Reforming/Saving the Western Empire

[smith]

Also, Steven Runciman, in his book on Byzantine Civilization, identified the rise of the Sassanids in Persia as a challenge that diverted resources to the East.

 

Prof. Heather agreed, and referred to the new Sassanid Persia as a "superpower". But I don't know; there were times when the Sassanids were weak and, prior to their time, times when the Parthians were pretty formidable and troublesome, but Rome managed.

 

loss of gold producing areas in Dacia (to the Goths/Huns?)

 

 

Aurelian abandoned Dacia in the third century long before the Huns were a problem.

[pikachu]

Prof. Heather agreed, and referred to the new Sassanid Persia as a "superpower". But I don't know; there were times when the Sassanids were weak and, prior to their time, times when the Parthians were pretty formidable and troublesome, but Rome managed.

 

The same could be said of Rome, actually, especially after the 3rd century. Unlike the Sassanids, the Parthians were never centralized and organized enough to pose a real existential threat to Rome. In fact, the very reason the Sassanids were able to rise in the first place was the inherently disorganized nature of the Parthians' feudal empire. After Nushirvan, the Sassanids managed to get over that weakness and formed a far greater threat than the Parthians had ever been. Fortunately for the Byzantines, by this point in time it was the Sassanids' turn to (ironically) play "bulwark of the West", fending off barbarian Ephtalites and their ilk from overruning the civilized world.

[smith]

Unlike the Sassanids, the Parthians were never centralized and organized enough to pose a real existential threat to Rome.

 

I don't think the Sassanids posed an "existential threat" either. Shapur just invaded, plundered and withdrew. He didn't take much territory, if any. The Parthians were very dangerous in the years after Carrhae i.e. as aggressors as well as defenders. They overran a lot of territory before reinforcements forced them back. Parthia also caused a lot of trouble on the offensive around 161-62 CE.

 

In fact, the very reason the Sassanids were able to rise in the first place was the inherently disorganized nature of the Parthians' feudal empire. After Nushirvan, the Sassanids managed to get over that weakness and formed a far greater threat than the Parthians had ever been.

It sure took a while didn't it--that was that, 3-4 centuries after Ardashir?

 

 

Fortunately for the Byzantines, by this point in time it was the Sassanids' turn to (ironically) play "bulwark of the West", fending off barbarian Ephtalites and their ilk from overruning the civilized world.

 

I recall reading that these new Huns gave the Sassanids a run for their money, in part because of their greater mobility compared to the heavily armored cataphracts.

[pikachu]

Shapur just invaded, plundered and withdrew. He didn't take much territory, if any.

Agreed, but Shapur I is a bad example of the kind of threat the Sassanid state posed to Rome. Most of the Sassanid kings, while aspiring to reestablish the Achaemenid Empire in theory, were quite realistic in their attempts to achieve that goal. Some, like Shapur, maintained a "robber-baron" mentality and became incapable of playing the Great Game the way Romans could. The real threat to Rome did not come from the kings, who after all had to constantly grapple with internal threats to their rule on top of holding back the eastern barbarians - the same situation holding back Roman emperors from playing Alex the Great. The threat was from the Sassanid state itself which, unlike the Parthian state before it, actually posed a viable alternative to Rome as ruling (as opposed to hegemonic) power in the Middle East. The Sassanids had developed administrative capabilities rivaling Rome's by the time of Shapur III and Nushirvan solidified such progress with his legal reforms. Unfortunately for the Sassanids, they had Chosroes II at their head when they finally decided to make the final bet. Yet the fact that they did manage to hold on to most of Byzantine's middle-eastern possessions for nearly a decade proved that they could, with better leadership, have achieved what the Islamic caliphate would in the next century (in fact the Caliphate for the most part borrowed Sassanid administrative practices - try governing by the Hadith and see how long that'd work). They may well have achieved the feat if not for the assassination of Chosroes II at this important juncture. The Arabs were still at that time cowed by Persian might (thanks to cultural memory from Nushirvan's time) and concentrating their efforts primarily against Rome.

