Narses And Belisarious

[Arvioustus]

They both caused much destruction to the west and also handed the Vandals,Goths and others humiliating defeats. Extremely humiliating. Either they were amazing generals or the opposition was not what many believe.

I feel both is true. These generals were outnumbered by the opposition that it seems like devine intervention was needed. I do feel that the Goths and other so called barbarians of the day were severly overrated. Sure Belisarious was tricky but Narses had the same results with so few men also. These battles were fought with small legions as opposed to the Roman legions of old. I suspect that all of Europe was in great decline both Western Roman and barbarian worlds because of the numbers of the small numbers of these fighting forces and lack of quality of the fighters.

[Tobias]

Justinian had an uncanny ability for discovering talent. He chose many obscure people and elevated them to high position; from which they achieved many great deeds. Belisarius was one of these men.

 

The Ostrogoths had previously been a powerful state, and they had reached their peak under Theodoric the Goth. But after his death, the Ostrogothic state had divided. Their frequent conflict with the Visigoths made it difficult for the state to act in a united way and bring their full strength to bear if they were attacked. Justinian realised the weakness of the Ostrogoth's state, and decided to take Italy.

 

Belisarius was given the command to wage war on Ostrogoths; beginning with the invasion and conquest of Sicily and on to Naples and Rome. After this, he thrust forward and took Ravenna, the Ostrogothic capital. Before this occurred, however, they offered to make him the Western Emperor.

 

Belisarius fooled the Ostrogoths into thinking he accepted, and once he gained entrance to Ravenna, he took the city and claimed the entire Ostrogothic Kingdom for Byzantium.

 

After this, he was sent east against the Persians again, and when he returned to Italy, the Ostrogoths, under a strong and competent leader, had regained most of Northern Italy, as well as Rome. The war in Italia dragged on, with the Ostrogoths soon on the back foot again. However, a jealous and suspicious Justinian starved Belisarius of supplies and reinforcements of soldiers. Lacking basic supplies to wage a war, Belisarius lost most of his gains, and was soon relieved of command by Justinian, in favour of Narses.

 

Narses, an old eunuch, with the support of the Byzantine Emperor behind him, won a series of victories against the remnants of the Ostrogoths and brought the campaign against the Ostrogothic kingdom to an end. After this, the name "Ostrogoth" essentially disappeared from the world.

 

I believe Belisarius was a genius of a general; a man who's achievements would never be as widely known as more famous conquerors such as Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. He fought a brilliant campaign against a powerful albeit divided nation. The fact is is that the Ostrogoths could not sustain a determined invasion by even a competent (and Belisarius was far more then competent) general for very long, as they were a relatively recently established nation (as opposed to the Romans).

 

Narses was a competent general who knew how to wage war. I don't believe he was as good as Belisarius, but he was competent; Narses was a Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus compared to Belisarius as a Gaius Julius Caesar. I'm not saying Belisarius was a Julius Caesar, but the difference in ability gives you a fair comparison. All Narses had to do was mop up; the Ostrogoths were pretty much close to being broken by Belisarius.

 

The Ostrogoths weren't severely overrated; if Belisarius had faced the Ostrogoths at their height of power, then it may have been a different story. As it was, the campaign was destructive and extremely expensive.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Tobias

[Princeps]

In addition, Belisarius fought with limited resources, he was pretty much hamstrung by Justinian, and his campaigns were frequently cut short, or he was forced to re-direct his attentions. He could have been Rome's greatest conquorer imo.

[Arvioustus]

But you forgetting how much they were outnumbered by the Vandals in Africa and Goths in Italy. The numbers to me suggest both the Vandals and Goths were extrtemely over rated as fighters. Some historians paint them as ferocious(albeit Aryan historians), I say they are not. The Eastern Empire had great leadership to be sure(maybe greater than the west who had many incomptetent ones who were polticains more than military leaders) except Caesar of course. Also, do you think that these Goths and Vandals know how the Romans fight by now? Their number superiority in their battles suggest to me that they just cannot fight hand to hand well. I know western Roman armies incorporated German cavalry but I think this was for economic reasons. (very expensive to maintain, Germans were cheaper source) You just have to look at the reality of the numbers,they are extreme.

