Greatest Mesopotamian Dynasty

This one's purely for interests sake. I've tried to give equal weighting for the lengthy time period covered.

My preference goes with the Ur III and Old Babylonian, yes that sounds very traditional, but the former represents the pinnacle of the pure Sumerian cultural and linguistic practice. The latter marks the start of the period when Akkadian became the international language of the ancient Near-East - oh, what we owe that Semitic tongue!

Anybody have any thoughts about what cultural and historical traits these and other the periods brought to the Old World? Personally, I view the enitre area that was influnced by the Sumero-Akkadians/Babylo-Assyrians (whatever you label them) as being an independent strand of civil progression, completely unrelated to the later Mediterranean sphere of alphabet users - not forgetting the importance of Aramaean in later times, mind you.

Assyria, with their wide span of conquests and efficient military machine I find them very impressive.

Knowing what I know about each of these "dynasties", I felt that the one which was the "greatest" was the Third Dynasty of Ur.  Each dynasty can be credited with something:

Dynasty of Akkad:  First true imperial system.  Established Akkadian as a written language.

Dynasty of Larsa:  Eventually unified lower Babylonia.

First Dynasty of Babylonia:  Reunified Babylonia.  Code of Hammurabi.

Amorite Dynasty of Mari:  Unified most of upper Mesopotamia.  Very large palace of Zimrilim.

Second (Kassite) Dynasty of Babylonia:  Longest ruling Babylonian dynasty.  Reunified Babylonia. 

House of Ashur-rabi/Sargon Dynasty of Assyria:  Unified the Middle East.  Greatest development of imperial system before Persia.  First museum.

However, most of their accomplishments were mainly political in nature. 

The Third Dynasty of Ur brought southern Mesopotamia to its most organized form as a virtual compact nation-state (second to Egypt).  Virtually all aspects of public life (commerce, agriculture, etc.) was organized into bureacracies.  In monumental architecture, the ziggurat comes into the fore (although it may have originated in Elam).  In ideology, it established that "kingship came down from on high", that kingship was the pinnacle of worldly organization and was of divine origin.  Most of the literature of the Sumerian language originated during the time of the rule of this dynasty. 

Until the reign of Ashurnasirpal, the Assyrians were essentially expanding their borders against potential threats to their nation, but then during the reign of Ashurnasirpal when their borders had expanded to their natural frontiers (i.e. the Euphrates as their western and southwestern border, the Babylonian frontier to the south, the Zagros Mts to their east, and the Taurus Mts to their north), the Assyrians then became purely militaristic, expanding for the pure sake of expanding with the main purpose to extract tribute from new areas of exploitation.

Not to the extent of the Assyrians.  For them, their inspiration was Sargon of Akkad himself.  They considered him as both an ancestor and as one to be imitated. 

The early Sumerian rulers created hegemonies over other cities but they not necessarily through wars.  There is some evidence that there was a early confederation of cities bonded for mutual economic advantage as well as for mutual protection.  The most powerful of these cities was essentially the leader, responsible for the organization of the "league" resources to repell attacks from outside enemies.   The center of this league seemed to have been Nippur, but the city of Kish seemed to have begun its hegemony as the "protector city" in this way.  Other hegemonies were created by the unification of royal families which grew powerful enough to lead other city-states, such as that between Ur and Uruk. 

The idea of "conquest" seemed to have been an exception to the rule.  Hegemony established in this fashion seemed to have occurred when one city conquered another because they were a threat to their economic well-being.  The clearest example of this were the generational wars between Lagash and Umma for a piece of land important to them both called the Gu-edinna.  When the king of Lagash conquered the city of Umma he then proceeded to conquer other parts of Sumer, but because he could not maintain his dominance, his "empire" was reduced before his death, back to where it was before his conquests.  It goes without saying that Lagash never made it into the "canon" of cities which dominated Sumer, the so-called "Sumerian Kinglist".

In regards to Hammurabi, for starters he did not conquer the entire length of Mesopotamia.  We know that he conquered to Mari and perhaps to Assyria, but the greater part of northern Mesopotamia remains unmentioned in extant inscriptions.  We do not read of the organization of northern Mesopotamia during Hammurabi's time (or after) just as we do during the time of Assyrian and Marian domination just prior to his conquest.

As for his motives for his conquests, it becomes quite clear that in his own region, it was either to conquer or be conquered.  He had to contend with the expanding power of Larsa which had already conquered Isin, in the south, as well as with Eshnunna in the northeast.  His early wars, were therefore defensive wars; pre-emptive wars for survival.  His motives for conquering Mari, a one-time ally, seemed related to gaining possession of the trade routes to the Mediterranean, i.e. economic motives.

These are different from the later militaristic mindset of the Assyrian kings.  Inscription after inscription, boast of the terrible deeds of an Assurnasirpal dedicated to their gods. 

They were definitely not warbands!!!  According to the images of the Standard of Ur and the Stele of the Vultures, we know that the Sumerians organized themselves into phallanxes protected by large shields and bronze helmets and heavy cloaks studded with metal, which formed six files of 11 men each tightly supported by four-wheeled chariots moved by onagers, which were used to smash into the enemy's formation, its drivers armed with javelins and spears.  Each phallanx column was thus about 66 men.  According to a Lagash*te account the king could call up a conscripted army of about 1,000 infantry (i.e. 15 phallanxes) and 20 chariots.

The evidence points to a conscripted army.  Because the king was originally the appointed war-leader, his function as supreme commander remained intact.  This would imply that around the king was a core royal guard which in term implied some form of compensation which the existing inscriptions do not document.

Outside of the city-levy, was the League army.  Apparently in times of unity, the "Kiengir troops" were housed in any of the member cities of the Kiengir (Sumerian) League.  Their maintenance was apparently through League funds.