Revision:Roman World in 600 - Conclusions and Epilogue

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Roman World in 600 - Conclusions and Epilogue

CONCLUSIONS

• No explicit aim, so how can their be a strategy? Could be a consistent strategy towards tacit aim – constituent elements of Frontier policy not the kind to produce a grand strategy at all – not even a consistent one. Decision making mainly influenced by honour and glory of individual Emperor – safeguarding his position. Preserving peace of periphery did not help, but shows why many wars turned into wars of expansion.

• Modern students over play defence – many boundaries simply frozen lines of attack with no rational sense of how defendable they were – Rome expanded where it could not where it should

• Imperial frontier not a large contemporary subject – territory only important as source of income, city boundaries important. Roman military policy dictated by events in the filed, not by maps, because they had no access to these at a higher level.

• Natural barriers spoken as impediment to Roman movement not as defense –similarly artificial barriers are used to control movement across border in peacetime. Roman population and Roman authorities.

• Exception – fortified cities in Meopotamia – 3rd to 7th century. History of these cities another basic fact – population frontier zone mot an object of care but an instrument of empire.

• Duties of Roman army – more internal – suppression local unrest, police duties, periodical action beyond boundary, maintenance of logistics and food supplies, taxing civilian population and preparing for next war.

EPILOGUE

• Different concepts – territory, borders, state different, limitations ancient geography different relationship between political power and military action.

• Army in these regions situated behind frontier for purposes of imperial government not people.

• Only consistent aim seems to be expansion – ruler after ruler.

• What problems did Rome face? Never subdued Persian empire – ambition many rulers, Persia had resources which prevented its absorption by a power based beyond the Syrian desert. Distance and logistics in such an environment mean campaigns difficult to support. Region of Ctesiphon reached and then slaughter, looting, pillaging and then army would withdraw again to Roman territory – status quo maintained Why? Same reason as strategic bombing.

• Internal control – subjugation of an area – even years after the conquest the Roman armies had to remain active, Poor information as Roman armies failed to anticipate revolts etc. Disposition of Roman army in newly conquered territory reflected need to maintain internal control.

• In Byzantium nomadic tribes given responsibility of keeping edge of subsidised lands relatively quiet – did not feature significantly when Rome and Persia at peace.

• Byzantine empire maintained financial, political and military relations with peoples living beyond the area of permanent military presence – money, goods, titles exchanged hands – look at northern Negev in Byzantine period

• Some borders structures may not be part of border system but of internal systems etc. Mesopotamia from 4th century an exception – homogenous population, no natural frontiers, nomadic raiding parties from both sides - induced Byzantine government to organise a border system. Mainly through contemporary sources.

• Wars in east not very profitable – still effort to change balance of power, little change before 6th century.

• Ideology of wars changed after 4th century – no longer dreamed of destroying other, but determining which was a stronger power – religion played a role but close proximity of rival empires in Mesopotamia no geographic or ethnic division resulted in local struggles of power and conflicts arising from responsibilities of who was to protect region from the north. Darial pass for example.

• Brunt of wars in Mesopotamia born by citizens of fortified cities. No lasting success. Policy of Byzantine rulers no longer expected territorial gains, no willingness to withdraw or spend enough to maintain stability.

• Many different people between Cicilian Gates and Euphrates - most identified themselves with Roman institutions, except mainly the Jews.

• Crassus to Julian pointless and expensive campaigns for sheer greed and ambition – wars were then fought without aim. Exhaustive campaigns undertaken without regard for costs, food manpower. Provinces had to endure army on the march and generals and Emperors often killed / civil unrest.

• Decisions taken y ad hoc groups – Emperor and entourage, no professional officer class to persuade Emperor to dissuade Emperor on military or economic reasons - yes annexation profitable, no grand strategy either conscious or unconscious.

• Defence low priority – counter-attack the policy – fate of civilians side issue. Mesopotamian wars prove this.

• Territory and border not important

Comments