The Responses Essay, Research Paper
From late 3rd
century main concern ? securitas reiplubcicae ? security of state ? defence
territory, population and fabric from internal and external attack ? concern
for distribution of resources needed to support military effort. ?
Persia: lack of
resources both financial, skilled manpower, middle fourth century vulnerability
northern frontier ?
Diocletianic notion of
securitas differentiate territory integral to Roman state and territory that
was not. Governments 4th and 5th centuries priorities,
exp. Julian 363 and Constantine 336-7, defence what was conceived as Roman
Territory.? Norm in 4th and 5th,
and despite publicists potential for expansion by direct military expansion abandoned.? Never gave up on abandoned or lost borders ?
did not cease to be active beyond borders.?
By withholding military resources compelled by traditions of imperialism
and achieving security to develop other means of pursuing objectives. ?
century political and politicised activity to replace military imperialism took
a number of forms ? use of regular subsidies guaranteeing stable relationships,
Christian missionaries, establishment of familial connections, exercise of
degrees of suzerainty.? Clear by 5th
century more flexible instruments than military ones ? constraint by lack of
resources and technological limitations of transportation and communication. ?
Yes cross border
attacks (Con II and Celer into Arzanene 342 and 504but mainly military extensions
of the defence of the limes ? Even Julian?s attempt can be seen as objective of
compelling adherence to treaty of 299. ?
Paying subsides even
to differing groups cheaper than war, and attempts by Attila to extort with
increasing demands rare. ?
Political cost 3 main
attempt recipient to
increase amount received 2.
use of tribute as
proof of subordination 3.
internal support for
regime cowardly and against tradition ?
Persians and Attila
only effective in the short-term, but Caucasus and Arab federates V effective. ?
Damage control ?
avoidance of paying subsides to avoid subordination, esp. in marginal areas
like Mesopotamia ? or third parties trying to woo ?
Publicists given role
of explaining to people that Persia surrendered, philanthropic, civilising virtues
etc. ? panegyrics and panegyricists ?
Similar things in
Persia ? no geographical conception of Borders but rather duty to look after
Kings etc. ? direct military force only in threatening kings or exceptional
circumstances.? Central authority and
individual city or association done through embassies. ?
Personal ruler to
ruler experience useful ad against Romans ? getting 4/5 Armenia identified with
Persians more than Romans – longer confederacies than Roman ones. ?
Even in Northern
Mesopotamia more ready to recognise sensibilities and cultivate loyalties with
Syriac speaking peoples ? even encouraging Nestorian church ?
to pslit hierarchy to allow war on two fronts ? 166 Danube and Samritans, 3rd
century Sasanians + Germans ? expansion military power. ?
BUT Augustus still
lacked capacity to wage war on two fronts.?
Division of aempire made recombination of armies impossible.? Avoidance of war on two fronts during 4th
century and afterwards almost military doctrine.? East Romans Balkans, Perisa, Arfica, occasionally WE and
sometimes internal.? Priscus and Joshua
the Stylite make references to this. ?
Many examples of this
? Theo II facing Attila and Gaiseric at same time, Justinian unable to properly
fight Persians and Ostrogoths at same time. ?
Similar in Persia ?
King needed as figurehead, examples being 350 and 359 ? disengagement of Shapur
II when conditions were favourable. And failure of Peroz to follow up military
demands on Leo in 460 ? 467. ?
Increase importance of
on-military relations ?
When enemy was
perceived as stable, unlike BaBa and Huns more emphasis placed on political
relationships? – not just effectiveness
but achievement of specific objectives.?
Treaty of 363 allowed political action to be carried out with
expectation of some success. ? diplomacy could begin to work out own ground
Seen shifting military
resources to Balkans and allowing material defences of the East to decay. ?
state, such as Ammianus Marcellinius,, praising certain aspects of life,
present Persia as comprehensible and accessible, not just military target.? Domestication of image creates necessary
relationships ? lamps, brothers or even unequal father son relationships in
special cases. ?
both encourage and reflect real political advances ? Yezdegerd relationship
with Thosdious? father. ? not many marriages though. ?
toward Persians, still related, but from 3rd century to
Christianisation a lot were Roman looking.?
Important strategically as threatened interior and exterior both
countries.? Substantial military
resources of had been utilised properly but chronic disunity.? Political settlement 387 ? one bought on
Armenia may have
caused some skirmishes ? 296-8 and 337 but pushed together two countries.? Shapur III and Theodosius I 387settlement
over Armenia ? no likely to be broken often.?
Evidence that Iberia and Lazica as well as Armenia drew Persian and
Roman together in discussion ?
carved up ? had own identity language of Aramaic and culture through distinct
Christianity ? distinct from orthodoxy of C ? acceptable to Persian Kings in 5th
and 6th centuries ?Nestorianism became prevailing form of
Mesopotamian Christianity ? continue to communicate across the border? – Greeks at Antioch and C ? Nesotrian
theological school at Edessa ? Christians freedom of movement between borders,
although private travel happened, Empires not keen. ?
Syriac population keen
interest in relations between the two ? as battles fought in their city.? Late Antiquity Persians treat them better,
bur Shapur II persecution of Christians by Persians in 344 precluded any
activity on other side of border.? Leaders
on both sides tried to smooth the relationship.? 400 Marutha ? bishop of Sophanene, visiting Ctesiphon with a
Roman embassy healed Yezdegerd I ? exploited for Christian church in Persia.