It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The First King and the origins of large scale War

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I was thinking about all this business of Kings and where it started.

As most people observe, they (the various Kings of the world) share the same symbolism. And as we observe, Kingship is passed down through Kinship.

So where did it all start?

According to Wikipedia (ok great, now all our wisdom depends on Wikipedia..) the first king was the Sumerian King Alulim. He supposedly ruled for 8 Sars. 1 Sar of course being 3600 years, so he lived for 28,800 years between 35th and 30th century BC.

"After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years."

---

So supposedly this information comes from actual Sumerian tablets.

"Sources

The following extant ancient sources contain the Sumerian King List, or fragments:

Apkullu-list (W.20030,7)
Babyloniaca (Berossus)
Dynastic Chronicle (ABC 18)[4] including copies, K 11261+ and K 12054
Kish Tablet (Scheil dynastic tablet)
UCBC 9-1819 ("California Tablet")
WB 62
WB 444 (Weld-Blundell Prism) [5]

The first two sources (WB) are a part of the "Weld-Blundell collection", donated by Herbert Weld Blundell to the Ashmolean Museum. WB 62 is a small clay tablet, inscribed only on .."

Wikipedia Article

---

So looking into the history of documented large scale wars - there is always some King and his empire involved which made me wonder ...

Is war, for the most part, the result of the Sumerian mindset of war and empire building, that came to our planet?

If this is the case, man ... well it is very unfortunate for us.

('Us' referring to the natives of this planet.. not sure I am, but supposedly many of those reading this is the - 'them'.)

Not that I believe this for certain, but it is an interesting concept.

---

One question that comes to mind is - if the Earth was not ever visited by this Sumerian race, would there be as much war, violence and empire building as there has been? (If this be the case..) One has to wonder what the world would be like if the Sumerians had not come..

It seems that looking at documented history, large scale war is centered around the activity of these so called kings. Has the mindset of conquest and war of the Sumerian race influenced the native human population?

Not all modern civilization has submit into the mindset of war and conquest. The Indus Valley Civilization for example lasted for thousands of years with no signs of war, conquest or Kingship attested by the archeology of the region.
edit on 25-7-2014 by nOraKat because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Interesting, i like this stuff. But can we really know what happened even 500 years ago? 4000 years ago? Can you imagine the amount of history texts destroyed? And, or, distorted between that time?



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Interesting post, however some of your numbers don't add up:



28,800 years between 35th and 30th century BC.


Five centuries is only 500 years.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
You don't really need to read history to understand the phenomena of "kings". Any honest exploration of human power dynamics reveals the pattern at play.

A "king" (regardless of the word used) is someone who had successful opinions for just long enough to make a strong enough impression on a group of people that they decided to follow his/her opinion regardless of their own.

In small communities... this can be quite effective for survival.

It is also quite addictive for the king who doesn't understand why they had the "right" opinion at the right time. A no longer "correct" but addicted king will begin to motivate conditions where their opinion continues to hold primary influence.
edit on 26-7-2014 by GetOutOfMyLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Lol.. your right.

I just copied it from the Wikipedia article.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight

A "king" (regardless of the word used) is someone who had successful opinions for just long enough to make a strong enough impression on a group of people that they decided to follow his/her opinion regardless of their own.


Supposedly a king can only be a king through kinship.

If this were true, then the Kings of the British Isles, Spain, and rest of Europe are of the same family lineage as the Sumerians.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: nOraKat
Supposedly a king can only be a king through kinship.

If this were true, then the Kings of the British Isles, Spain, and rest of Europe are of the same family lineage as the Sumerians.

That's the sort of rule that develops when a king has ceased to be king because of their opinions... and is king because of their nearness to the "Kill that person who disagrees with us" button... where "us" has become a co-dependent unit of people who all know the "role" is a farce but benefit so long as enough people believe in it/fear it/depend upon it.

This doesn't invalidate your final assertion of course... but should certainly put the legitimacy of anyone playing such a role in a more accurate light.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

A Nibiru year is equal to 3600 earth years. So even though they reigned for 8 years on earth they made it sound more divine/immortal by converting it into Nibiru years and saying 28000yrs. Thats what i read years ago if its true or not i have no idea.
edit on 26/7/14 by Ezappa because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3

log in

join