“The two Sargons may have
had very different backgrounds, but they both
came
to the throne violently, one through a coup and the other by military conquest.
Once each man settled into his new role as king, he also embarked
on
impressive building projects to legitimize his rule”.
What Did Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria Have in
Common?
Although they were unrelated, two of the greatest
leaders of the ancient Near East were named Sargon. Both rulers were builders,
warriors, and cultural influencers.
Published: Jul 31, 2025 written by Jared Krebsbach, PhD History
Krebsbach, Jared. "What Did Sargon of Akkad and
Sargon of Assyria Have in Common?" TheCollector.com, July 31, 2025, https://www.thecollector.com/jared-krebsbach/
Sargon of Akkad (ruled c. 2334-2279 BCE) and Sargon II
of Assyria (ruled 721-705 BCE) were two of the greatest rulers in ancient Near
Eastern history.
Damien
Mackey’s comment:
The dates for Sargon of Akkad as given here are about 400 years too large. He,
as Naram-Sin, was a contemporary of Abram in late Chalcolithic En-geddi;
Ghassul IV; Gerzean; and Naqada (Egypt). See e.g. my article:
Dr.
W.F. Albright’s game-changing chronological shift
(5) Dr. W.F.
Albright's game-changing chronological shift
Jared Krebsbach continues:
Despite sharing the same name, the two men were from
different dynasties and lived more than 1,500 years and hundreds of miles
apart. With that said, both kings left an indelible mark on the ancient world
through numerous military campaigns, ambitious building projects, and efforts
that changed Near Eastern culture. When several kings in the same culture have
the same name, it is historical tradition to name the one with the greatest
accomplishments “the Great.” Sargon of Akkad is sometimes referred to as “the
Great,” but a compelling case can be made for Sargon of Assyria’s greatness.
They Were Young Men Destined to Rule
Although the primary source documents about the early
lives of both Sargons are scant, there is enough to piece together a general
outline.
An Akkadian language text mentions Sargon of Akkad’s
birthplace as along the Euphrates River near the important city of Kish.
Perhaps the most interesting detail of the text states: “My mother was a high priestess, my father I knew
not.” Definitely an inauspicious beginning for a man who would later rule most
of Mesopotamia.
Damien
Mackey’s comment:
But see my greatly revised ancient geography:
“The
Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia
(5) “The Sumerian
Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia
Jared Krebsbach continues:
Sargon’s less than noble origins is also probably why
he took the name that he did, which means “the legitimate king.” The obvious question then
is, how did this man from a questionable background become king of an empire?
The answer to that question can be found in another Akkadian cuneiform text
dated to the time of Sargon.
….
According to the text, Sargon overthrew King
Lugalzagesi (ruled c. late 2300s BCE) of the Uruk Dynasty. At the time,
Mesopotamia consisted of several city-states, with most of the political power
and cultural influence centered in the Sumerian dominated south [sic]. The
background of the battle is not related in the text, only the aftermath.
“Sargon, king of Agade, overseer of Ishtar, king of
Kish, anointed priest of Anu, king of the country, great ensi of Enlil; he
defeated Uruk and tore down its wall; in the battle with the inhabitants of
Uruk he was victorious. Lugalzaggisi, king of Uruk, he captured in (this)
battle, he brought him in a (dog) collar to the gate of Enlil. Sargon, king of
Agade, was victorious in the battle with the inhabitants of Ur, the(ir) town he
defeated and tore down its wall.”
How Sargon became the commander of what was likely a
large and well-trained and equipped army remains a mystery. The Sumerian
King List adds few details, so one must assume that Sargon was quite
charismatic, intelligent, and could also probably handle weapons quite well.
Sargon of Akkad likely learned his knowledge of ancient warfare hands-on in the
military. The victory gave Sargon dominion over southern Mesopotamian and
allowed him to start a new political dynasty.
Unlike Sargon of Akkad, Sargon II of Assyria was born
into royalty. Sargon of Assyria was actually the second Assyrian king named
Sargon. The first Sargon ruled in the late third millennium BCE, and little is
known about him. [???] Therefore, Sargon II will be referred to here as “Sargon
of Assyria” as he was the greater of the two Assyrian Sargons and to
differentiate him from Sargon of Akkad. Sargon of Assyria was one of the sons
of King Tiglath-Pileser III (ruled 744-727 BCE), and based on what is known about
the family, he was probably born in the royal palace in Kalhu/Nimrud.
