Lets Talk Adrianople

[Alanus]

I can just see Fritigern slapping his forehead, "Why didn't I think of that?" :woot:

[Michael Kerr]

I do have a question about what the some of the sources say about the reasons for the Goths haste in wanting to cross the Danube. Although fear of the Huns would have been a factor, would not the fact that they were occupying wetlands ridden with insects and heat at the wrong time of the year have been the major factor.
Did the Romans have the capacity to stop or even control the flow of Gothic refugees on the Danube in the lead-up to Adrianople which ancient authors like Eunapius claimed Goths imploring Romans on the other side of the Danube to let them and their families cross because the Huns were right behind them. Even as early as 69AD it seems the Romans had trouble stopping invasions or migrations of various people from the northern bank of the Danube which had many more rivers flowing into it and creating massive seasonal wetland areas, and were always hard put controlling migrations especially in winter where quite often the Danube froze over. There would have been plenty of boats available on the northern bank just to get around the wetland areas for travel, fishing, hunting for game as well as trade with the Romans on the Southern bank. I don't know if the river fleet of the Romans would have been effective around this time but I don't think they would have been able to contain smaller river craft from crossing especially around the delta. Even today some of Europe's largest wetland areas are found in the Pontic-Danubian region including the vast marshland comprising the Danube Delta. Today's wetlands would be a fraction of the wetlands of antiquity before modern dams, irrigation systems and levees reduced seasonal flow along most of the region's rivers mainly on the northern bank allowing a lot of land reclaimation. The southern bank except for some areas seemed higher and contained less wetlands except for the delta and a few areas. Wetlands could include lakes, marshes, swamps and seasonal bogs in which insects and diseases like mosquitoes and malaria would have wreaked havoc on both people and livestock on the northern bank, especially in autumn and summer. Roxolani and Iazyges lived in these wetlands from the middle to the delta for hundreds of years and it seems that these areas offered some protection from invaders including the Romans who it seems were never able to totally control the Sarmatians. So maybe the Hunnic threat at this early stage was overstated. The Goths may have been more desperate and wished more to escape disease and starvation as the lands near the northern bank were probably not as suitable for farming in antiquity as the lands on the southern side, and if they had herds of livestock, these were probably devastated by disease caused by insects in their haste to cross over the richer farmlands of Lower Moesia and Thrace as well as the Hunnic threat.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Huns weren't on the Goths' heels contrary to popular belief. In fact, there were probably Huns fighting with the Goths in that group of refugees, who, by the way, were mostly people whose powerbase was threatened by the movement of Cantons and other groups. Serfs tended to stay where they were.

[Michael Kerr]

Alanus wrote:

I can just see Fritigern slapping his forehead, "Why didn't I think of that?"

In fairness to Fritigern I think he would have loved to have had Rasparaganus's problems. One of the first things Hadrian did when becoming emperor was to lower the subsidies paid to the Roxolani by Trajan for keeping out of the 2nd Dacian war. The Roxolani immediately went on the rampage joined up with the Iazyges who were also unhappy, burnt down a string of Roman forts north of the Danube & killed a governor I think, but cannot find source at present, requiring Hadrian to hurry to Lower Moesia to sort out the mess.
His solution to the problem must have surprised Rasparaganus and shocked Rome. He not only increased the subsidies paid to the Roxolani but except for a small strip of land on the north bank, withdrew all Roman forces from north of the Danube from Black Sea to the river Olt and up to the Carpathians so keeping Dacia. He basically gave up all the gains made by Trajan except for Dacia itself and probably at this time destroyed the famous bridge which Trajan had built. So for the price of a horse and some hostages which probably included his children, he was able to enrich himself and selected friends, made an official friend of the Roman people and was allowed to rule a buffer state which was supposed to keep that part of the empire safe from other unruly barbarians so he did alright for the Roxolani, however if it is true that he was overthrown by his own people then he must have got a bit greedy with the subsidies.

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:

The Huns weren't on the Goths' heels contrary to popular belief.

