People and Territory
Bookmark this page

·        Did territoria motives determine war aims and we boundary lines choosen in accordance with strategic considerations?

·        Claims in those days about decent border – Vespasian “scientific frontier, depth of territory.  Apparently Severus claimed this – but sees real reason as not protecting Syria as a further cause of warfare.  Severus’ conquest Mesopotamia did not prevent capture of Antioch in 253 – may have indirectly caused it.

·        Romans didn’t fight states, they fought peoples or tribes – hence Imperium Populi Romani” – arrangement always with Kings

·        Appian passages refer to exclusively peoples and kings not land – still emphasises profitability as opposed to glory and honour of the empire.  Concept of boundary have any relevance in Empire?  Schlumberger no stones exist to set boundary.

·        All contemporary sources seem incredibly vague about border, but internal border well mapped and marked out. Yes talk about province as being border, like Arabia, but statement of southern border of Arabia

·        Contrasting evidence shows that administrative, ethnic and military frontiers do not necessarily coincide.  Nisbis in Mesopotamia may well be occupied, but not necessarily administered within the empire

Other Notes in this Category

1. Benjamin issac – the limits of empire
2. Conclusions and Epilogue
3. Decision Making and War aims
4. Fall of the Old Order
5. Geographical Concepts and Intelligence
6. Natural Barriers
7. Overview
8. People and Territory
9. Social and Economic Base
10. The Islamic Conquests

Didn't find this useful?

• Visit Coursework.Info for over 14,000 GCSE, A-Level and University Essays