The late horse breed question?

[wulfgar610]

A description of the Hunnic horse may help that part of this discussion. Vegetius (Publius) describes it thus (Veg. Mulom. 3.6.5):

In the Hunnics, (one finds) a large and hooked head, enlarged eyes, narrow nostrils, broad jawbones, a strong and rigid neck, manes hanging below the knees, rather broad ribs, a bowed spine, a bushy tail, very strong shins, small foot-tracks, large and spreading hooves, hollow flanks and the whole body angular, no fat on the haunches, no bulges in the muscles, in stature tending more to length rather than to height, the belly shrunken (exhaustus), the bones strong, a pleasing leanness, by which means their very ugliness constitutes their beauty: a temperament restrained and sensible and tolerant of wounds.

This seems to me to describe a tough, wiry horse, somewhat barrel-chested but narrow in the haunches, long in the body but short in the leg. Does this make it a large, small or medium-sized horse? I leave that for others to decide.

I thought I better start a thread dealing with this specific topic.

I have argued passionately for a certain view but I could be wrong.

For example the above description could be of a smaller horse. The central Asian ponies which the steppes tribes made use of is typically a smaller animal and this suites its survival characteristics in a harsh climate. Not a fast animal over a short distance, it's good points are stamina, hardiness, strength for size and sure footedness.

However such a horse can be cross bred to produce a larger faster animal preserving the strengths of the smaller animal. If the Huns ermerged from the sever climate of the central steppes there was nothing impeding them breeding a larger.

For example the modern race horse is a large animal bred for speed over a short course of up to a couple of miles, after this these horses come tired. The Quarter is the fastest but only over a short distance of a quarter mile. It was bred for herding the rider been able to quickly reach and correct the path of a staying animal.

The modern race horse is a large animal its long legs giving it the speed. Such horses must be continually bred in a way to maintain the breed. Breeds will revert to the norrm of the smaller pony if left to their own devices. Smaller breeds like the Morgan are much better all rounders for a general purpose riding horse, harness and work animal.

Interestingly Wiki points out that the knights of the middle age didn't ride the giant work animals as war horses, in fact a medium breed was used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_Middle_Ages

Types of horses

Throughout the period, horses were rarely described by breed, but rather by type: by describing their purpose, or their physical attributes. Many of the definitions were not precise, or were interchangeable. Prior to approximately the 13th century, few pedigrees were written down. Thus, many terms for horses in the Middle Ages did not describe breeds as we know them today, but rather described appearance or purpose.
One of the best-known of the medieval horses was the destrier, renowned and admired for its capabilities in war. It was well trained, and was required to be strong, fast and agile.[15] A fourteenth century writer described them as "tall and majestic and with great strength".[16] In contemporary sources, the destrier was frequently referred to as the "great horse" because of its size and reputation.[17] Being a subjective term, it gives no firm information about its actual height or weight, but since the average horse of the time was 12 to 14 hands (48 to 56 inches (120 to 140 cm)),[18] thus a "great horse" by medieval standards might appear small to our modern eyes. The destrier was highly prized by knights and men-at-arms, but was actually not very common,[12] and appears to have been most suited to the joust.[17]
Coursers were generally preferred for hard battle as they were light, fast and strong.[17] They were valuable, but not as costly as the destrier.[15] They were also used frequently for hunting.[19]



Medieval people engaging in falconry from horseback. The horses appear to have the body type of palfreys or jennets. from the Codex Manesse.


