Late Roman,Germanic(Goth, Vandals) and Huns strategy and tactics comparission

[HuangCaesar]

This is a topic on how the Late Roman, Germanic(Vandals, Goths, etc.) and Hunnic compared strategically and tactically in the Late Roman era.


I read Ammianus and Vegetius and know some about the Late Roman army but its hard to find the main tactics of the Germanic and Hunnic armies.


What were the strategic and tactical advantages and weaknesses of these 3 factions?


The Roman army's was probally the largest I believe. It was about 400,000 total right after Constantine with 100,000 total Comiatenses(field army). The rest were Lime troops spread out along borders. A lot of its Comiatenses force was depleted in the war with the war of Constantine's son and Julian's Alamanni and Persian camapaign. After its annihalation at Adrianople, the Romans relied on its Lime troops as "pseudo-Comiatenses" and Barbarian troops(Foederetii).


The Roman's biggest strength was its infantry as they were still heavily armoured and well equipped. Roman heavy cavalry was mainly citizen and light cavalry was Foederetii I believe. Most Roman cavalry was still equiped in the old Ala "medium cavalry" style right? What was the difference in morale between the Comiatenses, Lime troops and Foederetii? Where Foederetii simply more motivated and willing to take more risks?


What were the Gothic, Alamanii and Vandal armies like? Goths were a mixed people of German and Steppish peoples I believe with some Sarmatians. Did they still fight naked? The Franks were mainly infantry while Goths and Vandals had a strong cavalry arm with horse archers and lancers.


Huns were mainly horse archers from what I read. Did they dismount at Chalons because I beleive they were put in the center of the formation?

[Euphoric]

I believe they dismounted at Chalons because Aetius used his auxiliary wing to force them into rough terrain.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

One misunderstanding is the term of a "Barbarization" of the Roman Army. This is wrong and also misleads the term Foederatii. It is true that many Germanics served in the Roman Army, but they were often more Roman than the Romans themselves and they fought in Roman fashion. Foederatii were completly out of the Roman Army system. Don't compare them with the auxiliary troops from the high imperial times. Foederatii were entire tribes, fighting in their original style, in Germanic formations. Their equipment was pretty good, heavily influences by Steppe people and further Sassanians. Half of the Roman equipment, especially the cavalry stuff by the way was also Sassanian.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I believe they dismounted at Chalons because Aetius used his auxiliary wing to force them into rough terrain.

Kicked a hornets nest there.

The Huns did not dismount at Chalons, they relied heavily on fighting on horseback where they had an advantage as light cavalry; they wouldn't last a second on foot. The Huns used their Germanic lackeys for that. They were expecting the Romans to form the center, and had a cavalry center because they knew they could pick an infantry center apart. They didn't expect the Alans to be in the center, giving the Romans a cavalry center as well and leveling the playing field.

The Alans and Huns, who were on opposite sides at Chalons, used a style of warfare called "Lance and Bow" where they would switch from the bow to the lance rapidly on horseback to accommodate for different combat situations. The Alans were Cataphracts: they relied on heavy impacts with lances, rather than taking their enemies out from a range, which is what the Huns relied upon.

The Huns were defeated at Chalons because the Alans performed a feigned flight - something the Huns did a lot themselves. They had been fighting uphill against the entire allied coalition, were tired, and susceptible to such a tactic by the end of the battle. When the Alans turned back on the Huns it routed them because their light cavalry were no match in close quarters against the armored Alan lancers.

The Roman army's was probally the largest I believe. It was about 400,000 total right after Constantine with 100,000 total Comiatenses(field army). The rest were Lime troops spread out along borders. A lot of its Comiatenses force was depleted in the war with the war of Constantine's son and Julian's Alamanni and Persian camapaign. After its annihalation at Adrianople, the Romans relied on its Lime troops as "pseudo-Comiatenses" and Barbarian troops(Foederetii).

