Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

200 6 Shared interests: Continuing conflicts
labels the foedus of 363 (18) and the cessation of Nisibis to the Persians as
‘humiliating agreements’ accepted by Jovian. 133
But why did Rome insist in 298 (17) to make it the only place for the
exchange of goods between West and East? There may have been several
reasons. The fact that the treaty of 298 made Nisibis the only place of
trade – in an area where numerous caravan routes and traffic routes existed –
inevitably channelled the Sasanian trade. However, the changes initiated
by Rome with an eye to centralisation did not bear that much impact
on the trade of the sought after luxury goods from the Far East because
these had always been exchanged in the great centres of trade such as
Nisibis. The changes affected above all the local trade in the border areas
and the exchange of goods within Mesopotamia. The individual tradesman,
merchant or peasant who had offered his ware at the nearest market now had
to decide whether to expose himself to the risks of the long and exhausting
journey or not. According to the treaty of 298 merchants had to take their
goods, sometimes covering long distances, all the way to Nisibis where
Roman merchants received them.
When Roman merchants received goods from the Far East and from
India that had travelled through Persian territories into the border regions
along the Euphrates and Tigris, 134 they had to pay customs duties fixed by
the Eastern power. Some scholars believe that the revenues accumulated in
this way allowed the Sasanians to build up their army, to conscribe Arab
mercenaries and finally to expand westwards. 135 For the Romans the fact
that their only overland trade with China and India was via the Sasanians
entailed high costs in peace time and a cessation of the eastern trade in times
of war. 136 In order to secure its eastern trade the Romans therefore were
primarily interested in breaking the Sasanian monopoly as mediators for
the exchange of goods along the Roman Eastern frontier and in acquiring
trade centres outside the Persian Empire.
Accordingly, the Romans intended to limit the activities of Persian merchants
and to control these. Moreover, they were interested in fixed prices
as well as their own revenues from customs duties, which were normally
133 Ibid. xxv.7.13.
134 For some time Sasanian merchants monopolised the trade in the Persian Gulf and the Indian
Ocean so that the Sasanians were able to control the trade with India; cf. Williams 1972: 97–109;
Whitehouse and Williamson 1973: 29–49; Whitehouse 1996: 339–49.
135 Haussig 1959: 138.
136 In late antiquity Roman maritime trade between the Red Sea and India therefore became more and
more important; cf. Sidebotham 1986a: 16–36.