From The Student Room

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Two great powers in Late antiquity - A comparison

• Took a series of events for Rome to realise that Sasanians were their equals massive expenditure on frontier zones, two rounds of combat in Mesopotamia (337 359-61), diplomatic manoeuvring in Transcaucasia, invasion into Mesopotamia, disaster in 363, 378 north.
• Cooperative spirit started by Theodosius 387 who portioned Transcaucasia which was unfavourable to Romans - Armenia, Iberia and Albania. Mutual understanding of threat from the north and east, as well as realisation that frontiers pretty well defended overlaid antagonism.
• Antagonism over monotheism and dualism, unstable geographical conjunction 0 artificial frontiers in Fertile crescent and Armenian causeway.
• Century following partition onto two cresses which led to was 421-2 and 441 these conflicts strengthened peace by identifying contentious issue and into. Solutions. Treatment Christians within Sasanian empire and rivalry for beduin clients in south where no clear lines of demarcation peace agreements regulated these matters
• Both showed restraint during this period Romans when crack-down Christianity in Sasanian Armenia 449-51 and Peroz death by Hephthalites in 484 0 Sasanian tempted to attack BE when Attila Balkans restraint on other occasion 0 Visgoths and Ostrogoths crises.
• 502 Kavad due to internal problems leads huge offensive - success in Armenia and Mesopotamia. Anastasilius reverses initial gains 0 not easy to restore political status quo only after failure 528 counteroffensive large scale but inconclusive fighting (plus enticing prospect in Med) that they negotiated durable peace
• Two fateful steps already taken - awareness of common interest occluded commitment to co-existence diminished 3 more acts of aggression Khurso I in 540, Justin II 543 and Khurso II in 603 each bought about to change strategic balance of power without upsetting government led to periods of war longer the last.
• Each probably thought still in war theatre playing the game game destabilising, Romans significant advantages in Transcaucasia and Persians in Arabia. Conflict embittered relations, final breakdown in 615-16 Khurso II public disavowal of old order in decision to liquidate RE 12 yrs war ruined both combatants.
• Beneficiaries not nomadic powers of north, but beuin tribesmen of south. Pre Islamic threat debatable but both powers paid money and time to making sure they didn’t unite into nexuses of power.
• Resources of Arabia temporarily united by the Umma in formative phase proved superior to old empires and within 30 years of Khurso;s decision of a new world order was established. Within 10 Iranian resistance ceased and Ira into Caliphate.
• Shows us 2 thing: Roman and Persian military power equal and Persian able to extract military forces from resource base equal to Rome
• Both had similar size armies 60,000 could be raised -both had other military demands Sasanian north and east against Turan also internal control.
• Sasanians much less and resources than Re just over half material resources available to Roman rivals much higher percentage extracted by authorities fir army. Implies strong administration.
• Ammianus an Procopius more reliable than oral history twisted in Persia. Even these guys got it wrong! Prcopius dangerous fascination anecdotal.
• Equal size to Roman East but more violent geographical and territorial variations. Mesopotamia relatively luxuries and fertile.
• M thus political centre reflected by Roman change from Armenia to M.
• Axes of government important for military response etc pretty similar. Expensive to capture and secure + maintain these areas
• Outward looking state always large military base with old enemy. Permanent internal military infrastructure. Man-made forces to extend and secure natural frontiers.
• He argues Roman border system designed in aggregate to enhance security and military power of the empire 0 differing role for each location perhaps.. Good comms network, logistical network and back ups. valuable strategic flexibility, esp if they could be denied the enemy.
• Deep systems of defence in M and Balkans not replicated in less threatened regions. Yes Justininanic and Anastasian reinvestment but bases in these areas police movements across borders, manage client rulers. Yes reinvestment in Balkans etc but strategy the same. Main features of Roman defensive systems were still those of 4^th centuries, even though perceptible forward movement of Roman bases in Northern M.
• Policy of active Sasanian intervention Arab affairs prevent formation dangerous tribal nexuses.
• Sasnian defence system in Mosopotamia match for largest amry that Romans could have. Less in Armenia but Persarmenia giggntic buffer zone Roma attacks could be intercepted before Atropatene
