Evaluation of the Castles Dated to the Period of Constantius II (337-361 AD) in terms of Defense Strategy in Southeast Anatolia

Abdurrahman Demir

Makale detayları

Evaluation of the Castles Dated to the Period of Constantius II (337-361 AD) in terms of Defense Strategy in Southeast Anatolia

Yazarlar:

Abdurrahman Demir

Yayıncı:

Karamanoglu Mehmetbey University

Ana Başlıklar:

Arkeoloji

Dergi:

Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.6 Issue Cumhuriyet’in 100. Yılı Özel Sayısı (100th Year of the Republic Special Issue), pp.23-38

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001300387

pISSN:

2667-4424

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 In Southeastern Anatolia, along the Tigris River, the Romans and the Sassanids Persians engaged in a long and bitter struggle for control of the region. In the 3rd century AD, the Roman Empire abandoned its offensive strategy against the Sassanids and adopted a defensive posture. In the struggle between these two powers, it is reported in ancient sources that the Roman Empire built many fortresses or fortified these fortresses to protect the border. In particular, the subject of our study is the fortresses of Amida Diyarbakır, Cephas Hasankeyf, Çattepe Til Siirt and Bezabde İdil-Şırnak, which were built fortified along the Tigris River during the reign of Constantius II and were very important for this region. These fortresses were located at strategic points for the Roman Empire. Did Constantius II follow a specific strategy in choosing the location for the construction or fortification of these fortresses, which were very important for the eastern defense line of the Roman Empire along the Tigris River? In addition to this, the questions of whether these were fortresses of the Roman Empire or local fortresses of the region are addressed in our study.

 In Southeastern Anatolia, along the Tigris River, the Romans and the Sassanids Persians engaged in a long and bitter struggle for control of the region. In the 3rd century AD, the Roman Empire abandoned its offensive strategy against the Sassanids and adopted a defensive posture. In the struggle between these two powers, it is reported in ancient sources that the Roman Empire built many fortresses or fortified these fortresses to protect the border. In particular, the subject of our study is the fortresses of Amida Diyarbakır, Cephas Hasankeyf, Çattepe Til Siirt and Bezabde İdil-Şırnak, which were built fortified along the Tigris River during the reign of Constantius II and were very important for this region. These fortresses were located at strategic points for the Roman Empire. Did Constantius II follow a specific strategy in choosing the location for the construction or fortification of these fortresses, which were very important for the eastern defense line of the Roman Empire along the Tigris River? In addition to this, the questions of whether these were fortresses of the Roman Empire or local fortresses of the region are addressed in our study.

 In Southeastern Anatolia, along the Tigris River, the Romans and the Sassanids Persians engaged in a long and bitter struggle for control of the region. In the 3rd century AD, the Roman Empire abandoned its offensive strategy against the Sassanids and adopted a defensive posture. In the struggle between these two powers, it is reported in ancient sources that the Roman Empire built many fortresses or fortified these fortresses to protect the border. In particular, the subject of our study is the fortresses of Amida Diyarbakır, Cephas Hasankeyf, Çattepe Til Siirt and Bezabde İdil-Şırnak, which were built fortified along the Tigris River during the reign of Constantius II and were very important for this region. These fortresses were located at strategic points for the Roman Empire. Did Constantius II follow a specific strategy in choosing the location for the construction or fortification of these fortresses, which were very important for the eastern defense line of the Roman Empire along the Tigris River? In addition to this, the questions of whether these were fortresses of the Roman Empire or local fortresses of the region are addressed in our study.

 Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesinde, Dicle Nehri hattında, Romalılar ve Sasaniler Persler arasında, bölgenin hâkimiyeti için uzun yıllar sürmüş olan çetin bir mücadele yaşanmıştır. MS 3. yüzyılla birlikte Roma İmparatorluğu, Sasanilere karşı sürdürdüğü saldırı stratejisini terk ederek savunma konumuna geçmiştir. Bu iki güç arasındaki mücadelede Roma İmparatorluğunun, sınır hattını koruyabilmek için çok sayıda kale inşa ettirdiği ya da bu kalelerin tahkimini güçlendirdiği antik kaynaklarda aktarılmaktadır. Özellikle çalışmamızın konusu II. Constantius Döneminde, Dicle Nehri hattında inşa edilmiş tahkim edilmiş ve bu bölge için çok önemli olan Amida Diyarbakır, Cephas Hasankeyf, Çattepe Til Siirt ve Bezabde İdil-Şırnak kaleleridir. Bu kaleler, Roma İmparatorluğu için stratejik noktalarda yer almaktadır. II. Constantius, Dicle Nehri güzergâhındaki Roma İmparatorluğunun doğu savunma hattı için oldukça önemli olan bu kaleleri inşa ya da tahkim ettirirken yer seçiminde belli bir strateji izlemiş midir? Bunun yanı sıra bu kaleler, birer Roma İmparatorluğu kaleleri mi yoksa bölgenin yerel kaleleri midir soruları çalışmamızda ele alınmıştır.

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Abdurrahman Demir

Yayıncı: Karamanoglu Mehmetbey University

Ana Başlıklar: Arkeoloji

Dergi: Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.6 Issue Cumhuriyet’in 100. Yılı Özel Sayısı (100th Year of the Republic Special Issue), pp.23-38

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 10/2023

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001300387

pISSN: 2667-4424

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Abdurrahman Demir

Yayıncı:

Karamanoglu Mehmetbey University

Ana Başlıklar:

Arkeoloji

Dergi:

Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.6 Issue Cumhuriyet’in 100. Yılı Özel Sayısı (100th Year of the Republic Special Issue), pp.23-38

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001300387

pISSN:

2667-4424