Preaching to the Converted
To further understand the role of the throneroom reliefs as propaganda, we must first answer a more foundational question about the function of propaganda. Reade argues the throneroom reliefs should not be understood as propaganda because they would have only been visible members of the court and to Ashurnasirpal’s personal guests. In doing so, he again presents a very limited definition for what can qualify as propaganda. In this instance, if the scenes are not visible to the masses, they should not be classified as propaganda by his interpretation. He uses the hunting scenes in the throneroom as an example, arguing that the proximity of these scenes to the royal throne suggests it should be read as entertainment, not political motivated; “The king's personal achievements in the hunt were a theme likely to give particular pleasure to him himself, and they were sited accordingly. A courtier could look at a campaign scene, perhaps with an explanatory caption, and remember battles in which he himself had participated. This was preaching to the converted rather than propaganda” (Reade 339). This notion that the reliefs were intended to proved personal pleasure could theoretically be true, but it certainly is not in steppe with the character of the Machiavellian Ashurnasirpal the historical record portrays. Regardless, this raises a more intriguing question about how propaganda functions. Is visibility to the masses a necessary tenet of propaganda?
Though notable modern forms of propaganda often take the form of widespread media (e.g. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense), concentrated attempts to advance political agenda through more discrete media still have the intended manipulative effect. Reade is probably correct in asserting that the throneroom would only be accessible to courtiers and elites, but certainly the perception of the Assyrian elite would have been especially important to control for Ashurnasirpal, for they would be best equipped to act against him if they were unhappy with his government. To suggest that everyone who entered the throneroom was “converted” to Ashurnasirpal’s imperial ideology is probably an unlikely characterization given the endless foreign campaigns and emphasis on his own self-importance; surely, this does not lend well to universal admiration. Reade’s interpretation of the Nimrud reliefs as merely providing entertainment to the king and his court is thus both an oversimplification of the intent of the images and an underestimation of Ashurnasirpal’s political shrewdness.