the vandalic war

[elagababbalus]

I am just reading Procopius's The Vandalic War and Ihave two questions I am hoping someone could shed a light on please.

Firstly, Procopius notes that all the Byzantine Court was full of fear about the likely success of the war but in eventuality it proved a walkover. Why did the Vandals, who conquered it from the Romans in the first instance prove so easy to beat? Procopius doesnt give any real reasons other than to imply most of the locals didnt like them due to religious reasons and perhaps that they, the Vandals had gone soft.

Second question, in the major battle that decided the campaign Gelimer the leader of the Vandals and his lieutenant Tzazon order the soldiers only to use their swords. Procopius doesnt say why, what advantage is there in only using swords instead of spears?

Thanks

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

I am just reading Procopius's The Vandalic War and Ihave two questions I am hoping someone could shed a light on please.

Firstly, Procopius notes that all the Byzantine Court was full of fear about the likely success of the war but in eventuality it proved a walkover. Why did the Vandals, who conquered it from the Romans in the first instance prove so easy to beat? Procopius doesnt give any real reasons other than to imply most of the locals didnt like them due to religious reasons and perhaps that they, the Vandals had gone soft.

Well there was Gelimer's overthrow of Hilderic and the instability that sort of thing would entail, but Gelimer quickly made a lot of enemies by using a Roman-trained secretary named Bonifatius to seize the assets and property of his political opponents. There were revolts in Sardinia and Tripoli almost simultaneously by Goddas and Pudentius, both of whom appealed to Justinian for aid. Gelimer had a lot of other things to deal with at the time and was still in the process of mobilizing his troops once Belisarius had landed.

But the Vandal conquest of North Africa was due in large part to the Western Empire's inability to defend itself. Nobody even put up a fight when they took Carthage in 439. The Vandals were never really a proficient war machine, they had success raiding poorly defended Mediterranean settlements that hadn't seen warfare in centuries, but fared poorly in pitched battles against trained armies. They were beaten badly by the Huns, Goths and later the Franks before migrating south.
Come to think of it, the list of famous battles involving the Vandals where they actually won is quite short. They even managed to lose a battle in the Peloponnese against the Maniots, strange as it sounds.

[Robert Vermaat]

Why did the Vandals, who conquered it from the Romans in the first instance prove so easy to beat? Procopius doesnt give any real reasons other than to imply most of the locals didnt like them due to religious reasons and perhaps that they, the Vandals had gone soft.

Oh, he does.
First of all, the Roman were more lucky than they had been before. During the first battle od Ad Decimum, Belisarius could have lost, but his forces a) encountered (and beat) the Vandals piecemeal, and b) when Gelimer routed the Roman federates he halted when he noticed the body of his brother Ammatus, losing the surprise element that allowed Belisarius to win.
Second, the Romans seem to have had better commanders who worked together (this ended during the conquest of Italy, with bad results).
Third, the Vandals had overextended themselves in a fruitless reconquest of Sardinia (which they hardly needed), meaning many troops and ships were actually gone when Belisarius landed.

Second question, in the major battle that decided the campaign Gelimer the leader of the Vandals and his lieutenant Tzazon order the soldiers only to use their swords. Procopius doesnt say why, what advantage is there in only using swords instead of spears?

No idea. Honour? Ian Hughes proposed that it was a tactic to enhance moral and to encourage close combat, diminishing the effect of the Roman missile barrage.

[sonic]

Second question, in the major battle that decided the campaign Gelimer the leader of the Vandals and his lieutenant Tzazon order the soldiers only to use their swords. Procopius doesnt say why, what advantage is there in only using swords instead of spears?

No idea. Honour? Ian Hughes proposed that it was a tactic to enhance moral and to encourage close combat, diminishing the effect of the Roman missile barrage.

True! :wink: People sometimes forget that spears can be, and often were, thrown. Therefore, in the heat of battle there was the possibility of a missile exchange in which the Vandals would almost certainly come out second best. By ordering the Vandals to use only their swords, Gelimer ensured that there would be no such exchange of missiles. It also meant that the Vandals had to close with the enemy as quickly as possible, the result being that the Vandals would then be exposed to missile fire for the shortest possible time.

Additionally, it would mean that all of the Vandals should charge at the earliest opportunity, so increasing the morale of the troops attacking: if the majority of the army launched an attack, it would encourage the 'less-willing' to do the same.

[Lessa]

maybe is the wrong topic to place this question, but i wonder...how did vandals look like?

[S SEVERUS]

Thrasamund (450-523), King of the Vandals and Alans (496-523), was the fourth king of the north African Kingdom of the Vandals, and reigned longer than any other Vandal king in Africa other than his grandfather, Geiseric.
He has usually been portrayed as an ineffectual ruler. Under his leadership, the Vandal kingdom appears to have continued a decline which began with Geiseric's death, and lost control of nearly all of modern Algeria to the Berbers. In the final year of his reign, the important port city of Leptis Magna was sacked by the Berbers, giving further evidence of the Vandals' weakness.
On the other hand, he seems to have maintained a firm grip on the heartland of the Vandal kingdom, which consisted of modern Tunisia and eastern Algeria. He also ended many years of persecution of the Catholics, which had begun under his uncle Huneric, a move which improved the Vandals' relations with the Byzantine Empire.
But after him the Vandals returned to arianism...
Like the Ostrogoths, the Vandals didn't create a uniform state with but they stayen an aritocratic minority in their country. Continuing troubles with Berbers, dwindling military strength and their sending away maby warriors at the time of the Byzantine landing made them an easy target.


List of kings
Godigisel (—407) Gunderic (407–428) Geiseric (428–477) Huneric (477–484) Gunthamund (484–496) Thrasamund (496–523) Hilderic (523–530) Gelimer (530–534)

[taira1180]

I am just reading Procopius's The Vandalic War and Ihave two questions I am hoping someone could shed a light on please.

Firstly, Procopius notes that all the Byzantine Court was full of fear about the likely success of the war but in eventuality it proved a walkover. Why did the Vandals, who conquered it from the Romans in the first instance prove so easy to beat? Procopius doesnt give any real reasons other than to imply most of the locals didnt like them due to religious reasons and perhaps that they, the Vandals had gone soft.

Well there was Gelimer's overthrow of Hilderic and the instability that sort of thing would entail, but Gelimer quickly made a lot of enemies by using a Roman-trained secretary named Bonifatius to seize the assets and property of his political opponents. There were revolts in Sardinia and Tripoli almost simultaneously by Goddas and Pudentius, both of whom appealed to Justinian for aid. Gelimer had a lot of other things to deal with at the time and was still in the process of mobilizing his troops once Belisarius had landed.

But the Vandal conquest of North Africa was due in large part to the Western Empire's inability to defend itself. Nobody even put up a fight when they took Carthage in 439. The Vandals were never really a proficient war machine, they had success raiding poorly defended Mediterranean settlements that hadn't seen warfare in centuries, but fared poorly in pitched battles against trained armies. They were beaten badly by the Huns, Goths and later the Franks before migrating south.
Come to think of it, the list of famous battles involving the Vandals where they actually won is quite short. They even managed to lose a battle in the Peloponnese against the Maniots, strange as it sounds.

The vandals win a battle against the suevi in the Iberian Peninsula, but everyone could win against the suevi in the V century, except the local roman militias who were usually non existant...