Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
33
Well, reaction time is important, but Armor doesn't really slow one down, I can sprint in Chainmail if I have to, I'll wear out faster, and move somewhat slower, sure, but in battle I won't be sprinting - the key is endurance, being able to hold out and kill in close quarters as long as possible.
Aetius had a high emphasis on ambush, surprise attack, and aggressive Action. He seems to have been willing to take risks, unlike most commanders of the time who would try to starve the enemy out, or cut them off from their target or line of retreat. Aetius likely did that too, but he used Roman troops in more unconventional ways, minimizing his own casualties while maximizing enemy casualties. He could commit fewer troops in an ambush than a pitched battle, and his own troops would be better experienced to counter barbarian ambushes. He was quick and willing to adapt to a changing time.
Posts: 22
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation:
0
True stamina is quite important. And the historical info on rome that i have read show a large scale regular drilling in its ranks so i do belive they would have a higher stamina when in armour and on the march. I know my gear in the army was roughly 90 pounds and my weapon depending on what i was using could be up to another 30 pounds with ammo. So i understand stamina. And doing the local ohio ren faire in armour if strenuous even for myself due to all the gear i had. And i know night ambushed in afganistan worked quite effectively. So yes light armoured for ambushing would be very effective.
Posts: 97
Threads: 26
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation:
0
I think the Roman army at its strongest was at the Tetcharchy-Constantine. Rome just got out of the 3rd Century Crisis and major reforms and troops had way more fighting experience. Gallienus made major cavalry reforms, cavalry now comprised of many units of Cataphracts and Light Dalmatian cavalry ready respond any Imperial threat. Battles show Constantine very capable of maneuvering with his light cavalry and shock actions with his heavy cavalry.
The Constantine Roman Legion was probally more experienced than the typical Trajan Legionaire. They were probally very fanatical under the religious inspiration of Constantine. The Roman army totaled 500,000 troops almost 3 times the size of Augustus.
I think the high water mark was not military reform but gradual civil war and corruption lead to localism. Roman border troops are no means bad quality. In 350s they defended an attack from the Persians alone without any Field army support. The high water mark when the Roman army declined in Constantius-Magnetus War and Julian's Invasion of Persia. Battle of Strasbourg and Battle of Adrianople were basically second tier troops.
Can someone explain why the Adrianople numbers were so small? The Roman army was a total of 500,000, so a field army was about 100,000. Most of the East's field army was in Persian border, Valens had to quickly go back. The only armies in the area was 60,000 Army of Thrace. How many did the West have compared to East total?
If Valens waited for Gratian maybye he would have 80,000. Why did he attack with only 15,000 army? Were the attacking on different sections on the Rhine besides Adrianople?
Posts: 539
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
8
Quote:.............. Gallienus made major cavalry reforms, cavalry now comprised of many units of Cataphracts and Light Dalmatian cavalry ready respond any Imperial threat.................
Ahhh - the 'reforms of Gallienus'.....
Evidence? I'd love to see some if you've found any?
Equally 'many units of Cataphractarii'?
Posts: 791
Threads: 23
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
5
There is no evidence that the Roman army was any worse upto the time of Adrianople than it had been in previous centuries.
Perhaps the truth about Adrianople is that Valens actually did not expect to fight a battle that day, instead he did as Fritigern had asked in the 'ssecret letter' sent the night before i.e. turn up at the Gothic encampment in full battle array, negotiate peace terms and then return back to Adrianople before darkness fell. This may be the reason why Valens did not take the baggage train.
The army Theodosius commanded by necessity had to rely on an influx of Gothic troops as two thirds of the Eastern army no longer existed, having either been killed or deserted at Adrianople itself.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Posts: 587
Threads: 15
Joined: May 2011
Reputation:
0
[/quote]If Valens waited for Gratian maybye he would have 80,000. Why did he attack with only 15,000 army? Were the attacking on different sections on the Rhine besides Adrianople?[/quote]
Well Andi there is many things in your post that seems to me highly controversial.But I will focus only on your last questions.
1-All numbers are highly speculative.We dont know how many soldiers Valens have(so number of 15 000 is irellevant)as well we dont know how many reinforments were on their way with Gratianus.
