Roman battle tactics after Constantine's reform

[barca]

A few days ago I had started reading the Osprey's Campaign: Adrianople (I know that many don't like the Osprey books and consider them as not serious enough).

Early from the start an author made it clear: THE ROMAN ARMY WAS COMPOSED OF LARGELY ELITE CRACK TROOPS.

 

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I knew I had read that before, but I couldn't remember where.

[caldrail]

Elite crack troops? That's a modern phrase, and not entirely correct when dealing with the legions since the whole point of a legion was that they were all intended to have the same capability. If you accept some legions were elite, then what set them apart? Why were they 'elite'? Why did the Romans not describe units as elite (other than the usual pride in arms)?

 

Our modern fascination with elitism stems from the regimental system, something that developed from the Rennaisance when disparate units made up the typical army, led by nobles who were allied to the cause rather than automatically part of it. It's also been accentuated in recent decades by the urban myth and glorification of certain regimets or troop types available to the modern world. These distinctions are not applicable to the ancient world. The Roman legions evolved from a modular approach rather than pyramidical. Certainly some legions operated more efficiently or more courageously than others, but if you take the time to notice it largely depends on the capability and motives of the leaders involved.

 

Quite why the author of the osprey guide believes the army at Adrianople was elite is beyond me, unless he's been swayed by Marcellinus's description of the second phase of the battle in which they resisted strongly (which of course they had little choice but to, if they were to survive, and notice the Romans, for all their stubbornness, did not break out until nightfall made it possible under cover of darkness.

 

There is a tendency to believe the Romans were expert soldiers, regimented, disciplined, unbeatable, and so on. We see this on these forums all the time, but the truth is that the Roman legions were beatable and at Adrianople they were defeated soundly however well they defended themselves after they were herded into a trapped mass. Partly this also explains the desire to describe the Goths as fantastic warriors, which they clearly weren't, having been whittled down by Sebianus's attacks to the point of staying together in large numbers for fear of Roman ambush, and in a somewhat desperate state.

 

In fact, the Roman troops are described as indifferent and ill-motivated, and noticeably Sebastianus doesn't bother with most of them, preferring to use the less experienced troops who were less used to sitting on their backsides in activities "better suited to women".

 

No, I don't accept the Romans at Adrianople were 'elite'. They just weren't. Some were more experienced and capable than others, but that was always the case in Roman armies, and didn't always reflect legion reputation.

 

Zosimus provides a colourful description of the capability of Valens army…

 

Sebastianus, observing the indolence and effeminacy both of the tribunes and soldiers, and that all they had been taught was only how to fly, and to have desires more suitable to women than to men, requested no more than two thousand men of his own choice. He well knew the difficulty of commanding a multitude of ill-disciplined dissolute men, and that a small number might more easily be reclaimed from their effeminacy; and, moreover, that it was better to risk a few than all. By these arguments having prevailed upon the emperor, he obtained his desire. He selected, not such as had been trained to cowardice and accustomed to flight, but strong and active men who had lately been taken into the army, and who appeared to him, who was able to judge of men, to be capable of any service. He immediately made trial of each of them, and obviated their defects by continual exercise; bestowing commendations and rewards on all who were obedient, but appearing severe and inexorable to those who neglected their duty.

Nea Historia (Zosimus)

Edited February 3, 2010 by caldrail

[auxilia]

All right then.......let's have a word on this.

Elite crack troops. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. And I still do.

 

Elite crack troops? That's a modern phrase, and not entirely correct when dealing with the legions since the whole point of a legion was that they were all intended to have the same capability. If you accept some legions were elite, then what set them apart? Why were they 'elite'? Why did the Romans not describe units as elite (other than the usual pride in arms)?

I don't really see which part you don't get it.......I mean ''If you accept some legions were elite, then what set them apart? Why were they 'elite'?''????????

Isn't it obvious? Ever heard of terms like Limitanei, Pseudocomitatense, Comitatenses, Palatine? What set them apart?????? Oh, come on man are you serious?