 

Seen a special on knife and lance fighting the other day on History channel and it is rough one on one and both combatants usually get cut up. Some members had little experience others had much. Everybody got cut, even the experts against the rookies. It showed that quickness and agility was paramount. This was one on one. Caesar, Narses and Belisarious fought against 10 to one odds at least! Seldom did they even trap the German,Goth or Vandal, they just beat them badly. Taking the numbers into account ,sure great Generals matter(Goths had great leadership too) but at these numbers , given hand to hand I really in my heart feel that these 'barbarians' were inept at hand to hand. Cannot see how two men cannot over power one much less ten to one! Something is very wrong how some historians have portrayed these groups. Even an analysis how the huns manhandled the German and Goths is really not talked about. (and the Chinese manhandled the huns!) For some reason this wants to be avoided. Easy to figure out why.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Arvioustus

[Neos Dionysos]

I don;t think they were so horribly overrated, I simply think they were poorly led and divided. Had the Romans fought the Vandals under Gaesaric, they would have lost, (as they did in reality), and the same for the Goths if they were under Theodoric the Great. Perhaps if Belisarius was given adequte supplies and troops he still would have performed his victories, but given what he had, I don;t think he would have accomplished what he did against these germanic peoples' best leaders, those whom he did face were second rate at best and even incompetant... I just think it is unfair to say they are so overrated when they were fought being led by poor leaders and in some cases the barbarians being divided.

[Tobias]

But you forgetting how much they were outnumbered by the Vandals in Africa and Goths in Italy. The numbers to me suggest both the Vandals and Goths were extrtemely over rated as fighters.

 

When Belisarius first faced the Vandals in North Africa at the Battle of Ad Decimum, interesting circumstances that refute your argument, Arvioustus, occurred.

 

The leader of the Vandals, King Gelimer, chose to position his approximately 11 000-man army near the Tenth Milestone on the road from Carthage (Hence the name Ad Decimum, or Ten-Mile Post, for the battle).

 

Distributing 2000 of his men to his nephew and 7000 to his brother, he took up a strong position on the road. His brother was to hold a position on Gelimer's flank at a defile, and his nephew was to lead his forces to try and flank the Byzantine forces, numbering approximately 17 000 men.

 

The nephew, named Gibamund, failed in this mission, as the Romans and some Hun mercenaries drove off his forces and killed him. As well, Gelimer's brother, named Ammatas, arrived at the defile to discover that his forces had become scattered behind him and were nowhere near the desired position. He was attacked by the Romans and killed.

 

Whilst Gelimer's wings were failing without his knowledge, he himself was fighting a successful and competent battle against Belisarius and his forces on the main road. The mercenary cavalry belonging to the Romans was defeated by the Vandals, and the Vandal infantry were pushing the Romans back, despite being seriously outnumbered. It even seemed as if the Vandals could salvage a victory.

 

However, upon discovering that his brother Ammatas had fallen in battle, Gelimer succumbed to grief. Instead of launching a final blow against the scattered Romans (which would most likey have destroyed them) he halted to bury his brother. Belisarius regrouped, counterattacked and drove the Vandals from their position, soon after which they were routed by the Roman forces. Gelimer had lost Carthage, after coming so close to victory.

 

In my opinion, for a superior (in numbers and technology) Roman army to come so close to defeat at the hands of the outnumbered Vandal soldiers, that would determine that the Vandals were not extremely overrated.

 

As for the Ostrogoths, i said above, the Ostrogoths were in a period of decline; they could not bring the full brunt of their once great forces to bear on the invading Roman forces. If they had managed to be united, with competent leaders, the Ostrogoths would have forced Belisarius to retreat, or perhaps even destroyed the Bzyantine army.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Tobias

[Arvioustus]

You can say what you will...the facts are the numbers in all battles were extreme for the Goths ,Vandals and most battles German tribes fought. They did not fight unless they thought the numbers were favorable. What I have read the numbers were extreme for the Germanics and my name sake against Caesar, Goths in all battles and were then driven back over the Danube. Strange that some think the German tribes were that good. Think it is pure Aryan trash. I could say that about the forest trap too. Romans pooorly led and spread out and greatly outnumbered. When the Romans lost they ussaully lost most of their men, Germanics lost great numbers and then fled in terror. Caesar was even surpriesed how they cannot fight once they get wounded even! This is the truth from Caesar(who fought them many times) , Marius, Narses who was so outnumbered that it would seem school boys could have beaten him. That is the numbers not your excuses for German losses. Another angle: Huns easily defeated the German tribes(late Roman period...so maybe they were in decline too? Maybe they still had poor leadership? I am sure they outnumbered the Huns too.) ,the Huns were easily defeated bt the Chinese( Huns when west for easy pickings), Huns defeated eventauly by Roman and German force. Obviosly this could not be done without the Romans, who by that time were not much of a fighting force.

