Sargon of Akkad - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Rome, Greece, Egypt & other ancient history (c 4000 BCE - 476 CE) and pre-history.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By yiostheoy
#14693458
Nobody has written about Sargon of Akkad. I did a search and there is nothing on this website. How unjust to Sargon. So I will tell his story.

Chronological data from outlying settlements in Ebla, Tell Brak, Nippur, Susa, and Tell Leilan fix the Akkadian dynasty from 2270 to 2083 BCE. Sargon rules from 2270 to 2215. No one has yet found Akkad but it is presumed to be somewhere around modern day Baghdad on one of the two rivers, the Tigris or Euphrates.

There is an Assyrian tradition that Sargon tells the story of his birth as being illegitimately to a priestess, and she put him into a coffin-like basket, and set him on the river to float away. The story had credence since we know Catholic nuns disposed of their own childbirths during Medieval times as well, so it is not unthinkable. The basket was fished out of the river by a civil servant who raised Sargon as his son and gardener. From that point with easy access to the local king, Sargon usurped the crown and renamed himself with a pretentious accolade. Whether it is common for ancient girls to dispose of their childbirths this way, or whether the story of Moses is a plagiarism of it, we cannot know.

Sargon is remarkable because he was the first warlord king to conquer other kingdoms around him in Mesopotamia forming the first empire, from the modern Persian Gulf to the modern Mediterranean Sea. We will never know the real name that Akki the water drawer gave him because the ancient king list does not tell us. "Sargon" simply means "true king" which he was not -- he was an usurper.

Sargon claims that his mother was "Entu" the high priestess, however we don't really know that either. It may or may not be true. After he became king he may have wanted to secretly know who she was so he set out to find out.

The gods of his time were Enlil the "lord of the wind" and Inanna the "lady of the sky". Thus in Sargon's days gods had consorts. It was not logical for gods to exist alone. Only Medieval European philosophy would later create a One True God for the west who existed alone, to be adopted by the Catholic popes and engraved upon the minds of modern mankind. Anciently such a god did not exist.

Sargon was a strong king for over 50 years and presumably a great warlord. His warriors numbered 5,400 -- roughly 10 Roman cohorts or 54 centuries -- about half the size of a legion. This corresponds to a modern Army infantry brigade (or Marine regiment).

In his old age all the lands revolted against him and they besieged him at Akkad, but he went forth to battle and destroyed their vast army.

Sargon predates even Hammurabi, who was a king who influences us even to this day with his codified laws.

Sargon himself was thus the first creator of an empire -- a kingdom of kings. And Sargon would have been the first king of kings, a title coveted later by Persians, Greeks, and Romans. He influenced us by showing the Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Spanish, British, and French that empires were possible and profitable.

I presume everyone has heard of Sargon. I remember learning his name/pseudonym in high school world history and again in NROTC military history.

If you have heard, what else have you heard? Is there anything that I left out?
User avatar
By Albert
#14693463
I've heard of him but nothing much in detail.

I would also like to add. Catholic nuns won't be able to dispose of their firstborn because they supposed to practice celibacy.

Also mediaeval European philosophy did not create concept of one god. That monotheism was inherited from Judaism. That later was passed on to Christianity and Islam.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14693578
Nobody has written about Sargon of Akkad. I did a search and there is nothing on this website. How unjust to Sargon. So I will tell his story.

