Presenter: Yiyang Zeng

Roman-Sassanid

Game

Wars have been involved in both economic and

political processes during the history of mankind.

Roman-Sassanid War is a 400-year War between Rome and Sassanid Persia from 231 A.D. to 631 A.D.

This war had witnessed the prosperities and downfalls of Rome and Persia.

This war can be viewed as a collection of different games.

Introduction

Player 1: Rome Player 2: Persia

Strategy 1: Negotiating for peace and ceasing fire (N) Strategy 2: Fighting light (FL) Strategy 3: Fighting hard (FH) Availability of strategies changed over time.

Both parties had limited accurate information about another party’s actions and reactions.

They did roughly understand the levels of military power of each other to some extents.

Properties of The Games

(1) 231 A.D. to 375 A.D. Both empires were both exceptionally strong in terms

of military power and they had ideal external environments.

(2) 376 A.D. to 501 A.D. Both empires’ powers decreased due to consecutive

wars with each other and their worsened external environments.

(3) 502 A.D. to 631 A.D. New leaders, new policies. -More ambitious -More aggressive

Three Periods of This War

In 224, Ardashir I found the Sassanid Persia

Empire. In 231, he wrote a letter to Roman Emperor

Alexander Severus, demanding the cessions of Rome’s Asia territories.

War broke out inevitably. Both players possessed three strategies (N, FL, FH)

Period one (231-375)

Period one (231-375)

NE: (FL, FL) PAYOFF: (600, 600)

Period one (231-375)

Sequential Version: (FL, FL)

History tells us both empires successfully managed

to reach the Nash Equilibrium (600, 600)

During 231 to 375, although both empires had gone through a large number of battles with each other, they fought with cautions and the wars were relatively small compared to those happened later.

As the result, both empires maintained their power and prosperities.

Period one (231-375)

Both empires suffered decreases in military and economic

powers due to:(1) Consecutive wars with each other (2) Worsened external environment:

(a) Rome was under the attacks from Germanic, Alanic, and Hunnic peoples started from year 376.

(b) Persia was also threatened by Hunnic peoples and then by the Hephthalites around the same time.

As the result, both empires were unable to put enough efforts on attacking each other.

N and FL now become their feasible strategies The game becomes a coordination game.

Period two (376-501)

Period two (376-501)

NEs: (N, N) & (FL, FL) Payoffs: (1000, 1000) & (600, 600)

Period two (376-501)

Sequential Version: (N, N)

History indicates that both empires had successfully

coordinated with each other during most of the period two as well.

In year 384 or 387, a peace treaty was signed by Shapur III and Theodosius I, and both empires stayed in the (N, N) Nash Equilibrium most of the time from then on with occasional exceptions.

In year 421 to 422 and year 440, two minor wars occurred between the two empires, which can be considered as both players chose to move to another equilibrium (FL, FL) with worse payoffs.

Period two (376-501)

During this period, wars between Rome and Persia intensified dramatically due to their

new leaders and new policies:(1) Persian King Kavadh I was so ambitious and aggressive that he decided to destroy the

then Byzantine Empire and broke the peace treaty in 502 A.D. (2) Roman King Justinianus I inherited the throne in 521 A.D. and he was also extremely

eager to regain the power of old Roman Empire.

Consequently, five intense and long-lasting war broke out (69 out of 129 years) (1) 528—531 (2) 540—545 (3) 549—562 (4) 571—591 (5) 603—631 + Along with numerous minor wars began in 502 A.D. between two empires Only approximately 20 out of 129 years are warless (Yet they were still preparing for

wars in these years: i.e. rebuilt the army, made new weapons, recruited + kidnapped civilians into the army)

Option N can be viewed as “eliminated” from the strategies because both empires opted to do so.

FL and FH become the only strategies for both players during this period

(1) The game becomes a Prisoner’s Dilemma Game

Period three (502-631)

Period three (502-631)

NE: ( FL, FL) Payoff: (600, 600)

Period three (502-631)

Sequential Version: (FL, FL)

History shows that Rome and Persia failed to reach the optimal

equilibrium this time regardless that they had successfully coordinated with each other in the first two periods.

In year 631, the war finally ended with great loss: (1) Their armies sufferred from great casualties (2) Their financial reserves exhausted (3) They were never able to regain their power

Twenty years later, Sassanid Persia was overthrown by the Arabics. Later the Byzantine Rome Empire was also destoyed severely by the

Slavs and the Arabics.

Period three (502-631)

Both parties in the end failed to coordinate and the game ended in

an internecine way.

Their failures during period three were due to their irrational behaviors:

(1) They chose to ignore option N (2) Instead of trying to reach the NE (FL, FL), they both tried to

choose fight hard most of the time

Policy suggested: (1) Do not indulge in irrational behaviors (i.e. relentless and

exhausting wars) (2) Acts and reacts after deliberate considerations

Conclusion

Edward C. Echols, “Herodian of Antioch's History of the Roman

Empire.” 1961, <http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodian/hre605.html>

J.B. Bury, “The History of Later Roman Empire.” Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1923, <http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/BURLAT/14*.html>

  Anonymous, “Roman-Persian War.” 2010,

<http://baike.baidu.com/view/1433464.htm>  J.F. Haldon, “Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The

Transformation of a Culture.” Cambridge University Press, 1997, <http://books.google.com/books/about/Byzantium_in_the_Seventh_Century.html?id=pSHmT1G_5T0C>

References