because he was dead!
Akkadian Empire under Sargon united Mesopotamia under his singular rule. His Empire was preceded by the Sumerian civilization of city-states that had existed prior to, during, and after his rule from the early 3rd millennium BCE
Sargon of Akkad, who reigned in the 24th to 23rd century BCE, is known for conquering the city of Kish, which was one of the prominent city-states in ancient Mesopotamia. This conquest marked the beginning of his expansionist campaigns, leading to the establishment of the Akkadian Empire. Sargon's military successes allowed him to unify various Sumerian city-states under his rule.
weak empire Mesopotamia had a weak empireReality:The fact that city-states are mentioned makes it plain that there was no empire - city-states are what they say - independent states based on a city, and so could not be an 'empire' which connotes centralised rule. And it was this independent status which led them to fighting between themselves. Mesopotamian civilisation was dependent on land and water. Disputed over them drove wars of possession.
the asyrians replaced the sumerian rule. i hope i helped :) (( what a mouth full! sumerians and asyrians))
ethenian
the asyrians
The main difference between the Sumerians and Akkadians lies in their language and cultural identity. The Sumerians spoke a language isolate, known as Sumerian, and are credited with creating one of the earliest known civilizations in Mesopotamia, characterized by city-states like Ur and Uruk. In contrast, the Akkadians spoke a Semitic language and emerged later, unifying Sumerian city-states under the rule of Sargon of Akkad around 2334 BCE. This led to the establishment of the Akkadian Empire, which combined Sumerian and Akkadian cultures while promoting the Akkadian language.
weak empire Mesopotamia had a weak empireReality:The fact that city-states are mentioned makes it plain that there was no empire - city-states are what they say - independent states based on a city, and so could not be an 'empire' which connotes centralised rule. And it was this independent status which led them to fighting between themselves. Mesopotamian civilisation was dependent on land and water. Disputed over them drove wars of possession.
Sumerian city-states were considered theocracies because their governments were closely intertwined with religion, where priests and priestesses held significant power and authority. The rulers were often seen as representatives of the gods or even as divine themselves, which legitimized their rule. This fusion of religious and political authority meant that laws, governance, and societal norms were heavily influenced by religious beliefs and practices. Consequently, the city's prosperity and well-being were thought to depend on the favor of the gods, further reinforcing the theocratic structure.
The Gods
weak empire Mesopotamia had a weak empireReality:The fact that city-states are mentioned makes it plain that there was no empire - city-states are what they say - independent states based on a city, and so could not be an 'empire' which connotes centralised rule. And it was this independent status which led them to fighting between themselves. Mesopotamian civilisation was dependent on land and water. Disputed over them drove wars of possession.
The Greek city-states in Asia Minor revolted against Persian rule.