02-23-2013, 05:06 AM
Daniel Gazda in his "Adrianople - Frigidus" mentions (he wrote that he based on Ammianus Marcellinus in this case - I have no time to check this on my own at the moment by looking through Ammianus) that the Greuthungi included 3,000 - 4,000 "heavy" cavalry and 500 - 1,000 light cavalry (horse archers).
But - as a matter of fact - Greuthungi (contrary to Thervingi) lived in the steppes.
And as steppe people, they rather certainly relied on cavalry mostly.
I know that there are accounts which say that they had also infantry (according to some accounts they had "more infantry than the Vandals" - but this alone tells us nothing, because we don't know how many infantry the Vandals had). But the fact that the Greuthungi armies - in general - used infantry, does not mean that their infantry took part in this particular battle (Adrianople) or even was present in this area, at the time when the battle was fought. The Parthians also had infantry - and used large numbers of infantry in most battles - but at Carrhae the Parthian army was 100% cavalry. The same can be true regarding the Greuthungi at Adrianople, which is indirectly confirmed by fact that Ammianus mentions their cavalry, while not mentioning infantry when describing their army (if Gazda is correct).
This is true for the Thervingi - they came from agricultural society with pastoral elements (that lived to the north-east of the Danube). But the Greuthungi - who had their homeland more to the east than the Thervingi - were a pastoral / nomadic society, probably with agricultural elements.
=============================================
Edit:
Now I see why Gazda doesn't mention any Greuthungi infantry in the battle.
He assumes that those 500 - 1000 missile troops mentioned by Ammianus, were horse archers.
On the other hand, the Osprey book writes that those 500 - 1000, were foot archers.
Anyway - they count as missile-oriented troops, so whether they were mounted or dismounted is not so important, as we are trying to establish the number of melee-oriented cavalry.
===============================================
Regarding the Huns:
There were 500 Huns according to Osprey's "Adrianople", and they were all horse archers. But according to this Osprey's book, it is doubtful whether the Huns actually took part in the battle, because they are only mentioned as present there after the battle, but no sources mention their participation in the battle itself. It is possible that they arrived to late to take part in combat. This fact is favourable for my point of view, that missile troops did not play the decisive role in defeating the Romans.
=======================================
According to wikipedia article about the battle of the Milvian Bridge, this is what happened:
"Maxentius' Praetorian Guard seem to have made a stubborn stand on the northern bank of the river."
And yet the frieze shows this fiercely resisting infantry getting smashed and trampled by horses.
Why do you assume that it is propaganda?
Then I will claim that all accounts which say how infantry easily defeat cavalry are also propaganda.
I really don't think that labelling sources which proof something that we don't like as "propaganda" will help us to establish the truth. One can deny everything which they don't like using this method.
It is easy to label any source that we for some reason don't like as "propaganda". But much harder is to prove that it really is propaganda. Credibility of any source can be "undermined" this way.
But do you have any single proof that this frieze is lying and not showing the reality?
=====================
Hi Nathan,
The Osprey's "Adrianople" claims that it shows heavy cavalry supported by horse archers smashing the Praetorian Guard. But maybe you are right and this Osprey's book is wrong. Anyway - we can clearly see hooves of horses trampling down men (whether they are infantry or "forcefully dismounted" cavalry whose horses already drowned in the river, is of secondary importance - what is important is that horses are trampling these men, while I remember that someone in this thread claimed that a horse won't trample and run over even a lying man, not to mention standing or squatting ones).
But - as a matter of fact - Greuthungi (contrary to Thervingi) lived in the steppes.
And as steppe people, they rather certainly relied on cavalry mostly.
I know that there are accounts which say that they had also infantry (according to some accounts they had "more infantry than the Vandals" - but this alone tells us nothing, because we don't know how many infantry the Vandals had). But the fact that the Greuthungi armies - in general - used infantry, does not mean that their infantry took part in this particular battle (Adrianople) or even was present in this area, at the time when the battle was fought. The Parthians also had infantry - and used large numbers of infantry in most battles - but at Carrhae the Parthian army was 100% cavalry. The same can be true regarding the Greuthungi at Adrianople, which is indirectly confirmed by fact that Ammianus mentions their cavalry, while not mentioning infantry when describing their army (if Gazda is correct).
Quote:The Goths came from an agricultural society, probably with pastoral elements.
This is true for the Thervingi - they came from agricultural society with pastoral elements (that lived to the north-east of the Danube). But the Greuthungi - who had their homeland more to the east than the Thervingi - were a pastoral / nomadic society, probably with agricultural elements.
=============================================
Edit:
Now I see why Gazda doesn't mention any Greuthungi infantry in the battle.
He assumes that those 500 - 1000 missile troops mentioned by Ammianus, were horse archers.
On the other hand, the Osprey book writes that those 500 - 1000, were foot archers.
Anyway - they count as missile-oriented troops, so whether they were mounted or dismounted is not so important, as we are trying to establish the number of melee-oriented cavalry.
===============================================
Regarding the Huns:
There were 500 Huns according to Osprey's "Adrianople", and they were all horse archers. But according to this Osprey's book, it is doubtful whether the Huns actually took part in the battle, because they are only mentioned as present there after the battle, but no sources mention their participation in the battle itself. It is possible that they arrived to late to take part in combat. This fact is favourable for my point of view, that missile troops did not play the decisive role in defeating the Romans.
=======================================
Quote:Peter Wrote:Also check the info about the battle of Milvian Bridge I posted above.
A propaganda frieze?
An infantry formation can collapse for many reasons: caught while deploying, caught while retreating, outflanked, etc. Unless we know what happened, we don't know what this shows.
According to wikipedia article about the battle of the Milvian Bridge, this is what happened:
"Maxentius' Praetorian Guard seem to have made a stubborn stand on the northern bank of the river."
And yet the frieze shows this fiercely resisting infantry getting smashed and trampled by horses.
Why do you assume that it is propaganda?
Then I will claim that all accounts which say how infantry easily defeat cavalry are also propaganda.
I really don't think that labelling sources which proof something that we don't like as "propaganda" will help us to establish the truth. One can deny everything which they don't like using this method.
It is easy to label any source that we for some reason don't like as "propaganda". But much harder is to prove that it really is propaganda. Credibility of any source can be "undermined" this way.
But do you have any single proof that this frieze is lying and not showing the reality?
=====================
Hi Nathan,
Quote:This scene actually shows Constantine's light cavalry and archers (including Moorish troops with arrows in their headbands) pursuing Maxentius' army across the broken bridge and driving them into the river. The Maxentian soldiers have horses in the water with them, and so probably represent the Equites Domini Nostri of the imperial guard.
It does not, therefore, represent a clash on the battlefield itself but during the rout that followed. However, the note from the panegyric I quoted earlier suggests that clibanarii were indeed trained to attack and break infantry formations.
The Osprey's "Adrianople" claims that it shows heavy cavalry supported by horse archers smashing the Praetorian Guard. But maybe you are right and this Osprey's book is wrong. Anyway - we can clearly see hooves of horses trampling down men (whether they are infantry or "forcefully dismounted" cavalry whose horses already drowned in the river, is of secondary importance - what is important is that horses are trampling these men, while I remember that someone in this thread claimed that a horse won't trample and run over even a lying man, not to mention standing or squatting ones).