My work on the Notitia Dignitatum shows in the year 419AD the Roman Army in the West consisted of 233,000 men, of which Roughly 150,000 were Comitatenses, Palatina, or Pseudocomitatenses grade troops. Granted at this time much of the Limitanei on the Rhine had been destroyed, but as you can see the Romans maintained a massive field army.

The Roman's biggest strength was its infantry as they were still heavily armoured and well equipped. Roman heavy cavalry was mainly citizen and light cavalry was Foederetii I believe. Most Roman cavalry was still equiped in the old Ala "medium cavalry" style right? What was the difference in morale between the Comiatenses, Lime troops and Foederetii? Where Foederetii simply more motivated and willing to take more risks?

Roman Infantry and Cavalry filled a variety of roles. An individual Comitatensian Infantryman could be a light skirmisher or a front-line ranker. Extremely versatile.

In the late Era one begins to see the Roman cavalry focusing more on Horse archery rather than being "shock cavalry" like in the principate. They no longer filled the support but were now in the combat role.

What were the Gothic, Alamanii and Vandal armies like? Goths were a mixed people of German and Steppish peoples I believe with some Sarmatians. Did they still fight naked? The Franks were mainly infantry while Goths and Vandals had a strong cavalry arm with horse archers and lancers.

None of them ever fought naked. Different culture. The Franks were actually mainly cavalry, it's known they made high use of short, stocky warhorses, and dismounted to fight as well. Goths and Vandals were mainly infantry.

The Sarmatians mainly used lancers with horse archers, and probably some infantry for support.

Huns were mainly horse archers from what I read.

This never changed, although they started using metal armor making them more along the lines of medium cavalry rather than light cavalry.

One misunderstanding is the term of a "Barbarization" of the Roman Army. This is wrong and also misleads the term Foederatii. It is true that many Germanics served in the Roman Army, but they were often more Roman than the Romans themselves and they fought in Roman fashion. Foederatii were completly out of the Roman Army system. Don't compare them with the auxiliary troops from the high imperial times. Foederatii were entire tribes, fighting in their original style, in Germanic formations. Their equipment was pretty good, heavily influences by Steppe people and further Sassanians. Half of the Roman equipment, especially the cavalry stuff by the way was also Sassanian.

Foederati were Barbarian Allies that served alongside the Roman Army, as a mandate of the terms of their treaty. The Barbarians wanted to become a part of the Roman Empire, they did not want to overthrow it. The problem was that after 454 the Roman Empire was incapable of controlling their activities, and when they demanded titles they began to realize that Rome was no longer using them, they were now using Rome. Eventually they decided there was no need to administrate in the name of upholding the Roman Empire anymore, and began administrating for themselves.

These treaties also mandated recruits for the Roman army, but these recruits were not foederati: they were Roman Soldiers, just of Germanic origin. It's the same thing as if a man of Canadian heritage fought in the US army. He's a US soldier, he just happens to be Canadian.

[HuangCaesar]

Kicked a hornets nest there.

The Huns did not dismount at Chalons, they relied heavily on fighting on horseback where they had an advantage as light cavalry; they wouldn't last a second on foot. The Huns used their Germanic lackeys for that. They were expecting the Romans to form the center, and had a cavalry center because they knew they could pick an infantry center apart. They didn't expect the Alans to be in the center, giving the Romans a cavalry center as well and leveling the playing field.

The Alans and Huns, who were on opposite sides at Chalons, used a style of warfare called "Lance and Bow" where they would switch from the bow to the lance rapidly on horseback to accommodate for different combat situations. The Alans were Cataphracts: they relied on heavy impacts with lances, rather than taking their enemies out from a range, which is what the Huns relied upon.

The Huns were defeated at Chalons because the Alans performed a feigned flight - something the Huns did a lot themselves. They had been fighting uphill against the entire allied coalition, were tired, and susceptible to such a tactic by the end of the battle. When the Alans turned back on the Huns it routed them because their light cavalry were no match in close quarters against the armored Alan lancers.

