Two Great Powers In Late Antiquity : A Comparison Essay, Research Paper

?

Took a series of

events for Rome to realise that Sasanians were their equals ? massive

expenditure on frontier zones, two rounds of combat in Mesopotamia (337 ?

359-61), diplomatic manoeuvring in Transcaucasia, invasion into Mesopotamia,

disaster in 363, 378 north. ?

Cooperative spirit ?

started by Theodosius 387 who portioned Transcaucasia which was unfavourable to

Romans – Armenia, Iberia and Albania.?

Mutual understanding of threat from the north and east, as well as

realisation that frontiers pretty well defended overlaid antagonism. ?

Antagonism ? over

monotheism and dualism, unstable geographical conjunction 0 artificial

frontiers in Fertile crescent and Armenian causeway. ?

Century following

partition onto two cresses which led to was ? 421-2 and 441 ? these conflicts

strengthened peace by identifying contentious issue and into. Solutions.? Treatment Christians within Sasanian empire

and rivalry for beduin clients? in south

where no clear lines of demarcation ? peace agreements regulated these matters ?

Both showed restraint

during this period ? Romans when crack-down Christianity in Sasanian Armenia

449-51 and Peroz death by Hephthalites in 484 0 Sasanian tempted to attack BE

when Attila Balkans ? restraint on other occasion 0 Visgoths and Ostrogoths

crises. ?

502 ? Kavad due to

internal problems leads huge offensive – success in Armenia and

Mesopotamia.? Anastasilius reverses

initial gains 0 not easy to restore political status quo ? only after failure

528 counteroffensive large scale but inconclusive fighting (plus enticing

prospect in Med) that they negotiated durable peace ?

Two fateful steps

already taken – awareness of common interest occluded ? commitment to

co-existence diminished ? 3 more acts of aggression Khurso I in 540, Justin II

543 and Khurso II in 603 ? each bought about to change strategic balance of

power without upsetting government led to periods of war longer the last. ?

Each probably thought

still in war theatre playing the game ? game destabilising, Romans significant

advantages in Transcaucasia and Persians in Arabia.? Conflict embittered relations, final breakdown in 615-16 Khurso

II public disavowal of old order in ? decision to liquidate RE? 12 yrs war ruined both combatants. ?

Beneficiaries not

nomadic powers of north, but beuin tribesmen of south.? Pre Islamic threat debatable but both powers

paid money and time to making sure they didn?t unite into nexuses of power. ?

Resources of Arabia

temporarily united by the Umma in formative phase proved superior to old

empires and within 30 years of Khurso;s decision of a new world order was

established.? Within 10 Iranian

resistance ceased and Ira into Caliphate. ?

Shows us 2 thing:

Roman and Persian military power equal ? and Persian able to extract military

forces from resource base equal to Rome ?

Both had similar size

armies ? 60,000 could be raised? -both

had other military demands ? Sasanian north and east against Turan ? also

internal control. ?

Sasanians much less

and resources than Re ? just over half material resources available to Roman

rivals ? much higher percentage extracted by authorities fir army. Implies

strong administration. ?

Ammianus an Procopius

more reliable than oral history twisted in Persia. Even these guys got it

wrong! Prcopius dangerous fascination anecdotal. ?

Equal size to Roman

East ? but more violent geographical and territorial variations. Mesopotamia

relatively luxuries and fertile. ?

M thus political

centre reflected by Roman change from Armenia to M. ?

Axes of government ?

important for military response etc ? pretty similar.? Expensive to capture and secure + maintain these areas ?

Outward looking state

? always large military base with old enemy.?

Permanent internal military infrastructure.? Man-made forces to extend and secure natural frontiers. ?

He argues Roman border

system designed in aggregate to enhance security and military power of the

empire 0 differing role for each location perhaps..? Good comms network, logistical network and back ups. ? valuable

strategic flexibility, esp if they could be denied the enemy. ?

Deep systems of

defence in M and Balkans not replicated in less threatened regions.? Yes Justininanic and Anastasian reinvestment

? but bases in these areas police movements across borders, manage client

rulers.? Yes reinvestment in Balkans etc

but strategy the same.? Main features of

Roman defensive systems were still those of 4th centuries, even

though perceptible forward movement of Roman bases in Northern M. ?

Policy of active

Sasanian intervention Arab affairs prevent formation dangerous tribal nexuses. ?

Sasnian defence system

in Mosopotamia match for largest amry that Romans could have.? Less in Armenia but Persarmenia giggntic

buffer zone Roma attacks could be intercepted before Atropatene ?