I believe I mentioned him in passing a couple of years back. Oxymoron asked who the first person was who had a personal biography written about them, and I suggested that it was Sargon the Great. Before Sargon, an individual's personal life history was considered to be unimportant - commoners were ten-a-penny and pretty much interchangeable, and kings inherited their positions as the stewards of the gods whose laws they were duty-bound to uphold, so the personal character and life history of an individual king was completely unimportant, and focusing on it would have actually detracted from their status as the stewards of the gods. Sargon was something new in human history - a single individual who rose from obscure origins to become the master of the known world. This created a conundrum for the peoples of the time - how could such a thing have happened? Everybody knew what made the kings special - they were semi-divine stewards of the gods, born for the role. What made Sargon special? It must have been something personal to him. Perhaps minutely examining his life history might give them a clue.... And all of a sudden, we have the concept of a personal biography....
By yiostheoy
#14693587
Potemkin wrote:I believe I mentioned him in passing a couple of years back. Oxymoron asked who the first person was who had a personal biography written about them, and I suggested that it was Sargon the Great. Before Sargon, an individual's personal life history was considered to be unimportant - commoners were ten-a-penny and pretty much interchangeable, and kings inherited their positions as the stewards of the gods whose laws they were duty-bound to uphold, so the personal character and life history of an individual king was completely unimportant, and focusing on it would have actually detracted from their status as the stewards of the gods. Sargon was something new in human history - a single individual who rose from obscure origins to become the master of the known world. This created a conundrum for the peoples of the time - how could such a thing have happened? Everybody knew what made the kings special - they were semi-divine stewards of the gods, born for the role. What made Sargon special? It must have been something personal to him. Perhaps minutely examining his life history might give them a clue.... And all of a sudden, we have the concept of a personal biography....

Fascinating analysis. What inspired you to conceive it? or did you read it somewhere or from some ancient history class?

It seems Sargon was Machiavellian as well as Nietzschean -- a cold hearted person probably from growing up without true parents.

Somehow he became a very great general however. Supposedly he was gardener for the civil servant foster father and then cup bearer for the king. Perhaps he served as an officer in the army in between? He had to get generalship experience from somewhere. Murderers do not necessarily make very good generals.

So as you say, he did have something special, which he chose to shroud in myth about himself.

Cupbearer to the king suggests to me an exemplary and trusted soldier. One day he must have betrayed that trust.

He fits the profile of Machiavelli's Prince. Perhaps his specialty was ruthlessness and unquenchable lust for power? Reminds me of Adolf.
By yiostheoy
#14693589
Albert wrote:I've heard of him but nothing much in detail.

I would also like to add. Catholic nuns won't be able to dispose of their firstborn because they supposed to practice celibacy.

Also mediaeval European philosophy did not create concept of one god. That monotheism was inherited from Judaism. That later was passed on to Christianity and Islam.

Albert you have led a very sheltered life and you have succumbed to a ton of brainwashing my friend.

If you will travel to Europe and visit any number of the great cathedrals, there are vast collections of bones of newly born infants that the nuns gave up as their children on display that you can see. It is a carefully guarded and revered Catholic secret.

And if you want to know how the Christian God has morphed into the Trinity, you need to read Eusebius' book "History Of The Church". He was at the Council of Nicaea when that trinity myth was first created.
By anasawad
#14693591
I find it funny in the history of the middle east and central Asia that there were many great nations and empires and even many great kings and leaders.
But for some reason almost everytime, Persians come in, destroy them and take over.
Like damn we were badass as hell back then.
LOL.


BTW, Monotheism was first started in Khorasan which is a region of Persia by Zoroaster.

The king of kings came latter on after hem. as the Akkadian empire never used the title.

There were many many more deities than just 2 in the region at the time.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14693597
Fascinating analysis. What inspired you to conceive it? or did you read it somewhere or from some ancient history class?

I thought about Oxy's question, and then it suddenly seemed obvious to me - Sargon's was the first recorded life story known to me, and I asked myself why this would be the case. Then it came to me....

It seems Sargon was Machiavellian as well as Nietzschean -- a cold hearted person probably from growing up without true parents.

Remarkable individuals tend to be misfits as children. It means that, growing up, they don't quite fit into mainstream society, and can therefore view it in a detached, objective manner while at the same time being sufficiently emotionally detached from it to be ruthless and cold-hearted enough to seize power. It's probably no accident that some of the greatest national leaders in history - Napoleon, Stalin, even Hitler - came from the fringes of that nation (Corsica to France, Georgia to Russia, Austria to Germany).

Somehow he became a very great general however. Supposedly he was gardener for the civil servant foster father and then cup bearer for the king. Perhaps he served as an officer in the army in between? He had to get generalship experience from somewhere. Murderers do not necessarily make very good generals.

I'm inclined to agree. He also had a strong understanding of the importance of trade and commerce rather than just winning martial glory for himself. If you look at the strategy by which Sargon pieced together his empire, it becomes obvious what he was doing - he was capturing trade routes. Every empire-builder since then has followed his example.