A more general-purpose horse was the rouncey (also rounsey), which could be kept as a riding horse or trained for war.[20] It was commonly used by squires, men-at-arms or poorer knights. A wealthy knight would keep rounceys for his retinue.[15] Sometimes the expected nature of warfare dictated the choice of horse; when a summons to war was sent out in England, in 1327, it expressly requested rounceys, for swift pursuit, rather than destriers.[21] Rounceys were sometimes used as pack horses (but never as cart horses).[22]
The well-bred palfrey, which could equal a destrier in price, was popular with nobles and highly-ranked knights for riding, hunting and ceremonial use.[23] Ambling was a desirable trait in a palfrey, as the smooth gait allowed the rider to cover long distances quickly in relative comfort.[4] Other horse types included the jennet, a small horse first bred in Spain from Barb and Arabian bloodstock.[5] Their quiet and dependable nature, as well as size, made them popular as riding horses for ladies; however, they were also used as cavalry horses by the Spanish.[23]
The hobby was a lightweight horse, about 13 to 14 hands (52 to 56 inches (130 to 140 cm)), developed in Ireland from Spanish or Libyan (Barb) bloodstock. This type of quick and agile horse was popular for skirmishing, and was often ridden by light cavalry known as Hobelars. Hobbies were used successfully by both sides during the Wars of Scottish Independence, with Edward I of England trying to gain advantage by preventing Irish exports of the horses to Scotland. Robert Bruce employed the hobby for his guerilla warfare and mounted raids, covering 60 to 70 miles (97 to 110 km) a day.[24]

Not all horses are the same, they are bred for different tasks.

At Adrianople the Barbarian cavalry struck the decisive blow, riding down the opposing Roman cavalry. Now the Roman cavalry weren't second class themselves. One is left wondering what were the contributing factors?

One might say it was a majority infantry fight, but typically the barbarian infantry would come off second best. The most dangerous thing about the barbarian was the ferocity of their charge, usually in the columns writers termed "wedges". The charge would be typically checked and in this case fairly elite Roman infantry should have gained the upper hand as the melee progressed. Valen's seeming over confidence wasn't misplaced, his infantry should have won the day.

But with the Roman infantry now outflanked the odds climbed to favor the barbarian infantry. They could even retire and regain their strength for repeated devastating charges. The elite Roman infantry even at a disadvantage didn't go down easily either.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

It would be good to enumerate what we know of the horses in the late Roman period -not sure what you are saying in the second part of your post about Adrianople though?!

As far as I am aware, Vegetius describes several breeds of horses prevalent in the late Roman world - although I don't have a copy of the mulomedicina alas. I think Renatus would be able to help out here.

As far as I am aware from reading in the RAT forums - the most-prized war-horse in terms of elegance and prestige was the Persian Nisean horse, the precursor to the later Arab and Hispanic breeds. I believe that Sassanid riders were under orders to kill the steed if they faced capture rather than allowing them to fall into Roman hands and also that they were fed a particular mix of feed so that if they were captured, they would pine and die as their stomachs were quite delicate. Phil Barker points to the Hunnic warhorse with its ugly nose as the heavy cavalry mount of choice in the Roman Empire but my copy is a very old one and he may well have altered his view with subsequent re-prints.

Vegetius of course points out the Hunnic horse for its hardiness which has had the knock-on effect of causing contemporary veterinary practice to decline. This is important as Vegetius reputedly ran stud farms supplying the Roman Army and so would be expected to write with authority.

As for Adrianople, the Alanic, Gothic and possibly Hunnish cavalry achieved complete tactical surprise and not only routed the Roman regular cavalry, they also routed possible Tanukh foederate cavalry from the field. In terms of contributing factors, Ammianus gives outlines of some of them: the heat of the day, the length of the march, the indecision on the part of the Roman consilium, the smoke and fires started by the Goths. There is some report that the column failed to deploy properly from line of march into ordered battle-lines (something I am not so convinced of from close reading of the text), and so on. Once impacted together, the Roman troops were not able to deploy tactically on the field which negated a major advantage Roman soldiers have over barbarian warrriors. The bulk of the fighting remained foot-based until the Romans finally routed and fled the field - I would imagine, as in all ancient world battles, much of the true slaughter occured at this stage, with the barbarian cavalry pursuing and riding down the fleeing troops.

[Renatus]

As far as I am aware, Vegetius describes several breeds of horses prevalent in the late Roman world - although I don't have a copy of the mulomedicina alas. I think Renatus would be able to help out here.