It seems very strange cavalry is placed in the center. Most of the time Horse archer cavalry is placed on the flanks to encircle the enemy to shoot them in a killzone. Its kinda hard to "tear an infantry formation apart" from the front with the Roman shieldwalls. Maybye Atilla was trying to ride up, shoot the Roman center and then feigned retreat and hope the Romans chase the horsemen and get encircled by the German infantry right? And if the Roman center stayed they would continue to be shot with arrows?

My work on the Notitia Dignitatum shows in the year 419AD the Roman Army in the West consisted of 233,000 men, of which Roughly 150,000 were Comitatenses, Palatina, or Pseudocomitatenses grade troops. Granted at this time much of the Limitanei on the Rhine had been destroyed, but as you can see the Romans maintained a massive field army..

Why could they only mobilize about 20,000(I think) Roman troops at Chalons?

Roman Infantry and Cavalry filled a variety of roles. An individual Comitatensian Infantryman could be a light skirmisher or a front-line ranker. Extremely versatile.

In the late Era one begins to see the Roman cavalry focusing more on Horse archery rather than being "shock cavalry" like in the principate. They no longer filled the support but were now in the combat role.

Roman cavalry in the Principate were not "shock." They were mainly medium cavalry skirmishers and would not clash with an enemy as Arrian writes. They were mainly armed with the Lancea javelin, Hasta short spear, and Spatha longsword for chasing downing enemies.

Didn't the Late Roman Empire have both heavy and light cavalry? They had cataphracts. How did they match against their Germanic and Hun counterparts?

None of them ever fought naked. Different culture. The Franks were actually mainly cavalry, it's known they made high use of short, stocky warhorses, and dismounted to fight as well. Goths and Vandals were mainly infantry.

Franks were infantry I thought till Charlamene. Goths had cavalry since they were from the steppe. Vandals definetley as Belasarius' campaigns.

[hellheaven1987]

The Franks were actually mainly cavalry, it's known they made high use of short, stocky warhorses, and dismounted to fight as well.

Depends on what situation and type of operation; if the operation was a raiding campaign that involved a few hundreds, yes Franks did normally operate as mounted infantry but so was Roman. If the operation was a proper military campaign that involved several cantons and all social classes, then nope, since only upper class could maintain horses. Hugh Elton did mention Romans were impressed by Frankish cavalry, but also pointed out those "cavalries" seemed could not fight well on horseback and generally prefered to fight dismountly in most sources up to Merovingian time, suggesting those were mounted infantry instead true cavalry in any sense.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Roman cavalry in the Principate were not "shock." They were mainly medium cavalry skirmishers and would not clash with an enemy as Arrian writes. They were mainly armed with the Lancea javelin, Hasta short spear, and Spatha longsword for chasing downing enemies.

Didn't the Late Roman Empire have both heavy and light cavalry? They had cataphracts. How did they match against their Germanic and Hun counterparts?

That's the same type of armament Macedonian Shock cavalry used. They were shock cavalry when not skirmishing, using their lances in rapid attacks.

The Late Roman Army had a variety of cavalry types. Stablesiani, Scutarii, Promoti, Mauri, Sagittarii, Palmyrii, Catafractarii, Clibanarii, Armaturae, Armigerii. We know Catafractarii and Clibanarii were super-heavy (the distinction seems to have been that Clibanarii had a fully armored horse as well) while The other could be medium, light, or heavy depending on the unit.

Roman cavalry was 99% of the time better because they had the advantages of discipline, training, and better equipment. Huns could outmatch Catafractarii by killing the horses or simply outrunning them.

Franks were infantry I thought till Charlamene. Goths had cavalry since they were from the steppe. Vandals definetley as Belasarius' campaigns.

Depends on what situation and type of operation; if the operation was a raiding campaign that involved a few hundreds, yes Franks did normally operate as mounted infantry but so was Roman. If the operation was a proper military campaign that involved several cantons and all social classes, then nope, since only upper class could maintain horses. Hugh Elton did mention Romans were impressed by Frankish cavalry, but also pointed out those "cavalries" seemed could not fight well on horseback and generally prefered to fight dismountly in most sources up to Merovingian time, suggesting those were mounted infantry instead true cavalry in any sense.

ALL armies had contingents of Cavalry. The Vandals, Goths, and other Barbarian groups primarily fought as infantry, with a small group of Cavalrymen in the armed Comitatus of their Gasinder/Gardingus. The Franks, according to Merovingian/Salian law, had two types of horse: a very cheap ploughhorse and a War stallion.

Cheap ploughhorses seem to have been used heavily in Frankish campaigns, giving them a much larger cavalry contingent. These horses were no match for a war stallion, but had high endurance. The poor quality frankish cavalry would be explained by this.

Hugh Elton is right in that cavalry contingents were usually small in Germanic societies, but Guy Halsall in his Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West shows how Cavalry seemed to have played a much larger role in the Frankish groups, because they had access to large numbers of cheap horses.


Oh, and the Huns used Geldings.

[HuangCaesar]

That's the same type of armament Macedonian Shock cavalry used. They were shock cavalry when not skirmishing, using their lances in rapid attacks.

I don't think so. Macedonian cavalry carried the Zyston, a 12 foot lance from the melee impact. Roman Ala and Equite Cohors carried a short Hasta spear described to be used overarm in some pictures. Josephus writes most Roman cavalry skirmished with the Lancea javelins in continous volleys rather charge home.

ALL armies had contingents of Cavalry. The Vandals, Goths, and other Barbarian groups primarily fought as infantry, with a small group of Cavalrymen in the armed Comitatus of their Gasinder/Gardingus. The Franks, according to Merovingian/Salian law, had two types of horse: a very cheap ploughhorse and a War stallion.

Hmm why did the Goths have such small numbers? Weren't they from the East? Didn't they have a huge number of cavalry at Adrianiople? Or were they Alan mercenaries?

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

@ Huang Caesar.

I think the earlier Number are massively exaggerated. There was of course the Justine Pest in the 6th century, but if you look only at Justinians Wars, than you have Belisar + around 10k man, the Vandals of 15-30k and the Goths of around 20k. That are the numbers of soldiers fighting in the largest Mediterranean conflicts of the time.

[Dromikaites]

We don't know much about the strategy of anybody in the ancient world actually.

We only can sometimes speculate on the strategy if we have enough details from the written sources. Only in the 18th century the commanders started to explain their own strategic thinking. Everything before that is how modern [military] historians interpret the sources.

We know more about ancient tactics because the Roman, Greek and Byzantine writers took the time to write both about their own troops and about their enemies'.

I'll give an example about how difficult actually is to evaluate the ancient strategy.

Most modern historians consider Alexander the Great's campaign against the Persians started by eliminating the Persian naval bases, in order to prevent a Persian landing in Greece, behind his back.

However there is a problem with this interpretation. What the Persians did right after Granicus was to assemble a huge land army and chase after Alexander, meeting him at Issos. In the same time the Persian fleet, under the command of Memnon of Rhodes and Pharnabazus III were island-hopping behind Alexander's back. Nothing Alexander was doing on short time could have stopped the Persians from doing what they did anyway.

It took two years for Alexander to capture all the Persian naval bases (from Granicus to the capture of Tyre), which would have given the Persians ample time to do stuff behind Alexander's back, had that been the Persian plan.

Even after Memnon died and Alexander won at Issus, Pharnabazus III kept raiding the Aegean coast and islands. His campaign ultimately failed, but could have succeeded just as well if the Athenians and/or the Spartans would have rebelled in 333 BC.

Now what if Darius III, instead of chasing Alexander would have gone straight to Greece?!

The Spartans had no problem to attack Antipater even after Alexander had won at Issos. They would have had even more reasons to attack had their Persian friends been already on their way to Europe.

