+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Lets Talk Adrianople (/showthread.php?tid=23810)
Lets Talk Adrianople - Timianus - 04-16-2014
The last year, I have been doing a lot of reading re: the infamous Battle of Adrianople, the events leading up to it, and its aftermath. The latest reading I have done is "The Day of The Barbarians" "Barbarians at Rome's Gate" and the essay posted at http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ancient/articles/cascadingfailure.aspx
I have a number of questions/discussion points I would like to bring up.
First, why did Valens offer receptio on such attractice terms to the goths begin with? Were the romans that short of manpower on the frontier? Once they became aware of the size of the incoming "horde", why did they not mass more troops to control the process?
Second, it appears that in the preceding Battle of Ad Salices, the Romans suffered a bloody stalemate, despite (pressumably) being beter armed, supplied (they had been starving out the goths), and trained. From the accounts I have read, the goths were armed ad hoc with pilfered roman equipment and "fire hardened clubs." In my mind, the stalemate calls into question the assumed notion that the RA was still "superior" to the barbarians at this point. The notion of a half-starved rag-tag band of goths nearing defeating a contingent of the WRA by throwing wooden clubs from a lager wagon seems hard to believe. What else was going on here? If the Romans were severely outnumberd, why didn;t Richomeres just stick with the "block and starve" strategy.
Third, from the accounts I have read, it appears that the goths had a devastating effect on the balkans, esp after being joined with the armed gothic contingent from Marcianople. It appears they plundered and laid waste to the entire region. That they were again able to operate with impugnity after Adrianople seems to cut agains the notion that Adrianople "wasn't that big of a deal" that is seemingly popular these days.
Fourth, why was there not better coordination of troop movements between east and west before the battle. It seems that before Valens marched out, the romans had sent a number of smaller contingents that engaged the goths and were defeated or at least reduced in effective fighting capacity. Why not wait to concentrate forces instead of throwing raindrops on a fire?
Fifth, what led to the Roman intelligence failure as to the size of the gothic forces at Adrianople? It seems Valens rushed in without being prepared. Also, why did he feel the need to force march his forces for nearly a full day under a blazing hot sun before engaging, gather than following the standard practice of making camp, resting, and attacking the next morning? Was he really THAT inept? Would Gratian have been able to arrive and "steal the day", if Valens had waited 24 hours to attack?
Sixth it appears that the Roman auxilliaries and reserve line fled after the initial gothic cavalry charge during the battle. Why was there no attempt to regroup and reinforce once the main line was in trouble?
Seventh, why did the citizens of Adrianople not allow the suriving forces sanctuary in the city following their defeat. Surely, they would have been able to recognize their own forces?
Eighth, it appears that after the battle there was essentialy no effective fighting force left in the area and that the Goths had pretty much free reign in the balkans. Theodisius then enters the picture and again either loses battles or fights to costly stalemates, resuling in the Foedereti treaty. Again, why are the Romans incapable of a decesive victory at any point during the gothic war? It seems that "the worlds most professional fighting force" is being beaten again and again by relatively unorganized roaming gothic hordes. Again, this makes me question the whether the goths and romans were not more "evenly matched" in fighting ability at this time.
Finally, the more I read about the aftermath of the battle, the unprecedented terms offered to the goths, their mass enrollment as federates, being trained in the roman way of war, and the effect on overall roman fighting ability both east and west, the more I return to the classical view that Adrianople was indeed a catastrophe..arguably even worse than Cannae in that they were never able to recover from the loss or eject the goths from their terrority.
Before the battle and the gothic war, you have a feared, effective fighting force that while being hamstrung by Julian's losses, still semeed to be able to control its borders. After the gothic wars, Rome is dependent on what is really a large, independent and still hostile political entity operating within its borders; they have been forced to make a humiliating peace with their eastern enemies, and the rhine frontier is overrun again and again.
Adding together: 1) Julians losses in persia; 2) the losses during adrianople and the gothic war; 3) the losses during theodisius' subsequent two major civil wars with the west; and 4) the new found poltiical and military powe of the goths, I am in fact quite surpised the West was able to hold old as long as it did.
