Ancient Near Eastern forms of monarchy getting oversimplified every freakin' time: 
No one:
Absolutely no one:
That One Student: "Oh, people back then thought all of the kings were living gods so they had UNLIMITED POWER!"
Me: Sigh. Let's start back at the beginning...
Absolutely no one:
That One Student: "Oh, people back then thought all of the kings were living gods so they had UNLIMITED POWER!"
Me: Sigh. Let's start back at the beginning...
Even including Egypt, most ANE kings did not have pretensions of divinity. Especially - say it with me now -
👏 Achaemenid👏 Great👏 Kings👏 Weren't 👏Living 👏Gods. 👏
And yes, I literally have my in-person classes chant that back to me to make the point.
👏 Achaemenid👏 Great👏 Kings👏 Weren't 👏Living 👏Gods. 👏
And yes, I literally have my in-person classes chant that back to me to make the point.
Moreover, legitimacy is more complex than declaring that you either 1) a god, or 2) chosen by the gods!
You have to convince somebody of that, which brings us right back to "complex systems of generating royal legitimacy through judicial, religious and military activity..."
You have to convince somebody of that, which brings us right back to "complex systems of generating royal legitimacy through judicial, religious and military activity..."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
