Urartu in Anatolia The Urartu kingdom was most powerful political entity to emerge in Anatolia in the pre-classical era because it excelled at mobilizing resources and transforming the social, economic and political environment of its people. Its leaders demonstrated a remarkable capacity for leadership, and even though the kingdom was not as long-lasting as the Hittite kingdom, it exhibited the most impactful qualities (metal work, architecture, military abundance) characteristic of a great nation in the Iron Age.

From the 9th to the 6th centuries BC, the kings of the Urartu ruled from eastern shore of Lake Van, using a vast and complex administrative and military network. This is all the more remarkable because the region was not one in which political, social or military cohesion and unity was known to exist. In other words, the Urartu rulers were able to take disparate parts and make them work together as a whole unit. One of the main challenges that these leaders overcame was the geographical limitations of the region. Divisive mountain chains kept groups of people isolated and separated from others in the neighboring regions. The seasons did not facilitate much organic activity with summers being short and dry and winters being long and cold. However, the rulers used this land configuration to band the people together: the rugged conditions became their unifying point.

In many ways the kingdom was like a loose confederation—similar in a sense to the political set-up of the early U.S., before power was centralized: the individual groups worked together towards a common aim but also retained some degree of autonomy. In this way, the rulers of the region were able to project their vision but also to respect the will of the other groups and keep them all united in their common drive. From the 13th to the 11th centuries BC, this loose confederation served as the framework for political, social and economic activity.

While the rest of the region in Assyria stagnated, the Urartu region grew in the 9th century BC. The Assyrians attempted several attacks on the Urartu kingdom, but through skillful use of leadership, the Urartu rulers were able to maintain their authority. They did this by distributing important governance positions across the various sectors of the land they oversaw. For instance, Shalmaneser III brought all the various military factions together and shifted the power base to Tushpa, while his son Ispuini took power in the neighboring state of Musasir and put his son in charge of the state. Meanwhile at this time, no members of the Urartu kingdom were paying tribute to the Assyrians. Other neighboring states did—but not the Urartu. As the Assyrians and the Urartu conflicted, and the powerbase at the Lake Van developed, the cultural impact of this Van base began to be felt throughout...

New artistic, architectural, religious and linguistic expressions began to pour forth from the Van basin.[footnoteRef:1] Much of this was the result of a new concentration of political power in the Van basin, which allowed the local cultural expressions to be amplified and spread throughout the kingdom. The Urartu kings promoted this expression and it became another unifying factor, as the kingdom grew. [1: Chapter 9: A Kingdom of Fortresses, 320.]
The development of fortresses throughout the kingdom also facilitated the Urartu’s rise. For instance, the “construction of two fortresses at Anzaf, controlling the road into the Van area from the northeast” was one example of how the Urartu rulers fortified their positions with strategic fortresses to help withstand any attack.[footnoteRef:2] These fortresses offered protection against invaders and solidified the region militarily. They also impressed upon the local groups a cohesiveness that would not have otherwise developed. The cultural impact of the arts and language flowing out of the Van basis was supported by the military/political impact of the fortresses that blossomed along important routes and borders. [2: Chapter 9: A Kingdom of Fortresses, 321.]

By 700 BC, a massive building project was underway throughout Urartu. This was another way that the rulers were able to influence the region, socially, economically and politically. Growth and construction have always helped states to project a self-confidence and assurance that would otherwise not be manifested.

The end of the Urartu kingdom came eventually, however. Sargon II of Assyria led a campaign against a Urartu territory in 714 BC, at around roughly the same time as the height of the Urartu’s building construction activities. Sargon II defeated the Urartian king Rusa and sacked the Urartu temple to the god Haldi in Musasir. Sargon II’s destabilizing effect on the Urartu kingdom served as an attack on the infrastructure and cultural supports that allowed the Urartu kingdom to flourish. While the Urartu continued to perform some of their greatest architectural feats, cracks were now appearing: Sargon’s devastation was the first serious blow to the strength of the Urartu and even while the Urartu still appeared strong in terms of their cultural, social, political and economic expressions, weaknesses were apparent and Sargon II showed that they could be exploited. Nonetheless, the Urartu rulers were still feared by the Assyrians and their military strength was still respected—at least for another generation. By the mid 7th century BC, the Assyrian records reveal a much weakened Urartu, with the son of Rusa “begging for Assyrian favor.”[footnoteRef:3] [3: Chapter 9: A Kingdom of Fortresses, 331.]

The Urartu became powerful because…