 

It sure took a while didn't it--that was that, 3-4 centuries after Ardashir?

 

True, but Nushirvan only solidified gains already made by his predecessors, in particular Shapur II's centralization of the empire. Realistically speaking, by the time of Shapur III, the danger of a Sassanid collapse into its feudal components was effectively nonexistent, and most of the Iranian nationalities that had maintained their own identities (and therefore became a source of anarchy) in Parthian times had been "Persianized" enough to prevent a revolt similar to that in which Ardashir destroyed the Parthian empire. By Bahram V's time an internationally-recognized and unified "Persian" culture had formed which would survive even into the 21st century. Even today, Bahram remains the idealized model of a muslim monarch, despite the fact that he was anything but.

 

What Nushirvan succeeded in doing was the codification of Persian norms which would survive Sassanid collapse, and the establishment of a philosophy of centralized government by bureaucratic oversight that would become the basis for Islamic governments from the Caliphate to the Ottoman Empire. He in effect made it impossible for Iran to be anything but Persian, unlike in Parthian times when various Iranian nationalities always had incentive to establish their own sovereign states independent of Parthian hegemony (which was what Ardashir had done). Another way of looking at it is that after Nushirvan, all the pretenders to the Persian throne, be they Arab, Turk, or Iranian, were pretenders to the Persian throne; a distinction missing from the pre-Sassanid era. It was therefore unfortunate that his own dynasty did not survive the next generation.

 

I recall reading that these new Huns gave the Sassanids a run for their money, in part because of their greater mobility compared to the heavily armored cataphracts.

 

The Ephthalites were strictly speaking not Huns (a turkic-speaking tribal confederation). Chinese records seem to indicate that they were primarily an Iranian-speaking people. Mobility being a primary advantage for Central Asian nomads, it was not surprising they confounded Sassanid heavy cavalry. Yet in a way it was also strange, because the Sassanids themselves had very effective light cavalry taken from tribal and feudal levies. Originally, the Ephthalites' success in overruning the Eranshahr was due to the inherent slowness of Sassanid mobilization of their Ashivaran nobility - a problem that showed itself again during the Arab invasion. Perhaps the problem was not the cavalry's tactical mobility itself but inability by the state to concentrate them quickly. Basically, once the barbarians were at their gates, most of the Ashivaran opted to bottle themselves up in their castles/mansions/cities/strongholds and ignore the general call-to-arms. Those who did respond generally got demoralized when they found out how small the resulting force became and refused to try to fight their way through hostile territory to link up with other assembled units. This did not affect the mobilization of heavy cavalry too much because the Sassanid kings kept standing armies of heavy cavalry, but the light cavalry levies had to be mobilized by their own lords/chiefs and therefore became unavailable for fighting the inherently more mobile invaders. Later on enterprising Sassanid rulers incorporated the light cavalry early on into their forces before setting out against Ephthalites and their ilk. This had more success.

[Sardaukar]

I'd say that before anything, Roman Empire would have needed system for peaceful succession of rulers...

 

They didn't have any enemies they could not deal with relative ease if frequent and costly civil wars would been lot more rare. No matter what social/economic reforms there would have been, if civil war breaks between contenders almost every time, they are futile.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Sardaukar

[smith]

I'd say that before anything, Roman Empire would have needed system for peaceful succession of rulers...

 

It would've helped a lot but it was easier said than done.

 

They didn't have any enemies they could not deal with relative ease if frequent and costly civil wars would been lot more rare.

 

Fighting on two fronts also caused serious problems. Shapur might not have struck at the Roman East c 252 had Abrittus not occurred.

Edited December 19, 2007 by smith

[Conall]

It would've helped a lot but it was easier said than done.

Fighting on two fronts also caused serious problems. Shapur might not have struck at the Roman East c 252 had Abrittus not occurred.

