04-23-2014, 02:18 PM
@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.
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.
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
