Adrianople and Fritgren's Gothic Army

[barca]

Adrianople is usually considered as the worst Roman Military disaster since Cannae, and Fritigen's army was like Hannibal's, not prepared for a siege. I believe Fritigen said something like "i don't make war with walls", indicating that a siege is no easy task.

 

Eventually Alaric's Goths were able to mount a successful siege of Rome about 30 years later, but one has to consider that they had been allowed to remain within the empire as foederati, frequently fighting alongside Roman regulars, so they no doubt had access to Roman military equipment, not that they needed it, because as I recall someone let them in through treachery.

[caldrail]

Two different periods and two different armies. Hannibal did have sizeable numbers of gaulish volunteers spoiling for a fight among his mercenaries, many of whom were experienced troops, but Fritigern was commanding a tribal gathering rather than a formal army in the sense Hannibal fielded. I accept that the Goths were only too happy to bring anyone in who was willing to fight for them, including numbers of alans and Roman deserters.

 

On the one hand the Carthaginian force was an army gathered deliberately to conduct war against Rome. On the other, the Goths were a tribal rebellion after what they considered treachery had occured. Further, Adrianople was the site of the gothic camp and thus wives, familieis, and slaves (if they still owned any) were present.

 

The variety of equipment varied between era's too. Goths were renowned for carrying a considerable surplus of weapons and made far more use of thrown missiles per man. Unlike the more disciplined veterans of the hannabalic army, Goths were very much individualistic and opportunistic fighters.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Unlike the more disciplined veterans of the hannabalic army, Goths were very much individualistic and opportunistic fighters.

Does this mean Goths were unsophisticated fighters who avoided using formations and combined arms, instead choosing to stupidly charge at their enemies without a battle plan like Barbarians are stereotypically portrayed in movies? Where they can do well in disorganized chaotic fighting when formations broke apart and its one man for himself but do horribly when fighting pitched battles with formations and and tactics such as manuever and flanking the enemy?

[barca]

Unlike the more disciplined veterans of the hannabalic army, Goths were very much individualistic and opportunistic fighters.

Does this mean Goths were unsophisticated fighters who avoided using formations and combined arms, instead choosing to stupidly charge at their enemies without a battle plan like Barbarians are stereotypically portrayed in movies? Where they can do well in disorganized chaotic fighting when formations broke apart and its one man for himself but do horribly when fighting pitched battles with formations and and tactics such as manuever and flanking the enemy?

 

 

I don't think that anyone knows the exact makeup of Fritgen's Gothic army. What percent had armor? How army of them had previously served in the Roman Army, and were familiar with military formations and tactics? We do know that they were joined by Roman deserters and other disenfranchised individuals. We also know that they had help from Alans, Sarmatians, and Huns who were highly skilled cavalrymen. Regardless of their makeup, they certainly gave a good account of themselves in the smaller battles leading up to Adrianople.

[caldrail]

Not quite, but formal formations weren't part of the style. As it happens, a looser style of combat (which incidentially I have to admit Hannibals gauls were probably guilty of) doesn't set aside the human instinct for safety in numbers. the usual analogy I draw here is rioters. They tend to surge back and forth as a group with braver souls daring to rush forward here and there, possibly inspiring a larger attack when the individual is successful.

 

This is not unusual behaviour for warrior peoples who value individual heroism in battle. Sometimes this is more than simple bravado however. We have indications from dark age Britain, as well as Adriannople, that warriors seeking to throw a missile will tend to rush forward from the group in order to propel it, rather like a modern javelin thrower. There are practicle reasons for doing this, such as adding to the energy and range of the attack, as well as finding enough space to complete the throw without interference from your adjacent colleagues.

 

You could argue that it wasn't necessary in that the Romans were known to have loosed volleys of pila without the need for chaotic 'fire at will'. In spirit I have to agree, but bear in mind we don't know the exact drill they employed. It is reasonable to assume they made allowances for obstruction in some way during a co-ordinated mabnnoever.

 

As regards battle plans, please realise that ancient armies lacked any formal means of communicating on the battlefield. The dedicated couriers of later eras were not used. Trumpets had a limited range of commands, and in Roman organisation, focused on 'local' comntrol. Flags or other signals were not used in battle. On the face of it, it might seem strange that an organised Roman legion did not develop runners and riders as a communication network. They were used sometimes, on an ad hoc basis where considered necessary, but it must be borne in mind that Roman soldiers were not sophisticated people. The extent of training is sometimes exaggerated and in any case was more likely focused on performance in the field rather than expanding their repetoire. Furthermore, we don't know of any military manuals until the late empire and sadly none have survived.

