Although warfare dominated the relationship between the Roman and Sasanid Empires for long periods, hostilities were definitely not the only component of Roman-Sasanian dealings; nor did they isolate the two states from each other. There was also a considerable amount of peaceful interaction, transcultural exchange, and acculturation (Garsoian 1983). That interaction was greatly helped by the fact that there was no clear and fixed boundary between the two empires (Isaac 1992: 394-401) and that Mesopotamia constituted a permeable border zone. In this respect, the eastern frontier was no different from other border regions such as those on the Rhine and Danube (Whittaker 1994). Exchange of information, knowledge, and goods took place on a regular basis between those formally living on the Roman side and those on the Sasanian side. This exchange was facilitated by the fact that Syriac, a dialect of the Aramaic language, was the lingua franca, as well as by a culture shared in common on both sides of the frontier. The multicultural character of the border regions is well illustrated by Ammianus Marcellinus’ story about Antoninus (18. 5). Antoninus was very well known in Mesopotamia; he had been a merchant and an accountant in the service of the Roman military commander of Mesopotamia, but had defected to the Persians with information on Roman military dispositions. Without difficulty, he was able to continue his life at the other side of the border and even to pursue a career in the service of the Persian king. Antonius was not a unique case. Ammianus (19. 9. 3-8) also mentions Cragausius, a prominent member of the elite of Nisibis, who also went over to the Persian side. Antonius and Cragausius are clearly examples of the adaptability that characterized social relations and conduct in this frontier zone between the two empires (Matthews 1989b: 68).
Exchange and cross-border transcultural contacts were diverse in nature: economic, diplomatic, cultural, and intellectual. Economic interchange between the states took place on a regular, though restricted, basis. The Romans were interested in luxury goods from India and China - silk, spices, incense, jewels, ivory - which reached the Roman Empire by the traditional routes over land such as the silk route, or via the ports located at the Persian Gulf. The tolls charged by the Sasanians seem to have been an important source of income for the Persian authorities. Rome was therefore keen on regulating and controlling trade and establishing trading centers on its own side of the border. The treaty of ad 298/9 made Nisibis the only place where the passage of goods between the Sasanid kingdom and the Roman Empire was allowed (Blockley 1992: 6), but in the fourth century commercial exchange was also authorized at the towns of Edessa, Batnae, Callinicum, and Artaxata (Winter and Dignas 2001: 211-12). Regulations on trade and the towns where commercial activities were allowed to take place were considered important by both sides, as, for example, a law from the Justinianic Code (sixth century ad) makes clear: former arrangements were reconfirmed, and the merchants who traded in places other than those mentioned in the law could face exile and the loss of their goods and wealth ( Cod. lust. 4. 63. 4). Apart from economic considerations, an important motive for restricting and controlling trade was to inhibit spying under the pretext of trade.
Marketplaces were ideal for gathering intelligence because of the mix of people that visited them, the information they carried, and the dissemination of news. Restriction of commerce was furthermore intended to prevent the export of contraband, more specifically iron and iron weapons, in which the Persians were particularly interested (Lee 1993: 63).
Throughout Late Antiquity, the two empires maintained diplomatic relations. There had always been diplomatic activity before, during, and after wars; but it seems that, in the fourth and fifth centuries, the notion developed that diplomacy could be used as an instrument in place of war (a notion that affected Rome’s policy toward not only its eastern neighbor, but also the peoples on its northern borders). This perception of diplomacy probably arose from the belief of some Roman and Persian rulers that the two empires had to coexist (Blockley 1992: 151 ff.). Embassies and envoys regularly travelled between the courts in Constantinople and Ctesiphon to deliver messages, gather information, clarify interests, negotiate treaties, or pay respect on behalf of their ruler (Lee 1993: passim). The Roman emperor and his Persian counterpart respected each other, as appears, for instance, from correspondence between Constantius II and Shapur II in which they address each other as ‘‘brother’’ and Constantius even offers Shapur his friendship (Amm. Marc. 17. 5. 3-14; Blockley 1992: 115). This was definitely not empty politeness but a mutual recognition of sovereignty and equal rank as well as a clear wish for good relations and dialogue. At the beginning of the fifth century relations appear to have been extremely friendly, as may be concluded from the fact that the emperor Arcadius (ad 395-408) in his will made Yazdgerd I guardian of his infant son Theodosius, and charged him to preserve the throne for the boy. Yazdgerd gladly accepted this task and acquitted himself faithfully (Blockley 1992: 51 ff.). About a century later Justin I (ad 518-27) accepted the proposal by Kavad I (ad 488-96, 499-531) to adopt his son Khusro (Procop. Pers. 1. 11. 1-6). These instances show the mutual respect and the close, almost familial, relations that existed at times between the rulers of both superpowers.