Now there's a challenge. The description of the Hunnic horse was my own translation. For the rest I have taken the easy way out and relied upon the 1748 translation that I mentioned in my "Vegetius in print-on-demand" thread (I knew it would come in useful some time). I have modernised the spelling in one or two places, removed the 18th century peculiarities (capital first letters on nouns, proper nouns in italics and the long s) and omitted the description of the Hunnic horse. Otherwise it is unchanged. It is Veg. Mulom. III.6 in Lommatzsch's Latin edition; Bk.IV, Chap.6 in the translation.

In exchanging or selling of horses, a lying story with respect to their native country uses to introduce the greatest fraud; for men desirous to sell them at the dearest rate, they falsely pretend that they are of the most generous breed; which thing has induced us, who, by travelling frequently into so many different and distant countries, are well acquainted with all sorts of horses whatsoever, and have often kept them in our own stables, to explain the signs, and real merit and qualifications of every nation; for not to mention the meaner services they are employed in, it is manifest that horses are chiefly necessary for three uses; for war; for the circus; and for the saddle. Those of the Hunni, are by far the most useful for war, by reason of their patience of labour, cold and hunger; next to them, those of Thuringia and Burgundy bear with hard usage. In the third place the Frygian or Friesland horses are reckoned invincible both with respect to swiftness and perseverance in running. Next, those of Epirus, Sarmatia, and Dalmatia, although they are obstinate and refractory to the bridle, yet they are reckoned very fit for war. The noble disposition of the Cappadocian breed for chariots is much renowned; equally, or next to these, the glory of the prize in the circus, is reckoned due to the Spanish horses; nor is Sicily much behind in affording for the circus such as are not inferior to them; although Africa uses to furnish of the Spanish blood the swiftest of any. Persia in all its provinces, furnishes better horses for the saddle, and they are reckoned as a great part of their patrimonial estate; being exceeding gentle and easy to ride upon, tractable and submissive in their way of going, and of exceeding great value for the nobleness of their breed and extraction. The Armenian and Sophenian follow next, nor in this respect must you despise the Sicilian horses, nor those of Epirus, if their manners, or good temper and behaviour, and beauty do not forsake them. Those of the Hunni . . . The Persian horses don't differ very much in their stature and position from other kinds of horses, but they are discerned and distinguished from others, only by a certain gracefulness in their gait and way of walking: their step is small and frequent, and such as delights, and comforts, and erects the rider; nor is it taught by art, but freely bestowed upon them by nature, for their gait or way of going is a mean between pacers, and those the common people call gallopers, and whereas they are like neither of them, they are thought to have something common to them both. These, as has been proved, have more gracefulness in a short journey, but in a long journey their patience is but small, and they have a proud mind, and unless it be subdued with continuous labour, 'tis stubborn and contumacious against the rider; nevertheless their mind is prudent, and which is wonderful, in so great heat and fire, with the greatest caution does he maintain his graceful carriage, his neck being bended into a bow, so that his chin seems to lean upon his breast.

[wulfgar610]

Phil Barker points to the Hunnic warhorse with its ugly nose as the heavy cavalry mount of choice in the Roman Empire but my copy is a very old one and he may well have altered his view with subsequent re-prints.

Looking at that passage again Phil is describing his reconstruction of a late roman mount. 15 hands he figured for the largest mount and essentially a cross breed with Hun stock.

As for Adrianople, the Alanic, Gothic and possibly Hunnish cavalry achieved complete tactical surprise and not only routed the Roman regular cavalry, they also routed possible Tanukh foederate cavalry from the field.

The conventional view is the Barbarian cavalry represented a large portion of the total force. The Roman forces were about 15,000 strong and the Barbarian lagger contained 10,000 foot. So the guess is the 2 barbarian brigades of cavalry numbered perhaps 5,000.

T.S. Burns claimed cavalry couldn't have been the decisive factor because the horse would have been very few. Because there wouldn't have been enough fodder or the Goths would have eaten them due to hunger.

That would have to be one of the silliest arguments I've come across. Certainly feeding horses is no easy task, which is why Nomads move. He forgets as well the cavalry brigades didn't belong to Fritigern and were allies from further afield come to join in plunder.