I agree, but with refugees from ancient times to the present, the stories of the oncoming dreaded enemy increases. In their case as they approached the Danube the notoriety of the Huns would have increased, their forces would have been bigger, fiercer and closer than what they were in reality. That is psychological warfare I suppose. But I think fear of starvation played a bigger part in the exodus. I just think the Romans didn't have the ability to control the flood of refugees by 376AD. They may have helped ship over able bodied men for their army and fit workers for their farms but the elderly, sick and the young would have got no help from the Romans but would have crossed anyway simply because the Romans would not have been able to stop them.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Robert Vermaat]

Did the Romans have the capacity to stop or even control the flow of Gothic refugees on the Danube in the lead-up to Adrianople which ancient authors like Eunapius claimed Goths imploring Romans on the other side of the Danube to let them and their families cross because the Huns were right behind them.

Actually, Valens agreed to settle the leading Tervingi groups within Thrace. This was both a shrewd move as well as strategic support for Fritigern and his faction. I tend to think this was a reward for an ally. This seems to be supported by the fact that when the Greuthungi arrived a bit later, their envoys were not even received - a slap in the face. That the deal with Fritigern went horribly wrong had nothing to do with the deal but with the greed of the local rulers, who wanted to squeeze every bit of profit available, not contemplating the results this could have. I'm reminded of modern times. :|

I'm also not so sure that the Tervingi were occupying wetlands and had to cross in a hurry. Do we even get accurate geographical details of where the crossings took place? I hear of 'Caucalanda', which seems to be further west than the delta? My guess would be that the groups with fritigern were not under pressure from the Huns, but from fellow Goths, and called upon their friends to cash in a favour? The rivals saw this and thought to make the same deal.

[Michael Kerr]

Thanks for your reply Robert, I take your point about fear of other Goths as a factor rather than Huns & I too have no idea of crossing points but I assume that the Romans from earlier times would have sited their bases on the Lower & middle Danube near potential invasion routes. You are correct that we don't have accurate details of these crossing points but there would have been a few areas on south bank, which was generally higher than the north bank and less susceptible to flooding, so where the higher ground shelves down to meet the river in certain areas like Dobroudja, Silistra and Ruse which were important areas even up to the 19th century where they were constantly fought over by the Ottomans & Russians. The Roman forts at Oescus & Novae, maybe a few more were probably situated so the Romans could intercept invasion routes as well as Roman river naval unit base locations. I suppose you could add trading centres, where the residents of the north bank could gain easy access & take their goods & livestock for trade with the Romans so although not proof that they were the crossing points they are at least possibilities. Regarding the wetlands, they would have occupied a much larger area than just the Delta and probably would have reached west to the Olt river where there seems to be a break from wetlands due to gorges & whitewater rapids etc and starting again near where the Tizsa River flows into the Danube. With the Tervingi, while not living there I am sure the people who were would want them to move on and probably supplied them with the means of transport to cross the river & become the Romans' problem. These northern bank areas at the time of Adrianople were not rich farmlands like the land south of the Danube but being lower would have been subject to seasonal flooding especially after the thawing of winter snows with many of the north bank rivers which would have had extensive wetland areas themselves where they joined the Danube increasing its water volume. So except for food on the hoof there wouldn't have been much produce and this would have created problems in itself with fighting. theft & exhausting of resources like fishing and game etc. Anyway just my thoughts on the leadup as I don't know too much about the battle. The information & map I am using comes from Rome and the Nomads by Roger Batty. Just a final note with the battle of Ad Salices, although on the Southern bank didn't it mean the 'Battle of the town of the willows".

[attachment=9808]wetlands2.jpg[/attachment]

NOTE: Due to site being down for a few hours I had to put in a few edits this morning Australian time. Sorry.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

What's that figure from?

Also, yeah there were a lot of wetlands at this time. Still looking for that recent article on the Hungarian Plains being wetlands at the time of Attila.

[Alanus]

Michael and Robert,

Don't take me for gospel, but I think the Caucaland ran alongside under the Transylvanian alps; no marshland there. Upriver, northward in Walachia, and at the pass near Iron Gate, the land was clear of marshes. I would assume this would be the location of the crossing, just below the ruins of Trajan's bridge, where you needn't have to wear hip-boots to get to the boat. As Robert noted, Fritigern had an "in" with Valens, I believe from earlier dealings mentioned in the Fritigern-Christian thread. For the Greutungi, non-permisso, but that didn't stop Alatheus and Safrax from paddling between the patrolling dromons and reaching the south bank.

[Michael Kerr]

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:

What's that figure from?