Modern historians believe that Sargon usurped the
royal throne from his brother, Shalmaneser V (ruled 726-722 BC), and started a
new dynasty, although the details are unclear.
Damien
Mackey’s comment:
Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser were one and the same:
Book
of Tobit a guide to neo-Assyrian succession
(5) “The Sumerian
Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia
Jared Krebsbach continues:
The two Sargons may have had very different
backgrounds, but they both came to the throne violently, one through a coup and
the other by military conquest. Once each man settled into his new role as
king, he also embarked on impressive building projects to legitimize his rule.
They Built Cities
Perhaps one of the more unique aspects that both
Sargons shared was their construction of entirely new capital cities. There are
a number of reasons why the Sargons built these new cities, with the most
important and obvious being to legitimize their rules. Because Sargon of Akkad
was not of the royalty and Sargon of Assyria was a usurper, a large
construction project was vital.
The construction of the new project would placate the
gods and keep the people busy, not thinking of how their new king came to
power.
Sargon of Akkad’s new city was named Akkad, sometimes
written as “Agade.”
Modern archaeologists have not yet located
Akkad, but it is believed to have been
on the Euphrates River, near Sargon’s
hometown of Kish.
Damien
Mackey’s comment:
For the correct location of ancient Akkad, see my “Sumer” article above.
Jared Krebsbach continues:
Not to be outdone by his namesake, Sargon of Assyria
also built a new city.
Located north of the Assyrian city of Nineveh, high on
a citadel, Sargon of Assyria built his new capital city,
Dur-Sharrukin/Khorsabad, in 717 BCE. The name of the city is translated into
English as “fortress of Sargon,” and archaeological work at the site has
revealed how impressive it was. The city was surrounded by a nearly
four-and-a-half-mile wall and encompassed 740 acres of space. Curiously, Dur
Sharrukin was not located on the Tigris River as all of the other major
Assyrian cities were.
Until Akkad is located and excavated it is impossible
to determine which city was the greatest. One interesting thing that both
cities had in common, though, was that they were promptly abandoned by the
Sargons’ successors.
They Fought Wars and Ruled People
Sargon of Akkad unified central and southern
Mesopotamia under his rule through warfare. He pushed against the conventions
of the era by building a standing army and a large personal guard of 5,400 men.
It is believed that Sargon made the big military push
late in his reign, when he had made alliances throughout Mesopotamia [sic] and
had trained his army. The same historical text cited above that related
Sargon’s rise to power also details part of his conquest of Mesopotamia.
“Sargon, king of Kish, was victorious in 34 campaigns
and dismantled (all) the cities, as far as the shore of the sea… Enlil did not
let anybody oppose Sargon.”
In order to control such a large standing army, Sargon
needed to revamp Mesopotamia’s bureaucratic culture. Instead of eliminating the
kings of the numerous city-states, Sargon made the kings regional governors.
Although the government was unified under the rule of one king, the nature of
the system prevented competing dynasties from forming. The regional governors
had more land that they theoretically ruled, but they were less tied to their
former cities, which was where power emanated from in ancient Mesopotamia.
Sargon of Assyria’s reign was also marked by several
successful military campaigns. As an Assyrian, Sargon was expected to live up
to the martial deeds of his father and other illustrious ancestors, and warfare also had a religious component for the
Assyrians.
Sargon also had to keep his critics and potential
usurpers at bay, so he personally led major military campaigns in every year of
his rule. The Assyrian king defeated the state of Uratu and then went north to
Cilicia and south to the border of Egypt. He then retook the important city of
Babylon after ten years of Elamite interference. Several texts discovered in
the ruins of Dur-Sharrukin detail how Sargon dealt with his enemies.
“The people and their possessions I carried off. Those
cities I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire.
