Rome Versus Persian Again.


Scoop

By Hidari, Section Iraq-Iran-Syria
Posted on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 05:26:39 AM EST

There's no need to go into a battle by battle description of the seemingly endless warring that took place between the Romans and the Persians over the next few centuries. However needless to say that it was pressure from the Persians that helped to cripple the 'Western' branch of the Roman Empire and which led to the 'fall' of the Roman Empire (the Roman Empire didn't fall of course: only the Western half did, and this could be seen not to much as a 'fall' as a retrenchment and an acknowledgement that the centre of the world's 'gravity' had shifted East.)
However, let's skip forwards to the Seventh Century for the climax of this particular phase of our story.

 'In 602 the Roman army campaigning in the Balkans mutinied under the leadership of Phocas, who succeeded in seizing the throne, and then killed Maurice and his family. Khosrau II used the murder of his benefactor as a pretext for war.In the early years of the war the Persians enjoyed overwhelming and unprecedented success. They were aided by Khosrau's use of a pretender claiming to be Maurice's son, and by the revolt against Phocas of the Roman general Narses. In 603 Khosrau defeated and killed the Roman general Germanus in Mesopotamia and laid siege to Dara. Despite the arrival of Roman reinforcements from Europe he won another victory in 604, while Dara fell after a nine-month siege. Over the following years the Persians gradually overcame the fortress cities of Mesopotamia by siege, one after another. At the same time they won a string of victories in Armenia and systematically subdued the Roman garrisons in the Caucasus. Phocas was deposed in 610 by Heraclius, who sailed to Constantinople from Carthage. Around the same time the Persians completed their conquest of Mesopotamia and the Caucasus, and in 611 they overran Syria and entered Anatolia, occupying Caesarea. Having expelled the Persians from Anatolia in 612, Heraclius launched a major counter-offensive in Syria in 613. He was decisively defeated outside Antioch by Shahrbaraz and Shahin and the Roman position collapsed. Over the following decade the Persians were able to conquer Palestine and Egypt, and to devastate Anatolia. Meanwhile, the Avars and Slavs took advantage of the situation to overrun the Balkans, bringing the Roman Empire to the brink of destruction.'

[However Heraclius fought back]. 'Heraclius formed an alliance with the Turks, who took advantage of dwindling strength of the Persians to ravage their territories in the Caucasus. Late in 627, Heraclius launched a winter offensive into Mesopotamia, where, despite the desertion of the Turkish contingent that had accompanied him, he defeated the Persians at the Battle of Nineveh. Continuing south along the Tigris, he sacked Khosrau's great palace at Dastagird and was only prevented from attacking Ctesiphon by the destruction of the bridges on the Nahrawan Canal. Discredited by this series of disasters, Khosrau was overthrown and killed in a coup led by his son Kavadh II, who at once sued for peace, agreeing to withdraw from all occupied territories. Heraclius restored the True Cross to Jerusalem with a majestic ceremony in 629.'

It was these catastrophic wars that had the following consequences. 'The devastating impact of this last war, added to the cumulative effects of a century of almost continuous conflict, left both empires crippled. When Kavadh II died only months after coming to the throne, Persia was plunged into several years of dynastic turmoil and civil war. The Sassanids were further weakened by economic decline, heavy taxation from Khosrau II's campaigns, religious unrest, and the increasing power of the provincial landholders. The Roman Empire was also severely affected, with its financial reserves exhausted by the war, and the Balkans now largely in the hands of the Slavs Additionally, Anatolia was devastated by repeated Persian invasions; the empire's hold on its recently regained territories in the Caucasus, Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt was loosened by many years of Persian occupation.'

To conclude: 'Although warfare between the Romans and the Iranians lasted for seven centuries, the frontier remained largely stable. A game of tug of war ensued: towns, fortifications, and provinces were continuously sacked, captured, destroyed, and changing sides frequently. Neither side had the logistical strength or manpower to maintain such lengthy campaigns so far from their borders, and thus neither could advance too far without risking stretching their frontiers too thin. Both sides did make conquests beyond the border, but the balance was almost always restored in time. The line of stalemate shifted in the second century AD: it had run along the northern Euphrates; the new line ran east, or later northeast, across Mesopotamia to the northern Tigris. There were also several substantial shifts further north, in Armenia and the Caucasus.
The resources expended during the Roman-Persian Wars ultimately proved catastrophic for both empires. The prolonged and escalating warfare of the sixth and seventh centuries left them exhausted and vulnerable in the face of the sudden emergence and expansion of the Caliphate, whose forces invaded both empires only a few years after the end of the last Roman-Persian war. Benefiting from their weakened condition, the Arab Muslim armies swiftly conquered the entire Sassanid Empire, and deprived the Eastern Roman Empire of its territories in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa. (Over the following centuries, most of the Byzantine empire came under Muslim rule).'

It will be noted that this none too heroic episode more or less sums up the Western-Persian battles. 'We' are told about the 'heroic' Spartan battles against the Persians. 'We' are not told that the Athenians provoked the battles with their support for the Ionians, and that the 'heroic' Persian/Greek battles solved little, and ultimately led to the end of the Greek Golden Age, vicious internecine warfare and the ultimate eclipse of both Athens and Sparta as major powers. To be sure Alexander the 'Great' then invaded Persia and 'won', but his Empire quickly collapsed, the Persians reconstituted themselves, and bickering amongst the heirs of Alexander led to weak, mini empires, easily conquered by the Romans.
And, indeed, what of the epic battles between Rome and Persia? They helped to destroy both Empires, ultimately. The epic battles of the 7th century led to Persia becoming completely exhausted, and, therefore, becoming easy prey for the Arabs. The battles against the Persians helped to 'lose' the Western Empire. To be sure, the Romans/Byzantines managed to hold on to their Empire in the face of the Arabs in the short term, but the success of Islam could not be denied. If the Romans had not wasted so much time and energy battling Persia, Islam might have been stopped. As it was, the Muslims ended up converting the Turks, who, of course, ended up finishing off Constantinople, and this particular phase of the battle between 'East' and 'West'.

< Rome Versus Persia. | The Middle Ages and...Enter the British >

Tags: (all tags) :: Add Tags to this Story
Display: Sort:
Display: Sort:

Login

Make a new account

Username:
Password:
submit story | create account | faq | search