11-18-2013, 08:21 PM
My point is this...if the Romans were so capable of drawing those numbers why not at Adrianople? Obviously because border troops are incapble of mobilization on mass and often deserted and Valens' Comiatenses was in Persia/Armenian border. Valens had to run back and get as many troops as possible and not all them top tier for mobilization.
My main question is this....when did Border troops along with Field armies get into this bad of shape? Ammianus reports how most of the troops at Adrianople were super tired, unreliable, and charged without orders and the defeat was almost predictable. Compared that to the troops of Constantine who were super agressive and fanatical at the Battle of Chrysopoplis.
Speaking about army sizes...what was the total numbers of Trajan's invasion of Dacia and Persia? And Severus' in Persia?
About Roman cavalry, their role seems to be almost the same, for light attacks and skirmishing as proven in Aurlian's campaigns. Their main difference was strategic as 1/3 of regiments were now cavalry. Cataphracts don't seem to have a huge preformance difference, as they are often slow and prone to get attacked from sides from infanrtry. How does Roman cavalry compare to the Germanic and Sarmatian Foderetii? Sarmatian soldiers seem to be already in the army since Hadrian. Did they loose their horseriding ablity when they gained citizenship?
My main question is this....when did Border troops along with Field armies get into this bad of shape? Ammianus reports how most of the troops at Adrianople were super tired, unreliable, and charged without orders and the defeat was almost predictable. Compared that to the troops of Constantine who were super agressive and fanatical at the Battle of Chrysopoplis.
Speaking about army sizes...what was the total numbers of Trajan's invasion of Dacia and Persia? And Severus' in Persia?
About Roman cavalry, their role seems to be almost the same, for light attacks and skirmishing as proven in Aurlian's campaigns. Their main difference was strategic as 1/3 of regiments were now cavalry. Cataphracts don't seem to have a huge preformance difference, as they are often slow and prone to get attacked from sides from infanrtry. How does Roman cavalry compare to the Germanic and Sarmatian Foderetii? Sarmatian soldiers seem to be already in the army since Hadrian. Did they loose their horseriding ablity when they gained citizenship?
