Roman Attitudes To Barbarians example essay topic

Diocletian and Constantine reformed administrative and military structures of the state strength of 4th century empire and survival through 5th. Diocletian work on border reorganisation of provinces, rebuilding creation of forts, need for permanent garrisons orientated Roman Empire toward defence. Multiple field armies by Constantine increased specialisation - limited capacity offensive wars beyond border cost of maintaining expanded force. Avoid costs and losses restrict army to defensive duties. Julian exception showed how unwise large scale aggressive war was, defeat Adrianople reinforced a determination to avoid risks. 4th century string sense of alienation from the military part in fact due to barbarians in army, soldiers dangerous to civilian population -worth great sums of tax payers money.

Yes Diocletian sets up admin systems for setting up tax, tax reap good compared to declining base. Frequent shortages of pay and supplies for troops. Corruption and difficulties raising money 360 Ursulus comessacrarum largitionum Look with what sport the cities are defended by the soldiers, who are enriched by the depletion of the Empires wealth Views like this extend sympathy non-military approach to foreign relations head on and defeat tradition. History fourth and fifth centuries attempts in tension with this tradition, to develop new approaches to foreign relations reconceptualise outside / Barbarian a necessary exercise if relation to be modified. Roman attitudes to Barbarians still sub-human despite so many in the army and Priscus less so The Barbarian- Barbarians ability to coordinate actions, form confederacies, appreciation and utilisation of skills or Attila's diploma c etc, or entry into society via marriage etc. Prevailing attitude negative towards Barbarian even though many assimilate into Roman society Stilicho is a Vandal Syn eius of Cyrene 399 only place for Barbarian in slavery.

Barbarians settle in west and despite Ostrogoths leaving for Italy under Theodoric despite purge 399 continued demand for Barbarians in army. Persia under Ardashir I and Shapur heroic warrior kingdom aggression driven by desire for glory and booty. War like impulses driven from social structure not medieval Europe feudalism, rested on hereditary personal relationships between various groups that made up the population top was, inc Sasanid House, ruling nobility derive from inherited control of the land and its resources, heroic descent + wars. King of Kings simply kings in different regions that made up geographical whole.

Persian Kingdom - Eran and An eran Iran and Non-Iran Iran regarded as main deal, others as extrinsic. Armenia may have fluctuated between status and most regions tend to resist attempts to bind them further into centralised state Kawad and Kho sro I 7 major offices in SE from 7 great families including Sas an family eroded away in Roman Empire elite of service military and civil. Long-service family A nici could come no where near relative status of S family. 3rd century Persian rulers no imperial aggrandisement Shapur I when captured cities did not attempt to hold on to what he had taken marched inhabitants off to Persian as loot. Not expansionist but need of Persian Kings for honours and spoils of war maintain position with Persia.

Skills carried off in skill low Persia more important that territory. Beyond this most useful thing is payment from Emperor, or they saw it tribute, which can be seen as political subordination. Sassanian age of heroic war ended with Shapur I 6 rules 40 years post him internal difficulties that distract them from war dissensions amongst nobility, opposition with Sasanid house, efforts by Magi an priesthood unified Zoroastrian church. Zoroastrian exerted great control of law etc. Secular counter balance of RE lacking in SE. Although Z said war against non-believers a virtue, failure of large-scale conversion outside confines of border losses political tool of evangelization beyond border.

Death of Shapur I to grand invasion Kawad 502 very constraint in their dealings. Significant military penetrations shows restraint: invasions of south Mesopotamia Armenia by N ersh in 296 and Galerius reposted 298, invasions of northern Mesopotamia, invasions north M by Shapur II in 359 and 360, hostilities initiated by Romans 421-2 yes Roman defences may have stopped them 337 350 large-scale efforts were comparatively rare balance of large scale aggression Roman side Persian limit themselves to threats and cross-border raiding. Despite Dio Cassius and Herodias Persian harboured no desire Achaemenid holdings up to Thrace not solely imperialist mindset, but no indication of a Persian will to world dominion such as wars fostered by a Roman and Christian universalism. Shapur II real aim overturning settlement of 299 no evidence harboured broader territorial ambitions desire at most for hegemony taking the form of Cesar tributary boasts. Ate 3rd and 4th centuries internal and external distractions for Persians improved defensive capacity of Romans developed under Diocletian and Constantine from 350 raiding of Kida rites in NE - paralleled, not equalled, pressures Roman suffer on Northern border drew off attention and resources Internally King could be distracted by attempts from priesthood and nobility to limit power and control use polygamy and no primogeniture encouraged and obscured succession problems. Distracted Western frontier as it seems initiative from King necessary for anything other than minor undertakings.

King faces difficulty in marshalling resources for full-scale campaign against Romans or even enough to maintain a strong defensive position King only small standing army needed nobility support and release, makes it a slow process to raise an army inhibited development of Romanesque infrastructure for supply and maintenance King effort to have more manpower and skill under his direct control same looting, extortion or agreement had aim of raising money so King could have direct control... If Romans refused go on booty and loot raids which would get the required funds, stability and honour and glory for the King. When defences weakened in 502 penetrations increased Kings position; direct control, finance and power with no corresponding increase ins security for Persian empire. Factors positively add for search for military compromise, lessen need for military action. Southern Mesopotamia with Jewish influence and Babylonia cultivated and sued in administration. Admin and legalistic tradition counter balance heroic Iranian tradition, alternatives to the glory of war.

History bring heighten tradition of diplomatic contact and peaceful communication. King exploited communication and movement through the borderlands various levels of contact with the Roman side. Association and use of the image of Babylonia respectfully incorporated into Greco-Roman historical tradition. gave Persia face of stable, enduring, civilised polity with which to deal on more than military basis..