great steward of Ashur, keep on doing that, make sure the gods bless us, but right now we've got a great big Elamite army heading our way and the crops aren't coming in like they're supposed to, and with all due respect, I can handle that a lot better than you." The former king would retain his title, but that title would no longer be synonymous with "king." In other words, something a little like the transition from the Roman Republic to the Principate, where in purely technical terms, the constitutional structure doesn't change.

Indeed, in Mesopotamia the King acted more like a viceroy than an actual God. It's much easier to manipulate the divine authority there to serve a pseudo-senate than, say, Egypt.

No, we're definitely not getting an Egyptian republic, not even during the periods of collapse. That would probably go for pretty much any place where the primary influence is Egyptian -- we're talking the Assyrian sphere only, at least for the first few centuries.

Also, the quote from Perkei Avot can be added into a signature so you don't have to write it every post.

OK, got it. I used to be active on s.h.w-i -- some people here might still remember my name -- but am new to this forum. I'll probably be a very sporadic participant but it's still good to know how things work.
 
This is true, but it's basically the issue of ruling over an indigenous population with its own ways and customs, generally there's a give and take in cultural assimilation, the Romans were in some ways behind the Greeks when they conquered them, but politically they were more unified and more stable than the various Greek states as well. To some extent it depends on the conquerors too, but basically the bigger the chunk that an empire bites off the more chance it has of some counter-assimilation.

How big a bite would a nomadic tribe be to an urban empire, though? Millions of people in the empire, and maybe a few thousands or tens of thousands in the conquered nation -- while you are correct that give and take would certainly happen, most of it would flow toward the imperial ways rather than vice versa.

Also, a great deal would depend on how tightly integrated the conquered people become within the empire. Greeks and Greek culture played a huge part in Roman civilization, and Greece was much more than just a place that Rome had subjugated and ruled. I can't quite see Assyrians looking on peripheral nomads the same way -- in OTL, they were more likely to take tribute from the nomads than to integrate them into the metropolitan culture. What we'd need are nomads that have significance to Assyria beyond simply being part of the empire, and I'm not sure how that would come about.
 
Yep, my idea wasn't to have as overrarchingly huge a change to Assyrian society in the way Rome's conquest of Greece did for Roman society, something along the lines of an almost accidental discovery by some Assyrian administrator along the lines of "Hmm... they pick their kings... not a bad idea".
 
Yep, my idea wasn't to have as overrarchingly huge a change to Assyrian society in the way Rome's conquest of Greece did for Roman society, something along the lines of an almost accidental discovery by some Assyrian administrator along the lines of "Hmm... they pick their kings... not a bad idea".

Maybe an army officer or nobleman acts as ambassador to such a tribe during the 20th c. BC, and is chosen as limmum later in life?
 
How about some sort of madness afflicts the Steward of Ashur?
I.e. he has some lucid moments, and is reasonably able to perform sacred ceremonies to Ashur - indeed madness might be an asset and be seen as communication from Ashur (with suitable interpretation of course ;)) - but he's unable to perform his civil duties.
In that case it's perfectly reasonable for the City Senate to extend the services of the Limmum and perhaps provide him with a co-equal or assistant (Limmum Aide anyone? ;) sorry :eek:).
 
How about some sort of madness afflicts the Steward of Ashur?

I.e. he has some lucid moments, and is reasonably able to perform sacred ceremonies to Ashur - indeed madness might be an asset and be seen as communication from Ashur (with suitable interpretation of course ;)) - but he's unable to perform his civil duties.

In that case it's perfectly reasonable for the City Senate to extend the services of the Limmum and perhaps provide him with a co-equal or assistant

I like this idea. And because the mad steward is going to remain steward for a lengthy time, the senate will have to make long-term arrangements for exercising civil power, which means that it will be an actual constitutional change, not just a stopgap. And it's quite likely that an insane high priest will die childless, so the senate or the limmum (whoever has the stronger hand at the time) will be able to replace him with its own candidate and make sure the new steward remains compliant.

(Limmum Aide anyone? ;) sorry :eek:).

Well, if life hands you limmums...
 
Top