Dignas B., Winter E. Rome and Persia in late Antiquity. Neighbours and Rivals

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

30 °E

Black Sea

Sinope

Trapezus

Artaxata

Ganzak

ız

Martyropolis

Edessa

Melitene

Samosata

Zeugma

Dara

Nisibis

Callinicum

Palmyra

Antioch

SYRIA

Resapha/

Sergiopo

lis

Hatra

Ctesiphon

Gundeshapur

Shustar

Stakhr

ıshapur

500 km0

300 miles0

MESOPOTAMIA

ARMENIA

L. Sevan

L.Urm

L.Van

R. Tigris

R. Araxes

R. Cyrus

. H

alys

Theodosiopolis

Nicomedia

Nicaea

Constantinople

Ephesus

Athens

CRETE

Tarsus

CYPRUS

Alexandria

Jerusalem

Seleucia

Veh-Ardash

ır

40 °E 50 °E

40°N

30°N

50 °E40 °E30 °E

30°N

40°N

¯¯

¯¯¯

Map 14: The Byzantine-Sasanian Borderlands

244 9 Exchange of information between West and East

the course of the two major rivers and their many branches provided good

opportunities for tradesmen and travellers to cover even long distances.

Because of the character of the landscape, also marked by the ethnic and

linguistic diversity of its inhabitants, the outer frontier of the Eastern part of

the Roman Empire cannot be compared to the strong and continuous for-

tiﬁcation of the ‘limes’ to the north and west of the Roman Empire. Recent

scholarship has correctly pointed to the special character and permeability

of this part of the Roman frontier, which is rather a supervised military

zone with a mixed population on both sides and a Romanised upper class

contrasted by nomadic as well as settled inhabitants. It is argued that this

peculiar make up of the border region always showed an ‘open’ character

and that no ruler would have been in the position to disrupt or interdict

underlying continuities.

With regard to trade relations between the two powers, it has become

clear that there was a close link between aspects of trade and security, which

can be observed already for the year 298.

Both states made efforts to con-

trol the ﬂow of goods but rather than being guided by ﬁnancial reasoning –

such as aiming at higher customs duties – they sought to protect an often

‘invisible’ border along the Mesopotamian–Syrian limes. Unfortunately,

the unsatisfactory archaeological exploration of important fortiﬁcations as

well as the ancient infrastructure in this region does not allow us to further

strengthen this argument. In spite of several recent and excellent surveys of

the history and culture of the Roman Near East it remains true that among

the provinces of the Roman Empire Mesopotamia and Osrhoene are the

least explored and documented provinces. No excavations with the speciﬁc

aim of illuminating the Hellenistic and Roman periods have taken place in

the most important cities such as Edessa, Amida, Carrhae or Nisibis. Nor

do we know nearly enough about the Roman border fortresses or the road

system. The barren landscape, the climatic conditions and the political sit-

uation of the past decades have prevented any closer examination of this

area, and this represents a major desideratum. Recent surveys and archae-

ological studies in northern Syria and Mesopotamia as well as along the

Roman Tigris, often initiated in response to threats posed by the construc-

tion of dams, have revealed the wide insight gained by a continuation of

the work. A better knowledge of the genesis and structure of settlements, of

road systems and their use in late antiquity would also throw light on many

Cf. Millar 1998a: 119–37; for the importance of this aspect with regard to trade see also 28.

Whittaker 1994: 99–101 and von Wickevoort Crommelin 1998: 272–3.

See above, 28.

35 Diplomacy and espionage 245

questions regarding Roman and Sasanian policies along the Euphrates and

Tigris.

However, there is no doubt that it was precisely these areas where

exchange took place or was initiated, be it through ofﬁcial channels and

diplomatic activities or through other modes of interaction between the two

cultures. In what follows we want to examine how and via which channels

the observed exchange of information took place. Which groups were able

to gain from such communication, which ideas and attitudes were trans-

mitted, and, not least, who were the carriers of information relating to the

opponent? Undoubtedly, diplomatic exchange, to which we have already

repeatedly referred, features prominently when it comes to the transmission

of detailed knowledge about the neighbour.

35: Diplomacy and espionage

Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae 89–90

(Reiske pp. 398–410)

(89) What needs to be observed when a great ambassador of the Persians arrives.

It is necessary that when a great ambassador is announced, the magister sends

to the border area an illustrious magistrate or silentarius or tribune or also one

of the notables or magistriani, or he may send whomever he resolves worthy of

the arriving person, in order that he receives him and guides him safely through

Roman territory. The one who is sent gets [p. 399] to Nisibis, and he greets him,

and if he has a letter of the emperor, he hands it over to him, (if not, one by the

magister), and he urges him to come in. Possibly the magister does not write either,

but the invitation arises solely through the mandata, to the effect that he come with

good spirit and in good health. And he goes out with him. It is necessary that the

magistrates of D

a meet him together with their soldiers in the border area and

that they receive the ambassador and his men. And if there is something that needs

to be talked about at the border, it is talked about, because the magistrate from

Nisibis is accompanying him together with a Persian force as far as the border.

