The Responses Essay Research Paper

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

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. ?

Dev. 4th

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

dangers: 1.

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 ?

Ddiocletian attempts

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

rules. ?

Seen shifting military

resources to Balkans and allowing material defences of the East to decay. ?

Presentation other

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

bridge. ?

Terminology of

relationships ? lamps, brothers or even unequal father son relationships in

special cases. ?

Familial relationships

both encourage and reflect real political advances ? Yezdegerd relationship

with Thosdious? father. ? not many marriages though. ?

Armenians naturally

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

themselves. ?

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 ?

Mesopotamia always

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.