The Negative Effects Of Sargon's Regime

670 Words2 Pages

Sargon’s rule had negative effects on Sumer. They varied from their government to their empire. Sargon wanted to extend the empire of Sumer to have a larger empire. He already had a city-state called Akkad. In addition, Sargon established Sumers’ first permanent army. He actually broke the peace between the Akkadians and the Sumerians in (2300 BC.). Leading to the Sumerians wanting to have their power back to rule Sumer the way it initially was. Sargon wanted all power and he was a powerful ruler but he did many different things as a ruler that affected Sumer in different ways. One thing that Sargon did that affected Sumer in a negative way was the permanent army that he established. In the text, “The Rise of Sumer” it states, “ Sargon’s soldiers defeated all the city-states of Sumer. They also conquered northern Mesopotamia, finally bringing the entire region under his rule .” This shows that Sargon was able to take over all of Sumer and Northern …show more content…

In addition, I love the fact that Sumer was able to regain its power and place as being the most advanced society during that time period. Also many people would not have thought about picking a topic as this one with so many negative effects. Lastly, Sargon would be my all time favorite person who harmed others during the Ancient times. These are the reasons why i chose my topic. Overall, Sargon’s rule had its negative effects on Sumer. From creating a permanent army to using the tax money to pay the warriors. Sargon may have not been the nicest and kindest ruler but, he was in fact the reason that Sumer was able to protect themselves after his empire fell. Sargon just wanted power and he got what he wanted but it wasn’t the right way, which led to the negative effects. So, do you think his rule had a positive or negative effect on Sumer

Open Document