To have “his 318 trained men” that must have been quite a large group of people. Probably in excess of 1,000 people. Given the population density at this period of time that is more than enough of a group for Abram to be considered a “king” even if the text never says it. There were “kings” who only had one city under their control. The fact that a survivor came to Abram for help would indicate he was considered an important figure and he had allies. Certainly more than what you would expect if he was a lowly trader.
Doesn’t sound subservient to me. If Abram was subservient Pharaoh would have just killed him and taken Sarai.
In your NSHO.
In a dry climate water was a precious resource. Something that kings, remember we are talking about city states here, would fight over.
Genesis 12:1
God said, “To the land which I will show you”. So you believe God was pointing Abram to a good area for trade? Later God says, “… for all the land which you see I will give to you and to your descendants forever.” God is describing a physical location. I have limited knowledge of the subject, but my impression is at this period of time trade routes were more important than exclusive trading rights, which probably didn’t even exist yet.
Genesis 17:14 says of the uncircumcised, “that person shall be cut off from his people.” Given the way property was handled in the Hebrew Bible it is my assumption that if a male was uncircumcised he couldn’t inherit property, which was the only way land was transferred.