• Other vulnerable areas between Caucus foothills and West shore of Caspian + inviting plain of Gurgan protected by muti linear defensive systems reached an apogee of elaboration and strength in 6^th century.
• Not all multi linear lines of defence eastern frontier one fort with anti-Nomadic units ready to pounce and counter attack Nev Shapur perhaps.
• Conclusions: adopted differing strategies depending on territory and rival.
• Spent lots of money on liner defences - long term savings on manpower
• Defensive zone unmatched by any Roman frontier before 6^th century to protect Mesopotamian alluvium political and economic heartland. No info on internal network of logistics and communications.
• Both powers had to base defensive systems on natural endowments and Sasanian much better. Faced little threat from Gulf but Med was Roman source economic activity and when Vandals got it in 5^th century people on western shore exposed to Germanic attack. Also mid 6^th century to stop Sasnians getting Lazica could threaten C directly.
• Mountain advantages in north and east as opposed to rivers of Danube in the Balkans Euphrates for S against Arabs- Re only ad land frontiers no discernible borders. If Arabs did gather momentum almost impossible to defend Palestine and Syria.
• Defences stronger than Romans - but Iran closer to central steppe home of the nomads, worse threat than north of Danube, Match in frontier of M and geopolitical situation. Investment large shows effective administrative apparatus
• Large investment in irrigation by the state- enlarge resource base and ensure metropolitan region could be provisioned from within Mesopotamia
• Was it for strengthening military power abroad, or making self-sufficient? Because of eternal pressures from Rome or purely because of increased in population etc? Both effort to maximise population and agricultural production throughout construction of canals, commercial waterways, facilitated transport of goods facilitated urbanisation. Worked - population of capital certainly lived off surplus an canals, large and small, offered defence.
• SM intensively cultivated and studded with cities urban demand for agric. Produce increases. Acted as a huge clearing house between Arabia, highland Iran, east Mediterranean, own sea
• Sea played important part Gulf and Indian Ocean possible mercantile ethos spread as these places added to wealth of economy.
• Same in Roman Empire not just Egypt, roots with Greece cheap maritime transport gave Romans inner lines of encouraged inter regional trade sustains urban prosperity. City remained central admin. Unit.
• Iran, other main facet SP less evidence of cities. Evidence economic growth sparking city development under market and state sponsorship transform Ira and Transcaucasia into key component of Islamic single market by 10^th century.
• Economic balance being redressed in 5^th and 6^th centuries big difference politically active cities and Iranian cities without politically visible elites. Only in M could match Romans price to be paid for growth, alien religious ideas entering empire - Zoroastrianism coming under pressure landed nobility coming under threat as well. Context old Mazdakite movement old order under threat ad hold trad. Ideas loosened.
• Wars, infrastructure demonstrate efficient tax system, ramified government apparatus, army under control of the centre
• Relied on strategic flexibility - mobilised large forces supplied them, moved them between fronts needs effective command, logistics central funding. Would have had to rely on ideological power to overcome geographical and social disunity.
• Funding from Romans not needed because of financial problems as levied at times of weakness and strength political tribute rather than subsidy degree of Roman subservience
• Complex governmental apparatus from early stage in Sasanian history.
• Change afoot early 6^th and 7^th centuries impressive conquering attacks with outside and from within during this period 0 and conquering Roman empire 603 and 626 reforms Khurso I strengthened state with tradition of centralised government. Balance of power increasing as East Roman governmental system came under stress in the provinces imperial authority: control of bureaucratic systems and appointments and mutual policing by traditional rival local reps of imperial apparatus and elites in cities. Second one crucial in an empire where more geographical concentration of social and economic power than in Sasanian lands - steadily eroded 6^th century
• Centirfugal force snot disappeared, but overcome by advanced bureaucratic state with was geared to war.
• Two distinct governmental systems: RE East ancient Near Eastern autocracies and made full use of traditional governing techniques - Sasanian state able to penetrate deeper into society and exert more influence over lives of individuals - many served in state apparatus, many disrupted by state projects, a lot under tax surveillance. Rudimentary tax system

Comments