Hi Evan, I scanned the map off Rome and the Nomads: The Pontic-Danubian Realm in Antiquity by Roger Batty. He covers a fair bit in the first part of his book into the physical geography of the region, from temperature to rainfall, soils etc, going back to ancient times or Middle Ages using sources & archaeology mostly, travel routes between the lower Carpathians and the Danube and hydrology analyses of the Danube and mentions a few sources. His research basically says that the except for a few spots and the Delta itself the Southern bank was generally higher, less susceptible to flooding and easier to defend but that the Romans always seemed to have manpower problems in Moesia which probably explains why they encouraged migration by certain groups of people through their history from the time of Nero onwards. These vast wetland areas, mostly on the northern bank but also some areas on the south bank, which going by the map ran west along the Danube would not have been pleasant places to try and live except for the toughest in late Autumn or Summer, except for the hardiest hunters, as there would have been plenty of game and fish & probably played a factor in the reasoning for migrations. (Why were groups throughout history so keen to migrate or invade from the northern bank if it was such a great & pleasant place to live,). Can't help you too much with Hungarian Plain but I think the current wetlands of Hungary cover only about 10 to 25% of the area that used to be covered by ancient and medieval wetlands on the Hungarian plain especially the land between Tisza and Danube rivers.
Just on the wetlands of the Hungarian plain, Hugh Elton mentions in his book 'Warfare in Roman Europe AD350-425 how in 357AD in a Roman military operation against Sarmatians in Hungary that the Romans sent light armed troops in skiffs & taking the course which offered the greatest secrecy, came up to the lurking places of the Sarmatians to flush them out with spears and bows, so obviously at this time there were plenty of wetland areas around Hungary for the Iazyges to hide in about 80 years before Attila's time.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Michael Kerr]

Alanus wrote:

Don't take me for gospel, but I think the Caucaland ran alongside under the Transylvanian alps; no marshland there. Upriver, northward in Walachia, and at the pass near Iron Gate, the land was clear of marshes.

Hi Alanus/Robert, I acknowledge I don't know much about Gothic history so please go easy on me if I am wrong. From reading 'The World of the Huns' by Maenchen-Helfen, the Caucaland (Caucalandis locus) was the mountainuous part of the Banat situated between the Mures, Tizsa and Danube rivers and was either originally occupied by the Sarmatians while the neighbouring territory of Oltenia was occupied by the Taifils before being driven out by Athanaric and his followers who were themselves driven west after being defeated by the Huns on the right bank of the Dniester earlier. Was this group associated with Fritigern, which I doubt as you mentioned in another thread that these two characters were opposed to each other so I am assuming that they were they under independent command and wouldn't have much to do with Fritigern's followers. Below is a map of rivers of middle to eastern Europe and although I am sure the Caucaland territory is smaller than the area I have shaded, but to my novice eyes it seems a little too west from Thrace. Not sure of the location of the Iron Gates gorge or gorges but probably around this area like you said. I am unsure if this group was associated with Fritigern's group in any way in regards to letting Fritigern's followers cross the Danube from their lands. :? mile:
After checking your topic on Fritigern being a Christian before becoming an Arian I am pretty sure the two groups did not like each other much.
[attachment=9810]MapofRivers2.jpg[/attachment]

Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:

What's that figure from?

Hi Evan, I scanned the map off Rome and the Nomads: The Pontic-Danubian Realm in Antiquity by Roger Batty.

Just Googled it. $237 without shipping. Holy crap...

[ValentinianVictrix]

Between 367-369AD Valens carried out three campaigns against the Goths. The first one was launched from the Province of Moesia Secunda, at a place called the 'fortress of Daphne'. Unfortunately the Goths had been alerted to the presence of the Romans and fled into the 'woods and fens' located in that region north of the Danube. Valens offered a reward to anyone who brought back a severed head of a Goth and not only did the troops go in to root out the Goths, even the baggage guards took part in the slaughter.

The second campaign in 368 came to an abrupt end when the Danube flooded. This was launched further east along the Danube

The third and final campaign in 369 was much more successful. It was launched from the town of Novidunum further east again along the Danube. Valens encountered Athanaricus, who Ammianus states was actually an Iudex, or King, of the Greuthingi Goths and not the Tervingi as he would become sometime later. Valens met the Goths in battle and was victorious.

