Dan said much that was interesting including:

>> From the Roman side, I'm not sure why the final war was that  
>> devastating. I
>>
> haven't read as much as you have about that era, but the decline  
> and fall of
> the Byzantine empire was more tied to the Byzantine bureaucracy and  
> the
> internal squabbling (to the point of killing) over fine points of  
> theology.

Interestingly, I wouldn't even describe the Empire as "Byzantine"  
until after Heraclius. Whereas Justinian's empire in the mid sixth  
century was manifestly Roman, and Justinian saw himself as the heir  
of Augustus and Diocletian, Heraclius clearly didn't. The near  
terminal crisis of the empire during his reign changed the entire  
character of the empire, and provides what seems to me the most  
natural break-point between "Roman" and "Byzantine" (although, of  
course, there are many continuities that span the divide). But let me  
say something about that crisis...

For the whole period of the Dominate, from the end of the troubled  
third century until the final war between Rome and Persia, the  
military strategy of the Romans was dominated by the Persian  
frontier. Even during the period of the fall of the western part of  
the Empire, the bulk of Roman forces were tied up in the east.  
(Indeed, if not for this the western provinces would almost certainly  
not have fallen, and if the threat of Persia had receded then the  
recovery of the west by Justinian's generals Belisarius and Narses  
would probably have been much more complete.) For much of this period  
the massive Roman forces and fortifications along the frontier  
preserved the peace although there were limited wars in the buffer  
regions.

During the century and a half between the fall of the west and the  
final war, there were relatively small wars during 502-6, 526-32 and  
540-57 (a more serious pair of overlapping wars on different fronts  
during which Antioch fell to the Persians). Then in 602, the  
apocalypse that the balance of military might between the two powers  
had postponed for centuries finally broke out. The Romans had been  
weakened by another bout of civil war, military unrest and the  
invasion of the Balkans by the Avars. The Persian king Khosrau II  
took advantage of this weakness and invaded Roman Mesopotamia. In  
608, Heraclius, the son of the Exarch of Africa, rebelled against the  
emperor Phocas, whose rule had been generally disastrous, and took  
Constantinople in 610. The renewed civil war in the Roman Empire  
further strengthened the position of the Persians, who invaded Syria,  
taking Damascus in 613, Jerusalem in 614 and conquering Egypt in 616  
(it remained under Persian control for a decade). At the low point  
for the Romans, the empire in the east was reduced almost to the city  
of Constantinople itself: the Avars controlled the Balkans and the  
campfires of the Persians were visible just across the Bosphorus. The  
imperial government came within a whisker of abandoning the city and  
moving the capital to the safety of Carthage.

I don't think anybody at the time can have expected anything except  
the imminent dissolution of the Roman Empire. Remarkably, that's not  
what happened, largely because of Heraclius himself. Unlike most of  
the later Roman emperors his charisma could inspire immense loyalty  
and courage in his troops and he turned out to be something of an  
organisational and military genius. He totally reformed the  
administrative and military structure of the Empire (and along the  
way replaced Latin with Greek as the official language of the  
imperial government). His reorganisation largely endured for eight  
centuries, which is why I consider him the first Byzantine emperor.  
Heraclius was also the first emperor to lead his troops in person for  
over two hundred years, and his campaigns between 621 and 627 were  
spectacular indeed. A combination of strategic and tactical  
brilliance and skillful exploitation of weaknesses in the Persian  
political system brought the Persian empire to its knees, plunging it  
into a series of crises that fatally weakened it. By the end of the  
war, the Romans had recovered all the territory they'd lost to  
Persia, but they were territories ravaged by a quarter of a century  
of foreign occupation and war.

It was only seven years after the end of this last war between Rome  
and Persia that the armies of Islam erupted from Arabia. By that time  
Heraclius had fallen into terminal illness, and his generals failed  
him. Syria fell to the Arabs in 634, the Persian army was defeated in  
636, Armenia and Egypt were conquered in 639, Africa in 642, Persia  
itself in 651...

Rich

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to