 

While I would agree that Decius' defeat at Abrittus had profound and highly negative consequences for the Romans I would suggest that Shapur's final removal of the Arcasid dynasty in Armenia was what prompted his campaign against the Romans in AD 252. It's also worth noting that his campaign was simply a resumption of hostilities which had begun in AD 240. If you haven't read it already then I would strongly recommend that you take a look at Beate Dignas & Englebert Winter, Rome & Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours & Rivals 2001, English Translation 2007

[Conall]

Aurelian abandoned Dacia in the third century long before the Huns were a problem.

 

Agreed; Aurelian abandoned Dacia because of pressure from the confederation between the Sarmatians & Marcomanni/Qadi. The Huns were still not even a distant whisper in the Goths nightmares (the witches had yet to couple with demons...). They only became a problem after their defear of Earmenric & the Greuthungi c.AD 370 (We have heard too of the wolvish temper Ermanaric had, who mastered the lands of the Gothic kingdom; he was a cruel lord...).

[Conall]

Doesn't that refer to the period around mid third century? Btw does that book say the same about the fate of Valerian as Prof. Heather, repeating the old tale of him being skinned and stuffed?

 

You do realise that the interpretation of the rock reliefs at Naqs-i Rustam & the Res gestae divi Saporis re Valerian's more benign captivity is only one school of thought and has yet to become the historical orthodoxy? Not least because both of the above only mention him being taken prisoner by Shapur & not his ultimate fate. The concept of his continued existence as an honoured guest of the Sasanians is only mentioned in the much later Islamic texts: Chronicle of Se'ert and Tabari, Ta'rih. Please could you explain why you are so willing to dismiss a contemporary Roman source - Lactantius. who was alive during the events under discussion? While I completely agree that his writings had a polemical religious bent and portray pagan emperors in the worst possible light it is still a major leap to ignore his version of events as merely an 'old tale'. You will have to do better, otherwise what you suggest is simply one possible hypothesis among many and should be represented as such rather than being the historical orthodoxy.

[smith]

You do realise that the interpretation of the rock reliefs at Naqs-i Rustam & the Res gestae divi Saporis

 

 

I believe they're the same, and Bishapur has the other set of reliefs depicting these events. Darabgird too IIRC.

 

 

re Valerian's more benign captivity is only one school of thought and has yet to become the historical orthodoxy? Not least because both of the above only mention him being taken prisoner by Shapur & not his ultimate fate. The concept of his continued existence as an honoured guest of the Sasanians is only mentioned in the much later Islamic texts: Chronicle of Se'ert and Tabari, Ta'rih.

 

Well there's also Firdawsi, whose account, like that of al-Tabari, is in part verified by the existence of the Karun river bridge.

 

Please could you explain why you are so willing to dismiss a contemporary Roman source - Lactantius. who was alive during the events under discussion?

Gibbon didn't buy it either. Some of the stories about Valerian's fate just don't appear credible. He was an old man of 60 when captured. Lactantius and/or others would have us believe Shapur routinely stepped on his back when mounting his horse. Gimme a break--an old guy couldn't bear the full weight of another man on his back or shoulders. He'd be seriously hurt or killed if it happened once. Lactantius btw wasn't exactly a contemporary of Valerian; he lived in the time of Diocletian. And btw how many of the people(including Roman ambasadors) whom Lactantius says saw the stuffed Valerian actually reported seeing such a thing themselves? As I just wrote above, the account of Firdawsi has some corroboration I don't know of ANY for the account of Lactantius, among those who lived in PIMO the

 

 

 

While I completely agree that his writings had a polemical religious bent and portray pagan emperors in the worst possible light it is still a major leap to ignore his version of events as merely an 'old tale'. You will have to do better, otherwise what you suggest is simply one possible hypothesis among many and should be represented as such rather than being the historical orthodoxy.

[smith]

You do realise that the interpretation of the rock reliefs at Naqs-i Rustam & the Res gestae divi Saporis

 

 

I believe they're the same, and Bishapur has the other set of reliefs depicting these events. Darabgird too IIRC.

 

 

re Valerian's more benign captivity is only one school of thought and has yet to become the historical orthodoxy? Not least because both of the above only mention him being taken prisoner by Shapur & not his ultimate fate. The concept of his continued existence as an honoured guest of the Sasanians is only mentioned in the much later Islamic texts: Chronicle of Se'ert and Tabari, Ta'rih.

