Suchergebnisse

Introduction. The article is devoted to Persians who served in the Early Byzantine armed forces. Even during the Principate period, alae and cohortes which were originally recruited from Parthians were part of the Roman imperial army. Units from Persian defectors and prisoners were also created from the 4th to the 6th century. Methods. Using tools of the positivist methodology makes it possible to provide a critical analysis of information from the sources. At the same time, the prosopographical method allows to study mechanisms of integration of immigrants from neighboring realms into the Early Byzantine society using examples of individual fates. Analysis. According to "Notitia Dignitatum", a significant part of military units of Persian origin served in eastern provinces of the empire. It is also known that cavalry vexillationes which consisted of immigrants from Iran were included in mobile armies. Some numeri with Persian prisoners were transferred to Italy in the 6th century. These units consisted mainly of heavily armed horsemen who were famous for eastern neighbors of Rome and Byzantium. In the framework of the presented article, the author refers to individual personalities who held commanding posts in the imperial armed forces. It is important to note that among them there were representatives of the Sasanian family. Ormizdas, the son of Hormizd II, Kavad, the grandson of Kavad I, and Khosrow II sought to find salvation from Iranian strifes at the court of the emperors. These individuals were considered as completely loyal to Byzantium candidates for the Shahanshah's throne. However, only Khosrow II managed to return victorious to Iran in 591 with the support of the eastern Roman emperor Maurice. Results. The author concludes that military service was the main channel of integration into the society of the empire for Persian immigrants as well as other foreigners in the Late Antique period. © 2020 Volgograd State University. All rights reserved.

The article examines the relations between Byzantine garrisons on the Apennine Peninsula and the emperors in the 6th century. Already during the (re)conquest of Italy, measures were taken to integrate these territories into the Byzantine structures of the civil and military administration. However, the remoteness of the region periodically led to the interruptions of material supply of the Italian troops. These difficulties negatively affected the authority of the emperors among the military men. Another major problem was the scarcity of forces stationed in Italy. In addition, among them, there were many soldiers and commanders of barbarian origin, whose loyalty to Byzantium was largely situational. For these reasons, when faced with a numerous and successful enemy, they could defect to its side. Such was the situation on the Apennine Peninsula in 541, when the Ostrogoths, led by King Totila, went over to a counteroffensive. In all likelihood, the situation was similar during the Lombard conquest of Northern Italy in 568. The remoteness from the capital of the empire also led to the fact that the soldiers were more focused on loyalty not to the Byzantine rulers, but to local military leaders. These factors caused the weakness of imperial positions on the Apennine Peninsula.