[The people] of the cities of Sukka, Bala and
Abitikna, conceived a wicked plan of tearing up the roots of (their) land and
with Ursâ, of Urarut (Armenia), they came to terms. Because of the sin which
they had committed, I tore them away from their homes and settled them in Hatti
of Amurru.”
Damien
Mackey’s comment:
I’d like to throw this in here:
Sennacherib
depicted facing Sargon II, or is he facing his co-regent son, Nadin?
(7) Sennacherib
depicted facing Sargon II, or is he facing his co-regent son, Nadin?
Jared Krebsbach continues:
Sargon of Assyria’s most notable military campaign was
against the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, as related in 2 Kings 18:9-11 of the
Old Testament. The siege and destruction of Israel’s capital city of Samaria is
also related in Assyrian texts. The Old Testament states that Shalmaneser led
the siege, but many modern historians believe that Sargon finished the job after
assassinating his brother [sic].
Like his much earlier namesake, Sargon of Assyria also
overhauled the Assyrian state. When Sargon came to power, 25 provinces were
ruled by semi-autonomous governors. Their power varied widely, with some of the
governors being quite powerful and a potential threat to Sargon. So, to counter
the potential of recalcitrant governors, Sargon reduced the number of provinces
to just 12. The restructuring was successful because Sargon died, as most
Assyrian kings would have wanted, on the battlefield and not at an assassin’s
hands.
Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria: Two Culture
Warriors
It is arguable that Sargon of Akkad’s greatest legacy
was the influence he had on ancient Mesopotamian culture. His very name was
revered for centuries, as demonstrated by two [sic?] Assyrian kings taking it, but his greatest
impact was on the language of the region. Before Sargon, the Sumerian language
was the dominant written and spoken language in Mesopotamia. After Sargon came
to power, the Akkadian language began to be written in the cuneiform script,
which was originally used for the Sumerian language. The Semitic Akkadian
language quickly overtook Sumerian as the lingua franca of Mesopotamia and all
later major dynasties used it. The 1st dynasty of Babylon, the Kassites, the
Assyrians, and the Neo-Babylonians all wrote their texts exclusively in Akkadian
cuneiform, although some native languages were probably still spoken.
Even the Hittites, who were based in Anatolia and
spoke an Indo-European language, wrote Hittite-Akkadian bilingual texts.
Akkadian became so widely spoken and written that by the Late Bronze Age (c.
1550-1200 BC), Akkadian was the lingua franca of the entire Near East.
Akkadian was the default diplomatic language used in
the letters of correspondence between kings of the Great Powers: Egypt, Hatti,
Babylon, Assyria, Mitanni, and Alashiya. A cache of more than 300 of these
letters were discovered in the Egyptian village of Amarna in 1887. In addition to the Amarna cache, Akkadian literature
was discovered in other cities outside of Mesopotamia, including Hattusa,
Ugarit, and Megiddo.
Sargon of Assyria also had an impact on the culture of
the Near East, but it was not as apparent. Although, as noted earlier, Sargon
was not mentioned as the Assyrian king who destroyed the Kingdom of Israel, he
is mentioned in Isaiah 20:1. As modern Biblical historians have corroborated
the fall of Samaria/Israel with Assyrian texts, Sargon’s role in one of the
most important events in the Bible has come into focus. The result is that
Sargon of Assyria has become famous, or infamous, in the eyes of millions of
Christians around the world.
It is difficult to compare any two leaders in order to
gauge which one is “greater,” especially when they lived in the ancient world.
When comparing Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria, it is clear they were
both great in their own right. Both Sargons were warrior kings, with Sargon of
Assyria even dying in battle [sic]. The two Sargons also initiated government
reforms and built new cities, which were later abandoned.
One could argue that Sargon of Akkad had a greater
impact on the culture of the ancient Near East. Yet Sargon of Assyria’s name
may be better known to modern people through his impact on Biblical history.
Ultimately, both Sargons were impactful leaders who could be named “the great,”
so it is your choice to decide which one is the greatest.
Damien
Mackey’s comment:
See also my related article:
Sargon
II aspiring to be the new Nimrod whom we know as Sargon I of Akkad
(4) Sargon II
aspiring to be the new Nimrod whom we know as Sargon I of Akkad
