Primicerius
Re: Late Roman Book List
my view ,he's out of touch with current views , he gives the impression that in the late period Germanisation in the army and society helped in some way to bring down the empire.Thre is some crededance to that but to base your whole argument .Did Germans in the army weaken it ? Not at all ,I would sayOriginally Posted by SeniorBatavianHorse
Last edited by Constantius; March 13, 2010 at 04:05 PM.
Signature made by Joar
Campidoctor
Re: Late Roman Book List
This is quite natural. As the science progresses many authors along with their work become outdated, it's just life. Gibbon, as far as I know, one who originated so-called "barbarisation" theory, is really part of the history now.
Tribunus Vacans
Re: Late Roman Book List
I remember reading it about 2 years ago and although his overall theory is one possible theory in a field of theories, I found some of his reasoning and assumptions unscholarly. He seemed to make claims about the Roman military with no real hard evidence. It was a good book and one which remains on my shelf but I remained unconvinced by his thesis given the evidence he presented. However, having said that, he does remain a useful corrective to those authors and writers who sometimes veer too much towards the idea that the late Roman military remained a lean fit fighting organization. Ferrill's work stands as a useful counter-balance, I think, in the field.
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: Late Roman Book List
Gibbon is biased against christianity, but his aspects are accurate. Arthur Ferril's book, I have not read it yet, but i'll look for it. I got that off wikipedia, actually.
I think that the Majority of the WRE Army was still a well trained heavy infantry force, but It lacked the discipline of old and recruits.
Christianity reduced the Martial vigour in the roman military. I have nothing against the Religion, but I actually believe in arianism, the Religion that helped cause the roman defeat at aridanople.
The Philosopher King
Re: Late Roman Book List
You need to be careful with some of your more generalised statements such as "arianism, the Religion that helped cause the roman defeat at aridanople", unless you can support the claim. As with all of history there are many factors that contribute to particular outcomes and this includes Adrianople.
Avatar & Signature by Joar
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: Late Roman Book List
"How the Barbarian Invasions shaped the modern world" is a good book. It covers the large tribes only, though...
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: Late Roman Book List
Valens was an Arian christian and his catholic cavalry deserted him because of it. So he lost a lot of punching power to hurt the visigoths. Also, a lot of that army was quickly raised and were'nt experienced. Had they waited for the WRE army to show up, they would have a lot more forces todefeat the visigoths with.
Tribunus Vacans
Re: Late Roman Book List
That interpretation goes against everything I have ever read about Adrianople (and I am writing a novel about it). Adrianople was lost mainly through the vacillating mind of Valens and faulty intelligence, the timely arrival of the Gothic cavalry, and a precipitous assault because 2 units of the Scholae engaged the barbarians while 'negotiations' were still under way. The army was an elite army - the core of the Eastern praesental forces - not an ill-equipped force. That was why the defeat was so shocking. I have never read an account in the sources or in modern scholarship which suggested that the Christian beliefs of the cavalry caused them to desert and I would be very interested to read it! Please could you cite your sources.
Ordinarius
Re: Late Roman Book List
I'm afraid that your rather misinformed about this. I have been researching Adrianopolis for over 30 years now and hopefully at some stage my book about the battle, the events leading upto it and the aftermath, will see the light of day once I have finally managed to pull everything together.
There is a suspicion that the Roman right wing cavalry, who appear to have left the field very quickly, had a proportion of Gothic cavalry and it may well be that either they deserted, causing a general flight, or, and this is a very big or, they may actually have joined the attacking Goths and turned on the Romans they had been fighting for.
And the army was not quickly raised, Valens had been raising an army for his proposed Sasanid Persia invasion since about 374AD, and by 376AD he had been enrolling Goth's and stationing them all over the Eastern empire.
I am not going to go into too much detail here about the battle, because this thread is about a book list, and because I don't want to discuss too much that is going to appear in my book. There are a number of reason's why the Roman army was defeated, and having poor quality troops was sadly not one of them.
Campidoctor
Re: Late Roman Book List
Never heard of this before........such idea sounds too radical to me.
As SBH said Valens' army was largely composed of the elite Eastern troops, including the Scholae (not those from my sig, of course-those are the Byzantines)! I wouldn't say they were poor quality troops.
Yes, I read this too from an Osprey book, however, this is just a speculation. There is no any evidence of this whatsoever. It's a similar notion like the one which says that Julian the Apostate was killed by a Roman Christian soldier.