Billion of things set them apart.........Quality (and quantity!) of weapons, armour. Then a level of logistical support. Then their salaries. Their status and privileges. Their training-should I mention that many of those limitanei soldiers were known for having additional duties (which they usually performed with greater will and look upon them as even more important to their military duty) besides military one. Some of them were definitely better farmers than soldiers. There were such ''soldiers'' who only appeared in their posts during ceremonial duties (''raising of flag'' sort of thing) while the rest of their time worked something else.

 

Do you really think they can be compared to the Cornuti, Brachiatii, Petulantes, Iovianii, Herculianii or Scholae?

It's more than obvious what the ELITE CRACK TROOPS means. Also, for your convenience, many units (if not all) that fought at Adrianople had fought on the east before and were by all standards regarded as the veterans.

 

Quite why the author of the osprey guide believes the army at Adrianople was elite is beyond me, unless he's been swayed by Marcellinus's description of the second phase of the battle in which they resisted strongly (which of course they had little choice but to, if they were to survive, and notice the Romans, for all their stubbornness, did not break out until nightfall made it possible under cover of darkness.

Maybe you should check the book. He gives a detailed breakdown of both Roman and Gothic forces (especially consulting the Notitia Dignitatum). You would be surprised how deep and objective his assessments are.

 

There is a tendency to believe the Romans were expert soldiers, regimented, disciplined, unbeatable, and so on. We see this on these forums all the time, but the truth is that the Roman legions were beatable and at Adrianople they were defeated soundly however well they defended themselves after they were herded into a trapped mass. Partly this also explains the desire to describe the Goths as fantastic warriors, which they clearly weren't, having been whittled down by Sebianus's attacks to the point of staying together in large numbers for fear of Roman ambush, and in a somewhat desperate state.

Yeah, it turned out as ''soundly'' defeated (since 1/3 of the force survived, I wouldn't really say ''soundly''), however, you certainly know it was due to terrible blunder during reconnaissance phase and greatly over-eager behavior.

I completely agree with your view on the Goths. I'd just say that the success of those Sebastian's operations is perhaps exaggerated since Ammianus only mentions one ''major'' action on the Maritsa river.

 

In fact, the Roman troops are described as indifferent and ill-motivated, and noticeably Sebastianus doesn't bother with most of them, preferring to use the less experienced troops who were less used to sitting on their backsides in activities "better suited to women".

This sounds as an exaggeration as well. The limitanei troops certainly can be described like that (though not all of them!) but I doubt that the palatine-class soldiers, scholae or domestici et protectores can be described as ''indifferent and ill-motivated''.

 

No, I don't accept the Romans at Adrianople were 'elite'. They just weren't.

Well, I'm not saying they were elite like the US Army's 75th Rangers or the British 22nd SAS but they WERE elite for the Roman army. Simply put, many troops that fought on that faithful day on the Roman side, were among the best that Rome had. Otherwise, the Romans surely wouldn't have regarded this defeat as such a disaster if they had known there were some better troops just around the corner.

But, there were no better troops around the corner. That was the problem and that's why this defeat was seen as the utter disaster. Rome lost some of the best and most experienced troops that day, that's all it is.

Listen to this for comparison: THE LARGEST SINGLE DEFEAT ANY-I REPEAT-ANY ROMAN ARMY EVER SUFFERED WAS AT ARAUSIO AGAINST THE CIMBRI AND TEUTONES BACK IN 105 BC! UP TO 120,000 dead! After it, the very heart of the state was in danger and Italy faced an imminent invasion. Eventually G. Marius saved the situation. But guess what-HARDLY ANYONE EVER HEARD OF THIS BATTLE! The causalities were far greater than at Cannae or Teutonburg or Adrianople.

The difference is that Romans were able to come up with an even stronger force after Arausion, however, after Adrianople-they weren't.

 

Hope this clarifies.