 

The general rule is I think that a well led Roman army would probably defeat anything the Germanics could throw at them, a good example is the Roman/Byzantine reconquests in which the Vandals and Ostrogoths were defeated by small but extremely well led Roman armies. There are also many examples of superior Roman tactics overcoming Germanic numerical superiority, however as the Roman army slowly decayed the Germanic army advanced and the balance was broken.

 

I still strongly believe however that the Roman legions were so superior to the the Germanic armies and that view is justified in the various examples ive pointed out, even when in dire crisis the Romans were able to defeat and expel the Germans. Also had the Germans been superior the Roman empire would surely not have survived as long as it did.

How about Marius: The great battle of Aquae Sextiae (near modern Aix-en-Provence), that Marius destroyed an vast barbarian army of Teutones and Ambrones. The defeat of the invaders was assured when Consul Q. Lutatius Catulus and his subordinate, Sulla, fought and won battles at Vercellae in 101. The invading armies were so reduced that it would be two generations before they again seriously troubled Rome. Sulla's contribution to Catulus' victory had been critical. There was an obvious alienation between the three men as to who could claim credit for the victory, although Marius agreed to celebrate a joint triumph with Catulus.

 

As for Caesar not fighting against the Germans that was the main reason he went To Gaul to aid them against the German tribes! Before him his uncle Marius stopped the Cimbri and Tuetones cold as they attempted to do the following. He was outnumbered by such great odds.

Caesar fought aginst the Belgae,Nevii,Usiptes,tenteri and many,many more tribes. This is all in the 'Gallic Wars'

Caears soldiers new the numbers against them were so great that Caesar himself had to stop his men from mutiny reminding them how Gaius easily defeated the German tribes being greatly outnumberd too.

While in Italy, Caesar learned that the Belgae had invited two German tribes, the Usipetes and Tencteri, to cross the Rhine into northern Gaul in numbers supposedly comprising 430,000. They intended to ally with the Belgae. When Caesar confronted the tribal leaders, they told him they had been forced to cross the Rhine against their will. Caesar ordered them to return and they asked for a series of delays in which to consult with the Ubii, into whose territory they had been ordered.

Caption:

In spite of a truce, as the two armies were drawn up in negotiations, German cavalry attacked Caesar's horsemen and gave him an excuse for a ruse of extraordinary cunning and treachery. The next day, the German leadership came in a body to Caesar to apologize for breaking the truce. Caesar put the lot under guard and raced with his army to the German position eight miles away. The Germans, leaderless and completely surprised, soon broke. The Romans chased tens of thousands of them back towards the junction of the Meuse and the Rhine. Many were killed; many, attempting to swim the river, drowned. It was an absolute, effective and inglorious victory, later much criticized by Caesar's enemies in Rome.

I can go on and on citing records of many Roman victories by many others,it gets pointless. The Germans were stopped cold many times trying to wreck either Gaul or Rome. They only succeeded if you can call it that through mass migrations while Rome was really no more. The problem I have is some aryan historians paint the Germans(tacitus also, who most know just fabricates) stating that the Geramn tribes were so fierce. I say the numbers tell a story of such great numbers could not do much against the Romans or te Huns. To me it just seems impossible for them to lose given their numbers but their lack of fighting skills has to be looked into not their myths. If you wanta fierce Roman foe, look to the Iberians or Dacians or Parthians. Th

The Dacians(thracian origin) kept the Germans and Scythians at bay for a long time until the Romans weakened them. The Iberians must have fought well given their lack of numbers and giving the Romans much difficulty. I am just amused why some just do not undersatnd the advantage numbers play in hand to hand combat. Yes leadership and discipline matter but anyone who knows fencing or knife fighting techniques that being outnumberd by even one is difficult or impossible. The numerics of the German tribes prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were clods at hand to hand. Or you can just read what the Aryan historians would like you to believe and shine each others boots

[trajen777]

You can say what you will...the facts are the numbers in all battles were extreme for the Goths ,Vandals and most battles German tribes fought. They did not fight unless they thought the numbers were favorable. What I have read the numbers were extreme for the Germanics and my name sake against Caesar, Goths in all battles and were then driven back over the Danube. Strange that some think the German tribes were that good. Think it is pure Aryan trash. I could say that about the forest trap too. Romans pooorly led and spread out and greatly outnumbered. When the Romans lost they ussaully lost most of their men, Germanics lost great numbers and then fled in terror. Caesar was even surpriesed how they cannot fight once they get wounded even! This is the truth from Caesar(who fought them many times) , Marius, Narses who was so outnumbered that it would seem school boys could have beaten him. That is the numbers not your excuses for German losses. Another angle: Huns easily defeated the German tribes(late Roman period...so maybe they were in decline too? Maybe they still had poor leadership? I am sure they outnumbered the Huns too.) ,the Huns were easily defeated bt the Chinese( Huns when west for easy pickings), Huns defeated eventauly by Roman and German force. Obviosly this could not be done without the Romans, who by that time were not much of a fighting force.