...Looking forward to the discussion. Thanks.
Lets Talk Adrianople - Michael Kerr - 04-16-2014
Not much information I can add about the battle but here is my humble contribution.
Although Adrianople seems to be the battle that captures the imagination of historians as the point where the cream of the Roman military were destroyed by the Goths. You have to go back about 127 years to the battle of Abrittus which took place in Lower Moesia, south of the Danube and was the first major battle between the Goths and Rome where the Roman emperor Decius and his army were in pursuit of a Gothic army that was returning north to cross the Danube laden with booty and hostages including Roman Senators after rampaging through Thrace. The Roman army was defeated and destroyed and the emperor and his son were killed, Decius being the first Roman emperor to be killed in battle. There is not much information about the size of the armies and casualties but the successor of Decius, Gallus had to conclude a humiliating truce with the Goths in which they were allowed to keep their loot and to cross the Danube unmolested.
Maybe one of the reasons that the Goths had free reign in the area because there were a lot of Goths already settled in Lower Moesia as since the time of Decius there were a number of wars between the Goths & Heruls and Romans including naval attacks on the empire so accomodations would have had to be made including settlement of Goths, Heruls, Carpi & possibly Bastarnae south of the Danube so maybe by the time of Adrianople there were sympathisers to the Gothic cause.
As to the size of the armies, I thought that Valens had to gather a scratch force as he was fighting a campaign in the east. Probably a case of a series of incidents of bad generalship and decision making by the Roman forces which didn't help.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
Lets Talk Adrianople - Alanus - 04-16-2014
Well, Tim
That's a pile of questions! A few hours back, I did the same thing and created a thread that's actually too long, titled "Fritigern: A Christian prior to 376?" No responses.
Personally, I think Adrianople had some savy leaders on the Gothic side. Somewhere, Fritigern had acquired military experience before the rebellion began. Perhaps he had been a federate officer at one time or another. This would explain how he managed to get the attention of Valens, who ordered Roman troops to help him in what some modern authors have called a Gothic civil war. It was not a civil war, but rather a religious conflict-- pagan (Athanaric) vs Christian (Fritigern).
We never get the real story from the Romans on events leading up to Adrianople. Thermisticus calls them "Scythians;" and like all Romans of his time, he didn't know the Goths, nor did he want to know them. They were just "barbarians." Behind the missing lines of these histories, we find at least 3 "barbarian" generals at Adrianople: Fritigern (already experienced from some former contact) plus the "Two Duces." The latter were Alatheus (a Greudungi) and Safrax (an Alan), both experienced in militaria, perhaps mercenaries at one point under the Persians.
On the Roman side, we find a number of generals with perhaps their own agenda, not Rome's. Richomeres was a Frank, and others were non-Roman. As Michael has just pointed out, the crème-de-la-crème of the Eastern army was on the Persian field, a long ways from Adrianople.
I enjoyed Day of the Barbarians, somewhat refreshing in a sea of staid academia. Frankly, I rooted for Fritigern, a man with a conscience. He was never defeated, and at one point he had surrounded either the tent of Theodosius or the encampment, could have taken the emperor prisoner, yet chose to let Theodosius go. Fact is, Theodosius "the Great" was a lackluster general, earlier pulled from his post against the Sarmatians and sent home to Spain. Valens was almost a nut-case, and his death was accidental within a battle predestined as a Roman defeat. :dizzy:
Lets Talk Adrianople - ValentinianVictrix - 04-16-2014
I would love to comment but I have a very good reason for not being able to do so at the moment,
Lets Talk Adrianople - Timianus - 04-17-2014
Quote: Theodosius "the Great" was a lackluster general, earlier pulled from his post against the Sarmatians and sent home to Spain. .
Agree 100% He seemed to lack any idea of tactics other than full frontal assault
Lets Talk Adrianople - AMELIANVS - 04-17-2014
Quote:Sixth it appears that the Roman auxilliaries and reserve line fled after the initial gothic cavalry charge during the battle. Why was there no attempt to regroup and reinforce once the main line was in trouble?
