In this revised version of his Ph.D. dissertation A. examines the diplomatic relations between the Roman and the Persian emperors, from the Peace of 387 ce to the so-called Fifty-Year Peace (561 or 562). As they frequently called each other ‘brothers’ in their correspondence, A. chose ‘Bruderzwist’ (‘brothers’ quarrel’) as the title of the book, alluding to Franz Grillparzer’s 1848 drama, Bruderzwist im Haus Habsburg.
A. emphasises the ‘mutual communication’ between these two hegemonic powers and identifies key issues that prioritise the structures and methods of international relations. A. demonstrates a strong engagement with theoretical frameworks. His analytical approach draws upon the traditional concept of balance of power while integrating insights from postmodern international relations theory. Consequently, he identifies the international ‘Strukturen’ underpinning diplomatic exchanges. By examining the evolution of what might be termed the ‘protracted conflict’ between Rome and Persia during the period of 387 to 562, A. investigates the ‘methods’ of diplomatic practice in both wartime and peacetime.
A. observes (p. 73) that contemporary authors generally accepted the notion of parity between the two powers and assumes that international diplomacy predicated on equality is a hallmark of late antiquity, in both the East and the West. He benefits significantly from the testimonies of historians such as Procopius, Agathias and Menander Protector (as well as fragmentary sources such as Priscus and Petrus Patricius), whose attentiveness to diplomatic contexts renders their accounts particularly valuable, whereas earlier centuries are less comprehensively documented.
A. posits (p. 117) that no conflict during this era was solely attributable to religious factors. He cautions against the anachronistic application of the concept of tolerance and proposes (pp. 131–2) a more nuanced understanding through the differentiation between the modern terms ‘Duldung’ (toleration in a legal sense, implying a negative connotation, such as the acceptance of religious minorities) and ‘Toleranz’ (acceptance and respect for differing people, opinions, beliefs or behaviours).
A. examines a series of case studies illustrating the ‘Methoden’ of late antique imperial diplomacy. Procopius proves particularly insightful, as his account of Justinian’s Persian War is prefaced by a narrative of preceding events. According to A., ‘Die Prokopische Archäologie der Perserkriege ist in diesem Sinne eine Schilderung der römisch-persischen Diplomatie in der behandelten Zeit in nuce’ (p. 155), as exemplified by Belisarius’ letter to Mihrān (Greek: Mirranēs; Procopius incorrectly identifies this Iranian name as a title) in Bell. 1.14.2: ‘The best general, therefore, is that one who is able to bring about peace from war’ (Loeb translation). In another significant passage (Bell. 1.26.3) Procopius recounts that Khusrō ‘sent envoys to Byzantium, and said that he rejoiced with the Emperor Justinian, and he asked with a laugh to receive his share of the spoils from Libya, on the ground that the emperor would never have been able to conquer in the war with the Vandals if the Persians had not been at peace with him’. While hardly formal diplomatic language, this passage effectively demonstrates Procopius’ awareness of the geopolitical equilibrium. Another crucial aspect of A.’s analysis of diplomatic ‘methods’ is the peace of 561 or 562 (see the dossier in Bizantinistica 11 [2009], pp. 205–350).
A. characterises (p. 209) Justinian’s Persian War as a ‘Konglomerat’ of military engagements. He contends that incorporating other peoples into the ‘Bruderzwist’ would unnecessarily complicate the task of the diplomatic historian. This assertion warrants further consideration. The extent to which focusing solely on the diplomatic interactions of the two superpowers is fruitful without considering the roles of other actors, such as the Huns or the peoples of the Caucasus (for whom significant written sources exist), remains open to debate. A. chooses to address these external entities in a lengthy concluding chapter.
While less focused on diplomatic activities, Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite serves as a valuable source for Anastasius’ campaigns; A. (p. 228) aptly terms his work ‘ein wichtiges unabhängiges Zeugnis.’ Following a chronological outline of Justinian’s wars, A. (p. 235) elucidates the situation in Lazica: ‘Das Strukturelement des militärischen Gleichgewichts folgt aus Sicht der Akteure jeder Verlagerung des Schauplatzes auf dem Fuß. Letztendlich kommt es nicht nur auf allen Wegen Mesopotamiens, sondern auch in Lazien wieder zu einer Situation des Gleichgewichts. Dies musste den Akteuren wohl geradezu als Bestätigung ihrer Wahrnehmung erscheinen’.