 

 

But, please, I'd like your expertise on something else (this isn't ''Adrianople" thread after all).

What evidence we have concerning the PRIMARY infantry close combat weapon?

A thrusting spear or a sword? Which was more common? And in which units-legions or auxilia?

Is it possible that auxilia palatine used the spears since they appear to form up the front lines (and perhaps deploy in the shield-wall?)?

 

Regards

Edited February 12, 2010 by auxilia

[barca]

Listen to this for comparison: THE LARGEST SINGLE DEFEAT ANY-I REPEAT-ANY ROMAN ARMY EVER SUFFERED WAS AT ARAUSIO AGAINST THE CIMBRI AND TEUTONES BACK IN 105 BC! UP TO 120,000 dead! After it, the very heart of the state was in danger and Italy faced an imminent invasion. Eventually G. Marius saved the situation. But guess what-HARDLY ANYONE EVER HEARD OF THIS BATTLE! The causalities were far greater than at Cannae or Teutonburg or Adrianople.

The difference is that Romans were able to come up with an even stronger force after Arausion, however, after Adrianople-they weren't.

 

I brought up this issue in the Adrianople thread. One can only imagine what Marius would have done. How would his legions have performed against Fritigen's Goths. These Goths had already been within the empre for a long time and had ransacked the armory. Their weapons and armor were much more advanced than those of the Cimbri and Teutons.

[barca]

What evidence we have concerning the PRIMARY infantry close combat weapon?

A thrusting spear or a sword? Which was more common? And in which units-legions or auxilia?

Is it possible that auxilia palatine used the spears since they appear to form up the front lines (and perhaps deploy in the shield-wall?)?

 

Regards

 

 

If their primary weapon was the thrusting spear, one could argue that they reverted back to a phalanx.

 

Having said that, they had better armor and swords, so they should not have had the vulnerabilty of the Hellenistic infantry.

[auxilia]

If their primary weapon was the thrusting spear, one could argue that they reverted back to a phalanx.

 

Well, I hope you know the Romans tended to use the term of "phalanx" in rather strange situations. They didn't use it only to describe the old Greek/Macedonian fighting formation but also to ANY FORMATION OF DENSELY PACKED MEN FIGHTING IN ANYTHING THAT REMINDS OF THE SQUARE OR RECTANGLE.

They regularly described the barbarians of all sorts as fighting in the "phalanx". Also, the very Roman formation was often called the "phalanx".

So, arguing that they reverted back to phalanx doesn't make any serious point.

 

My point is following: we all know they had many weapons, and many troops had both the thrusting spears and the swords. However, which weapon appear to be used as the PRIMARY still remains unknown. Of course, it could have made serious difference if they used spears at the start of a battle and reverted to the spathae only when the spear got broken.

[barca]

....They didn't use it only to describe the old Greek/Macedonian fighting formation but also to ANY FORMATION OF DENSELY PACKED MEN FIGHTING IN ANYTHING THAT REMINDS OF THE SQUARE OR RECTANGLE.

They regularly described the barbarians of all sorts as fighting in the "phalanx". Also, the very Roman formation was often called the "phalanx"..........However, which weapon appear to be used as the PRIMARY still remains unknown. Of course, it could have made serious difference if they used spears at the start of a battle and reverted to the spathae only when the spear got broken.

 

 

Yes they certainly weren't in a Macedonian, sarissa formation, but perhaps a formation similar to the older Spartan phalanx where the initial weapon was the shorter thrusting spear, and they would pull out their swords when the spears broke.

[caldrail]

I don't really see which part you don't get it.......I mean ''If you accept some legions were elite, then what set them apart? Why were they 'elite'?''????????

Isn't it obvious? Ever heard of terms like Limitanei, Pseudocomitatense, Comitatenses, Palatine? What set them apart?????? Oh, come on man are you serious?