 

Well there's also Firdawsi, whose account, like that of al-Tabari, is in part verified by the existence of the Karun river bridge.

 

Please could you explain why you are so willing to dismiss a contemporary Roman source - Lactantius. who was alive during the events under discussion?

Gibbon didn't buy it either. Some of the stories about Valerian's fate just don't appear credible. He was an old man of 60 when captured. Lactantius and/or others would have us believe Shapur routinely stepped on his back when mounting his horse. Gimme a break--an old guy couldn't bear the full weight of another man on his back or shoulders. He'd be seriously hurt or killed if it happened once. Lactantius btw wasn't exactly a contemporary of Valerian; he lived in the time of Diocletian. And btw how many of the people(including Roman ambasadors) whom Lactantius says saw the stuffed Valerian actually reported seeing such a thing themselves? As I just wrote above, the account of Firdawsi has some corroboration I don't know of ANY for the account of Lactantius, among those who lived in PIMO the

 

 

 

While I completely agree that his writings had a polemical religious bent and portray pagan emperors in the worst possible light it is still a major leap to ignore his version of events as merely an 'old tale'. You will have to do better, otherwise what you suggest is simply one possible hypothesis among many and should be represented as such rather than being the historical orthodoxy.

[smith]

You do realise that the interpretation of the rock reliefs at Naqs-i Rustam & the Res gestae divi Saporis

 

 

I believe they're the same(same place), and Bishapur has the other set of reliefs depicting these events. Darabgird too IIRC.

 

 

re Valerian's more benign captivity is only one school of thought and has yet to become the historical orthodoxy? Not least because both of the above only mention him being taken prisoner by Shapur & not his ultimate fate.

But, as the Iranica.comshapur website pointed out, the Bishapur reliefs portray Valerian in full imperial regalia. While he is held and clearly a captive he is not chained on his hands and knees. There is no indication, in other words that he is someone the Sassanians intended to degrade.

 

The concept of his continued existence as an honoured guest of the Sasanians is only mentioned in the much later Islamic texts: Chronicle of Se'ert and Tabari, Ta'rih.

 

Well there's also Firdawsi, whose account, like that of al-Tabari, is in part verified by the existence of the Karun river bridge.

 

Please could you explain why you are so willing to dismiss a contemporary Roman source - Lactantius. who was alive during the events under discussion?

 

Gibbon didn't buy it either. Some of the stories about Valerian's fate just don't appear credible. He was an old man of 60 when captured. Lactantius and/or others would have us believe Shapur routinely stepped on his back when mounting his horse. I doubt an old guy could bear the full weight of another man on his back or shoulders. He'd be seriously hurt or killed if it happened once. Lactantius btw wasn't exactly a contemporary of Valerian; he lived in the time of Diocletian. And how many of the people(including Roman ambasadors) whom Lactantius says saw the stuffed Valerian actually reported seeing such a thing themselves? As I just wrote above, the account of Firdawsi has some corroboration; I don't know of ANY for the account of Lactantius, among those who were in Persia and were in the best position to know the facts. IMO the claims of Valerian being abused originated with the Roman State, but they also served the christian agenda, since they made it appear that a persecutor was severely punished in the end.

Edited December 31, 2007 by smith

[smith]

While I would agree that Decius' defeat at Abrittus had profound and highly negative consequences for the Romans I would suggest that Shapur's final removal of the Arcasid dynasty in Armenia was what prompted his campaign against the Romans in AD 252.

 

The RGDS claimed the Romans provoked the war by lying and "harming" Armenia. I think Shapur just wanted loot and decided to attack in 252 because the better Roman forces, in Europe, were no longer available to help the weaker eastern forces--as they had to do a number of times in the past, since Corbulo-- because of Abrittus.

 

It's also worth noting that his campaign was simply a resumption of hostilities which had begun in AD 240.

