|
|
|
Revision:Early European Warfare
From The Student RoomTSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Early European Warfare Questions: How did methods of warfare adapt to changing circumstances in this period or any part of it? (2000) Examine the significance of any ONE frontier in any part of this period. (1997) In what ways did the Germanic warrior ethos evolve under the influence of Roman and sub-Roman culture? (1996)
1. WARRIOR ETHOS · Fall of W: C4 barbarians fragmented and lacked battle discipline methods not a match for Romans. BUT Assimilation with Roman military machine esp Franks in high ranks no clear-cut sense of us and them Roman vacillation between using and abusing Germans was fatal. Elton argues that pol events were more serious than structural probs of army (e.g. impatience of Valens at Adrianople)
Clovis warrior king image Nomads Vikings
2 STATUS WARFARE (Rome and Persia)
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 / Gods 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.
How did this situation arise?
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.2. WAR AS POLITICAL DYNAMIC Carolingian expansion 3. WAR AS RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION Islamic jihad Comments |
