Content uploaded by Katarzyna Maksymiuk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Katarzyna Maksymiuk on Aug 14, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Geography of Roman-Iranian wars. Military operations of Rome and Sasanian Iran, Siedlce 2015.
... 9 Procopius. Buildings, III 3, 9. 10 Procopius, Buildings III 3 7, 9; Hübschmann 1904: 292; Grousset 2005: 231;Maksymiuk 2015: 120; Howard-Johnston 2006a: 203f. ...
The archaeological researches of the 2018 ‘Iron Age and Hellenistic Period Tunceli survey’ were concentrated within the limits of the Mazgirt district, to the southeast of Tunceli. One of the focal points of the research is the İndere Valley, located between Güneyharman (Köteriç), Karabulut (Sorek), and Obrukbaşı (Lemk) villages, 39 km southeast of the Mazgirt district centre of Tunceli province. The 3.5 km long and 0.8 km wide valley extends in a southeast-northwest direction and displays a deep and sheltered geographical landscape. While the slope and hill settlements are seen on the outer borders of the İndere Valley, the prehistoric period rock shelters, rock-cut tombs, a large Iron Age settlement and a medieval church were identified inside the valley. Güneyharman (Köteriç) and Obrukbaşı settlements are also associated with the valley. The aim of this study is to localise the medieval place name ‘Citharizon’ in Köteriç. It is known as Kotarič in other medieval sources. After a few archaeological surveys, it became clear that the history of İndere Valley and its environs goes back to the prehistoric periods, and continues from the Early Bronze Age till the late Middle Ages.
The Sassanid overthrow of the Parthian Arsacid dynasty in the 3rd century AD opened up new opportunities for the Roman Empire to strengthen power in the east. Although in the 30s of the 3rd century the Roman army was probably stationed in Hatra (a key fortress for the reign of northern Mesopotamia), it was conquered by the Persians around 240–241 AD. Why didn't the Roman Empire take advantage of this opportunity? In this text, I want to look at the circumstances that made it so.
Bizans İmparatorluğu’nun Anadolu’daki doğu sınırı, imparatorluğun uzun tarihi boyunca stratejik öneme sahip olmakla birlikte, özellikle erken ve orta dönemlerde imparatorluğun Avrupa’da yer alan batı ve kuzey sınırlarına nazaran daha tutarlı ve stabil bir görünümdeydi. Anadolu’ya ayak bastıktan hemen sonra imparatorluk sınırını doğu yönünde genişlemeye ve ilerlemeye devam eden Romalılar, XI. yüzyıla kadar başlıca Partlar, Sâsâniler ve akabinde Müslüman Araplar olmak üzere irili ufaklı muhtelif devlet ve topluluklarla şiddetli mücadelelere girişmiş, bu devletlere ve topluluklara karşı zaman zaman mevcut sınırı koruyamayıp geri çekilmek durumunda kalmışlarsa da 298 yılında doğu ve güneydoğu sınırında, 1071 yılından hemen önce de Anadolu’nun kuzeydoğusu ve doğusunda en geniş sınırlarına ulaşmışlardı. Bu çalışmada da MÖ. I. yüzyıldan başlayarak 1071 Malazgirt Savaşına kadar imparatorluğun doğu sınırındaki değişimler ele alınacak ve sınırın genel durumu hakkında bir değerlendirme yapılacaktır.
The article describes a series of helmets of a type that probably spread across Asia and Eastern Europe in the middle to the second half of the VI century AD. These helmets are characterised by a very particular construction: they have a bowl hammered from a single piece of iron, with an additional band in the lower part, connected to the inside or outside edge of the helmet. Additionally, a chainmail collar was attached to the lower part of the helmet. The attached chainmail provides additional protection around the entire circumference including the forehead above the eyes. This characteristic would remain unpopular in European armaments for quite a long period and was only popularised in central and eastern Europe around the XVI century AD [1: 130]. This article analyses a possible Iranian provenance of the helmets of this type as well as hypothesizes about the possible reason for the spread of these helmets on the territory of Eastern Europe and Asia.
