Adrianople In Perspective

[barca]

The battle of Adrianople (378 AD) is generally regarde as the critical evnet in the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. Yet the Goths were in no position to march on Rome or even Constantinople after their victory. It was the army of the Eastern Emperor (Valens) which was defeated, but it was Rome and not Constantinople that was sacked in 410 AD - at least one generation later. The Eastern side was saved from that humiliation till 1204 when the crusaders sacked it.

 

Was Adrianople really the turning point? Why were the Romans unable to recover from the defeat?

 

Throughout Rome's history, there were numerous unexpected military disasters from which the Romans bounced back. Why was this disaster different?

 

Let's look at some of the disasters of the Republic and the Empire

 

I Republic

 

390 BC River Allia: Gauls rout Roman Army and subsequently sack Rome

218-216 BC Hannibal inflicts numerous defeats--most notably Cannae

105 BC Arausio: Teutones and Cimbri destroy a Roman army

70-73 BC Spartacus runs amoc in Italy, defeating several Roman armies.

53 BC Crassus defeated at Carrhae.

 

The scariest of the above was Arausio. The loss of Roman lives was probably greater than at Adrianople. These Germanic tribes were ready to ravage and plunder. If not for Marius' heroics, who knows if Rome would have been been able to survive.

 

II Empire:

 

9 AD Teutoberg Wald

85 AD Dacians threaten Rome--eventually conquered by Trajan

167 AD Macromani and Quadi reach Northern Italy--eventually beaten back

252 AD Decius defeated and killed by Goths

260 AD Valerian captured by Shapur

268 AD Goths sack Thrace and Greece

270 AD Aurelian abandons Dacia

363 AD Julian dies in Eastern Campaign

 

The evacuation of Dacia doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. Here the Romans just handed over Trajan's prize to the Goths. Not a whole lot different from letting them cross the Danube about 100 years later.

 

After all of these adverse events, the Empire was able consolidate it's resources, and stabilize it's frontier over and over again. Why were they not able to rebuld after Adrianople? Was it Theodosius' fault? I don't know what he did to deserve the title "The Great". He had some success against the Goths, but he did not fully subjugate them. Instead he gave them autonomy and used them to do some of his dirty work--a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

 

Here is the big question. What could the Romans have done after Adrianople to prevent the Goths from taking over? Should they have refrained from using them to fight their battles for them? Did they have a choice?

[Hamilcar Barca]

Before we address the main question at hand I think it should be noted that Spartacus' revolt in the late republic wasn't really a major crisis. The battles themelves are poorly documented and while Spartacus may have been successful against smaller Roman armies under Quaestars etc, as soon as he came up against the real deal under Crassus, he had no show.

 

Moving on, Adrianople was a total crisis like no other. Gratians reinforcements were hardly adequate to fight the goths in pitched battle by themselves - so the Goths were more-or-less free to run amok for 2 years before a peace treaty was finally settled. Remember also that Rome was dealing with numerous enemies at the same time and a resolution to the crisis at hand was imperative. If the Romans had perhaps waited a little longer to try and build up their shatterred armies for a rematch, the Goths may have spread do much destruction that any battle fought would have been meaningless. I have no doubt that Gratian and Theodosius would have liked nothing better thans swift, brutal revenge, but the fact was they had neither the resources or the time.

 

In consequence to incorporating them within the empire and army, I belive that the Romans simply decided to make the best of the situation. The Goths were a warlike, numerous people and the Romans at the time never could have forseen the amount of power and influence that they soon acquired through becoming staple units of the 5th Century mercinary army. Individuals such as Stilicho and Richimer would rise from such ranks to become the puppet masters of the late Empire. In any case, once the Romans did realise it it was far too late to do anything about it.

[Lex]

The disaster at Adrianople was that 2/3's of the Eastern Army was wiped-out in a single day and all the Roman equipment lost was then aquired by the Goth's as well and the Emperor was killed. The only strategy really available to the Eastern Empire in this situation was to withdraw their remaining troops from many cities and 'pull back', regroup and try to protect the more vital areas and literally just abandon the other cities and hope for the best.

 

At this time the economy was also not too great, with high levels of inflation and many Romans no longer had any confidence in their governments ability to protect them. According to Gibbon, this led to the Romans no longer saving and investing their money but only led to waste, as the public probably sensed the end might be near and investing money in property and farmland was unwise due to the very real threat of the barbarians.

 

At the same time, the army was struggling to get recruits, with many men just paying money instead of being conscripted and those who couldn't afford the penalty often were so desperate they cut off the thumb of their right hand!

 

The remaining army was also not as great, disciplined or well-equipped as it once was and didn't have enough cavalry to counter the mounted barbarian troops.

