Lets Talk Adrianople

[Robert Vermaat]

Hello Tim,

Coming late to this thread my answer is in danger of repeating things possibly already posted in replies, but here goes (longish!):

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?

A The Romans were always short of manpower. The Goths were not that numerous and they could be resettled. This was standing policy. Constantine had settled many Sarmatians all over the provinces, no doubt there were plans to do the same with the Goths.
B the Romans always had a policy of decreasing a threat by breaking up an enemy. Any group you could pry loose of an alliance was worth absorbing.

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.

I think there can be some doubt as to the stories of Goths with clubs vs. fully-armed Romans. I don’t believe it, frankly. The eagerness of the Romans to engage in battle at Adrianople does not speak of a feeling of equality. Perhaps Ad Salices was an ‘artificial’ stalemate? Like Aetius spared his potential Hun allies at Chalons instead of defeating them?

Error: it’s not the Western Roman army at Ad Salices, it’s the east Roman army. Or are you referring to another incident?

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.

I don’t follow. The two things are unrelated. The fact that the Goths were able to pillage the countryside was due to their superiority over the limitanei in the region. When split up due to the blockade, smaller Roman forces were able to deal with the smaller bands, but the Romans (as part of their military strategy never pulled all border forces away from the border to form a large army. They had to wait for the comitatenses (field armies) to do so.

This then took place at Ad Salices (presumably) but for sure at Adrianople. What you may refer to as ‘not such big a deal’ I think is about the notion that Adrianople brought about the fall of the Western Empire. This latter idea I do not support. Adrianople was a major defeat which for decades paralyzed Roman tactics as well as dominated strategy for a long time. It played a severe part in the eventual breakdown of relations between the east and the West, and put in motion a (in my mind disastrous) policy of settling barbarians within the empire (wait for it!) under their own leaders and with a large measure of independence. But as a military defeat, Adrianople was not comparable to Cannae. The East lost most of its army but did in the end not even lose any territory.

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?

Hubris. Valens being overconfident and yearning for military glory. I guess, because there’s no interview with him, just accusations afterwards. They could have waited for Gratian, and together licked the Goths. But no… hubris.

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?

See above. Overconfidence. Wanting to catch the Goths unprepared? And finally, yes.

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?

Valens had no auxiliaries. The Batavi regiment was a crack comitatenses regiment, no federates or ‘mercenaries’ or whatever. Standing field army troops, very high quality.
Actually, we have but a dim view of what happened after the Gothic cavalry arrived, defeats the left flank and disperses the Roman cavalry. Some reconstruction have them returning and attacking the Romans in the rear, some in the flank – we don’t know. Was it an encirclement like Cannae, or a destabilisation by constantly attacking the flanks? Did the infantry die fighting or slowly retreating, turning into a rout? Fact is that not even Ammianus seems to have been able to get a clear report of what happened when the main body began to falter. That may have been due to chaos from the moment of the cavalry being dispersed. We only know that the reserve are not there, but they may well have been used before to stabilized the Gothic counterattack, unknown to Valens.

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?

Sure they recognized them, I think they were in shock and paralyzed with fear, thinking that the retreating troops would allow attacking Goths to enter the city with them. Happened all the time.

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.

No that’s incorrect. The borders were not suddenly open to all for a long time. Troops will have been pulled back into strongholds and cities. Theodosius is actually succesful in pushing the sarmatians back that very year, as well as the next. I see no losses and/or costly stalemates only. His general Modares defeats them in 380, Alatheus and Safrax make peace in 380, Athanaric surrenders in 381.
The ‘match’ that you see is an equalising factor: the Goth fight with nothing to lose, the Romans with everything to lose. Gusto vs. caution.

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.

Part of the reason why Adrianople had an impact was the worsening relations between east and West. Theodosius never trusted Gratian and after his death had to fend off several usurpers there. Federates were a necessity after the losses of Adrianople. Had the Goths been defeated, they would still have been enrolled, but no doubt seperated into smaller units all over the Empire. This was normal policy, even the Vandals are treated thus after Belisarius finally defeats them. The Goths are no ‘arch-enemy’, they fight for the Romans within a very few years of Adrianople.

What you fail to see here I think is that the Goths were never a monolithic group. Many leaders (as all the other Germanic groups have), waxing and waning numbers (as Alaric experiences after every victory and defeat) made for an inability to form a ‘Pan-Gothic Peoples Army’, as so often erroneously described over the centuries. The (Visi)goths were a number of groups and Rome constantly tried (with differing succes) to use these groups.

The real reason for the Roman military demise is the constant in-fighting which costs far more troops than the defeat at Adrianople. The east lost that one, yet it’s the Rhine that falter. How come? Because during the usurpers’ wars, Theodosius manages to steal the best forces from the West, during several occasions. Had Stilicho not tried to ‘intervene’ in the east, he would not have engaged Alaric (who was sent after him by Constantinople), but he’d have managed to hold the Rhine with ease.

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.

Well, there you have it. Apparently the army was better than you thought. :wink: