How many of you knew about the battle of Mursa?

**ray243** · October 06, 2009, 11:55 AM

Besides the well-known battle of Adrianople, where the Romans lost quite a number of their troops, has anyone heard about the battle of Mursa that occurred 20 years before that?

It is weird that so little people even talked about the battle of Mursa, whereby the Romans as a whole lost huge amount of troops.

**clandestino** · October 06, 2009, 02:59 PM

I heard about it, it happened some 100 km west from my city. By the way I think that it was mentioned in the thread about bloodiest battles per centuries:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...nturies&page=5
Generaly there were so many battles in Roman civil wars in 3rd and 4th century that few people bother to memorize them all.

**Boer** · October 06, 2009, 03:17 PM

I learned about it in my History of Rome class several years back, but I could not really tell you much about it off the top of my head.

**Flavius Aetius** · October 06, 2009, 06:24 PM

This battle is actually familiar to anyone with a grasp of Late Antiquity. Ralf Scharf even argued that this battle caused the separation between iuniores and seniores units in the army.

Not much is known about the battle though. Eutropius and Aurelius Victor only say that the battle was quite bloody.

**Aru** · October 06, 2009, 08:59 PM

Sure I know, I live nearby and studied in Mursa - today Osijek.
But not much more then what's in Wikipedia.

**ray243** · October 06, 2009, 11:25 PM

Which is weird, given that there are tons of popular historian who likes to point out the battle of Adrianople as the point in time where the Roman army fell apart because of their defeat and "their lost of quality Roman troops" while completely ignoring the battle of Mursa.

**frontier-auxilia** · October 08, 2009, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by ray243

Which is weird, given that there are tons of popular historian who likes to point out the battle of Adrianople as the point in time where the Roman army fell apart because of their defeat and "their lost of quality Roman troops" while completely ignoring the battle of Mursa.

Some historian prefer to find something to draw a major point in their narrative, prop it up and remain indifferent then looking further into historical evidence to structure their material. Hell i did it just do get a tutorial paper done (Not recommended if your in on quality, don't pissed one me it was only one and i outline certain problem with such a view right after it with a footnote). So will they when their general demographic who are in need of the well known facts rather then fresh new ideas fits for a journal article.

**Gromovnik** · October 07, 2009, 05:32 AM

The biggest battle of the 4th century. Plus, I'm from the region, so...

**motiv-8** · October 07, 2009, 09:23 AM

Ralf Scharf even argued that this battle caused the separation between iuniores and seniores units in the army.

Not much is known about the battle though. Eutropius and Aurelius Victor only say that the battle was quite bloody.

Forgive me for being skeptical, but how does one draw such a conclusion after recognizing that information is that scanty?

**Flavius Aetius** · October 07, 2009, 12:35 PM

@ motiv-8: I'm equally skeptical.

Scharf argues from the only thing we know (that is, that the battle was bloody) that the losses suffered made a reorganization of the units necessary in order to distribute the losses of the battle on all units.

Here is his article if you want to read it:
http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa...pdf/089265.pdf

**ray243** · October 07, 2009, 12:29 PM

Supposedly, 54,000 Roman troops were killed in that battle. That's more troops then the Romans has lost in the battle of Teutoburg forest.

I think it is astounding that the Roman army managed to rebuild itself to ensure that Valens can muster 20,000 to 30,000 troops at the battle of Adrianople. It really destroys the myth about how the Roman army is unable to recover just because they suffered heavy losses at the battle of Adrianople.

Why makes the Roman army capable of reforming itself after one of the worst lost of manpower in a battle 20 years ago?

**hellheaven1987** · October 09, 2009, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by ray243

Supposedly, 54,000 Roman troops were killed in that battle. That's more troops then the Romans has lost in the battle of Teutoburg forest.

I think it is astounding that the Roman army managed to rebuild itself to ensure that Valens can muster 20,000 to 30,000 troops at the battle of Adrianople. It really destroys the myth about how the Roman army is unable to recover just because they suffered heavy losses at the battle of Adrianople.

Why makes the Roman army capable of reforming itself after one of the worst lost of manpower in a battle 20 years ago?

Conscription, conscription, conscripted somemore; same method Theodosius used later on.

The problem was that Roman historians at that time generally made a big issue about Battle of Adrianople, even went as far as claiming that it was the end of world; the actual fact was the lost was heavy, but not in an unsavable state. Indeed, Roman Empire survived another century, and it was even hard to argue that if we count ERE in (and if you count Frankish Empire as spiritual successor of WRE).

**Gäiten** · October 15, 2009, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by ray243

Supposedly, 54,000 Roman troops were killed in that battle. That's more troops then the Romans has lost in the battle of Teutoburg forest.
I think it is astounding that the Roman army managed to rebuild itself to ensure that Valens can muster 20,000 to 30,000 troops at the battle of Adrianople. It really destroys the myth about how the Roman army is unable to recover just because they suffered heavy losses at the battle of Adrianople.
Why makes the Roman army capable of reforming itself after one of the worst lost of manpower in a battle 20 years ago?

Not to forget that Julian (Apostata) was capable of fielding an army of almost 80,000 for his failed Persian campaign.

**Mythos** · October 15, 2009, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by ray243

Supposedly, 54,000 Roman troops were killed in that battle. That's more troops then the Romans has lost in the battle of Teutoburg forest.

I think it is astounding that the Roman army managed to rebuild itself to ensure that Valens can muster 20,000 to 30,000 troops at the battle of Adrianople. It really destroys the myth about how the Roman army is unable to recover just because they suffered heavy losses at the battle of Adrianople.

Why makes the Roman army capable of reforming itself after one of the worst lost of manpower in a battle 20 years ago?

Actually Valens would have fielded around 10-15000 troops in Adrianople. Don't forget that he was fresh from a campaign against the Persians and from a hastily patched up peace. His whole eastern field army was around 35000 and he would not leave the eastern frontier without a significant field force in case the Persians decided to make a land grab now that Roman attention was focused in the Danube. Besides, there is a good reason Valens waited for so long before giving battle. We was waiting for reinforcements from Gratian, the western Emperor, which would have given him numerical superiority in the field against that combined Tervingi/Greuthungi force, sized at 20000. Instead of fighting with a numerical advantage as he planned, he had to give battle with a slight numerical disadvantage.

As for the OP, it is common knowledge that the Roman army suffered many, many casualties during civil wars. Well, at least among those who have not fell for the "the Gothic cavalry rode down the Roman legions and conquered Rome, end of story" schtick.

**motiv-8** · October 07, 2009, 01:02 PM

Hum, I knew there was some reason why I shouldn't have dropped German way back in high school.

**Boyar Son** · October 08, 2009, 07:55 PM

You think that throughout the centuries there might still be relics and equipment deep beneath the earth in that battle site? (if you can find it)

**Gromovnik** · October 09, 2009, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

You think that throughout the centuries there might still be relics and equipment deep beneath the earth in that battle site? (if you can find it)

When I visited a museum in Osijek (AKA Mursa), they had some weapons from the location. They also had a few smashed skulls, I can only presume it's from the battle. A bit morbid, but you can clearly see that the owners had a bad day...
BTW. Roman weapons and military equipment findings are quite common in Danubian parts of ex-Yugoslavia, because of limes and all that.