If there are no talks, it is still by all means necessary that he accompanies him

together with a force and that whereas the Romans receive him and those with

him, the other Persians remain on Persian territory, and that he alone with his

retinue gets to D

a and be attended to. It is the duty of the magistrates of D

ato

show much alertness and foresight so that the Persian force does not come along

by some pretext of the ambassador, and in turn follows him and captures the city

by ruse. But the magistrates must give much thought to this force [p. 400] and

must be secretly watchful and prevent such scheme. As is customary, the ducici

See Blockley 1980: 89–100; Sako 1986; Lee 1986: 455–61 and 1993a: 166–84; Scott 1992: 159–66.

Reiske’s Latin translation explains this term as ‘homines ad ofﬁcium ducum illorum thematum, per quae

traiectus ﬁt, pertinentes’(p.400).

246 9 Exchange of information between West and East

cover the expense of the journey here for up to 103 days. For this many days have

always been determined as sufﬁcient for an ambassador making his way up [to

Constantinople], and as many for his return. It happens that he is slow on his way,

and the emperor gives instructions to the effect that he is given a supplement. The

record of what has been given to him is kept in the scrinium of the barbarians.

And according to the agreements that were concluded when Constantine became

praetorian prefect ﬁve horses were assigned to him, and 30 pack animals. If the

emperor wants to give him special attention, he gives order that he be assigned

much more. If he wants to honour him as well, he must send for him and receive

him through one of the highly ranked men in Galatia and Cappadocia, and to

provide food for him. Likewise, he must send to Nicaea to host and look after

him there. It is necessary that when he gets close to Antioch,

the magister also

sends a magistrianus, who has to meet and greet him, and to ﬁnd out how he is

being guided through Roman territory. If the emperor wishes, he does this once

and then a second time, that is he both writes to him and greets him, and asks

him how he is being guided. It is necessary that pack animals are ready for him

at Helenopolis and also light vessels, in order that, if he wishes, [p. 401] he may

go to Nicomedia on foot, or if he wishes, may get across in the light vessels, and

there it is absolutely necessary that horses and pack animals are ready for him, in

order that they receive him and take him to Chalcedon. In Chalcedon the magister

has to provide lodgings both for him and his men, and to send the optio

of the

barbarians and to set aside for him sufﬁcient expenses for the day, or even days that

he spends in Chalcedon. And as his host he sends gifts to him. It is the magister’s

duty to immediately send someone to greet him, and to ask how his journey was,

and that he was not recovering from anything, and simply to entertain him as much

as possible. It is necessary that his lodgings in the city are prepared in advance as

is appropriate for the rank of the man and for the group that he brings along,

and that in there are for him beds, linen, ovens, ﬁreplaces, tables and buckets to

carry water and to be of service with regard to the other dirty tasks. But the comes

privatorum bears the expense of the bed linen according to a billet of the magister,

or rather the sacellarius of the emperor (for now this duty has been transferred to

him). The praefectus urbis [p. 402] bears the expense for the beds, drinking vessels,

tables, ovens and pots, again according to a billet of the magister. The men of the

arsenals provide the ﬁreplaces. The men from the workshops are also assigned to

him by the supervisor. And the bath of the house, in which he is to live, has to

be made ready, or close to this, in order that, whenever he wants, he himself and

those with him can take a bath, and the bath is at their disposal alone . . .

(90) What should be observed during the other days with regard to the

ambassador.

The emperor, once he has read the letter, when he wants to, allows the magister

to inform the ambassador that he may come to the palace on the following day. He

On the scrinium barbarorum see Clauss 1981: 137.

On the question whether this is Antioch in Pisidia or the capital of Syria on the river Orontes see

the references in Greatrex and Lieu 2002: 275–6 n. 8.

The optio could be either a military ofﬁcial or an ambassador.

35 Diplomacy and espionage 247

himself may inform him, if he wishes, through a silentiarius, that he may come,

and a silence takes place, and the arms are held up and the labaresioi stand by, and

when he comes forward the magister receives him into his schola, and he leaves

him seated and gets up, and he indicates (his arrival) to the emperor; he receives

him inside, either in the portico or in the Augusteum itself.