So as you say, he did have something special, which he chose to shroud in myth about himself.

Indeed. He was the first "man of destiny".

Cupbearer to the king suggests to me an exemplary and trusted soldier. One day he must have betrayed that trust.

Loyalty is its own reward, but being disloyal at the right moment can be even more rewarding.... :)
He fits the profile of Machiavelli's Prince. Perhaps his specialty was ruthlessness and unquenchable lust for power? Reminds me of Adolf.

Hitler was merely one of the most recent warlords who followed in Sargon of Akkad's footsteps. And he was far less successful than Sargon.
By yiostheoy
#14693822
Potemkin wrote:I thought about Oxy's question, and then it suddenly seemed obvious to me - Sargon's was the first recorded life story known to me, and I asked myself why this would be the case. Then it came to me....


Remarkable individuals tend to be misfits as children. It means that, growing up, they don't quite fit into mainstream society, and can therefore view it in a detached, objective manner while at the same time being sufficiently emotionally detached from it to be ruthless and cold-hearted enough to seize power. It's probably no accident that some of the greatest national leaders in history - Napoleon, Stalin, even Hitler - came from the fringes of that nation (Corsica to France, Georgia to Russia, Austria to Germany).


I'm inclined to agree. He also had a strong understanding of the importance of trade and commerce rather than just winning martial glory for himself. If you look at the strategy by which Sargon pieced together his empire, it becomes obvious what he was doing - he was capturing trade routes. Every empire-builder since then has followed his example.


Indeed. He was the first "man of destiny".


Loyalty is its own reward, but being disloyal at the right moment can be even more rewarding.... :)

Hitler was merely one of the most recent warlords who followed in Sargon of Akkad's footsteps. And he was far less successful than Sargon.

P, I completely agree with your view of Sargon. That's why I wrote this thread piece.

His is the first name in history that we meet, at least of actual persons.

However the noted British historian J.M. Roberts in his book "History Of The World" (Penguin Books, London, 2002) he notes him as second on Page 58.

As first, on Page 52 he gives credit for first to Gilgamesh, a legendary person whom Roberts believes was real. I must disagree however. We have very little proof other than a story -- an epic.

This reminds me of the ancient Greek myth about Jason And The Argonauts. Was Jason real? Maybe and maybe not. Was Heracles real? Maybe and maybe not either.

I agree with you about Sargon however. He is the first man that we can have no doubt is really the first one named in history.

Whoever your friend is/was who wanted to know from you who is the first named person in history -- your friend must be an insightful person to cut through history that way. When I was reading Roberts I wondered the same thing. Roberts thinks it is Gilgamesh. I believe it is Sargon.

The Egyptian king lists go back into prehistory way before then, but I suspect those are mythologies like those of the Greek heroes as well. But those are just names. We don't really know anything about any of them except for Menes -- the legendary unite-er of upper (southern) and lower (northern) Egypt.
By yiostheoy
#14693938
anasawad wrote:I find it funny in the history of the middle east and central Asia that there were many great nations and empires and even many great kings and leaders.
But for some reason almost everytime, Persians come in, destroy them and take over.
Like damn we were badass as hell back then.
LOL...

Persia developed as a civilization 2 thousand years AFTER Sargon however, and then reached their peak of power 24 centuries ago.

The ordering was roughly something like this:

- first Sargon in Akkad

- then the Assyrians

- then the Babylonians

- then the Egyptians

- then the Hebrews

- then the Cretans and Greeks

- then the Persians

- then the Greeks again

- then the Indians on their own subcontinent

- then the Romans

- then the Byzantines

- then the Arab conquests

- then the Venetians

- then the Spanish

- then the English

- then the French

- then the English again

- then the Americans and the Japanese

- then the Germans and Austrians and Italians

- then the Russians

- then the Americans again

- then the Chinese with American help

- then the Israelis in their little corner of the world which is the Hebrews again after 35 centuries

- then India and Pakistan again (these are the same people only split by religion from the Arab conquest)

So take your pick in history. Nobody ever stayed a bad ass for very long.
Last edited by yiostheoy on 21 Jun 2016 23:16, edited 2 times in total.
By anasawad
#14693940
The Aryan civilization existed for 5000 years in Persia.
our conquest was mostly east and south headed.
And we stayed as an empire the longest.
By yiostheoy
#14693944
anasawad wrote:The Aryan civilization existed for 5000 years in Persia.
our conquest was mostly east and south headed.
And we stayed as an empire the longest.

