Infantry of Cavalry at Adrianople

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Hello
Regarding the Battle of Adrianople, there was a classic view that the Visigothic army consisted mainly of cavalry and ushered in a new era of cavalry supremacy. In other words Roman infantry was defeated by predominantly cavalry hordes.
I am now reading a book called "The Fall of the Roman Empire" by Arther Ferrell that states that this point of view is undergoing a revision - that is, that Fritigern's hordes mostly consisted of infantry, not cavalry, although there was a substantial presence of the latter as well in both armies.
This book was written about twenty years ago, so I am wondering if there is a consensus about this. I always had the impression that the Visigothic army was predominantly cavalry, but apparently scholars are taking a second look at this.
Does anyone have any information about this?

[Robert Vermaat]

I never had the impression that it was believed that the Gothic army was mainly cavalry. They had a cavalry component of Gothic and allied Alan/Hun cavalry, which returned at some point and destroyed the left flank with the element of surprise. However, that did not mean anything new. It has been suggested in the past that the Goths had stirrups which made them supreme, but that has been countered often enough as unproven. And never something about cavalry hordes, no.

If this book suggests that 20 years ago the view was that the Goths had mainly cavalry, that would surprise me a lot - the main sources certainly don't suggest so.

[Sean Manning]

Checking my copy of Oman (Art of War in the Middle Ages, Vol. 1 pp. 12-14) I see that he admits that most of the Gothic army was infantry although he avoids describing them to focus on the cavalry. Oman was the dean of the 19th to early 20th century school of English-speaking medieval military historians, and has been very influential, although it is now fashionable to dismiss him for his errors of interpretation. He was infected with the "rise of cavalry" idea, but even he doesn't try to claim the Gothic army was mostly cavalry. So if there is a problem, it probably didn't originate in detailed modern accounts of the battle.

The Romans at Adrianople were beaten because just as they were breaking into a wagon laager, the Alan and Gothic cavalry attacked them on the flank. This would have destroyed most armies, but the role of the cavalry got more press because it was dramatic and fit ideas about the rise of cavalry in the middle ages. This made it easy for people learning about the battle second-hand to forget about the infantry defending the laager, and I think this is the origin of misconceptions.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave
I have read a book that suggested that Adrianople ushered in a new era of cavalry supremacy by shattering the invincibility of Roman legion infantry. Maybe that's why I got the impression that Fritigern's army was predominantly cavalry. My ignorance there.

[Primitivus]

They had a cavalry component of Gothic and allied Alan/Hun cavalry, which returned at some point and destroyed the left flank with the element of surprise.

This has been understanding as I've read about the battle. It was more the element of surprise--the unanticipated return of the cavalry elements in time for the battle--than the presence of cavalry per se, which turned the tide in the battle.

[S SEVERUS]

And also the impatience of Valens and his generals to attack after a long march...etc :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

It was more the element of surprise--the unanticipated return of the cavalry elements in time for the battle--than the presence of cavalry per se, which turned the tide in the battle.

That of course (instead of waiting for Gratian), but especially the unwanted engagement of one of the flanks with the Gothic infantry which committed the Romans before the army had been properly deployed.

[Primitivus]

(instead of waiting for Gratian)

And here is the true heart of the issue. The vanity (stupidity) of an emperor...

[Robert Vermaat]

(instead of waiting for Gratian)

And here is the true heart of the issue. The vanity (stupidity) of an emperor...

We can be too harsh on the man. He was not a bad general, had survived a rebel who had left him almost without troops (Procopius, relative of Julian) as well as winning a war with Persia. Don't forget, emperors that were seen to hesitate, could easily be seen as cowards, and troops defected very easy as a result.

In fact, that's how Procopius lost, and it's also how Gratian met his end. It's also the main reason why Stilicho could not win his battles in a sound manner - his troops were too unreliable to go all the way. if your troops were disatisfied, that could mean the end.

At Adrianople, in my opinion it was the too hast engagement of the flank that meant the army never properly deployed.

[L C Cinna]

My opinion on this battle is that the cavalry was not the main or decisive part it was just a piece in the puzzle, the thing which finally screwed the Romans in the battle but it was nothing new or special about it.

The main problem was that the Roman army engaged too early and this cause confusion. The troops tried to storm the wagonlaager and lost coherence and structure. A lot of troops concentrated on very few spots. This made it easier for the Goths to fight because only a very limited number of Roman troops would face them at once, while the Roman troops pushed forward and made it impossible for the units in the front to propberly form up or retreat. In this aspect we have several similarities with Cannae, the Roman infantry was too tightly packed when they tried to push through the narrow entrances of the camp. Because one wing was engaged and it could not be left alone the rest was sent in. I guess by this time it was impossible for the commanders to effectively redirect and reorganize their troops as units got mixed up or were unable to manouver in a proper way.

When the Roman cavalry was surprised and fled the field this caused panic. The worst thing to happen if your army is already a mess and too tightly packed. As I said before I guess it was practically impossible for the commanders (generals and centuriones) to get an overview or some kind of control anymore as communication with the units and a reformation was impossible by now. Once the first units started to route you have even more mess and confusion and formations are messed up completely. At this time a cavalry attack is deadly.

[philsidnell]

I've added an attachment which gives my interpretation of what happened at Adrianople. I don't believe the attack of the Gothic cavalry was necessarily a surprise. Also, the Roman cavalry on the left wing gave a pretty good account of themselves. The idea of a cavalry revolution at Adrianople has indeed been grossly exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the cavalry (on both sides) played a very significant part.

Phil Sidnell

[Ron Andrea]

Michael Kulikowski in Rome's Gothic Wars (Cambridge, 2007) claims that, "Yet as so often happened in ancient battles, fighting began by accident, before either side was ready. Two unit of the elite scholae palatinae ... advanced prematurely and engaged the enemy. Their move disrupted the imperial line of battle...." (p. 142)

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Does anyone have any information about this?

The old Nineteenth Century idea that Adrianople represented some kind of epoch-making cavalry revolution and ushered in the medieval age of the heavy-armoured cavalryman was consigned to the trashcan by Thomas Burns' research on the battle back in the 1970s. It's now believed that, if anything, Valens had more cavalry than Fritigern.

I detail the evidence for why Adrianople was very much a victory of infantry over infantry in my article on the subject HERE. The sudden arrival of the Gothic allied cavalry was a key moment in the battle, but this was in no way a victory of cavalry over infantry.