 

Whereas a commander of an ancient army may have a plan conceived beforehand, irrespective of which faction he was commanding, the ancient battlefield is more akin to a straight fight than a game of chess. Move and countermove belong to periods where group co-ordination has become a routine and essential facet of battlefield behaviour. When dealing with the ancients, we ought to notice that all of them were doing pretty much the same things when it came to the actual fight. Sword and shield. Horse and spear. Missiles and mobility. The style in which these actions took place may have varied, but at the point of contact, there was little functional difference except perhaps for the coherence of it, and even then, that was often circumstantial rather a matter of disciplined civilisation versus chaotic barbarians.

 

Anceitnt commanders required one essential thing before it became possible to control the actions of an army during a battle. Time. Without it, the pressure to keep fighting and rally against enemy action overcomes any motive toward intelligent planning. If the day drags on, with much waiting, then it's possible for plans to be thought, communicated, and enacted, which indeed we see the wiley Goths doing at Adrianople (actually the Romans tried to as well, but their scheme was based on different expectations of behaviour and basically made no difference whatsoever)

 

Other than that, tactics amount to very localised initiative and action. The Romans themselves recognised the necessity for this. Each century was required to react to enemy moves in such a way as to optimise their chances, something that was done without external command, and as we know, at Cannae Hannibal exploited this feature of Roman doctrine mercilessly.

[caldrail]

I don't think that anyone knows the exact makeup of Fritgen's Gothic army. What percent had armor? How army of them had previously served in the Roman Army, and were familiar with military formations and tactics? We do know that they were joined by Roman deserters and other disenfranchised individuals. We also know that they had help from Alans, Sarmatians, and Huns who were highly skilled cavalrymen. Regardless of their makeup, they certainly gave a good account of themselves in the smaller battles leading up to Adrianople.

No, they didn't. Sebastianus had pushed for Valens to recognise that a less formal style of warfare was going to get the better of the Goths. He did actually prove his point. Zosimus informs us that during the initial raiding phase of the camp;aign gothic heads were being sent to Constantinople every day. Also, we know the goths suffered a significant defeat at the River maritza days before Adrianople, which was one reason why gothic cavalry was not initally present, having been sent en masse for foraging to prevent being overwhelmed by Roman forces. Also bear in mind that although the previous war with the goths a few years earlier was inconlusive, the goths surrendered despite being able to maintain some measure of initiative.

[barca]

Sebastianus had pushed for Valens to recognise that a less formal style of warfare was going to get the better of the Goths.

 

 

It is true that Sebastianus was successful with small skirmishes, and in retrospect that may have been their best option. However, I was referring to their strong showing earlier against Lupicinus around Marcianople.

[caldrail]

Here we see elements of late empire soldiering that accentuate the gothic success. Vegetius tells that the strength and substance of the legions had gone. Indeed, Jordanes confirms that only after Adrianople was the standard of soldiering in the legions improved. Zoosimus is rather more scathing, and infers that the legionaries of that time were... well... poofs. Marcellinus doesn't hand out these kind of opinions, but nonetheless there's clearly a large majority of legionaries who have little intention of actually fighting and are ill prepared to do so.

 

The rapid mobilisation of the troops was rendered necessary because the goths had gotten a little upset about the poor deal there were getting and a confrontation had taken place. Using this civil disorder as an excuse, Lupicinus and Maximus decided to assassinate the gothic leaders and their guards. The attempt was only partially successful and Fritigern escaped with a swordfight that comes straight out of an Errol Flynn movie, but apparently one that did take place.

 

Naturally escalation in disorder resulted in what was essentially a rebellion by tribesmen who had not been properly settled after being allowed to do so. The Goths obviously felt aggrieved having been forced to sell everything, wives and children too, for provisions that can only be described as below an acceptable standard.

 

With such a large force of rioting and raiding goths at large, the governors of the area (Lupicinus and Maximus) had little choice but to call out the troops. As was typical for that time, they were less than ready and with the hasty deployment helping them not at all, it was easy for the Goths to sieze the initiative and prevail. Clealry the Goths had every motive to fight. For them, it was becoming a matter of survival, and in any case they were a people known for their readiness to bear arms. Indeed, it was said the Goths would take anyone with them if they were willing to fight.

 

We shouldn't be suprised then that the local Roman troops were overwhelmed. That doesn't mean the Goths were especially capable, rather that they were better motivated by necessity and in a position to take the initiative, which they did. In terms of campaigning however the Goths were less able to fend off Roman raids, a method of warfare that was increasingly prevalent in the wider scope of late empiree hostilities.

