To continue….
Rome was not, however, the first empire, even of its kind. Within the blurred mix of legend and archeology is the story of Gilgamesh, the first King over the first kingdom. Born as part God, part man, his legend is one of him coming to terms with the fact that though he is a King and far above all men - he is mortal. So profound is his transformation over the course of his quest to find immortality that he not only has success stolen from him at the last moment, but he returns to succeed yet again - simply to have the flower that will give him immortality added to his treasury, not to use it to become immortal.
I actually believe this legend contradicts the behavior of most later kings - who seek to become less human rather than to become profoundly human.
Regardless, Gilgamesh is credited with being the first king of Uruk - which is believed to be the precursor to what would become the kingdom of Babylon.
Almost all gods and goddesses of the region can be tied to parallels in Babylon. From the greek gods, to the Egyptian gods, and even the names and domains of angels can be tied to parallels with many of the Babylonian gods and goddesses. Some may argue that even the Hindu and Germanic gods have striking parallels.
Many anons on this board have also argued that the kings of Egypt, senate of Rome, Pharisees of Judea, etc all have similar ancestry, or at least try to claim it. It would not be completely unreasonable for those who wanted to become kings like Gilgamesh to try and argue their case that they are somehow descended from that legacy…. Ironically missing the lesson in said legacy, but why learn lessons when power is to be won?