Revision:Chronology of Byzantium and Persia

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Chronology of Byzantium and Persia

---

 

363 Julian fails to sack

Ctesiphon and has to make major territorial concessions, inc most of Armenia

and Nisibis (formerly established by Diocletian as sole point of market

exchange between the 2 powers)

 

C5 - peace due to other preoccupations:

410s repression in Persia under Yazdegerd I, civil strife.

421-2 Bahram V unsuccessful v Rome made 100 yr peace and granted freedom of worship to the Christians.

441-2 -

489 Death of Shah Peroz in conflict with Hephthalite

nomads shocking disaster / dent to prestige. Taking on Rome key move to

restore legitimacy required reorganisation of Persian government.

 

C6 fairly even match:

510 Hephthalite pressure forced Kavadh I to ratify a peace treaty with Byzantium.

527 Persians initiate conflict à 531 defeat of Belisarius (Byz general) by Kavadh at Callinicum.

532 ‘eternal peace’ between

Khusro I and Justinian. J to pay 11 000lb of gold. Khusro readjusted taxation

system reputation as enlightened and just ruler.

Consider

J’s other commitments: attempted reconquest of W success in Africa à great hopes, propaganda

stressing mil superiority and divine mission

- success in Sicily and Rome/Ravenna. Attempt to resolve long-standing

dilemma re paying Persia for safety.

540 war resumed on Sas

initiative, several armistices but generally lasted through until 561. Sack of

Antioch. Khusro demanded more and more silver to guarantee safety of other

cities.

Khusro

sacked Antioch; distraction enabled Goths to reclaim much of Italy. But won

back by 552, and most of Med coastline brought under control of Byz. This

important for preservation of Greco-Byz presence indirect influence on

development of papacy and W conception of classical tradition. But overreaching

resources / greedy (Procopius in ‘Secret History’) ?

Khusro also extended power to Black Sea and inflicted heavy defeats on Hephthalites.

545 and 551 treaties cost RE

4600lb of gold and were not solid. (local conflicts between Arab allies of Byz

and Persia in Lazica implicated both parties. Key role in borderland security

but no substitue for regular military investment.).

560 Persian alliance with Turks

à

decisive defeat of Hephthalites, common boundary and alliance est with Turks

572 Turks allied with Byzantium against Persians.

580s civil war in Persia

rival claims to throne rel factionalism Maurice eventually intervened to

restore Khusro by military force. Huge embarassment for Sasanians and

concessions made to Rome in Armenia. Persians eager for opp to win back mil

prestige and even score.

 

C7 escalation:

602 assassination of Maurice

and war begins escalates seriously R + P both organised for serious

warfare. [610 Heraclius crowned emperor began to rebuild nucleus of new

army. ] Persians penetrated as far as Chalcedon (opp Co), ravaged Syria,

captured Antioch (611) / Damascus (613) / Jerusalem (614) / occupied Egypt

(619).

622 Romans retaliated vigorously with much success 624

invaded Azerbaijan and destroyed fire temple, 627 entered Tigris provinces.

Heraclius seen to have fought war as crusade to return Holy Cross to Jerusalem.

Little resistance. Anarchy in Persia after death of Kavadh II in 628.

 

New superpower upset balance:

All these prolonged and exhausting hostilities upset balance of power between Byz and Iran.

25 years slogging away recruitment and finance problems for Byzantines.

Arch evidence à

serious and widespread disturbances for ERE in Asia Minor / Syria / Palestine

due to preceding Persian invasions limited resources to restore cities.

19 year absence of authority and associated systems which had provided security.

 

All this crucial to devastating impact of Islam.

Byz slow to realise that these

were not just Saracen raids. Not an obvious enemy Arab allies all around and

absence of authority more like a civil struggle with new impetus.

Persian centre of power was in

Iraq successful agriculture depended on irrigation. No defence to SE

(desert).

Battle of al-Qadisayya (636/7) à

Sasanians lost Persia to Arabs because Ctesiphon was at the mercy of the

victors. Shah fled. Muslims officially tolerated Zoroastrianiam, but it

gradually vanished from Iran. New pol order by 650.

 

From 633 Roman E overrun rapidly.

First Transjordan / Syria / Palestine. Jerusalem 638. Egypt 641. 653 citizens

of Co see Muslim army on Bosphorus.

Local suffering, but continuity at first Islamic rulers just took over Byz admin.

Success because Arabs were united / excellent warriors / culture prized personal valour.

 

Armenia:

Sasanians unsuccessful in attempts to assimilate the Armenians. Used as a ‘buffer state’ since Theodosius and throughout C5.

451 war in resistance to Shah’s

attempts to impose Zoroastrian faith Armenian commanders killed but no

attempt to enforce conversion by mil means.

