Page 58 - Encyclopedia Of World History

408 berkshire encyclopedia of world history

Travel has no longer any charm for me. I have seen all the foreign
countries I want to except heaven & hell & I have only a vague
curiosity about one of those. • Mark Twain (1835–1910)

inscribed upon it, acts as a substitute for his presence” In the historiography (the writing of history) of west-
(2001, 34). ern Eurasia, the remnants of Roman military fortifications
Borders in the ancient Near East were fixed by treaties have long attracted the attention of scholars. European
between two equal parties or victor and vanquished. historians were intrigued by the possible function of
Existing treaties mention features of the landscape, names structures such as Hadrian’s Wall, which stretches virtu-
of cities, and lists of settlements subject to each ruler. A ally from sea to sea across Great Britain and once fea-
major question was the distribution of revenues, or who tured three layers of barriers: ditches, walls and
would pay tribute to whom.Treaties also defined penal- watchtowers, and military roads, forts, and mobile
ties for raiding, promoted cooperation to return run- patrols. One Roman source explains that the purpose of
aways, and included terms of trade. Safe conducts— the wall was “to separate the Romans and barbarians”
documents guaranteeing the right to travel across a (Jones 1996, 47). The sixth-century Byzantine historian
ruler’s territory without bureaucratic hindrance from Procopius could even imagine the wall as a dividing line,
minor officials—originated in Near Eastern diplomacy to beyond which human habitation was literally impossible
facilitate the movement of representatives of a ruler due to pestilential air. Although boundary maintenance
across foreign territories. structures have been imagined as zones of extreme exclu-
We should not view these ancient boundaries of con- sion, the evidence points to a much more complex
trol, however, as the exact equivalent of modern territo- picture.
rial borders. Rulers were mainly interested in controlling Because Roman frontier forts and garrisons ringed the
strategic points. Liverani states: “The territory controlled diverse edges of the Mediterranean world, historians
by the state resembles an ‘oasis’. . . there is no need for have tried to make sense of the role of border fortifica-
a boundary line, but rather for ‘gateways’ channels of tions in diverse terrains. Military historian Edward
controlled communication with other states (or other in- Luttwak’s The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, pub-
habited areas) beyond the depopulated belt” (Liverani lished in 1976, argued that a Roman unified system of
2001, 52). Remote border posts acted as a filter to let defense in depth was developed by the Flavian emperors
desirable things pass on into heart of the state and to (second century CE) and subsequent emperors and was
keep out undesirable things. applied strategically to the empire’s vast frontiers. Histo-
rians have debated whether these barriers indicate an
Imperial Boundary aggressive or defensive posture, whether strategic think-
Maintenance in Eurasia ing on an empire-wide level can in fact be documented,
In global history the Eurasian steppe has been the scene whether far-flung infrastructures were ad hoc (concerned
of various attempts by sedentary societies to create artifi- with a particular end or purpose) local measures or were
cial barriers to impede the movement of more mobile centrally planned, whether Roman ideology could ever
societies.These barriers required large investments of re- admit a limit to expansion, and whether Greek traditions
sources, and in some ways they foreshadowed the func- of building military barrier walls influenced Roman
tional role of modern borders in managing and control- actions. Discussions have centered even on the meaning
ling movement.Various states have used physical barriers of the word limes, which some historians have used to
in attempts to control the mobility of both their subjects describe the frontier defense “system,” but which others
and foreign adversaries.As late as the seventeenth century, think referred only to military road networks. Because the
Russia used the Belgorod Line, an earthen and wooden “barbarian” invasions played a role in the fall of the
barrier created to prevent nomadic attacks, to also limit Roman empire in the West, discussions of frontier forti-
the outward movement of its subjects from serfdom to fications have implications for broader questions of impe-
freedom in areas of the steppe beyond state control. rial decline/transformation. Textual evidence is limited,