The article considers the Sasanian king Khusro I Anushirwan’s reforms to improve the empire’s military and administrative architecture in the northwestern region of Ērānšahr, by creating the kust ī Ādurbādagān. The authors believes that it was a key element in the Sasanian strategy to enforce both central and military power in the defense sensitive Caucasia. The authors argues that the reform initiated the projecting of Ādurbādagān’s name, military, and administrative functions in Arrānšahr forming a strong interrelationship between the southern and northern sides of the Araxes as the entire Ādurbādagānšahr. Since Late Antiquity, Ādurbādagān and Arrān became interchangeable names and were in use on the northern bank of the Araxes.
The Sassanid overthrow of the Parthian Arsacid dynasty in the 3rd century AD opened up new opportunities for the Roman Empire to strengthen power in the east. Although in the 30s of the 3rd century the Roman army was probably stationed in Hatra (a key fortress for the reign of northern Mesopotamia), it was conquered by the Persians around 240-241 AD. Why didn't the Roman Empire take advantage of this opportunity? In this text, I want to look at the circumstances that made it so.
It seems that the 6th century military clashes between Byzantium and Iran stemmed, at least to some extent, from religious conflicts. The article offers an attempt to analyze the actions of the king of Iran - Xusrō I taken towards the Christians, especially during the periods of wars. One may observe a certain dose of tolerance towards the Christians in the policies of Xusrō I, as the persecutions were generally directed against the apostates from Masdaism. Xusrō I supported the Persian/Teodorian Church, with parallel attempts to subduing it to the crown. It seems that support of developing miaphysite Church aimed at strengthening Iranian influence in the border areas.
The article concentrates its attention on the practical aspects of the nation and empire building so that it: 1) Analyzes what methods, means and myths the founder Ardašīr I and his immediate successors used in the building of the Iranian nation and then the empire; 2) Provides an analysis of the importance of history and religion in the making of national myths so that the article analyzes how the Iranian leadership rewrote the past together with its religion for the purpose of uniting under their flag all those who spoke the Iranian dialects and/or practiced ancient Iranian religions, 3) Investigates what methods the Sasanians used to control the subjects; 4) Shows how the original set of falsified historical myths and the core set of religious beliefs were altered to meet the changing reality. 5) Asks whether the above provides any lessons for modernity.
The priority for the Sasanid rulers was to eliminate from the throne of Armenia, the Parthian Arsacid dynasty, linked by blood ties to the formerly abolished Iranian ruling dynasty. In 298, the Battle of Satala took place in Armenia, in which the Roman army commanded by Caesar Galerius won a crushing victory over the Sassanian troops headed by King Narseh. The Romans captured huge amounts of booty and captured the Persian royal family. The campaign ended with a peace treaty very favourable to Rome, in which Narseh renounced Trans-Tigritania, pledged non-intervention in Armenia, and recognised the Roman protectorate in Iberia. The revision of the so-called Treaty of Nisibis was the foundation of the Persian-Roman wars in the 4th century carried out by Shapur II. In this study, it is aimed to give information about the effect of the Battle of Satala on the beginning of the Persian-Roman wars in the 4th century and its results.
The article reconstructs the military history of Persia under a Bahrām V Gōr, and points out the historical significance of his reign and campaigns as well as the importance of his military reforms – in particular the importance of the adoption of the new style of archery and cavalry tactics.
The fifth century was in general a peaceful period for Rome’s eastern frontier. On just two occasions was this peace disturbed, and only one of these involved significant campaigning. Perhaps because of this comparative lack of conflict between Rome and Persia, these two occasions have attracted considerable scholarly attention. The account of the church historian Theodoret of Cyrrhus has been at the centre of this discussion, and will be dealt with in detail below. This article will look first at Theodoret’s account, and the problems arising from it, and then at the treatment of the wars by ancient authorities generally. First, however, it would be worth considering briefly the background and course of the two wars.