According to Barker large flanking cavalry moves had become a more common Roman tactic from the 3rd century onwards, so they had no excuse for surprise. The conventional view that Valens dismissed them as a rabble and that cavalry brigades wouldn't come to aid the Goths is most likely the correct one.

Of course the Goths under Fritigern were hardly pure and included any Roman subject with a grievance against the Empire. The only thing that was Gothic was the language of their "Nobility".

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

There is no conventional view regarding the battle of Adrianople merely many interpretations and theories. Figures are always speculative with some being more feasible than others. We do not know the size of the Roman forces with any degree of certainty nor the Gothic horde under Fitigern. Anyone who claims so is simply playing with numbers. If you read Ammianus closely you will see that the bulk of the fighting as he describes it is infantry-based close-quarter fighting - however, as he is setting Adrianople up as a Cannae echo we can never be sure if actual battlefield conditions are being described or if rhetoric is taking over here.

Valens didn't dismiss them as rabble - he suffered faulty intelligence on the day and then both commanders played delaying tactics possibly unaware of the other's imminent reinforcements - Valens awaiting on Gratian who was days away and Fritigern on the foraging cavalry. The Goths were desperately short on fodder and supplies hence their move to the depot at Nike. This was a flanking march around Valens and placed them dangerously between him and Constantinople. Hence his need to attempt to block them. Had the Goths taken Nike then the food issue would have been obviated and the horde would have been in a stronger position in terms of strength and bargaining power. Valens needed a decisive victory due mainly to the unpopularity his Arian creed had aroused in Constantinople.

In terms of the battle itself, Ammianus is notoriously vague as to what actually happened and so conjecture fills many accounts in contemporary texts on the battle - often written as if we know what happened when in fact we do not. For example, his notorious anti-Saracen prejudice and anti-Christian bias allows him to omit a major foederate revolt a year earlier in which a Nicene Orthodox foederate Saracinissa or Queen, Mavia, revolts from Valen's Arian creed and leads her army in succesful raids and battles from Palestine and even into Aegypt. Two Roman field armies are broken in battle. These are orthodox Christian Arabs defending the Christian faith against a Roman heretical Emperor but such a situation does not fit into Ammianus' narrative easily and so he omits it. This also allows him to ignore their contribution to Adrianople subsequently, once Valens capitulates to Mavia's demands, of her Tanukh foederates. He only deigns to mention them in the defense of Constantinople after Adrianople and in a way which reinforces their innate 'savagery' and barbarism.

Their absence from the battle-narrative is one example of the way in which Ammianus selects his material to shape a wider narrative history.

Renatus, thank you for the long quote! I think my mount of choice would have to be the Persian!

[Valentinian Victor]

There is no conventional view regarding the battle of Adrianople merely many interpretations and theories. Figures are always speculative with some being more feasible than others. We do not know the size of the Roman forces with any degree of certainty nor the Gothic horde under Fitigern. Anyone who claims so is simply playing with numbers. If you read Ammianus closely you will see that the bulk of the fighting as he describes it is infantry-based close-quarter fighting - however, as he is setting Adrianople up as a Cannae echo we can never be sure if actual battlefield conditions are being described or if rhetoric is taking over here.

Valens didn't dismiss them as rabble - he suffered faulty intelligence on the day and then both commanders played delaying tactics possibly unaware of the other's imminent reinforcements - Valens awaiting on Gratian who was days away and Fritigern on the foraging cavalry. The Goths were desperately short on fodder and supplies hence their move to the depot at Nike. This was a flanking march around Valens and placed them dangerously between him and Constantinople. Hence his need to attempt to block them. Had the Goths taken Nike then the food issue would have been obviated and the horde would have been in a stronger position in terms of strength and bargaining power. Valens needed a decisive victory due mainly to the unpopularity his Arian creed had aroused in Constantinople.