481-4 rel and pol freedom for Armenia in return for mil aid to Persia.

536 J reorganized Byz Armenia

into 4 provinces suppressed power of Armenian nobles è effective

Hellenization.

Armenia repeatedly victim / tool of great power conflicts between R and P, used by both sides.

 

Status warfare:

•         

War key focus of RE statues + swords + armour /

ostentatious monumental architecture / formal processions all celebrating mil

victories of emperors.

•         

Endless repetition of all this; R Emperors went to war

to demonstrate status / legitimacy of regime /

God’s favour for Christian regimes.

•         

Focus on E since C2 BC inherited from Greeks a

tradition of success against Persia (Alexander v. Xerxes etc.). Persians seen

as sweaty oriental barbarians, but were effectively rival superpower.

•         

Christianity seen to be crucial element in bringing

victory (e.g. for Clovis). [huge shock when RE later carved up by Muslims].

•         

Victory gold standard, positive cultural

ramifications. This carried throught to Middle Ages.

•         

Some respect for Sasanians (they had defended Rome from

Iran), but Romans still expected victory if no distractions in W.

w        

Culture of competitive warfare self-perpetuating; one

side wins à

rival seeks rematch. Isaac: War was about one-upmanship / occupying troops /

imperial glory.

•         

Hence a ‘status war’ which lacks well-defined strategic

objectives.

 

•         

Defence was not a key issue for ERE victory culture /

political testosterone / expansion of Empire key aim. However, crucial role

of Persian élites defence of Iran from nomad bound up with Zoroastrian

‘good god’ of farming / sun / settlement. Sasanian legitimacy depended on

subduing nomad invasions.

 

 

Analysis:

•         

N.B. Lee; both sophisticated ancient states were

different to neighbours in terms of urban development / govt organisation /

stability. Sasanians had claim to ancient dignity. No obvious natural boundaries

between the two (except S desert). Both were taxing empires with professional

armies strikingly modern states. Much offered to servants of the state.

•         

Propaganda of both states betrays respect for each

other. Commercial and cultural links through Mesopotamia. Persian carvings

indicate subtle digs at conventions of R art. Respect / trust (e.g. Arcadius’

appointment of Yazgard as regent of his son). Marcellinus praised Persia as

comprehensible and accessible. Perceived stability à more emphasis on

political relationships.

•         Isaac Byz

sought constructive co-operation with Persia against nomad threats expansion

not on the Roman agenda policing by Saracen allies. Concept of frontier

requires attn frontier line ‘congealed by default’. Territorial motives not

relevant here. Lack of topological awareness (e.g. Madaba Map interesting but

not useful for mil planning). Intelligence systems did gather info about enemy

strength / prevented surprise attacks. No overall strategy for Byz.

 

•         

C5 peace because both wanted it, and diplomacy was

sufficiently developed to facilitate co-operation. Mutual recognition of parity

of status Rome vulnerable de to Huns and Persian shahs had difficulties in

marshalling resources for big campaigns. Intelligence systems à

mutual awareness of stat us quo neither party sought active mil engagement /

to destabilise the other. Cameron proposes sophisticated information-movement

/ intelligence system as reason for C5 maintenance of peace. Less emphasis on

action à

promoted stability. But mutual suspicion crucial.

 

•         

BUT NB still tensions (Persia not approached for help

re Huns in W). Conflicts 420-22 (Byz tried to use Christian missions to entice

Saracen allegiance) and 441-2 (Vandal piracy threatened W Med basin this

distraction exploited by Persians because Romans were making no effort to

defend Caspian gates (as had promised in peace treaty)). Broadly because of R

reluctance to admit need to respect Persian power + thus neglect of treaty

obligations. But these conflicts allowed reassessment of contentious issues and

therefore strengthened peace.

 

•         

But C6; Byz attempts to fulfil outdated imperial

responsibilities à

failure to honour peace treaties à Persia made crippling financial exactions. Byz no

longer wanted alliance with Persia due to these demands. 532 and 562

Justinian had committed Byz to huge regular payments. Est of a defence system

independent of Persian benevolence or caprice. Reforms under Khusro strengthened

Sasanian govt, but Byz struggling to retain control of local élites. No real

permanent gains by Persia before 590. R had rel prof mil force. Also C was an

inclusive cult Zoroastrianism, however, was chiefly the preserve of the

nobility and was not exportable.

 

w        

C7 balance of power changed loss of mutual interest

in peace Persia able and willing to realise pol advantages. Howard-Johnston

RE used trad governing techniques, whereas Sasanian state able to penetrate

deeper into society and exert more influence à better systems of

state service / more effective recruitment. Persia able to extract greater mil

forces from a resource base equal to that of Rome.Gains due to R disunity and

problems with Armenia and also with Avars.

Comments