If the ambassador

has gifts of his own, he announces this a day before through the magister,inorder

that they may be received, and if the emperor allows this, he shows them to the

magister in the schola, and they are recorded for him. And it is necessary [p. 409]

that the magister goes to the emperor in advance to show him the record of the

gifts. And the ambassador, if he wants them to be received, goes in and asks the

emperor, in order that he may receive his gifts. And if the emperor allows this, his

men come in, bearing his gifts, and a similar procedure takes place with regard

to the royal gifts, and a conversation takes place. It is essential that the emperor

again remembers the king of the Persians and his disposition continuously and in

a positive way, and if there is peace, they also talk about that kind of thing, and the

emperor dismisses him, and he awaits the magister outside, and the magister comes

out, bids him farewell and dismisses him himself. On the other days he sends for

him, and they discuss matters. And if he decides to do so, he allows the magister or

other magistrates together with him to talk with the ambassador outside. If there

is complete friendship between the states, the king has to send someone to visit

him continuously and to ﬁnd out how he is, and also to send him food, and gifts

of friendship during our holidays and during his special days, and to entertain him

in all sorts of ways.

Numerous and wide-ranging works of literature are accredited to the Byzan-

tine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (905–59), who from 949

to 959 ruled as monarch.

The author’s aim was to acquire knowledge on

a number of different topics, to put it to paper and make it accessible for

practical purposes. His work De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae is an ency-

clopaedia compiled on the basis of the records in the imperial archives; it

is tremendously important with regard to the protocol at the Byzantine

court and the administrative hierarchy of the Byzantine Empire. It is an

example of a genre that was popular during the ninth and tenth centuries,

namely the Taktika, handbooks made up of lists of Byzantine ofﬁces and

titles that were instructive if one wanted to learn about and follow royal

protocol. Obviously, these texts are also a valuable source for the modern

historian as they provide much information about the administration and

bureaucratic hierarchies of this period. The passage gives detailed instruc-

tions concerning the arrival of a high ranking Persian diplomat and most

likely has to do with the journey of the Persian ambassador Yazdgushnasp

For the archaeological remains of these buildings see Bardill 1999: 216–30, esp. 227, with further

references on the role of the Augusteum in entertaining ofﬁcials.

On the author and his work see Toynbee 1973; Sevcenko 1992: 167–95.

248 9 Exchange of information between West and East

to the imperial court at Constantinople.

Around the middle of the sixth

century this man played a crucial role for the diplomatic relations of the

two great powers.

His input was also essential for the conclusion of the

peace treaty of 562 (20). On the Roman side, the most signiﬁcant diplomat

of this period was Peter the Patrician,

who wrote a detailed account of

Yazdgushnasp’s mission, which must be based on an ofﬁcial protocol and

was clearly used by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his work.

The protective measures taken immediately after the crossing of the bor-

der are remarkable. In particular the instructions concerning D

a must

result from actual Sasanian attempts to get hold of this strategically impor-

tant fortiﬁcation by way of some ruse. In spite of an armistice agreed

upon in 545 Xusr

o I was determined to control D

In 547 the Persian

ambassador Yazdgushnasp was travelling to Constantinople together with

a large entourage; on his way he was supposed to capture D

a with the

help of the Persian troops stationed at Nisibis. The plan failed because the

Romans made sure that Yazdgushnasp did not enter the city with more than

twenty of his men; without causing any offence he continued his journey

to Constantinople where he was received by Justinian and honoured with

numerous gifts.

It looks as if the protective measures mentioned by Con-

stantine Porphyrogenitus with regard to the arrival of Sasanian diplomats

also applied to the following period. A set of Roman ofﬁcials had to make

sure that Persian ambassadors entered Roman cities as individuals accom-

panied by only a few men and that the Persian soldiers remained on the

other side of the border.

Apart from aspects of security, the passage reﬂects the great amenities and

the privileged role enjoyed by the ambassadors both during their journey

across foreign territory and during their stay in the cities they were travel-

ling to, in general the capitals of the respective states. It is not surprising

that such ‘special treatment’ brought along many opportunities to acquire

information about the ‘opponent’.

The following two episodes related by

Procopius illustrate this process exceptionally well:

Procopius, De bello Gothico

.2.1–3

(1) At this point Vitiges, the leader of the Goths, who had suffered severely from

the war, sent two envoys to him [Xusr

o I], in order that they persuade him to

With regard to the controversial date of Yazdgushnasp’s embassies see the references in Greatrex and

Lieu 2002: 275 nn. 5–6.

See above, pp. 139–41.

On Peter the Patrician see above, p. 122 on 17.

On the fortiﬁcation of D

a see pp. 100–4 with ﬁgs. 13–14.

This episode is recorded by Procopius (ii.31–44).

See Tinnefeld 1993: 193–213.

35 Diplomacy and espionage 249

lead an army against the Romans;

he did not send Goths, however, in order that

they would not immediately be recognisable and spoil the plans, but two Ligurian

priests, who had been bribed to get involved in this deed. (2) The one, who seemed

to be of higher integrity, went on this embassy giving himself the appearance and

name of a bishop (although entitled to neither), the other followed him as his

servant. (3) On their journey they moved through Thracian territory where they

recruited an interpreter of the Syriac and Greek language and then entered Persian

territory without having been noticed by the Romans. For as this happened during

a time of peace

these were not guarding the area meticulously.