2-No they were not attacking on thedifferent sections on the Rhine besides Adrianople because Rhine is western Europian river and actions of this campaign would have take place around Danube river and Balkan area.
3-It is unknown why Valens decided not to wait on Gratian.Most prabably because he believed to false report about barbarian army strenght(reported much smaller then it really was)and dont want to share glory from victory with his western colleague and nephew Gratianus who already scored some notable successes while fighting barbarians in the field.Valentinianus although older and senior in rank lacked such victory and is reported to be jealous on his young nephew.
Posts: 587
Threads: 15
Joined: May 2011
Reputation:
0
Quote:If Valens waited for Gratian maybye he would have 80,000. Why did he attack with only 15,000 army? Were the attacking on different sections on the Rhine besides Adrianople?
Well Andy, there is many things in your post that seems to me highly controversial.But I will focus only on your last questions.
1-All numbers are highly speculative.We dont know how many soldiers Valens have(so number of 15 000 is irellevant)as well we dont know how many reinforments were on their way with Gratianus.
2-No they were not attacking on the different sections on the Rhine besides Adrianople because Rhine is western Europian river and actions of this campaign would have take place around Danube river and Balkan area.
3-It is unknown why Valens decided not to wait on Gratian.Most prabably because he believed to false report about barbarian army strenght(reported much smaller then it really was)and dont want to share glory from victory with his western colleague and nephew Gratianus who already scored some notable successes while fighting barbarians in the field.Valentinianus although older and senior in rank lacked such victory and is reported to be jealous on his young nephew.
Posts: 712
Threads: 13
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
46
Andy wrote:
Quote:If Valens waited for Gratian maybye he would have 80,000. Why did he attack with only 15,000 army? Were the attacking on different sections on the Rhine besides Adrianople?
Probably bad scouting & intelligence by Valens or his generals led to belief that Goths had split their forces & an opportunity to destroy part of Fritigern's army while Alatheus & Safrax's cavalry was scattered & foraging presented itself. Otto J. Meanchen-Helfen in his book “The World of the Huns" thinks that had the Gothic/Alan cavalry not returned just in time the Visigoths in all probability would have been defeated, if not annihilated. So Valens probably attacked in the expectation of victory, even with a small army but not counting on timely return of Gothic cavalry hitting Roman infantry in flank while engaged, throwing them into confusion, then into panic, and then turning into a massacre. As to whether Valens wanting to claim glory for himself & not share it with Gratian or whether it was a purely military decision to attack one part of a divided enemy I think later Christian writers despised Valens for being an Arian & a heretic so they would inevitably blame his decisions for the catastrophe & question why he made them whether out of jealousy or vanity. Also survivors of battle like his Sarmatian general Victor would obviously lay the blame on Valens. If he had defeated the Visigoths while separated from the main cavalry force then come to some arrangement with remainder then Late Roman history could have been different, but I doubt it.
In answer to your second question Maenchen-Helfen isn't sure whether Gratian could have arrived in time to participate in battle as he had problems of his own with tribal groups along Danube in Pannonia as the Goths were not alone in being pressured by the Huns. Maenchen-Helfen also criticizes Gratian over his frivolous wish to present himself to Valens as the victor over mighty barbarians in the West which delayed his march for nearly a month. After delaying at Sirmium for 4 days following a series of forced marches, he crossed the river downstream to Castra Martis where according to Ammianus he was unexpectedly attacked by Alans (Pannonian Alans) & he lost a few of his followers. This was around middle of July so depending on his losses & the time needed to suppress or make peace with Pannonian Alans to protect his rear, whether he could have got to Adrianople around August 9th is debatable.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Posts: 97
Threads: 26
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation:
0
Sorry I meant Danube.
Valens had Army of Thrace in 3 armies each 20,000. So that gives Valens a total of 60,000 troops. He got reports of 10,000 at Adrianople. So he spread his 60,000 force out to meet unknown attacks across the Danube and choose a 15,000 army to meet the 10,000 Goths at Adrianople.
Posts: 97
Threads: 26
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation:
0
I think Ammianus reports the Roman army "lost their substance" in the mid 4th century.