Primicerius
Re: Late Roman Book List
Valens was an Arrian ,but so were many in the empire .Arrianism had been the "party line " so to speak under ConstantiusII and in Constantines day Arrianism was Orthodox Christianity.Theodosius was of a different creed and a supporter of 'one substance ' and decided to impose his will on the empire and in 381 Arrian bishops were deposed .The point is that there were lots of Christian groups ,Donatists in north Africa and still large numbers of pagans throughout the empire ,trouble only seems to arise when somebody imposes their own version of Christianity on others .
As for the battle itself ,the army that Valens had at Adrianople ,on paper should never have lost .It was experienced ,having served in the east ,its possible that the majority had served with him on the Danube against the Goths in 375 (although granted that is conjecture ) The failure, down to poor intelligence and the Goths had achieved complete tactical surprise ,when Gothic cavalry under Alatheus and Saphax with a strong contingent of Alanic allies ambushed the Roman left wing that was advancing ahead of the rest .This then throws everyone into confusion and the left scatters ,allowing the cavalry to flank the Roman centre .
Last edited by Constantius; March 15, 2010 at 06:41 AM.
Signature made by Joar
Ordinarius
Re: Late Roman Book List
From accounts given by Orosius, Ammianus, Zosimos and others I believe the Gothic attack was actually on the Roman right wing, the Roman left wing had actually reached the Gothic wagon laager and was assaulting it when further Gothic cavalry suddenly appeared and drove off the Roman cavalry on the left wing, leaving the Roman infantry unsupported and having to retire. There are many unanswered questions even in Ammianus' account that I will hopefully be able to answer in my book.
Primicerius
Re: Late Roman Book List
It is from Ammianus that i get my information here ,the Roman left wing ,which wasn't fully formed at start pushed the Goths almost back to the laager ,because of the inherant nature of an army of the time to vere right behind the sheild they became thinned out and seperated from the letf futher when the Goth/Alan cavalry struck from behind ,Ammianus states Equitatus Gothurum cum Athatheo reversus et saphrace ,suggesting the cavalry had been hidden close by .The right the position of honour and where Valens himself was to be found held out to the end.
Signature made by Joar
Ordinarius
Re: Late Roman Book List
A very close reading of Ammianus reveals that the Roman army had fully deployed by the time Richomere had accepted the role of 'hostage' and was heading towards the wagon laager when the Gothic cavalry suddenly appeared. The left wing had deployed under the covering fire of archers.
Primicerius
Re: Late Roman Book List
I will re -read ,because you don't seem somebody who just says something without substance(perhaps your Latin is just better than mine ,which is nt saying much ) ,but be that as it may the left bore the brunt of the cavalry attack and began to fold .This just made matters worse for as the right held and the left fell back a denser mass was formed ,were Roman tactics were no use .Then they get cut to pieces by archers ,and the Romans begin to get crushed under thei own weight .It is at this point that Roman General Traianvs saw last hope was to throw reserve at the Goths ,but to his horror the crack Batavian Auxilium had fled the field .At the battle of Salices earlier that month ,the Romans turned the tide ,with the Auxiliaries sealing a breach in the line .
Signature made by Joar
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: Late Roman Book List
What I'm trying to say is that Praesenti troops were at the battle, all troops were well equipped and armored, but it was both inexperience in the majority of the army and the desertion of the cavalry that weakened the roman force. Also, the visigoths would dismount and mount horses at will, because the entire army was both cavalry and infantry, giving the visigoths greater mobility.
But I agree whith all of you about the defeat a adrianople.
Tribunus Vacans
Re: Late Roman Book List
This is an invaluable detailed reading of Adrianople and a useful corrective to the Osprey book - anyone wishing to go deeper into the debate would find much interesting material here:
Adrianople
Two points arise out of my own admittedly amateur research into this battle: where are the Saraceni foederate cavalry in the battle? Ammianus is always dismissive and reticent about Arab barbarians, and, also, in reference to the priest sent over to Valens with the two letters, I think I might have divined his identity but await further enlightenment from the scholars on this site! (p.s: I wonder if we should open a separate thread here?!)
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: Late Roman Book List
I'll open a new thread. But I'd like to learn more about this battle. I'm writing a book about the battle of chalons and flavius aetius.
The Philosopher King
Re: Late Roman Book List
I think that would be a very good idea as this IS supposed to be about books!
Avatar & Signature by Joar
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: Late Roman Book List
i'll open a thread about my book in Terror Barbarorum, A submod of Rio's IBFD BRG
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