So an alternate way to read what happened then was to assume Alexander simply tried to plunder the rich Mediterranean cities, since his war chest was rather empty. That eventually the Persian fleet had no port left was just a happy secondary outcome, possible only because Pharnabazus III couldn't maintain control over the islands and coastal cities he and Memnon had conquered.

Likewise, from the Persian side, Alexander's invasion didn't look like a real problem until after Issos. The Persians used the most straightforward approach to deal with it - raise a much larger army than Alexander's and force a decisive battle.

If one of the best documented ancient campaign still cannot tell us much about the actual strategies, we have even less chances to guess the strategic thinking of other ancient commanders. As for the "barbarian" ancient commanders, the task is even more difficult.

[HuangCaesar]

@ Huang Caesar.

I think the earlier Number are massively exaggerated. There was of course the Justine Pest in the 6th century, but if you look only at Justinians Wars, than you have Belisar + around 10k man, the Vandals of 15-30k and the Goths of around 20k. That are the numbers of soldiers fighting in the largest Mediterranean conflicts of the time.

Late Roman Army right after Constantine was about 400,000 and shrunk to about 350,000 by the time of the Notita. Comiatenses was only 100,000 but after multiple wars of Constantine's sons and Julian and then Valens the Comiatenses got even smaller. Battles of only 20,000-15,000 are not suprising.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I did some work on estimating Roman Army sizes in the West here:

https://www.academia.edu/6474614/An_...um_in_the_West

Here is a passage on the Late Roman Army from 419-451 from my book as well:

Taking numbers and applying them to the Notitia Dignitatum is an even bigger challenge. First one must account for variations in unit size, and secondly account for copies, transfers, errors, destroyed units, and of course the date chosen. For example, the Comes Illyricum wasn’t created until possibly 402, and the Comes Britannium was created after 395, but prior to 405, and did not arrive in Gaul until 408. Knowing when a command was created also helps to judge where new field army units were drawn from. The arrangement of different units also presents different unit sizes, and then there is the question of units whose sizes can only be guessed at. Either way, using the numbers presented above, an analysis of the Notitia Dignitatum would show the Western Empire fielded about 233,250 men in both the Field Armies and Border Garrisons.

Such a number seems exceptionally large for the time of Aetius, and indeed it is. By the year 450, the remaining units in Britain, Africa, and Spain had all been destroyed, which would leave an army of about 142,450 men, of which 91,450 men would have belonged to the field armies. The loss of Africa, however, is known to have cut an additional 40,000 Infantry and 20,000 Cavalry; this would leave Aetius with 31,450 Comitatenses, and 51,000 Limitanei. The Romans tried to supplement the losses some, mostly by opening up trade with Greece, enforcing taxes on the Italian aristocracy, and passing a law specifically for the payment of soldiers called the Siliquatia; but they didn’t compare. Coello shows that most Roman units in the 3^rd century operated from day to day at about 70% of their full strength, meaning that this force more likely numbered 22,015 Comitatenses and 35,700 Limitanei. Such a force would still be a formidable opponent to the Federates of Gaul, but did not compare with the 3 field armies Aetius had before.

Aetius seems to have enjoyed a practice of using a “half-Roman” army: it was Roman in discipline, equipment, training, and organization, but the soldiers were not recruited from ethnic Romans. His forces are described as “great” or “strong” from about 30 years of campaigning experience, and outright loyalty to a powerful and dedicated general. He led what seems to have been around 22,000 men to Chalons directly, with possibly another few thousand from local or retreating limitanei, bring the total Roman army at the battle maybe in the order of 24,865 men. These men had fought alongside the Huns, and certainly knew how to defeat their Germanic and Sarmatian adversaries. They would have been encouraged by the addition of federates to their cause, but that was a matter that took a little bit more than a simple “call to arms” from the venerable Genralissimo of the west.

[HuangCaesar]

Did those North African, British, and Gallic units just vanish in countryside or Barbs annihalted them?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Really hard to say. Most were probably a combination of defeat and disbanded because there wasn't the money or manpower to restore them to strength, and then they were then combined into other units.