Conclusions
Bookmark this page

·        Aggressive warfare was (Julian excepted) undertaken preclusively or reactively limited.- urge for stability new alternatives to military conflict.

·        Political discourse both had similar external pressures, problem major threats at once, both see each other as stable and therefore expectation continuity and predictability.

·        Period 299 and 363 – necessary conditions through failure militant Roman imperialism and territorial adjustment acceptable to both.

·        Dialogue encouraged by dual pressure northern frontiers 0 medium of Armenia and meopotamia

·        Internal problems with legitimacy of using diplomacy – fundamental part fighting wars – diplomacy took steps from being substitute rather than adjunct to war.

·        Military upkeep still large, controlled traffic and Emperor still main locus – convergence of needs rather than Grand Strategy

·        Yes military tool important but are others – Christianity medium of communication, individual C useful as intermediaries.  Movement of population also exploited

·        Treaty cumulative document - emndation, addition and renewal – taken most seriously.  Significant force for stability – progressed where it could aid stability – never more than a provisional validity – only make a limit and comparatively short term contribution to conflict resolution.

THE EMPEROR MAURICE AND HIS HISTORIAN

·        Julian’s death to 500 – conflict rare – partition of Armenia agreed by Tho I and Shapur III in 384 removed bone of contention.

·        Common interest in northern tribes helped to promote acceptance of diplomatic vocabulary of mutual cooperation – each had duty to help each other in preservation of civilisation against threats of unruly tribes.

·        Other bones removed on Arabian tribes and Caspian gates – stable enough for Arcadius to ask Yazdgard to  look after Theoi II

·        Start 6^th century – mutual suspicion – minor grievances not diplomacy  escalated into major grievances – cycle as both increased defences as Yemen and Caucus evtnms took shape.

·        Kavadh’s invasion 502 initiated era of conflict – basis friendly relations undermined by Roman refusal to help military expenditure.  – stopped as receiving revenues from Nisibis alleged had been ceded by Jovian for only 120 years.

·        Invention to justify refusal to cooperate – ironic time when getting somewhere in Balkans – Kavadh’;s attack easy capture Theodosioplis, Martyroplis and Amida – defences neglected during peace

·        Anastasius repaired defences including construction of fort at Dara

·        Kavadh prepared to trust Justin I Khosro’s right to the throne, suspicion of extension of Roman influence in sub-Causcus where tensions raised.  Justin refuses to accept Khosro

·        3^rd war product of Persian suspicions – Khurso, fearing Justinian’s western conquests would lead him to overthrow Persia exploited a minor disagreement.  Persian success immediately but Romans usually recovered with defences of cities.

·        50 year peace while looks like reinforces tradition of previous two centuries reveal deep suspicions – Persians want 30 year advance payment and agree to lump sum and annual payments. Detailed agreements over Saracens + private individuals, no fortification, no attacking tribes

ROMAN DEFENCES

·        Conflict diplomatic tensions contributed to tensions – Justin II attack preceded by disagreements concerning Homerites

Other Notes in this Category

1. Conclusions
2. Control of Tensions
3. The Circumstances
4. The Responses

Didn't find this useful?

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