An extended section (pp. 239–54) examines the alleged ‘guardianship’ of Theodosius II by Yazdegerd I through a Christian ἐπίτροπος named Antiochus. This episode potentially echoes the Caucasian institution of fostering (dayeakut‘iwn in Armenian; see now L. Read, Journal of Late Antique, Islamic and Byzantine Studies 3 [2024], 46–80). Procopius also records Kawād I’s proposal to adopt Justin I; A. (p. 260) considers this other unusual case plausible.
Unsurprisingly, intelligence played a significant role. A. discusses the control of embassies in an extensive footnote (p. 265 n. 5), where he mentions the monitoring of spies and traders. However, he might have also considered Cod. Iust. 4.63.4; for a discussion of this crucial evidence see S. Rendina, La prefettura di Antemio e l’Oriente romano (2021). Conversely, his section on intelligence and counter-espionage (pp. 276–92) provides a useful synthesis of the available information.
Chapter 16, which addresses techniques of manipulation and ‘dark arts’, is a particularly insightful section. A. cites the example of Anastasius, who, contravening a treaty with Persia, refused to loan Kawād the sum necessary to reimburse the Hephthalites. This decision was based on the counsel of his advisors, who argued that ‘it would not be in his interest to strengthen their enemy’s friendship with the Hephthalites with Roman money – it would be better to stir them up against each other as much as possible’ (Procopius, Bell.1.7.2, tr. Greatrex). While A. acknowledges (p. 296) the possibility of Procopius inventing this narrative, he contends that such an expedient could well be characteristic of East Roman diplomacy, ultimately suggesting that pragmatic manipulation sometimes superseded legal obligations.
Another compelling section is Chapter 17, which examines ‘track-two’ diplomacy and the utilisation of third-party actors (see also G. Traina, in: A. Becker and N. Drocourt [edd.], Ambassadeurs et ambassades au coeur des relations diplomatiques. Rome – Occident médiéval – Byzance [2012], on the role of Armenian prelates as diplomats).
The subsequent chapter analyses the symbolic dimensions of diplomatic relations. From this perspective A. considers Procopius’ account (Bell. 1.2.11–15) of the Persian retreat upon the arrival of the magister militum Anatolius, dispatched by Theodosius II during the war of 421/2. According to Procopius, Anatolius approached the Persians ‘alone and unaccompanied’. A. (pp. 366ff.) argues that this constituted a low-risk yet effective symbolic gesture. While A. concedes the peculiarity of Procopius’ version, he appears to accept its veracity. However, this reviewer questions whether what was more likely an ideological construct by Procopius can be readily accepted as evidence of diplomatic reality.
In the concluding chapter A. compiles information regarding external peoples. He correctly observes (pp. 390–1): ‘Denn im Gegensatz zum klassischen Verständnis, das eine bloße und gewissermaßen natürliche Abhängigkeit zwischen den Großmächten und den kleineren Nachbarn voraussetzt, wie sich dies in der Neuzeit oft beobachten lässt, waren die spätantiken Machtverhältnisse anders geartet. Ein spezielles Zusammenwirken des diplomatischen Verhältnisses zwischen den beiden Großmächten und den speziellen naturräumlichen Gegebenheiten des zwischen ihnen befindlichen Raumes vom Kaukasus bis in die arabische Wüste sorgte dafür, dass einige politische Gebilde eben dieses Raumes ein erstaunliches Maß von Freiheit und Macht besaßen, das weit über ihre geographisch verhältnismäßig kleinen Einflussbereiche hinausging und unmittelbaren Einfluss auf das römisch-persische Verhältnis nahm.’ Nevertheless, his analysis shows less interest in the specific situations of the Caucasian, Arab and East African peoples, preferring to consider them as elements within the diplomatic interplay between the two superpowers.
It would have been beneficial to consider the diplomatic aspects surrounding the end of the Kingdom of Armenia in 427–428; see this reviewer’s 428 AD (English edition 2009), which proposes an analysis of the kingdom’s demise as a consequence of an embassy dispatched by Theodosius II. For the war operations of 440 diplomatic considerations might have been drawn from Nov. Theod. 5.3. A. also appears to overlook S. Rapp’s seminal The Sasanian World through Georgian Eyes (2014). Even with respect to the better-documented sixth century A. neglects several relevant bibliographical titles. Regarding the role of Armenians in the ‘Bruderzwist’, A. omits M. Kruse’s analysis of the speech of the Armenian ambassadors in Procopius, Bell. 2.3.32–53 (CQ 63 [2013], 886–81; see also G. Traina, in: Ch. Jullien [ed.], Husraw I er. Reconstructions dʼun règne. Sources et documents [2015]).
Overall, this book is a valuable resource for scholars engaged with the period and geographical areas under consideration.
