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
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