 

So the situation after Adrianople was extremely desperate, and I think the priority was just damage limitation. What led to Adrianople in my opinion was that Valens had allowed the Goths to settle in Roman territory. In my opinion, they should have either (1) tried to wipe them out when they were weak as they were fleeing the Huns and were still basically hungry weak refugees or (2) Not have allowed them to enter Roman territory and let the Huns deal with them, or (3) Have treated them better once they were in Roman territory so that they wouldn't have had a reason to organise themslves and revolt, and to also divide them (locate them in different areas).

 

The reason I believe the East was able to recover was that all the barbarians eventually decided to focus on the Western Empire instead and this gave the Eastern Empire some breathing space, coupled with the almost invincible defences of Constantinople. I also suspect some foul play and some instigation on the Eastern Empire's government in that they perhaps encouraged the barbarians to rather attack the weakened Western halve, but this is only my opinion, considering the 'Byzantine' politics and mentality of the Eastern Roman Empire at the time.

 

In opinion, the Romans should have wiped the Goths out when they had the chance and shouldn't have allowed any barbarians to settle in their territory. They should have also been more rigorous with conscription and only allowed Romans to form the bulk of the army or at least divide the barbarian auxiliaries and put them under Roman leadership. The problem was that the barbarians were enlisted en masse and were still led by their tribal chiefs with who their loyalty still primarily rested. They should have been divided and dispersed across the legions instead or if possible their numbers should have been limited.

[Segestan]

Adrianople was the result of Valens policy to allow the pursued Visigoths to re-settle in Roman territory land south of the Danube. The Visigoths had been run -out of their own home lands by the invading Huns. After the resettlement; Visigoths had supported an usuper as Emperor over Valens by aiding the pagan Procopius against Valens. The Visigoths then reformed an Army , and attacked Valens Roman forces. 40,000 Romans including Emperor Valens himself died in the fighting. Valens was an Adrian Christian who had persecuted the Catholics. The End of Rome was due to many things; most notably the division of Christian doctrines and his own attempts to hold territory as far East as Mesopotamia.

Valens Troops lost against the Gothic Calvary mainly due to this poor command leadership.These same Roman troops had devastated the Visigoths in their own territory of modern Romania in 367. Valens also became involved in a war with Persia in 371-372

At this time in Roman History ( though Rome proper had long been over) it would have surved Rome better to hold historic Territory that was Roman, rather than pretend that an Empire existed of Romans.

 

 

 

regards,

[Northern Neil]

I agree with all the above points. Adrianople was a turning point also in that it marked the end for the old - style mediterranean heavy armoured infantryman. Henceforth, we are well and truly into the cavalry age. Just one aside, from an earlier post on this topic: I think Theodosius earned the title 'The Great' in a similar way that Constantine did. He was a great patron of the Church, yet had too much blood on his hands to be made a saint. Unlike Constantine, however, he brought no great benefits to the Empire, and his two sons were even more lacking in merit.

[Hamilcar Barca]

1) tried to wipe them out when they were weak as they were fleeing the Huns and were still basically hungry weak refugees or

 

Do remember that the estimate number of Goths that crossed the Danube River was upwards of a million people. Thats one hell of an ethic clensing mission, Hitler would have been proud. They may have been weak refugees but they were even weaker, hungrier and all the more desperate when they rebelled at Marcinople in 377. Also the Goths, feared the Huns more than the Romans, refusing to let them cross the Danube would have meant instant war. The only way to have resolved the struggle would have been to treat them better. I understand why the Romans didn't. They hated them with a passion. Which is why, failing this, Valens should of under no circumstances engaged them at Adrianople without Gratian. It is almost certain that the result would have been different had he not made one of the costliest mistakes in western history.

[barca]

1) tried to wipe them out when they were weak as they were fleeing the Huns and were still basically hungry weak refugees or

 

Do remember that the estimate number of Goths that crossed the Danube River was upwards of a million people. Thats one hell of an ethic clensing mission, Hitler would have been proud. They may have been weak refugees but they were even weaker, hungrier and all the more desperate when they rebelled at Marcinople in 377. Also the Goths, feared the Huns more than the Romans, refusing to let them cross the Danube would have meant instant war. The only way to have resolved the struggle would have been to treat them better. I understand why the Romans didn't. They hated them with a passion. Which is why, failing this, Valens should of under no circumstances engaged them at Adrianople without Gratian. It is almost certain that the result would have been different had he not made one of the costliest mistakes in western history.

 

How about a more proactive approach. Instead of letting them cross the Danube, do what the earlier Romans would have done. Form an allianace with the Goths. Declare themselves their protectors. Have a Roman army cross the Danube and have a combined Roman-Gothic army attack the Huns. The Goths would have been very thankfull and therefore could have potentially been intergrated into the Roman system.

 

Prior to Adrianople, the Roman army still had a lot of prestige. They had shown repeatedly that they were still able to consistently defeat barbarian armies and inflict heavy casualties. A good example would be the Battle of Strassburg.

 

During the Republic, the Romans made alliances with various states as a means of subduing a greater enemy. For example: Pergamon against Antiochus, Caesar was "protecting" the Gauls from the Teutons.