Posts: 111
Threads: 43
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation:
0
Some authors on this subject state that the army there consisted of 40,000 men but other put the figure at closer to about 15,000 based on the 20 or so units that are named. If the 15,000 is correct why would the battle have been such a turning point? That loss would be no more damaging than the loss of Varus' legions. Is it possible that the 20 units were only the ones that happened to be mentioned by the ancient sources and that other units were also involved? Does the original text imply any additional units?
thanks,
Jeff
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
79
Agreed. If 'only' 15.000 were present, why would Ammianus Marcellinus make such a fuss about it?
Posts: 419
Threads: 159
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
11
Ave Civitas,
I have heard the range of numbers too (though I don't know the numbers off the top of my head. My assumption was that it was
1. because the Emperor was lost.
2. because Valens was preparing an invasion of Persia, I assume Persia was preparing for a defense, so Rome could not pull any more troops from the east to save their bacon in Thrace.
3. because it makes good reading, just like the headlines today. Panic! Panic!
Just my guesses.
Me.
AKA Tom Chelmowski
Historiae Eruditere (if that is proper Latin)