 

Yes, and that was a resumption of the hostilities which began c 229, during Alexander Severus's time. The Persians probably attacked around 240, or even earlier, because the civil wars of 235-38 left Rome temporarily vulnerable. Both sides attacked when the other was "down". Alexander Severus had to bring European troops to help in the East; while they didn't exactly win the problems they caused Persia probably led the Sassanids to wait for circumstances under which European troops could not help the East before attacking it again e.g. civil wars or Abrittus.

[Conall]

The RGDS claimed the Romans provoked the war by lying and "harming" Armenia. I think Shapur just wanted loot and decided to attack in 252 because the better Roman forces, in Europe, were no longer available to help the weaker eastern forces--as they had to do a number of times in the past, since Corbulo-- because of Abrittus.

Yes, and that was a resumption of the hostilities which began c 229, during Alexander Severus's time. The Persians probably attacked around 240, or even earlier, because the civil wars of 235-38 left Rome temporarily vulnerable. Both sides attacked when the other was "down". Alexander Severus had to bring European troops to help in the East; while they didn't exactly win the problems they caused Persia probably led the Sassanids to wait for circumstances under which European troops could not help the East before attacking it again e.g. civil wars or Abrittus.

I think the points you make are very valid and I don't disagree with any of them per se. I think, as is generally the case, that Shapur's decision making process was based on a number of factors rather then any convenient single explanation. In this instance I would posit that our suggestions are mutually supportive. By removing the remaining Arcasids (the remnants of the previous Parthian royal family) in Armenia as an effective political/military force Shapur put himself in position to take advantage on an opportunistic basis of any Roman weakness. As it happened this opening presented itself relatively swiftly after Shapur had removed the Arcasids, which were the last obstacle to the establishment of Sasanian legitamacy. In this political context Shapur's offensive against Rome's eastern provinces can be seen as not only raiding but political expediency designed to entrench himself and his family even further as the new ruling dynasty in Persia. This did, of course, require success in battle...

 

edited for fat fingers and dyslexic inability to spell Sasanian

Edited December 31, 2007 by Conall

[Conall]

I believe they're the same(same place), and Bishapur has the other set of reliefs depicting these events. Darabgird too IIRC.

Correct - the distinction is simply between the pictorial carvings and the text, the RGDS refers only to the text, which as I understand it (& I would be very happy to be corrected as it's not an area of my specialism) is but part of a large corpus of carvings.

 

But, as the Iranica.comshapur website pointed out, the Bishapur reliefs portray Valerian in full imperial regalia. While he is held and clearly a captive he is not chained on his hands and knees. There is no indication, in other words that he is someone the Sassanians intended to degrade.

This is a very good point and I think is borne out by the later diplomatic relations between the Sasanians and eastern Rome in the sixth century. To degrade a ruler of equivalent status would be to degrade yourself as a monarch and therby emperil your rule/political existence. However, I would note that the carvings only depict the point of capture and much later Islamic illustrationsin Firdawasi's late tenth century work, Sahnama, only show Valerian being led from the battlefield. The tradition recorded by Lactantius suggests that Shapur only became enraged with Valerian when the latter attempted to bribe him to secure his release. The two traditions are not, therefore, necessarily mutually inconsistent.

 

Well there's also Firdawsi, whose account, like that of al-Tabari, is in part verified by the existence of the Karun river bridge.

 

True and I certainly wouldn't deny the veracity of Roman prisoners being set to work in southerne and eastern Persia. The Sasanians also used the Romans as instructors in establishing their bureaucracy and modes of government. This is, however, a much later Islamic tradition from the time of the Caliphate, who in turn had adapted Sasanian forms of government and wanted not only to stress that they were the legitimate heirs of the Sasanian tradition but also the civilised and enlightened nature of their predecessors. It is not, therefore, a contemporary source and has its own political agenda; I wouldn't include it as a primary source in that respect. It is, however, a fascinating source for understanding how the late tenth century Caliphate viewed their Sasanian predecessors.

