Skip to main content
5 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 3 at 21:09 comment added William Walker III No disagreement with either propopsition, I'm just raising the question of whether this is 'your purpose is to protect the people' vs. 'protecting the people lets you get more economic productivity out of them' which would be an altogether different proposed raison d'etat. I can see your line of thought here, and if the reader agrees - you've got the lock on first recorded, for sure.
Jul 3 at 20:41 comment added Simon Crase @WilliamWalkerIII In The Prince, Machiavelli advises protecting the ordinary citizens from the powerful, partly because the people just want to be left alone and not oppressed, whereas the nobles want a lot more. Moreover the people are a useful resource if one of the nobles attempts a coup. For example, the Pazzi conspiracy collapsed when the Florentine mob sided with the Medici. So protecting the weak may arisen from realpolitik, before being projected onto the Deity.
Jul 3 at 20:34 comment added Simon Crase @WilliamWalkerIII The Babylonian king was appointed by Bel Marduk,, the God of the City. He could be replaced if the Deity was displeased, e.g. the accession of Enlin-Bani. I imagine that a failure to fulfil his obligations to the citizenry could be grounds for divine displeasure.
Jul 3 at 12:36 comment added William Walker III I don't think I agree with the idea that Hammurabi was free of the 'divine right of kings' thinking, given the prologue to the Code - but it's an interesting way to read it.
Jul 3 at 4:41 history answered Simon Crase CC BY-SA 4.0