TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Peace and War - Rome and Persia - 5-7th Centuries
WHY DID ROME
AND PERSIA TURN FROM A COMPARATIVELY PEACEFUL 5th CENTURY TO SPEND
SO MUCH OF THE 6th AND 7th CENTURY AT WAR WITH EACH
OTHER?
INTRODUCTION
- Centuries of peace based on diplomacy shattered 6th
centuries wars list
- By mid 7th both empires destroyed
signifcance
- Importanc eexplore why peace initially and then
reasons for fall into chaos
WHY PEACEFUL 4th
AND 5th CENTURIES?
Diplomacy another option
Why such a diplomatic record?
- Assess why breaks up why peace existed
- Sasanian Empire seen as stable, less Barbarian,
although no trust.
- Century recognition similar external threats
northern Huns and Balkans neither war on two fronts, esp. Romans bones
of contention removed 4th century Caspian Gates and Armeina
page 36 - As Rubin dilemma need security on this front to
operate other front
- Lees point increasing levels of information allowing
more knowledge and analysis of what was going on civilised power keeps
its bond - Internal factors Sasanians primogeniture p 32
polygamy and power church internal affairs keep tight reign on difficult
to mount campaigns because of links nobility - Borders Mesoptomaia - no real border, border towns, whether frontier at all
questioned -Romans not into land
but rather territories people of Empire not land, permeability
influence of Babylonia and Jewish people link to religion permeating Persian
from missionaries - Political dialogue recognition similar external
threats war as means of extending strengthening treaties
WHY 6th CENTURY
PROBLEMS?
Emperor Honour and Glory +
Dilemma
- Rubins argument political dilemma Mediterranean
basin and Eastern no coincide West and East drifting apart in 5th
century longest successful period pf peace wanted peace East
couldnt embark on West problematic trust - Psychological problems of paying monies
subservience to Persia - Whitby
- Later 5th century -Anastasius worried absorption into
Persian Empire 0 huge costs of Gold payments decline as attempt to get
out of expensive demeaning agreements. - Justinian attempt to get out of dilemma war of
conquests and Persia (look up!!) exacerbates problems less able to
deal with Sasanian problems fundamental split of resources final
assertion Roman military and imperial tradition precipitate decline
refuses subsidy to Chosroes I Antioch sacked - Same on Persian side Kings rely on nobility
support of other Kings (Kurso I strengthening centralisation ease of
army) internal crisis as before, outward looking game. Honour of war chasing etc 502
campaign internal crisis Kavad vicious cycle further aggressions in
540 Khurso I, Justin II 543 and Kurson II 603- embitter fragile relations
more money more direct control vicious circle - Intent changes somewhere declaration of defeating
Empire
Wars Prolonged
- Fragile balance disturbed as we have seen Romans
reneging on agreements etc
- Exacerbation ferment of change Cameron talks of
- Drain resources western front, difficult to raise
taxes see decline defences in Mesoptomai allow Persians in
- Plague 542 another drain on difficult armies to
get on.
- Political instability Phocas etc, financial difficulties
Heraclion stripping silverware off
CONCLUSION
- Fragility of peace means easy to disrupt
- Imperial ambition of Roman honour cannot keep
stratum quo never true stability.
- Not helped decline other areas must say Justinian
decline irreversible depreciation of resources did well to fight back
- Ferment of change argument when got in really got
in
- Fragility easily exposed and huge circle,
encompassing honour to decline Empire, even Arabs.
Comments