 

There is a parallel between this initial fight and the later battle of Adrianople in that when the Roman troops attempted to conduct formal confrontations, they were disorganised and ineffectual. This is one major change since the pre-constantine era. The ability of legions to mount formal battles had withered by disuse.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Discussion on Goths is really interesting !But its getting way off topic to this thread so I request the posts on the Goths be moved to a new thread titled:

"Barbarians Discipline and Sophistication in Warfare" .

[barca]

Discussion on Goths is really interesting !But its getting way off topic to this thread so I request the posts on the Goths be moved to a new thread titled:

"Barbarians Discipline and Sophistication in Warfare" .

 

 

I agree. I did go off topic, but I didn't see the new thread which you mentioned.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Discussion on Goths is really interesting !But its getting way off topic to this thread so I request the posts on the Goths be moved to a new thread titled:

"Barbarians Discipline and Sophistication in Warfare" .

 

 

I agree. I did go off topic, but I didn't see the new thread which you mentioned.

I'm waiting for a Mod to move it.

[Melvadius]

Topic split as requested but with a more appropriate title.

[barca]

Here we see elements of late empire soldiering that accentuate the gothic success. Vegetius tells that the strength and substance of the legions had gone. Indeed, Jordanes confirms that only after Adrianople was the standard of soldiering in the legions improved. Zoosimus is rather more scathing, and infers that the legionaries of that time were... well... poofs. Marcellinus doesn't hand out these kind of opinions, but nonetheless there's clearly a large majority of legionaries who have little intention of actually fighting and are ill prepared to do so.

 

At some point I'm going to go back to those original sources that you mention above.

 

It seems to me that there are different opinions on the failure of the late Roman military. For example Goldsworthy believes that the barbarian tribes had not progressed that much, and were essentially not much more powerful than they were at the time of the early empire. It was the change in the Roman military organization and the continuous outbreak of civil wars that weakened the army.

 

Heather seems to favor the idea that the barbarians had gradually become more sophisticated from continuous contact with the empire.

 

It seems to me that the latter theory has some merit when it applies to the Goths. Consider that they had already occupied Dacia for about 100 years when Aurelian evacuated the province. There were no doubt some Romano-Dacians left behind who were subject to the Goths, perhaps providing them with a better understanding of the Roman system.

 

Most of the Germanic warriors encountered by the Romans during the late republic and early empire had very poor equipment. Very few had armor. Typically they had a shield, a long spear, and some sort of small sword or dagger. They were most effective in small skirmishes with hit and run tactics, as Varus discovered. Fritigen's Goths may have been short on equipment when they first crossed the Danube, but I suspect that by the time of Adrianople they were better equipped. They would have to in order to stand up to heavy Roman infantry. It wouldn't surprise me if a large percentage had armor and Roman swords.

 

And let's not forget that the Romans showed that they were still able to function effectively in pitched battles, when led by a competent general. e.g Julian defeating the Alemani at Strasburg.

[caldrail]

There are indeed differences in opinion regarding the relative strengths of Goths and Romans. The broad picture from the sources is that the majority of Roman troops had declined through idleness and poor leadership. The veterans are described in very poor terms. However, it is made clear that Sebastianus chose an 'elite' corps of younger recruits who were keen to get stuck in, as opposed to the goldbricking senior troops (whom I note required a lot of persuasion from Valens to actually march toward Adrianople). This advance corps was responsible for the more impressive results against the Goths, which backs your contention about leadership.

 

Jordanes does say that after Adrianople efforts were made to improve the legions. I don't know what level of capability they achieved, but Jordanes specifically says that from that point Fritigern and the Visigoths were afraid of them. In any event, Fritigern died two years after Adrianople having fought the Romans whom he no doubt had personal issues with. Notably the older king, Athanaric, re-assumes command and makes a deal with the Romans.

 

Now as to the thorny question of gothic competence - some people assume that because Adrianople was such a walkover that they were that much better than the Roman troop. Not so, as the previous events indicate, though clearly the goths were able to take advantage of the chaos and disorder of Valens army. I personally think that Goldsworthy is right. The Goths did not fight in any really sophisticated manner, relying on personal courage and circumstance, but I'm not discounting Heather's contention because the Goths had previous experience of fighting Romans and indeed had Roman deserters among their number. It would be more accurate, I think, to say that the Goths 'knew' the Romans to some extent and thus were well aware of their strengths and weaknesses. In fact, heathers contention wobbles when you consider the cause of the Gothic Rebellion - that the Roman commanders, Lupicinus and Maximus, had encouraged the savage exploitation of their new immigrants and might even had in mind to enslave the lot for personal profit. There is a certain innocence when reading about the goths who arrived on the south bank of the Danube.