Procopius, De Bello Gothico

.15.1–2 and 19–20

(1) In Byzantium Xusr

o (I)’s envoy Isdigusnas

met with the emperor Justinian

in order to talk about the peace and spent a considerable period of time there. (2)

After much dispute they ﬁnally agreed that there should be a ﬁve-year-truce within

the hegemony of each ruler but that there should be frequent embassies between

both sides, with the envoys going back and forth safely during this period in order

to settle the disagreements regarding Lazika

and the Saracens

...

(19) Isdigusnas, however, appropriated more revenues than any envoy before

him and returned, as I believe, as the wealthiest Persian to his home country.

For the emperor Justinian had placed the highest honours upon him and gave

him large monetary gifts before he dismissed him. (20) He was the only envoy

who was never supervised; he and the barbarians with him (and there were a

large number of them) rather enjoyed great freedom. During the entire period

they were allowed to meet and converse with whom they liked, to move around

anywhere in the city, acquire and sell whatever they wanted, conduct all business

and do so with utmost freedom, just like they would in their own city; no Roman

followed or accompanied them or dared to observe them, as was normally the

case.

Procopius conﬁrms that when Yazdgushnasp stayed in Byzantium he

enjoyed much freedom and his movements in the capital were not moni-

tored at all. However, the passage also suggests that contemporary observers

were aware of the dangers that such privileges for foreign diplomats could

On the political background to this embassy see 13.

The ﬁrst Sasanian–Byzantine war of the sixth century (12) had been ended in 532 by the so-called

‘eternal peace’ (Proc. BP i.22.3).

On iv.15.19–20 see Tinnefeld 1993: 207–8.

Elsewhere (Menander Protector, frg. 11 [see 20]) this man is called Yazdgushnasp; see above.

Proc. BP ii.28.6–11 states that in the year 545 Xusr

o I did not want a peace but merely a truce and

that he, moreover, explicitly refused to return Lazika; the hostilities that arose before the end of the

agreed truce actually focused on this Black Sea region.

As a rule, the Lahmids and Ghassanids (25) were excluded from the peace negotiations of this period

so that the vassal states were able to continue their military confrontations, which also happened

after the truce of 545; cf. Proc. BP ii.28.12–14; the foedus of 562 (20) was the ﬁrst one to address also

the situation of the Arabs.

250 9 Exchange of information between West and East

entail.

According to a military treatise called Peri Strategias, which was

most likely composed in the sixth century,

foreign ambassadors who had

travelled to Constantinople were supposed to be treated well but also to

be closely observed, in particular if they were representatives of powerful

states.

In 538/9 the Gothic envoys, who were accompanied by an interpreter,

travelled unimpeded through Byzantine territory on their way to Persia.

Interestingly, Procopius refers to the fact that one of the two Ligurian

priests pretended to be a bishop. Precisely because of their high status,

bishops played a signiﬁcant role for diplomatic relations throughout late

antiquity. The example of the Mesopotamian bishop M

a has already

shown how much responsibility a bishop functioning as Byzantine ambas-

sador could have and how Church ofﬁcials could inﬂuence foreign policy

(32).

Moreover, in particular the bishops in charge of the border regions

often acted on behalf of the cities and population directly affected by the

military confrontations. The Greek ecclesiastical historian Socrates records

the deeds of the bishop of Amida Acacius, who became quite famous in

this role in the early ﬁfth century. When the Romans refused to allow 5,000

starving Sasanian prisoners to return to their homes, he made an attempt to

use funds of the Church in order to pay the determined ransom. Socrates

summarises, ‘This deed of the exceptional Acacius impressed the Persian

king even more because the Romans showed themselves as being victorious

in both warfare and good works. The Persian king is said to have wanted

Acacius to come before him in order that he may have the pleasure of seeing

the man; Theodosius gave instructions for this and the meeting actually

took place.’

The bishop’s activities are yet another testimony for the good

cross-border relations at the beginning of the ﬁfth century,

and they also

reﬂect a remarkably active role of bishops, who repeatedly intervened in

the political events of their times. This is conﬁrmed by a passage in Ammi-

anus Marcellinus according to whom the bishop of Bezabde (in the vicinity

of Amida) tried to act as mediator when the city was besieged by

On military and political intelligence in the Roman world see Austin and Rankow 1995; see also

Ezov 2000: 299–317.

On the discussion regarding the date of this work see Greatrex and Lieu 2002: 128; the authors

themselves, however, argue in favour of the tenth century.

Peri Strategias 43.1–13 (= Peri Presbeias); for text and translation see Dennis 1985.