 

Very. The whole point of the legion was that every single one of them was equally capable, or at least, in theory. Now I grant you that by the late empire some formations had become specialised and honoured, but to call them elite is to foist modern concepts upon them. Remember that the Romans did not by habit collect soldiers into elite legions, but into elite cohorts. Parts of a legion might be considered elite, not the legion as a whole. And since the author is claiming the army was composed of elite troops, he's making a huge error. Marcellinus describes them as veterans, not elite - there is a big difference. Furthermore, the training of the period was lacklustre (which is why Vegetius produced his manual on how to make a legion). As for having 'greater will', it's clear that many troops in the late army were anything but willing.

It is true that Valens had experienced men in his army. Sebastianus had also been given some opportunity to train men prior to the battle. Zosimus provides a colourful description of the capability of Valens army

Edited February 14, 2010 by caldrail

[barca]

If their primary weapon was the thrusting spear, one could argue that they reverted back to a phalanx.

You coould, but you'd be wrong to. A long thrusting weapon doesn't require or create a phalanx, which was an extended pike used as a mass formation in a certain style. No-one in the late empire was fighting in that manner in any way whatsoever. The phalanx was finished as a military formation and had been for a long long time.

 

 

You could also be wrong.

 

An individual with a long thrusting weapon would be at a disadvantage against someone with a sword.

 

Let's consider what is meant by the term phalanx.

 

A broad definition can include ANY FORMATION OF DENSELY PACKED MEN FIGHTING IN ANYTHING THAT REMINDS OF THE SQUARE OR RECTANGLE, as pointed out earlier.

 

The Roman formation against the Alani was a form of phalanx. Arab infantry sometimes got into pike formations to fend off cavalry. There were numerous instances in the middle ages where infantry were in formations that were densely packed with spears protruding. Richard the Lionhearted and his dismounted men at arms, the Swiss, the Scots, and numerous pike formations of the Renaissance.

[auxilia]

@ caldrail

 

Seriously, I do tend to agree with you on most of what you said. Still, I hold my view that the Romans at Adrianople did represent some kind of elite troops. I admit it's not that easy to describe precisely what kind of elite they were and it's even harder to comprehend it from the 21st century's point of view.

 

The whole point of the legion was that every single one of them was equally capable, or at least, in theory.

 

You had said a lot with this-in theory. However, we do know very good it wasn't that way in practice. Even form the Caesar's days the 10th legion was regarded as the Rome's best force. The 2nd Parthica was the favorite legion of the Severans. There were always some legions that were simply better in performance than others.

One thing that I consider very important to mention, however, is that you shouldn't rely so much on Vegetius. Honestly, I'm impressed with your knowledge and with that of some other members here, however, even the best scholars should know that not all ancient authors are equally reliable. Vegetius in particular.

Why? Because no one knows when he lived and wrote his "manual". Some even believe he never actually saw any major Roman field army . I also believe in this.

Additionally, the fact is that he talked so much about the "classical" legions and his entire manual is some kind of nostalgia for the Principate.

And he seems to gives all the credit in the world to the legions of the Principate for everything while those of the Late empire are losers, indifferent and ill-motivated motley bunch of peasants and barbarian thugs. Especially his cardinally unbelievable nonsense that "soldiers stopped wearing armour and helmets because they deemed them as too heavy" (I paraphrased) is the absolute peek of stupidity! It is however, strongly rejected by all modern scholars and it is widely understood the soldiers of the late empire (at least for the field armies) were as heavily armoured as those before (cavalry even more!). Another nonsense is their "lack of training". There's a multitude of specialized units listed in the Notitia.

Shortly, Vegetius perhaps shouldn't be mentioned at all on this forum. OR, he may have simply lived in the West, let's say, sometime after 410AD when the things started to fall apart-in that case I could understand his disastrous view on the late army.

 

To say that 1/3 of the army survived as a mark of distinction is ridiculous. Such a casualty rate in ancient times was a complete disaster.