In spite of efforts from both sides to keep up good relations and peaceful coexistence, military confrontation is part of the history of the relationship between both empires. Desertion and defection by both Persians and Romans seems to have been a fairly regular occurrence (Lee 1993: 65-6), as the above cases of Antoninus and Cragausius make clear. A consequence of warfare was also the capturing and deporting of war prisoners, both soldiers and civilians, on a large scale. Deportations as a consequence of war were a common phenomenon in antiquity. The Romans deported their Persian war prisoners mainly to Thrace, where they probably had to work as farm laborers (Pan. Lat. 8(5). 21. 1; Lib. Or. 9. 83 ff.; Lieu 1986: 487). The Roman authorities, who only occasionally deported civic populations from Persian cities, had no coherent plan for these captives of war, unlike the Sasanians, who settled them all over their empire. During the reigns of Shapur I and Shapur II in particular, deportation took place on a massive scale (Lieu 1986: 476-81, 495-9; Kettenhofen 1994). Complete populations of conquered Roman cities were transported to Persia, where they were often settled in newly founded cities, such as Bishapur or Gundeshapur, which were constructed with the labor of Roman prisoners. The sources relate that among the captives were many craftsmen, as well as architects and artisans. Their knowledge and skills were most welcome in the Sasanid Empire, and were used in large building projects such as cities, bridges, dams, roads, and royal palaces (Winter and Dignas 2001: 159-63). Roman influence is clearly recognizable in Sasanian architecture and art (Shahbazi 1990: 594), and even in city layout and daily life. Khusro I founded a new city which he called ‘‘Antioch of Khusro’’ and settled it with war prisoners he had made when he conquered Antioch. He allowed the new settlers to build thermae and even a race course; and, to make their life agreeable, he also had Roman musicians and charioteers deported to his Antioch (Procop. Pers. 2. 14. 1-4). The sources are silent about the human suffering resulting from these deportations.
The geographic and cultural setting of the Mesopotamian border region also provided great opportunities for intellectual exchange. Religion was often the driving force behind this. As observed above, the Sasanid Empire had a considerable Christian population, many of them captured Romans who were often Christian (Lieu 1986: 481-7; Jullien and Jullien 2002: 153ff.). A great deal of interchange took place between the Christian communities in both empires (Matthews 1989a: 44-5; Lee 1993: 56-61). Christian pilgrims from Persia travelled to the holy sites in Palestine and the holy men in Egypt and the Syrian desert and visited monastic settlements. Border zone shrines, such as that of St. Sergius at Rustafa (Key Fowden 1999), were visited by Roman and Persian Christians alike, which again underlines the multicultural character of the frontier regions. Another motive for crossing the border was the desire for learning. In particular the schools of Edessa and Nisibis, famous for their theological learning and for their scholarship in rhetoric, philosophy, and literature, had a great number of Persians among their students (Hayes 1930; Voobus 1965; Becker 2006). Cross-border travelling also reflected a wish to teach and proselytize. Most notably the Manichaeans came to the Roman Empire to spread their ideas (Brown 1969), but there were also miaphysite bishops who journeyed to Persia to fight those of dyophysite conviction. Learning, teaching, or the exchange of information were also a stimulus for the continuous interchange between the Jewish communities in both empires. Many Jewish scholars from Persia had been educated in Palestine, but Jewish academies in Babylonia also attracted Jews from the Roman Empire. In this way an intellectual academic climate was created that gave rise to such unique intellectual accomplishments as the Babylonian Talmud.
At least one Sasanian king appreciated cultural and intellectual interchange. Khusro I, a religiously tolerant ruler, was an intellectual, and open to influences from outside. He seems to have been devoted to Greco-Roman writers whose works he had translated into Persian. He also had a great interest in Greek philosophy and is said to have read Plato and Aristotle (Agathias 2. 28. 1-2; Rubin 1995; Wiesehofer 2001: 216ff.). His learning and tolerance became widely known in the Roman Empire as well. When, in ad 529, Justinian forbade pagans to teach philosophy and law, several Neoplatonic philosophers from the Academy in Athens are said to have gone to Ctesiphon, where they were well received by the learned king (Chuvin 1990: 135-41; Sheppard 2000: 841-2; Hartmann 2002). In his own empire, he stimulated education, which owed much to Byzantine learning (Shahbazi 1990: 593), in particular the study of law and medicine.
The periods of enmity and warfare did not isolate the two empires from each other. Through commerce, diplomacy, religion, desertion, and deportations there was a lively exchange of goods, information, and knowledge. Persian learning, architecture, and arts were clearly influenced by the contacts with the Roman Empire, while Rome, in its turn, was affected by the contacts with the east. Sasanian court rituals influenced Byzantine court ceremonial, and Persian influence can also be discerned, for instance, in architectural construction, form, and ornamentation, and in motifs in Byzantine art (Ghirshman 1962: 283 ff.; Shahbazi 1990: 594-5).
World History