So, in the area north of the Danube facing the province of Moesia Secunda there were patches of marshland the Goths could hide in.

[Alanus]

Hello, Adrian

The area around Noviodunum was a swampy mess, but it had high running ridges of willows. I don't know where Ammianus got his info from; but as far as I know, Athanaric wasn't just a Tyrfingi he was a Balth. His father Aoric had been exchanged as a hostage when he was a teenager and lived for a time in Constantinople. He was shocked at the number of Christian churches, and this disdain was instilled in his son Athanaric. Pardon me, for not using the nomen "Athanaricus" but I prefer honor his language and culture. ;-)

Don't know the original source for the Balth info, but it probably came from Wolfram... who perhaps found it in Jordanes. At the time Athanaric was magistrate of the Tyrfingi (which was not a kingly position), the Greutungi had their own leaders from a separate family, the Amals. The Greutungi had true kingships. Ermaneric was a long-time king, then one or two that followed, the last being Videric the Boy King who was placed in the care of Alatheus (a Greutungus) and Safrax (an Alan). Known as the "Two Duces" they supposedly brought Videric across the Ister shortly after the Tyrfingi crossing under Fritigern aka Frithigairns.

I suppose this will spark a debate-- all well and good-- but this Gothic version seems to be more accurate than Ammianus' Roman one. If I'm wrong, it's due to memory recalling readings from more than a decade ago. Athanaric may have had Greutungi allies but he himself was not one. :|

[Alanus]

I am unsure if this group was associated with Fritigern's group in any way in regards to letting Fritigern's followers cross the Danube from their lands. :? mile:
After checking your topic on Fritigern being a Christian before becoming an Arian I am pretty sure the two groups did not like each other much.

I believe the Tyrfingi territories extended all the way up to the Prut, so lots of good farming land for what was a large tribe. Somewhere north of the Prut, Athanaric built an entrenchment and gigantic palisade; and he excluded the Taifali from entering it. This was an error that ended a 2 century foedus between the Taifals and Tyrfingi. Not a smart move. To Athanaric's surprise, the Huns swam across the river and successfully attacked his fort.

This was the last of Athanarics major errors. For his supporting Pocopius, Valens hit the Tyrfingi hard in 367, took a vacation in 368 (due to a flooding Ister), then cleaned up in 369. Athanaric lost access to all trading centers except for two, and his people were hungry if not starving. As another dumb ploy, he turned his vehemence toward the Tyrfingi Christians, both Arian and Orthodox. A Christian was a Christian, and not a good traditional pagan. This 369-373 purge produced 32 famous martyrs plus hundreds of unknowns. It was at this point that Fritigern sought aid from Valens through the auspices of Junius Soranus, Dux per Scythia Minor. This led to some kind of joint raid-- headed by Soranus and Fritigern-- on Athanaric's torching squads. In total, we see constant war from 367 to 373, the loss of Taifali allies, and finally the Hunnic attack on "Fort Goofy." The Tyrfingi could no longer function as a tribe... and it was time to get to hell out. Which is what Fritigren's Christians did in 376.

[Robert Vermaat]

[..] ..., and this disdain was instilled in his son Athanaric. Pardon me, for not using the nomen "Athanaricus" but I prefer honor his language and culture. ;-)

Ah, hence your choice of username? Sorry Alan, couldn't resist. :whistle:

I suppose this will spark a debate-- all well and good-- but this Gothic version seems to be more accurate than Ammianus' Roman one. If I'm wrong, it's due to memory recalling readings from more than a decade ago. Athanaric may have had Greutungi allies but he himself was not one. :|

The Goths certainly had important family dynasties, but no strong kingships at the time. The 'iudex' or 'magistrate' from the sources may well have been translation errors (or the sources just failed to find an equivalent) for a position of temporary warband leader or very influentian military person (VIMP) who attracted followers in military campaigns. Sons could succeed fathers but there does not seem to have been an institutionalized succession among the Goths. More often than not we fail to establish any background of such leaders, or any connections to the 'ruling dynasty' (whatever that may have been at the time). I certainly do not believe for instance that the Amalings were in charge at this time, I don't accept Jordanes' claims as anything other than 'backwriting' like we see other early Medieval chronists do.