Posted on 04/01/2021 4:19:00 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
By no means could Noah or Abraham be considered that. At the most clan or tribe leaders. Moses could be considered a khagan type warlord ruler or king. But not the other two
The kings of Daniel’s time were heads of the nations. And they would have had any competition from any business tycoons put to death if they raised their heads. Surely there were some around in Daniels day.
The real power lies with the one controlling the army. The European monarchs would go to the bankers to borrow money for their wars, but that was the limit of the bankers powers.
Ten rich men? Pathetic.
The kings of 500 BC WERE the business tycoons. Merchants etc. were lower down
European monarchs you talk about date from the middle ages -- over 1500 years later - with a far more sophisticated economy than in post-Assyriac, pre-Roman Middle East
“The kings of 500 BC WERE the business tycoons.”
No, they were not. What they accumulated was through their autocratic rule, not through managing trade and commerce.
That’s not true for all. For the Persian shahs yes, but for the Aramean kings, or the Kings of Sidon and Tyre, they managed trade and commerce
|...they managed trade and commerce..”
Laying down laws governing trade and commerce for your subjects is one thing. Buying and selling is another. They did not buy and sell as an occupation.
you’re right about that - the kings laid down laws and regulated commerce but they generally didn’t buy and sell directly
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.