In terms of the battle itself, Ammianus is notoriously vague as to what actually happened and so conjecture fills many accounts in contemporary texts on the battle - often written as if we know what happened when in fact we do not. For example, his notorious anti-Saracen prejudice and anti-Christian bias allows him to omit a major foederate revolt a year earlier in which a Nicene Orthodox foederate Saracinissa or Queen, Mavia, revolts from Valen's Arian creed and leads her army in succesful raids and battles from Palestine and even into Aegypt. Two Roman field armies are broken in battle. These are orthodox Christian Arabs defending the Christian faith against a Roman heretical Emperor but such a situation does not fit into Ammianus' narrative easily and so he omits it. This also allows him to ignore their contribution to Adrianople subsequently, once Valens capitulates to Mavia's demands, of her Tanukh foederates. He only deigns to mention them in the defense of Constantinople after Adrianople and in a way which reinforces their innate 'savagery' and barbarism.

Their absence from the battle-narrative is one example of the way in which Ammianus selects his material to shape a wider narrative history.

Renatus, thank you for the long quote! I think my mount of choice would have to be the Persian!

In defence of Ammianus, he was probably writing some time after the event, basing his narrative on information gained from survivors of the battle and possibly other, lost, histories. And the reports from the survivors would have had details that needed some artistic embellishment (and we have to be mindful that Ammianus was writing during the reign of Theodosius, who was actively recruiting Goth's into his army, he had to be very wary of what he was writing about at the time).

Lets try and imagine what even an officer on the battlefield would have seen. There would have been the Roman lines facing the wagon laager, the advance, then vision obscured due to the fires and the smoke and of course the dust from the marching men and horses. Then, mass confusion as the Roman right wing is forced back, then men fleeing in panic, Gothic horsemen intermingled with them. The attempt to rally the line, the crush of men desperatly fighting to survive, then, as darkness fell the mad flight of the survivors towards Adrianopolis itself, men screaming and dying to the left and right of you....

How anyone could make a sense of all that is beyond me to be honest.

[wulfgar610]

There would have been the Roman lines facing the wagon laager, the advance, then vision obscured due to the fires and the smoke and of course the dust from the marching men and horses. Then, mass confusion as the Roman right wing is forced back, then men fleeing in panic, Gothic horsemen intermingled with them. The attempt to rally the line, the crush of men desperatly fighting to survive, then, as darkness fell the mad flight of the survivors towards Adrianopolis itself, men screaming and dying to the left and right of you....

This gets a little tiring. Was Adrianople the only battle in history with smoke and dust? Was the Roman war machine totaly innept at dealing with these battlefield phenomena? And to top it all off a Roman army taken by surprise when by this period they had excellent reconnaissance cavalry.

It's simply unfair that Romans are forced to fight battles with smoke, dust and an opponent who makes unfair use of mass cavalry. They also had to march and the weather was hot, it was against their union rules.

The Roman's didn't have one little excuse, every battle has chaos.

[Valentinian Victor]

This gets a little tiring. Was Adrianople the only battle in history with smoke and dust? Was the Roman war machine totaly innept at dealing with these battlefield phenomena? And to top it all off a Roman army taken by surprise when by this period they had excellent reconnaissance cavalry.

It's simply unfair that Romans are forced to fight battles with smoke, dust and an opponent who makes unfair use of mass cavalry. They also had to march and the weather was hot, it was against their union rules.

The Roman's didn't have one little excuse, every battle has chaos.

Wulfgar, what you totally are not taking into account is the salient fact that Valens was not expecting to actually fight a battle!

Valens had been approached by ambassadors from Fritigern before the army marched to its fate. The ambassadors had given Valens a secret letter written by Fritigern himself who informed Valens that all he had to do was march with his army and that with this show of force Fritigern could persuade the other Gothic chieftens that it was better to agree to peace terms rather than force of arms. So, Valens did as he was requested, he marched out of Adrianopolis fully expecting to return later that day with a treaty in place. Proof of this was the fact that Valens took no baggage train with him on the march, no sane commander would have done this unless they believed they were going to return to the camp later on that day.