You should take a tour of Greece and listen to the professional tour guides tell the story of Persia.

Persia decides to invade Europe.

First country, first battle, in Greece, Persia gets their clock cleaned for them.

10 years later, still first country, second battle, in Greece, Persia is practically destroyed on the battlefield.

Then along comes Alexander The Great -- Persia is conquered. Persia barely lasted 400 years as an empire.
By anasawad
#14693957
You obviously haven't been reading it right because Persian empire stood for over 2000 years while changing dynasties and the civilization it self for over 5000 years.
It has been invaded 3 times only and wasn't conquered.
All the 3 times were in a time where a dynasty collapsed which lead the major tribal armies to fall back to their cities and thus the Persian army disbanded.
i.e no one but the small army of the dynasty defended.
And one of those 3 times was with Islam when the tribes who's their armies and resources are all what matters and whom builds the empire
started converting to Islam so they dropped support for ruling dynasty.

Greek-Persian wars lasted for several 100s of years. No one achieved victory only with in the end Greece and the Roman empire in general collapsed while the Persian empire kept on going.
Alexander managed to invade Persia when the ruling dynasty collapsed yet he was not able to occupy or annex anything.
He didn't even have the ability to control the Arabs.
For the 2 invasions of Greece, the overall invasions did fail to annex the land however did annex some. While the Greek invasion didn't annex anything nor could they to begin with. And not to forget that while the Greeks couldn't get close to touching the capital cities of the tribes whom actually rule the empire.
Greece it self had many of its cities burned to the ground in the Persian invasions.
No one won but they diffidently didn't do the better.
#14693966
I think people are leaving out the early Egyptians, both as a civilisation before Sargon, and with well recognised individuals, ie the pharaohs. I don't think there's any serious doubt of the existence of Sneferu, and he was about 300 years before Sargon. Whether earlier pharaohs are universally accepted, I don't know.
User avatar
By Red_Army
#14693967
It seems like you have a little too much personally invested in how other people see the success/failure of a thousands of years old empire, anasawad.

I notice a lot of justifying and minimizing (the Persian empire wasn't at its strongest - i.e. it wasn't fair!). First of all nothing is ever fair and the best time to invade/conquer anything is when they are weak. Inability to maintain internal stability is a weakness that should be blamed on the Persian empire not would-be conquerors. The crux of this is that you feel personally attacked when someone mentions a Persian defeat - you shouldn't. No one here is trying to say Persia was a land of pussies or that you are a pussy by association, so calm down bud!
By Decky
#14693969
I'm not sure about that. Alexander the Great enjoyed man love. That means the Persians were less manly than someone who literally had sex with men.
By yiostheoy
#14693972
Decky wrote:I'm not sure about that. Alexander the Great enjoyed man love. That means the Persians were less manly than someone who literally had sex with men.

In ancient times everybody was bisexual.

Moses in 1450 BCE was the first to try to reverse that trend among the Hebrews.

It did not become a popular crusade until Christianity was adopted by Constantine in Rome in 325 AD.
Last edited by yiostheoy on 22 Jun 2016 00:09, edited 1 time in total.
By yiostheoy
#14693976
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:I think people are leaving out the early Egyptians, both as a civilisation before Sargon, and with well recognised individuals, ie the pharaohs. I don't think there's any serious doubt of the existence of Sneferu, and he was about 300 years before Sargon. Whether earlier pharaohs are universally accepted, I don't know.

It's really hard to tell now, after 55 centuries, how much of Egyptian lore is fact versus fiction.

No doubt some king named Menes in 3535 BCE united upper (southern) and lower (northern) Egypt.

But I would hardly call that an empire.

Sargon was the first to create an empire.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]