04-23-2014, 06:30 PM
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.
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.
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