Seventh, why did the citizens of Adrianople not allow the suriving forces sanctuary in the city following their defeat. Surely, they would have been able to recognize their own forces?
why are the Romans incapable of a decesive victory at any point during the gothic war? It seems that "the worlds most professional fighting force" is being beaten again and again by relatively unorganized roaming gothic hordes. Again, this makes me question the whether the goths and romans were not more "evenly matched" in fighting ability at this time.
1)Regrouping:
How do you know there was no such attempt?It is explicitly stated somwhere?There is so much more what we don't know then what we know so if attempt like this is not mentioned it does not necessarily mean it did not happened.
2)Sanctuary for suriving forces:
In fact it would not be so easy to recognize who is who.It was not Napoleonic era uniform armies and many Goths were certainly dressed and equiped exactly as Romans were.Also it is not just a question of recognition of who is who.Barbarian soldiers were likely mixed with Roman so they were not two clearly separated bodies which would allow those in the city to let safely in only their soldiers.It is not problem to find similar cases from other battles and sieges where friendly soldiers were not allowed entrance from those very reasons I stated.
3)Romans incapable of a decesive victory:
this is nothing new that would only appeared for the first time during this Gothic war.Sometimes war goes well for the Romans sometimes not.This war was one of those that simply went wrong.Barbarian fighting ability in general does not differed significantly from that of the Romans what was different for a long time was level of training and combat sophistication as well as technological hinterland and yes in all these things Germanic Barbarians get closer to Romans by that time if compared with older times but this alone does not make Roman army somewhat less professional.Ostrogoths were later during Justinian reconquest heavily decimated by the Imperial army-does their defeat mean Goths from those time were less capable warriors than their predecessors?Hardly,yet they were defeated.
Lets Talk Adrianople - Alanus - 04-18-2014
Oh! I get it.
Let's NOT talk about Adrianople.
illy:
Lets Talk Adrianople - Mrbsct - 04-20-2014
Quote:The last year, I have been doing a lot of reading re: the infamous Battle of Adrianople, the events leading up to it, and its aftermath. The latest reading I have done is "The Day of The Barbarians" "Barbarians at Rome's Gate" and the essay posted at http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ancient/articles/cascadingfailure.aspxValens had some conflict with the religious elite. Plus he was jealous of Gratian. Plus his Cold War with Persia. Most his Comiatenses were on the Persian front when the Goths swarmed in.
I have a number of questions/discussion points I would like to bring up.
First, why did Valens offer receptio on such attractice terms to the goths begin with? Were the romans that short of manpower on the frontier? Once they became aware of the size of the incoming "horde", why did they not mass more troops to control the process?.
From what I know using Goths as lackeys as an attractive option for Emperors. They were out of the sticky political system of Rome. Plus they were most hungry and desperate, so most motivated and loyal. But Valens miscaluted as rich landlords mistreated the Goths.
Quote:Second, it appears that in the preceding Battle of Ad Salices, the Romans suffered a bloody stalemate, despite (pressumably) being beter armed, supplied (they had been starving out the goths), and trained. From the accounts I have read, the goths were armed ad hoc with pilfered roman equipment and "fire hardened clubs." In my mind, the stalemate calls into question the assumed notion that the RA was still "superior" to the barbarians at this point. The notion of a half-starved rag-tag band of goths nearing defeating a contingent of the WRA by throwing wooden clubs from a lager wagon seems hard to believe. What else was going on here? If the Romans were severely outnumberd, why didn;t Richomeres just stick with the "block and starve" strategy..Hungry starving mob.
Quote:Fourth, why was there not better coordination of troop movements between east and west before the battle. It seems that before Valens marched out, the romans had sent a number of smaller contingents that engaged the goths and were defeated or at least reduced in effective fighting capacity. Why not wait to concentrate forces instead of throwing raindrops on a fire?.
Guerilla warfare and Raiding was the common strategy of the Late Roman Army. Which the introduction of garrison forces, Romans were much more defensive and less confident to march its soldiers out of its walls to assemble a massive field army. Plus the Church served as a voice of the Roman people. Emperors were very afraid of battles that would cause Roman death and less likely to engage pitched battles like Caesar did because it cause the Church to hate them if they ever lost.