 

Gibbon didn't buy it either. Some of the stories about Valerian's fate just don't appear credible. He was an old man of 60 when captured. Lactantius and/or others would have us believe Shapur routinely stepped on his back when mounting his horse. I doubt an old guy could bear the full weight of another man on his back or shoulders. He'd be seriously hurt or killed if it happened once.

This is a thoroughly silly argument on several levels. First the idea that a 60 year old man couldn't bear the weight is ridiculous (I note that you have lifted this argument almost verbatim from Tim Donovan - I have very harsh words to say about his joke of a book; I really hope you're not Tim Donovan ), you might as well argue that it ought to have been impossible for the Chris Bonnington to climb Everest aged 51, or later as 'old guy'of 60 to make the first ascent of Rangrik Rang without oxygen (6553m - a much more technical and remote peak than Everest, albeit with lesser altitude related problems). Valerian was an active man and had been a soldier for most of his life; so I would imagine his level of personal fitness was high. Certainly accounts of his reign note his energy and his punishing imperial itinerary. Furthermore, if you intention as Shapur was to degrade, insult, injure and ultimately kill Valerian then it wouldn't have mattered whether using him as a mounting block injured him. In fact any injury would have been a positive. I hope you realise that a mounting block would have only needed to be about 2 feet high (horses of the period were typically 13-14 hands high), something easily achieved by a man being forced to crouch on his hands and knees. Try it if you don't believe me...

 

Lactantius btw wasn't exactly a contemporary of Valerian; he lived in the time of Diocletian. And how many of the people(including Roman ambasadors) whom Lactantius says saw the stuffed Valerian actually reported seeing such a thing themselves? As I just wrote above, the account of Firdawsi has some corroboration; I don't know of ANY for the account of Lactantius, among those who were in Persia and were in the best position to know the facts. IMO the claims of Valerian being abused originated with the Roman State, but they also served the christian agenda, since they made it appear that a persecutor was severely punished in the end.

Agreed and I certainly concede that Lactantius (born c.AD 240 - therefore an adult during the 260s) is a highly problematic source (absolutely agree re his polemical Christian agenda - something I explicitly noted before). He was, however, a primary source writing from the Roman perspective unlike Firdawsa, who, as I have pointed out above, was writing in the late tenth century for an Islamic audience relating ancient Sasanian traditions about events which took place seven hundred years previously. Lactantius, by contrast, was writing within living memory of Valerian's capture and death in captivity. Firdawsa is a secondary source relating events at best second or third hand and cannot be compared as a source to Lactantius. I'm afraid you will still have to do better.

 

The point I'm really making, is that if we are honest we have to say that we don't know what was Valerian's eventual fate and that, at best, we can only suggest a number of hypotheses. At present none are conclusive. As it happens I would also lean towards your interpretation but I don't think the other version can be dismissed out of hand as merely being an old saw.

 

Have a great New Year and we can carry on the argument in 2008 when I intend to being very rude about Tim Donovan's excreable excuse for a book.

 

All the best,

 

Tom

[Conall]

double post

Edited December 31, 2007 by Conall

[smith]

Lactantius may have been much closer to the events in time but that doesn't make him more credible. AFAIK he wasn't in Persia but merely repeated stories he had heard; stories which were probably official propaganda. I presume Firdawsi based his story--although somewhat fanciful-- on some official history, which was more inclusive than the RGDS. Lactantius says Valerian tried to bribe Shapur to win his release? How could a captive bribe anyone? Btw it should be noted that life expectancy at the time was considerably less; even soldiers which hadn't died in battle died fairly young. I'd imagine that whereas today many people around 50-60 are in excellent shape, at the time it was hard enough to stay alive at 60 with no abuse. And we're talkng about supposedly routine abuse. The Roman captives in Persia appear to have fared OK; some even married local woman; Pusai was said to have been descended from a Roman prisoner. They could hardly have accomplished so much--reliefs, a giant statue and bridge--if they had been tortured and starved. Assuming decent treatment for the rank and file who did the work, I don't see why the higher ups, including Valerian, would've fared terribly, especially since the higher ranking Romans probably supervised much of the work.

Edited January 2, 2008 by smith