TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Eastern Frontier
- Luttwak suggests grand strategy - military installations result grand planning and second from Diocletian onwards defence in depth with mobile field army units.
- Careful imperial announcements – gap between alleged motivation and practice - stated aims and actual practice – studies show claims of huge defensive system wrong. Could they have carried out the work??
- Trajan’s Persian war 106 – marked “beginning of an obsession” 3r century faced with Sasanian strong military force. Shapur and Chosros I and II damaging invasions
- Natural to think military installation were defensive against Persians and Tribes, but most of period neither empires seriously thought of trying to defeat the other or occupy territory – system far more concerned with internal security, prestige and policing border areas. Legionary fortresses housed much smaller units – Roman Persian warfare more to do with sieges of towns than forts, soldiers may have been staying in the towns anyway.
- Equal power, aggressive, ruthless and capable - helplessness Eastern cities when faced army Chosroes I and financial cost to empire – peace treaty 562 – Justinian’s successors still engaged with problem of war – reforms of Chosroes I led to strengthening military aristocracy
- Chosroes II despite owing place to Maurice – signs of Christian attachment, ruthless as CI.
- Roman conquest out of question bur in early 7th century Persians depart from this attitude – near fatal blows to Roman cities in Asia Minor – stimulated flight among Christians. Ruled for 15 years in Byzantine East, yes through proxy but combo of this and decades of warfare played a large role in explaining the ease of Islamic conquests.
- Question of defence system at all, many may have been there on an ad hoc basis and may not have housed garrisons.
- Conspicuous element was Rome’s dealing with Arab tribes 4th century onwards both used as military allies. From 328 inscription at Namara “partial acculturation of Arab tribes and rulers living along the edge of areas of Graeco Roman settlement”
- Both empires relied heavily on their tribal clientele - even fought whole battles for them. Phylarchs increasingly important role in security of border lands – paid to d – federates suspected of helping them when moved north. – old policy of clientage at expense of Roman army – similar policy to those employed earlier in the west – could rebound to government’s disadvantage. Not even consistent – Justinian gave al-Harith titles of phylarch, patrician, and king to counterbalance Lakhmids – Justin II cut off subsidies and turned against Mundhir son of al-Hairth 0 leaves Dara ad Apamea undefended.
- Sparsity of Byzantine forces at time of invasion – linked to Justinian’s problems of manpower and finance in west – reliance on Arab federates, effects intensified 6th century. Limitanei not being paid, records chaos and evidence withdrawal of troops from SE Palestine – weakening resistance to Islamic groups – this with effects 7th century Persian invasion explains surrender Udruh and Aila and opening up of route north – fateful consequences, Heraclius problems in recruiting and supplying adequate army against Persians suggest military weakness a reality by 7th century.
- Eastern provinces in 7th century shared with West external threats and internal fragmentation: changes in settlement, Christianisation, impact of military and fiscal needs all evident before Persian invasion and arrival of Muhammed. When Muslims left Arabia and encountered Roman troops in Palestine and Syria found Roman Near East in ferment of change.
Comments
