What kind of a man was Sargon of Akkad? - Historum

**Salah** · April 20th, 2010, 03:15 PM

Another poster recently mentioned that he was reading about Sargon of Akkad in a book entitled: Monsters: History's most evil men and women.

Admittedly, I know very little about Sargon, but from what I do know I fail to see how he could be considered a candidate for one of history's most evil people.

So what do we know about Sargon of Akkad - not as the conqueror of one of history's first empires - but as a man? Was he cruel or greedy, hence his being included in a book on historical "monsters"?

**Zeno** · April 20th, 2010, 04:17 PM

I think it's safe to say he was ambitious.

**Sargon of Akkad** · April 21st, 2010, 08:13 AM

I don't really think we actually know enough about Sargon to really call him one of 'history's most evil people'.

When compared to Timur the Lame, Vlad Tepes, practically any Assyrian king, and good old Adolf, he really seems to have been quite small-scale and placid.

Most of what I've read basically involves Sargon conquering stuff. Kazalla is the only place that I've heard of that he actually commits a massacre of some kind, and even then we don't know what King Kashtubila did to warrant it. One would assume that King Kashtubila was probably a hereditary king, and Sargon's non-royal lineage would have made him, not to be too blunt, a laughing stock among those who claimed divine descent. It would seem that Kazalla was a fairly powerful city and, according to My God's very short article on the city, warred against Sargon. I would presume that it was too powerful or stubborn to leave standing (see Carthage and the Romans).

His treatment of Sumer and it's indigenous religion was good, and none of the cities were simply razed as an example to others (see Corinth and the Romans).

As a man, I would surmise that he would have been very driven because of his low birth. An orphan raised by a palace gardener? Not exactly the background I would have envisaged for the world's first emperor and undefeated general, and it probably contributed to why he aspired for something greater.

**Salah** · April 21st, 2010, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sargon of Akkad

I don't really think we actually know enough about Sargon to really call him one of 'history's most evil people'.

When compared to Timur the Lame, Vlad Tepes, practically any Assyrian king, and good old Adolf, he really seems to have been quite small-scale and placid.

Most of what I've read basically involves Sargon conquering stuff. Kazalla is the only place that I've heard of that he actually commits a massacre of some kind, and even then we don't know what King Kashtubila did to warrant it. One would assume that King Kashtubila was probably a hereditary king, and Sargon's non-royal lineage would have made him, not to be too blunt, a laughing stock among those who claimed divine descent. It would seem that Kazalla was a fairly powerful city and, according to My God's very short article on the city, warred against Sargon. I would presume that it was too powerful or stubborn to leave standing (see Carthage and the Romans).

His treatment of Sumer and it's indigenous religion was good, and none of the cities were simply razed as an example to others (see Corinth and the Romans).

As a man, I would surmise that he would have been very driven because of his low birth. An orphan raised by a palace gardener? Not exactly the background I would have envisaged for the world's first emperor and undefeated general, and it probably contributed to why he aspired for something greater.

A very good, helpful post. I had a feeling you'd make an appearance on this thread

corrocamino · April 21st, 2010, 01:14 PM

It's called autobiography, I think....

**Sargon of Akkad** · April 21st, 2010, 01:16 PM

Well, I don't like to disappoint!

What was the general rationale for this book claiming him as being so evil? I didn't realise Sargon was such a controversial figure!

**Salah** · April 21st, 2010, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sargon of Akkad

What was the general rationale for this book claiming him as being so evil? I didn't realise Sargon was such a controversial figure!

Neither did I! Chookie mentioned it in the "What Are You Reading?" thread.

**Sargon of Akkad** · April 21st, 2010, 01:46 PM

Well I hope he turns up and lets us know just what the beef is!

**Chookie** · April 22nd, 2010, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sargon of Akkad

Well I hope he turns up and lets us know just what the beef is!

I don't actually think there is a beef. The format of the book has little vignettes scattered through it and when I posted I had just started reading it. The reference to Sargon was a sort of sub-set of the entry for Nebuchabezzar (who wasn't exactly contempoaneous). I'm posting the entirety of the reference to Sargon and I can't, for the life of me, see any reason for calling him a monster.

Quote:

“Sargon of Akkad: Mesopotamia's first great conqueror.

Mesopotamia produced the first great conqueror known to history: Sargon I of Akkad (c. 2334 – 2279 BC). The illegitimate son of a priestess, Sargon – who hailed from the city of Agade in the Akkad region of northern Mesopotamia – served as a cupbearer at the royal court of King Ur-Zababa of Kish. After the king grew jealous and attempted to have him killed, Sargon overthrew Ur-Zababa and launched his own conquest of Mesopotamia.

At this time, Mesopotamia was dominated by a string of independent city-states, but, one by one, they fell to Sargon as he exerted authority over all of southern Mesopotamia – the region known as Sumer. In the process, he destroyed the previously great city of Uruk and placed it's ruler, Lugalzagesi in a wooden collar, leading him through the streets of Agade in humiliation.

Further victories followed. After one triumph, Sargon totally levelled the city of Kazalla, so that “the birds could not find a place to perch away from the ground”. He eventually brought all of Sumer under his sway, arriving finally at the Persian Gulf where he is reputed to have bathed and cleansed his weapons in the sea to symbolise the success of his conquest.

Later. Sargon led his forces west, conquering lands across the Fertile Crescent and reaching as far as Syria and eastern Asia Minor on the Mediterranean. Little wonder that one chronicler described him as having “neither rival nor equal.

After his death, much of the Akkadian empire rose in revolt, but his sons were able to re-establish control over the bulk of his territories, later descendants securing further conquests and one, Naram-Sin (who reigned c 2254 – 2218BC), even declaring himself “King of the Four Quarters, King of the Universe”.

Having spent some time unsuccessfully trawling the net for more information on his award of the term "Monster", I don't agree. Sure, he was ruthless and cold-blooded, but that's part of the job description for conquerors. In fact, I think that he seems to have been remarkably merciful.

Gaius · May 6th, 2010, 10:57 AM

What did Sargon do besides unite some of the city-states? I was under the impression that was all he did (although being one of history's first conquerors is pretty nice!), and he didn't keep his territories for too long either.

Hammurabi did it on a much bigger scale after him, but we don't consider him one of the most evil people in history. I would be interested to see what the author of that book was projecting about Sargon that would make him so evil.