This thread is to continue our discussion about late roman battles
This thread is to continue our discussion about late roman battles
Peter Donnelly's article on Adrianopolis closely mirror's my own research although I have some other theories that provide more information about the events during the battle, especially around why Valen's entered into negotiations with Fritigern even though he was preparing to do battle.
To which article are you referring ,so that i may read it .Do you have access to JSTOR ?
- The Battle of Adrianople: A Reconsideration
- Thomas S. Burns
- Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 22, No. 2 (2nd Qtr., 1973), pp. 336-345
- Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
- Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435342
That's Interesting. What are your theories?
What do you want to discuss about?
Just about Adrianople?
Compared to their earlier campaigns / battles the late Romans had to face a far greater number of people who were more advanced in weaponry, strategies and tactics than in earlier eras.
I think it is an interesting detail, that they were more successful when they stayed defensive than on fighting on offensives.
Invasio Barbarorum: Ruina Roma Development Leader - Art made by Joar -Visit my Deviantart: http://gaiiten.deviantart.com/
This is kinda for any battle, but I have a forum for chalons in TERROR BARBARORUM
Just a question: Anyone know where I can get The Fall Of The Roman Empire by Arthur Ferrill?
Okay, thanks.
Anyone looking at the Battle of Adrianopolis needs to examine the Battle of Ad Salices. Many authors and historians who have examined Adrianopolis have not really looked at depth at Ad Salices, yet, that battle was a premonition of things to come. It also indirectly lead to the defeat at Adrianopolis as many of the troops that would have been used at Adrianopolis were either killed or injured and could not take part. It's also probably true that many of the units that survived that battle would have been both understrength and not fully recruited into by the time of Adrianopolis.
Try this as well. Much better than most Osprey books in my opinion.
http://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Europe.../dp/0198152418
Interesting... I'll look it up
It says the battle came to a draw, and that both sides took heavy casualties. Also, the Defeat at Adrianople was caused by the fact the Romans had to march 9 miles to the battlefield and stnd there in 100 degrees for a couple of hours
Last edited by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius; March 17, 2010 at 07:09 AM.
Did you notice who commanded the army at Ad Salices? This battle should have sent a very clear message to the Romans that the Goth's were a very dangerous foe and that fighting them at any kind of odds was going to be difficult at best. Hence the reason why Richomere and Victor counselled Valens against fighting the Goth's until Gratian arrived with his army. However, Sebastian was able to win over Valens as he managed to defeat a large band of Goth's with quite a small force. But, you do not need much of an army to defeat someone when you achieve total surprise!
For those who have the belief that the force Valens commanded at Adrianopolis was made up of raw recruites and sub-standard troops I offer this from Ammianus-
'1 In those same days Valens was troubled for two reasons: first, by the news that the Lentienses had been defeated; secondly, because Sebastianus wrote from time to time exaggerating his exploits. He therefore marched forth from Melanthias, being eager to do some glorious deed to equal his young nephew, whose valiant exploits consumed him with envy.He had under his command a force made up of varying elements, but one neither contemptible, nor unwarlike; for he had joined with them also a large number of veterans, among whom were other officers of high rank and Trajanus, shortly before a commander-in‑chief, whom he had recalled to active service.' AMM Bk XXXI 12, 1
I believe that it was made up of new recruits, but they were still heavily armorred and well traied, just inexperienced. I don't believe the entire army was inexperienced as I belive there were plenty of experinced troops at the battle...
IIRC Valns had many hardened veterans from the Persian campaigns under his command, so the Roman field army was an elite.
Invasio Barbarorum: Ruina Roma Development Leader - Art made by Joar -Visit my Deviantart: http://gaiiten.deviantart.com/
A lot of Roman troops deserted before the battle so they did take a loss in experienced soldiers.
Agreed, all Roman armies from the beginning to the end of the Roman Empire period suffered from desertions and their theoretical on paper strength never met their real field army strength. However, that also applied to their opponents armies so no differenct there. Most desertions would not have been by experienced soldiers, they would have been by raw recruits and hastily raised units.
I believe that to probably encourage some of the less experienced troops that they would have dispersed the experienced troops out amognst the ordos.