Quote:Fifth, what led to the Roman intelligence failure as to the size of the gothic forces at Adrianople? It seems Valens rushed in without being prepared. Also, why did he feel the need to force march his forces for nearly a full day under a blazing hot sun before engaging, gather than following the standard practice of making camp, resting, and attacking the next morning? Was he really THAT inept? Would Gratian have been able to arrive and "steal the day", if Valens had waited 24 hours to attack?
Roman scout predicted 10,000 Gothic fighters. The hidden Gothic forces were probally out foraging and the Romans miscalculated. Yes Valens thought Gratian would arrive and steal the day so he thought it would be a quick victory.
Quote:Sixth it appears that the Roman auxilliaries and reserve line fled after the initial gothic cavalry charge during the battle. Why was there no attempt to regroup and reinforce once the main line was in trouble?
There are no such thing as "auxiliaries" in the Late Roman army. Unless you are speaking about Auxilia Palanti, which is compelty different.
The Roman cavalry got impatient and attempted to encircle the Goths. Hidden Gothic cavalry ambushed the Roman cavalry and routed them in a battle.
Quote:Seventh, why did the citizens of Adrianople not allow the suriving forces sanctuary in the city following their defeat. Surely, they would have been able to recognize their own forces?Technically the Roman forces were not even from Adrianople. Goths failed to scale Adrianople BTW.
Quote:Eighth, it appears that after the battle there was essentialy no effective fighting force left in the area and that the Goths had pretty much free reign in the balkans. Theodisius then enters the picture and again either loses battles or fights to costly stalemates, resuling in the Foedereti treaty. Again, why are the Romans incapable of a decesive victory at any point during the gothic war? It seems that "the worlds most professional fighting force" is being beaten again and again by relatively unorganized roaming gothic hordes. Again, this makes me question the whether the goths and romans were not more "evenly matched" in fighting ability at this time.Again Roman strategy after Constantine was more defensive at this time. High walls and a small garrison of Lime troops were much preffered. These troops were less likely to mobilize into coordinated fighting force. That was the job of the Comiatenses.(Field armies)
Total field army was about 100,000 at Constatine. He divided it up between his 3 sons. After a bloody civil, a huge number got depleted. Julian invaded the east and tore it up pretty bad. Valens had to coordinate his forces in East and went to Adrianople with a handful of his troops(only 15,000 or 20,000). This was only 20 percent of the Danube forces. Plus Gratian was busy fighting the Franks and other Germans west.
Again Emperors were now very insecure and less likely to engage in battle. Their war was a game of winning over and defeating members in the Church and Senate, not crushing barbarians. Truces with barbarians was an attractive option. Again Theodosis was used to use Goths as his personal strike force and human shields. Although the Roman Army was fairly large, it was very hard to coordinate massive field army since troops dessert plus the loss of manpower was looked down upon. Recrutiment was hard to come by as military service was avoided. The Goths join the Foederetii because they have no choice and therefore unique. The Romans don't bother joining. Using guerilla warfare, treaties, and poltical pressure to divide and scatter the Goths was a more attractive option that a decisive battle.
Plus Theodosis had the same problem Valens had. He had to fight the West. He couldn't do it without the Goths.
Lets Talk Adrianople - ValentinianVictrix - 04-23-2014
There is so much that is incorrect in this thread that I just do not know where to start.
Firstly, the army Valens commanded was not a half-hearted bunch of incompetents, Ammianus told us that they were 'neither unwarlike or contemptible'. Many of the troops were veterans of numerous battles, both in the Western and the Eastern halves of the Empire. There were at least 7 legions present at the battle, possibly as many as 10 were present with Valens when he arrived at Adrianople. Many people here are not examining the sources closely enough or they would have have been able to have deduced that one for themselves.
Despite claims to the contrary, if Ammianus and the other contemporary historians state there were 'auxiliaries' in the Roman army then I will rather believe them than a person contradicting this some 1700 years later!