 

The general rule is I think that a well led Roman army would probably defeat anything the Germanics could throw at them, a good example is the Roman/Byzantine reconquests in which the Vandals and Ostrogoths were defeated by small but extremely well led Roman armies. There are also many examples of superior Roman tactics overcoming Germanic numerical superiority, however as the Roman army slowly decayed the Germanic army advanced and the balance was broken.

 

I still strongly believe however that the Roman legions were so superior to the the Germanic armies and that view is justified in the various examples ive pointed out, even when in dire crisis the Romans were able to defeat and expel the Germans. Also had the Germans been superior the Roman empire would surely not have survived as long as it did.

How about Marius: The great battle of Aquae Sextiae (near modern Aix-en-Provence), that Marius destroyed an vast barbarian army of Teutones and Ambrones. The defeat of the invaders was assured when Consul Q. Lutatius Catulus and his subordinate, Sulla, fought and won battles at Vercellae in 101. The invading armies were so reduced that it would be two generations before they again seriously troubled Rome. Sulla's contribution to Catulus' victory had been critical. There was an obvious alienation between the three men as to who could claim credit for the victory, although Marius agreed to celebrate a joint triumph with Catulus.

 

As for Caesar not fighting against the Germans that was the main reason he went To Gaul to aid them against the German tribes! Before him his uncle Marius stopped the Cimbri and Tuetones cold as they attempted to do the following. He was outnumbered by such great odds.

Caesar fought aginst the Belgae,Nevii,Usiptes,tenteri and many,many more tribes. This is all in the 'Gallic Wars'

Caears soldiers new the numbers against them were so great that Caesar himself had to stop his men from mutiny reminding them how Gaius easily defeated the German tribes being greatly outnumberd too.

While in Italy, Caesar learned that the Belgae had invited two German tribes, the Usipetes and Tencteri, to cross the Rhine into northern Gaul in numbers supposedly comprising 430,000. They intended to ally with the Belgae. When Caesar confronted the tribal leaders, they told him they had been forced to cross the Rhine against their will. Caesar ordered them to return and they asked for a series of delays in which to consult with the Ubii, into whose territory they had been ordered.

Caption:

In spite of a truce, as the two armies were drawn up in negotiations, German cavalry attacked Caesar's horsemen and gave him an excuse for a ruse of extraordinary cunning and treachery. The next day, the German leadership came in a body to Caesar to apologize for breaking the truce. Caesar put the lot under guard and raced with his army to the German position eight miles away. The Germans, leaderless and completely surprised, soon broke. The Romans chased tens of thousands of them back towards the junction of the Meuse and the Rhine. Many were killed; many, attempting to swim the river, drowned. It was an absolute, effective and inglorious victory, later much criticized by Caesar's enemies in Rome.

I can go on and on citing records of many Roman victories by many others,it gets pointless. The Germans were stopped cold many times trying to wreck either Gaul or Rome. They only succeeded if you can call it that through mass migrations while Rome was really no more. The problem I have is some aryan historians paint the Germans(tacitus also, who most know just fabricates) stating that the Geramn tribes were so fierce. I say the numbers tell a story of such great numbers could not do much against the Romans or te Huns. To me it just seems impossible for them to lose given their numbers but their lack of fighting skills has to be looked into not their myths. If you wanta fierce Roman foe, look to the Iberians or Dacians or Parthians. Th

The Dacians(thracian origin) kept the Germans and Scythians at bay for a long time until the Romans weakened them. The Iberians must have fought well given their lack of numbers and giving the Romans much difficulty. I am just amused why some just do not undersatnd the advantage numbers play in hand to hand combat. Yes leadership and discipline matter but anyone who knows fencing or knife fighting techniques that being outnumberd by even one is difficult or impossible. The numerics of the German tribes prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were clods at hand to hand. Or you can just read what the Aryan historians would like you to believe and shine each others boots

[Tobias]

Er, Trajen 777, what was the point of that?

 

I'll come up with a comprehensive reply to you soon Arvioustus