Andrianople: Was The Legion Outdated Or...

[Guest Scanderbeg]

The 19th century military historian Sir Charles Oman stated that the Battle of Andrianople was lost because the legion ceased to be the effective and the battle meant that Europe would focus now on cavalry instead of heavy infantry. However, many people don't accept this theory. Many believe that the legion was simply too burdened by the Vandals and the sudden attack by the Gothic cavalry was simply too much. Not to mention they became completely outflanked. This theory however does not accept the heavy cavalry domination.

 

Who do you support? Was the defeat of the legion due to it being outdated or just badly led?

[Hamilcar Barca]

Bad, bad leadership I say. Valens rushed into battle with men who had been marching non-stop for 8 hours without food or water. He also refused to wait for reinforcements from the western Emperor Gratian so that he alone could take credit for what he believed would be an easy victory. If Valens had actually done some decent reconaissance work then he may have been able to prepare his troops for the Gothic cavalry and better deploy his men and cavalry. Instead the Romans were led to believe they were fighting a force no greater than 10,000 men.

[PerfectimusPrime]

I've read somewhere that the army that was fighting in Adrianaple was mostly made of germanic mercenaries and so were very undiscipliened. And some of them didin't even wear armour!

 

The roman army, I mean...

[Guest Scanderbeg]

The Roman army in that battle was actually a well experienced veteran army.

[Zeke]

Well then it was the stupidity of Valens......because the Romans had held out against Calavary before!

 

Zeke

[roman wargamer]

Well then it was the stupidity of Valens......because the Romans had held out against Calavary before!

 

Zeke

we are working right now in a construction of a commercial building ,me as carpenter and skilled lead man.

have to wake up in 6:00 am , begin works at 7:00 am break at 12:00 noon to 1:00 pm,

and begin working again at 1:00 pm and stop working at 10:00 pm and that's everyday , even sunday.

 

if anybody could do battle with shields , pilus and weapons weight burden after a long march??? i doubt it very much.

 

experience will tell you the reality , that legioner is also human and do get tired.

 

The legatus is banking on that he enemy will run like chicken if they will see the roman legion are now attacking. poors Valens.

[PerfectimusPrime]

The Roman army in that battle was actually a well experienced veteran army.

Yes but still germanic mercenarian army..,

[Augustus]

One of the major factors was the heat and lack of water, not to mention the surrounding vegitation was burned down making things worse.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Yes but still germanic mercenarian army..,

 

 

 

Common misconception. Because most of the late legionaries were "barbarians" but they were Romanized ones

[Ursus]

This thread locked until PP can ban the troll

 

[done, and pointless posts deleted... PP]

[PerfectimusPrime]

 

Yes but still germanic mercenarian army..,

 

 

 

Common misconception. Because most of the late legionaries were "barbarians" but they were Romanized ones

 

Click here and you know what I mean.

 

The Roman army that fought in adrianapole was highly de-romanized by the huge waves of barbarian recruits. The army's discipline was lost and the armies fought very much like barbarians. Some of the legionaries in adrianapole didn't even wear armour, which meant that the goths archers did alot damage.

Romans had cavalry too, but they were very tired by the days of marching. Also the goth's tactics were very good. If a legon of trajan's era would have been in there: only the legions draconian discipline could have been relied to win the day and all the legionaries would have worn an lorica segmentata armou and used better weapons in general.

 

So, my point is that the legions were not outdates but they were poor quality during the battle.

The Legion no longer romanized barbarians, but the barbarians barbarized the roman legion.

[Guest mathias]

If adrianople was to be the harbinger of cavalry dominance of the battlefield through the middle ages, then why was frankish army at tours mainly infantry, and was able to repel the cavalry army of the muslims? Most battles in the middle ages, at least large battles, consisted of mostly infantry not mounted knights. See Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture for this information.

[Hamilcar Barca]

If you read this thread through you would know that the Gothic heavy cavalry were not the only factor dictating against the Romans.

[Julius Caesar]

Am I wrong in thinking that the classical Roman legion -- that force of 4000-6000 highly disciplined heavy infantry -- had disappeared by the time of Adrianople?

 

It seems to me that the emergence of cavalry had as much to do with the inability of Rome and successor states to finance, train, and support an effective infantry force as it did with any inherent superiority of cavalry.

 

Certainly the legions had proven that when under the leadership of a good commander, they could handle armies with superior cavalry.

[sonic]

There is no real evidence for the Roman Army being mainly German at this early date What evidence there is is misleading and open to misinterpretation. It is likely that there were many 'Romanised Germans' in the army, but the majority were still likely to be Roman citizens - although we should remember that 'Roman' now applied to all freeborn members of the empire, whether from Britain, Germania, Africa, Asia Minor, etc. etc.

 

The most likely period for the large-scale recruitment of barbarians was after the Battle of Adrianople, when the manpower shortage caused by the losses resulted in Rome needing large numbers of men very quickly.

 

Also, the Gothic cavalry only made a dramatic difference because they arrived late (they had been out foraging), they were not seen because of the huge amounts of dust thrown up during the battle, and they attacked the Romans from an unexpected direction. The Roman legions continued to fight long after the battle was lost, maintaining their discipline until the end.

 

The idea that Roman troops did not wear armour is also highly suspect. It is based on two main sources. One is sculptures/monumental evidence, which tends to be stylised, highly conservative, and does not necessarily display up-to-date fashion or real-life equipment. The second source of evidence is Vegetius. However, reading Vegetius gives the impression that the man was an armchair theorist, and had no connection to the army, instead basing his opinions upon the guardsmen with whom he was familiar. As any soldier will know, ornamental guardsmen seldom wear armour: it's too heavy and dirty for their pretty uniforms!