I believe I now know exactly what did happen on the day of the battle but unfortunately for the time being I cannot discuss it here.
Lets Talk Adrianople - Timianus - 04-23-2014
@Andy: Nearly everything you wrote is contrary to what I have read on the subject
1. "No auxilliaries" I seem to recall Ammianus stating that there were Batavian auxiliaries and that disappeared from the battlefield and did not reinforce the main line. By this time, I thought "auxiliary" referred to allied troops.
2. Can you please explain what "problems" Valens was having with the west? The sources identify jealousy with Gratian, but my understanding is that they worked quite cooperatively in terms of sending initial troops to deal with the gothic problem. I do not believe there was any actual military conflict between the two.
3. "Rich landlords" abusing the Goths? Where does this come from. My understanding was that there was a food shortage because the Roman miscalculated the number of Goths that were crossing, and the local dux was a corrupt drunkard that abused and mishandled the situation. On the contrary, it was the goths that plundered all of the villa rusticas (sorry, brain can't declinate today).
4. Goths as "lackeys"? The goths provided some of the best recruits for the Roman Army. They were "starving and desperate and therefore loyal"? Where do you get this? No doubt that they were starving and desperate, but the whole idea was to initiate receptio, bring them into the fold, and distribute the new recruits among existing units, as had always been the practice. Also, by the time of Andrianople, the goths had spent the better part of a year ravaging thrace. They may have been "starving and desperate" when the revolt started outside of marcianopolis, but they seemed to be pretty well provisioned and armed by the time of the battle.
5. I am unaware of a wholesale adoption of a defense tactical doctrine at the point. The army was quite "offensive" after constantine...see his son's numerous civil wars and Julian's campaigns. The army did not seem to adopt a defensive tactical posture until Stilicho. Please cite sources that say otherwise.
6. Where do you get the notion that late roman emperors were afraid of battle casualties because they feared fallout from the church? The catholic "church" had not come to dominate by this point, and was still being propogated as the "religion of victory", as Constantine had originally planned.
7. "The roman cavalry got impatient"? Where does this come from? From the sources I had read, it appears that there was a severe lack of command control because Valens had all of his officers with him attempting to negotiate with Fritergem. I believe the cavalry was engaged in normal "screening" operations while the infantry was still deploying and, as often happens in war, skirmishes unintentionally initiated the battle.
Lets Talk Adrianople - Mrbsct - 04-23-2014
1. Foederetii. Not auxilaries. The Roman cavalry at Adrianople were Roman units BTW.
2 Did I say military conflict? I meant rivalry.
3. Isn't the local dux a Rich landlord?
4. Ask Theodosis at Fridigus.
5. Yeah so offensive Valens decided to negotiate. So offensive the Gratian and Theodosis didn't both engaging in pitched battles after Adrianople.
6. .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3MxSLuIZQ
7. Um didn't you even read Ammianus? The Imperial cavalry led by Iberian Prince Bacurius during Valen's negotiation decided the Goths were easy to beat and attacked. Then Gothic cavalry showed up and routed them.
Lets Talk Adrianople - ValentinianVictrix - 04-23-2014
Quote:1. Foederetii. Not auxilaries. The Roman cavalry at Adrianople were Roman units BTW.
2 Did I say military conflict? I meant rivalry.
3. Isn't the local dux a Rich landlord?
4. Ask Theodosis at Fridigus.
5. Yeah so offensive Valens decided to negotiate. So offensive the Gratian and Theodosis didn't both engaging in pitched battles after Adrianople.
6. .
7. Um didn't you even read Ammianus? The Imperial cavalry led by Iberian Prince Bacurius during Valen's negotiation decided the Goths were easy to beat and attacked. Then Gothic cavalry showed up and routed them.
!. Wrong. Up to the Battle of Adrianople when the Romans hired non-Roman troops they were always called auxiliaries, that is what Ammianus always calls the Taifali, Franks, Alamanni and Goths who were hired by the Romans for specific campaigns rather than being enrolled into the Auxilia.