Keep in mind the Valens' army was about 15000 men at max. Out of some 400000-500000 active troops, losing some 10000 isn't really disaster. After all, the East recovered relatively quickly and they kept fighting the Goths in the immediate aftermath of the battle.

 

In the course of the battle these 'elite' veterans responded in a disorganised and mutually unsupportive manner.

I'm not sure what you mean....Ammianus clearly describes the infantry fighting correctly, holding their ground and even advancing on the left wing. It is only when the cowardly cavalry left them that their line became disorganized (I quote Ammianus): "This left the infantry unprotected and so closely huddled that a man could hardly wield sword or draw back his arm once he had streched it out"

 

...but perhaps a formation similar to the older Spartan phalanx where the initial weapon was the shorter thrusting spear, and they would pull out their swords when the spears broke.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean as well.

Edited February 14, 2010 by auxilia

[barca]

To say that 1/3 of the army survived as a mark of distinction is ridiculous. Such a casualty rate in ancient times was a complete disaster.

Keep in mind the Valens' army was about 15000 men at max. Out of some 400000-500000 active troops, losing some 10000 isn't really disaster. After all, the East recovered relatively quickly and they kept fighting the Goths in the immediate aftermath of the battle.

 

 

It seems to me that Theodosius did his best to recruit new troops, but had trouble developing them into reliable soldiers that would hold their ground, and he wasn't able to fully defeat the Goths. He ended up making a deal with them and used them as allies.

[Northern Neil]

In an attempt to deflect this thread from Adrianople (covered very adequately in a parallell thread) we could also mention the role of naval forces during the late Empire, and the possible first deliberate use of camouflage. Anecdotally, because I am not currently with my books, I remember a primary source referring to ships and marines being coloured in various shades of green, blue and grey to render themselves less visible at sea, when combating Saxon and Frisian pirates.

[sonic]

It seems to me that Theodosius did his best to recruit new troops, but had trouble developing them into reliable soldiers that would hold their ground, and he wasn't able to fully defeat the Goths. He ended up making a deal with them and used them as allies.

 

Theodosius' new recruits were deployed in places such as Egypt and the units they replaced were transported to the Balkans, where they faced the Goths in a second battle and were defeated. Only then did Theodosius adopt the strategy that slowly defeated the Goths.

[auxilia]

In an attempt to deflect this thread from Adrianople (covered very adequately in a parallell thread) we could also mention the role of naval forces during the late Empire, and the possible first deliberate use of camouflage. Anecdotally, because I am not currently with my books, I remember a primary source referring to ships and marines being coloured in various shades of green, blue and grey to render themselves less visible at sea, when combating Saxon and Frisian pirates.

 

Interesting. Thanks for sharing it.

Do you have any info regarding the battle tactics on the ground?

[caldrail]

Hope NN doesn't mind a quick answer to Auxillia...

 

@ caldrail

 

Seriously, I do tend to agree with you on most of what you said. Still, I hold my view that the Romans at Adrianople did represent some kind of elite troops. I admit it's not that easy to describe precisely what kind of elite they were and it's even harder to comprehend it from the 21st century's point of view.

 

The essential problem about elitism then is who exactly is awarding that status. I got the impression that the elite status you mention when extra latin titles are added to a Roman military unit automatically infer status. This isn't a dig at you, but please be aware that's it you awarding that status, not the Romans themselves. If you read Roman accounts, they don't emphasise status amongst their military units (unless you can find a mention and prove me wrong). The reason is that they don't want elitism - it would tend to encourage rebellions, and this was borne out with experience of the elitist Praetorians of the earlier empire.

 

I do accept that cavalry tend to be regarded as elite (I do mean the independent formations, not cavalry attached to a legion as a scouting element - if such was still the practice in later times. Anyone know?) since just about every cavalryman ever trained or hired has seen himself as a cut above the infantry in every period or nationality since horses were first ridden. Also, as I mentioned before, elite cohorts were standard practice - it gave an incentive to performance within a legion.

 

Okay, I'm done. Please carry on chaps...