It is true that there is a lot of confusion over why the Roman's got it so badly wrong about the numbers of Goth's they were facing. It might well be the case that Sebastian deliberately ensured that the Roman scouts underestimated the Gothic strength, himself having decisively defeating a large Gothic force with his much smaller force a short while before. The voices of reason, Richomeres, Victor and Trajanus all counselled against this course of action but to no avail. They had first hand experience of fighting Goth's at a wagon laager, Ad Salices, and it was not a pleasant memory!

We do not know how large the Gothic force was, probably somewhere between 5000 and 20000 strong, whilst the Romans are estimated between 10000 and 50000 strong. However, we know from Ammianus that the Roman camp outside the walls of Adrianopolis itself was defended by a 'strong guard of legions', indicating that at least a proportion of Valen's army was left behind and took no part in the battle (however, I have a theory about this which will appear in my proposed book).

Whether the Romans were attacked by a duplicitous Fritigern who had placed the Gothic cavalry under Alatheus and Saphrax in ambush, or it was caused by overzealous Romans attacking the Gothic cavalry who were innocently returning from foraging for food and water we will never know, the effect was just the same.

[wulfgar610]

We do not know how large the Gothic force was, probably somewhere between 5000 and 20000 strong, whilst the Romans are estimated between 10000 and 50000 strong.

Well the Romans are pretty easy to work out. One field army = 17,000 if the units were at the strengths typical of a century earlier.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

In defence of Ammianus, he was probably writing some time after the event, basing his narrative on information gained from survivors of the battle and possibly other, lost, histories. And the reports from the survivors would have had details that needed some artistic embellishment (and we have to be mindful that Ammianus was writing during the reign of Theodosius, who was actively recruiting Goth's into his army, he had to be very wary of what he was writing about at the time).

Lets try and imagine what even an officer on the battlefield would have seen. There would have been the Roman lines facing the wagon laager, the advance, then vision obscured due to the fires and the smoke and of course the dust from the marching men and horses. Then, mass confusion as the Roman right wing is forced back, then men fleeing in panic, Gothic horsemen intermingled with them. The attempt to rally the line, the crush of men desperatly fighting to survive, then, as darkness fell the mad flight of the survivors towards Adrianopolis itself, men screaming and dying to the left and right of you....

How anyone could make a sense of all that is beyond me to be honest.

I agree.

The confusion in terms of making sense of it must have been immense. It seems certain that Ammianus had access to military reports and the official postmortem so a degree of detail would have been know - enough to discern the main events and probable causes. However against that rests Ammianus' function as a writer of a literary-based history in which rhetoric and a certain comparative reflex must be deployed. Cannae being the case in point here. Elsewhere Amminaus is explicit also when he compares certain contemporary events and personages with older ones.

I think it remarkable that we have a military writer who chooses to become a historian and so has access to imperial archives and records. While his account is sorely lacking in some instances overall it is more detailed than all other contemporary accounts.

I firmly believe for example that the causes he lists for the specific defeat of a palatine army and the death of an emperor reflect the official account which the Roman High Command endorsed - and yes there must be a degree of delicacy here as you point out regarding Theodosius and ther newly arranged Gothic peace (see Themsitius' Oration for an example of a revisionist policy!).

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I think that statement speaks for itself really.

[wulfgar610]

I think that statement speaks for itself really.

But they were only slaves?

Ammianus tells a story from hindsight, always be wary of history recast from hindsight.

I'm playing RTW, I've been garrisoning cities in danger of revolt (not paying taxes). There's been one of those grey slave stacks running around for a year, I now have an opportunity to deal with it.

Do I pull in an extra 2 field armies leaving the East defenseless?

Or do I take my elite army of equal size and wipe them out?

You guys are really getting sucked in by a news reporter called Ammianus Marcellinus.

If the Goths were a serious force, then why couldn't they take cities? All they were was a slave army turning bits of Thrace black. Annoying, but there was bigger things to worry about.

Richomeres, sent by Gratian, carried a letter asking Valens to wait for the arrival of reinforcements from Gratian before engaging in battle. Valens' officers also recommended that he wait for Gratian, but Valens decided to fight without waiting, ready to claim the ultimate prize.[9]

Yes, I'm sure he said that after the event.