Posts: 587
Threads: 15
Joined: May 2011
Reputation:
0
Quote:I think Ammianus reports the Roman army "lost their substance" in the mid 4th century.
Ammianus was a Roman soldier himself but he was also great admirer of past days of glorious armies and commander he had read much about from the works of various ancient historians.There is no doubt that army of his day was significantly different in some things and not always for good but possible Ammianus lamentation is partially also due to the same behavior like if even today older people say :"It is not what it used to be,everything was better then when I was younger,men were real men,woman were...etc :wink:
Also,Andy you still insist on those definitive numbers but you are missing important fact that this is only paper strenght and real army numbers then(as well as now)almost never correspond to reality.
Well I don't have any actual example in my hand now but I could state for example case of some legion during Caesar's civil war.If we would look at it as you do it then typical legion during caesar had more then 4000 fighting personnel but this legion in reality had fewer then 1000 after undergone some hard campaigning before.We have plenty of other evidence both in ancient records as well as by archeology that real manpower useble for combat(from various reasons not only after undergone fighting) was often if not always quite two different things and from this reason you should not take such a paper strenght literally.
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
79
Quote:[quote="Maurits Huijbrechtse " post=345808]Until the desastrous battles of Adrianople and Frigidus, the majority of the late roman soldiers were roman citizens, too. I doubt, german romans, african romans or syrian romans were worse soldiers than italian romans. The pannonian romans even claimed to be the best romans ever.
Actually I've read that the infantry from Gaul was highly appraised during the mid-4th century, and considered far superior to the infantry from the Syrian provinces.
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
79
Quote:It depends on actually what you mean for 'the Romans recovered'.
The Eastern Romans recovered for sure because the Goths had suffered the main part of the casualties during the first day of battle, while the Western Roman Army was permanentely destroied, because nobody can think that in the V century you can recover from a huge defeat in a battle in which you have deployed 34.000 or 50.0000 men.
The names of the units quoted in the Notitia, after Frigidus, are only names written on the paper, the reality is that after Frigidus the West had no more a full working professional army.
Although I can agree with the opinion that Frigidus was the deathblow to the Western Roman army, I have to disagree with the rest.
The Western army was by no means destroyed, but the best units were removed into the Eastern army. That way, Theodosius both made good the losss suffered at Adrianoplle, but he also removed to flower of the Western army to deny any more rebelling (remember he had just defeated Magnus maximus in 388).
I disagree that the West had "no more a full working professional", or that the "names of the units quoted in the Notitia, after Frigidus, are only names written on the paper". I look forward to seeing evidence for that. I think that the West did have an army, but that Stilicho squandered that in a useless conflict with the East.
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
33
Quote:Although I can agree with the opinion that Frigidus was the deathblow to the Western Roman army, I have to disagree with the rest.
The Western army was by no means destroyed, but the best units were removed into the Eastern army. That way, Theodosius both made good the losss suffered at Adrianoplle, but he also removed to flower of the Western army to deny any more rebelling (remember he had just defeated Magnus maximus in 388).
I disagree that the West had "no more a full working professional", or that the "names of the units quoted in the Notitia, after Frigidus, are only names written on the paper". I look forward to seeing evidence for that. I think that the West did have an army, but that Stilicho squandered that in a useless conflict with the East.
I disagree that Frigidus was the deathblow. The cuts of 40,000 men from the fall of Africa was the deathblow.
The elite units certainly were withdrawn to the east to deter future usurpers, but they were replaced. We have tons of edits to the Notitia where units were shifted around or new elite troops were created.
Posts: 168
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation:
0
Quote:I disagree that the West had "no more a full working professional", or that the "names of the units quoted in the Notitia, after Frigidus, are only names written on the paper". I look forward to seeing evidence for that. I think that the West did have an army, but that Stilicho squandered that in a useless conflict with the East.
Well, only looking in your timeline, what happened in year 406 is something more than an evidence .... what the germanic invaders found or better did not find in Spain,it is something more than an evidence, in my opinion.
Look, reading the Notitia, In Spain there should have been 11 Auxilia Palatina and 5 legiones comitatenses under a Comes Hispaniarum, even half of this force probably would have been able to stop any invasion, so probably this force actually existed but sadly, ...... only on the paper.
|