Other vulnerable areas

? between Caucus foothills and West shore of Caspian? + inviting plain of Gurgan ? protected by muti linear defensive

systems ? reached an apogee of elaboration and strength in 6th

century. ?

Not all multi linear

lines of defence ? eastern frontier one fort with anti-Nomadic units ready to

pounce and counter attack ? Nev Shapur perhaps. ?

Conclusions: adopted

differing strategies depending on territory and rival. ?

Spent lots of money on

liner defences – long term savings on manpower ?

Defensive zone

unmatched by any Roman frontier before 6th century to protect

Mesopotamian alluvium ? political and economic heartland. No info on internal

network of logistics and communications. ?

Both powers had to

base defensive systems on natural endowments ? and Sasanian much better.? Faced little threat from Gulf ? but Med was

Roman source economic activity and when Vandals got it in 5th

century people on western shore exposed to Germanic attack.? Also mid 6th century to stop

Sasnians getting Lazica ? could threaten C directly. ?

Mountain advantages in

north and east as opposed to rivers of Danube in the Balkans ? Euphrates for S

against Arabs-? Re only ad land

frontiers ? no discernible borders.? If

Arabs did gather momentum almost impossible to defend Palestine and Syria. ?

Defences stronger than

Romans – but Iran closer to central steppe ? home of the nomads, worse threat

than north of Danube,? Match in frontier

of M and geopolitical situation.? Investment

large ? shows effective administrative apparatus ?

Large investment in

irrigation by the state- enlarge resource base and ensure metropolitan region

could be provisioned from within Mesopotamia ?

Was it for

strengthening military power abroad, or making self-sufficient?? Because of eternal pressures from Rome or

purely because of increased in population etc? Both ? effort to maximise

population and agricultural production throughout ? construction of canals,

commercial waterways, facilitated transport of goods ? facilitated

urbanisation.? Worked – population of

capital certainly lived off surplus an canals, large and small, offered

defence. ?

SM intensively

cultivated and studded with cities ? urban demand for agric. Produce

increases.? Acted as a huge clearing

house between Arabia, highland Iran, east Mediterranean, own sea ?

Sea played important

part Gulf and Indian Ocean ? possible mercantile ethos spread as these places

added to wealth of economy. ?

Same in Roman Empire ?

not just Egypt, roots with Greece ? cheap maritime transport gave Romans inner

lines of encouraged inter regional trade ? sustains urban prosperity.? City remained central admin. Unit. ?

Iran, other main facet

SP ? less evidence of cities.? Evidence

economic growth sparking city development ? under market and state sponsorship

transform Ira and Transcaucasia into key component of Islamic single market by

10th century. ?

Economic balance being

redressed in 5th and 6th centuries ? big difference

politically active cities and Iranian cities without politically visible

elites.? Only in M could match Romans ?

price to be paid for growth, alien religious ideas entering empire -

Zoroastrianism coming under pressure ? landed nobility coming under threat as

well.? Context old Mazdakite movement ?

old order under threat ad hold trad. Ideas loosened. ?

Wars, infrastructure

demonstrate efficient tax system, ramified government apparatus, army under

control of the centre ?

Relied on strategic

flexibility – mobilised large forces supplied them, moved them between fronts ?

needs effective command, logistics central funding.? Would have had to rely on ideological power to overcome

geographical and social disunity. ?

Funding from Romans

not needed because of financial problems ? as levied at times of weakness and

strength ? political tribute rather than subsidy degree of Roman subservience ?

Complex governmental

apparatus from early stage in Sasanian history. ?

Change afoot early 6th

and 7th centuries ? impressive conquering attacks with outside and

from within during this period 0 and conquering Roman empire 603 and 626 ?

reforms Khurso I strengthened state with tradition of centralised government.

Balance of power increasing as East Roman governmental system came under stress

in the provinces ? imperial authority: control of bureaucratic systems and

appointments and mutual policing by traditional rival local reps of imperial

apparatus and elites in cities.? Second

one crucial in an empire where more geographical concentration of social and

economic power than in Sasanian lands – steadily eroded 6th century ?

Centirfugal force snot

disappeared, but overcome by advanced bureaucratic state with was geared to

war. ?

Two distinct

governmental systems: RE East ancient Near Eastern autocracies and made full

use of traditional governing techniques – Sasanian state able to penetrate

deeper into society and exert more influence over lives of individuals – many

served in state apparatus, many disrupted by state projects, a lot under tax

surveillance.? Rudimentary tax system