2. Not all the historians who were either contemporary with the events or writing shortly afterwards speak of any ill-feeling between Valens and Gratian. Indeed it could be Christian writers who made up this tale as both Emperors worshiped different forms of Christianity and Valens form was frowned upon at the time.
3. It was clear that the officers sent to oversee the crossing of the Danube were military officers, not landlords. Dux was a military title at the time.
4. We are talking about Adrianople, not the situation when Theodosius took up the purple. The Goths could not be considered lacky's even during Theodosius' reign as they held the balance of power.
5. Are you forgetting Valens three campaigns against the Goths between 367 and 369AD? The campaigns Gratian waged against the Alamanni and other tribes north of the Rhine and Danube? The African campaign fought by Theodosius before Adrianople? Valens campaign against Procopius?
6. No evidence that the Emperors before Adrianople were afraid of upsetting the Christians. In fact there is much evidence of both Valentinian and Valens meddling in Christian matters. Did Valens worry about upsetting the Nicene Christians when he converted Fritigern and his Goths to Arianism?
7. You need to reread Ammianus and then compare his account to the other accounts and then perhaps try and deduce exactly what happened that day.
Lets Talk Adrianople - Michael Kerr - 04-23-2014
In regards to the supposed jealousy of Valens towards his younger western counterpart Gratian. I have always thought this as propaganda used by later Christian writers who loathed Valens for being an Arian & even went so far as to accuse him of being a heretic for supposedly being involved in the wrecking of churches and persecution of Eastern saints ( Alanus mentioned on his thread about Fritigern and the Gothic martyrs so Valens would probably have been blamed for that as well) and being the root of all evil as well as being the cause of the coming of the Huns according to Otto Maenchen-Helfen in his excellent book "The World of the Huns". So whether he was jealous I don't know.
More than likely events beyond his control forced him to meet the Goths on August 9. Although Gratian had promised help, he himself had problems and on the day of battle was still at Castra Martis which was still 400 kms away from Adrianople. According to the book "Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD 367-455" by Meaghan McEvoy as well as "Failure of Empire" by Noel Lenski. Gratian's delays had kept Valens waiting for at least a month & a half at his camp at Melanthias which he established in late May but moved towards Adrianople in late July to prevent Goths from cutting off the east-west road between the camp & Adrianople before the battle. So maybe all the talk about jealousy was just that and circumstances worked against Valens who wasn't as bad a commander as made out by history or the Christian writers but just a recipient of extremely bad & negative press.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
Lets Talk Adrianople - Timianus - 04-23-2014
Also important that the elites in Constantinople were not exactly fans of Valens due to his religion and the affair with Procopius. The "traditional" narrative of this battle seems to be: Valens is an impertinent, not-too-bright leader who is blinded by jealousy, ignores the advice of his generals to wait for Gratain, marches his troops for 1/2 the day in the sun, doesn't have the foresight to see Fritergem's negotiations as a delaying tactic, and removes all of his officers to discuss strategy while the troops are deploying, and, in doing so, loses the creme de la creme of the roman army to a bunch of half-starved unorganized barbarians. IMHO, this reads as a hit piece on Valens by people with an axe to grind. Not that Rome did not suffer incompetent emporers or generals, but there are too many "blunders" that it seems utterly improbable that Valens was that "stupid/morally bankrupt." I am further convinced of this in light of the "alternate" endings of the battle: one of which has Valens fighting to the death with his troops and the other has him slinking away to a farm house to be burned alive.
I agree that it is much more likely that what happened was the result of an a changing situation on the ground, bad intel, and unfortunate circumstances that all occurred at the same time. I also think it is much more likely that the Goths were better organized and armed than is usually represented.
Lets Talk Adrianople - AMELIANVS - 04-23-2014
Quote:4. Ask Theodosis at Fridigus.
5. So offensive the Gratian and Theodosis didn't both engaging in pitched battles after Adrianople..
Andy for at least hundredth times:THEODOSIUS not"Theodosis" :-x :!: ...I believe it is not so hard to memorize those names and if you can't do it to look instead into some book.
Or you would like if someone again and again corrupt your name on "Andur "or something along those lines?
Sorry but I had to write it
