Battle of Adrianople

[Jaanbaz]

Battle of Adrianople

Battle: Adrianople
Date: 9 August 378
Winner: Fritigern, Visigoths
Loser: Valens, Romans (Eastern Empire)

Bad intelligence gathering and the unwarranted confidence of Emperor Valens (A.D. c. 328 - A.D. 378) led to the worst Roman defeat since Hannibal's victory at the Battle of Cannae. On August 9, A.D. 378, Valens was killed and his army lost to an army of Goths led by Fritigern, whom Valens had given permission only two years earlier to settle in Roman territory.

Division of Rome Into an Eastern Empire and a Western Empire
In 364, a year after the death of Julian, the apostate emperor, Valens was made co-emperor with his brother Valentinian. They chose to split the territory, with Valentinian taking the West and Valens the East -- a division that was to continue. (Three years later Valentinian conferred the rank of co-Augustus on his young son Gratian who would take over as emperor in the West in 375 when his father died with his infant half-brother, Gratian, co-emperor, but only in name.) Valentinian had had a successful military career prior to being elected emperor, but Valens, who had only joined the military in the 360s, had not.

Valens Tries to Reclaim Land Lost to the Persians
Since his predecessor had lost eastern territory to the Persians (5 provinces on the eastern side of the Tigris, various forts and the cities of Nisibis, Singara and Castra Maurorum), Valens set out to reclaim it, but revolts within the Eastern Empire kept him from completing his plans. One of the revolts was caused by the usurper Procopius, a relative of the last of the line of Constantine, Julian. Because of a claimed relationship with the family of the still popular Constantine, Procopius persuaded many of Valens' troops to defect, but in 366, Valens defeated Procopius and sent his head to his brother Valentinian.

Valens Makes a Treaty With the Goths
The Tervingi Goths led by their king Athanaric had planned to attack Valens' territory, but when they learned of Procopius' plans, they became his allies, instead. Following his defeat of Procopius, Valens intended to attack the Goths, but was prevented, first by their flight, and then by a spring flood the next year. However, Valens persisted and defeated the Tervingi (and the Greuthungi, both Goths) in 369. They concluded a treaty quickly which allowed Valens to set to work on the still missing eastern (Persian) territory.

Trouble From the Goths and Huns
Unfortunately, troubles throughout the empire diverted his attention. In 374 he had deployed troops to the west and was faced with a military manpower shortage. In 375 the Huns pushed the Goths out of their homelands. The Greuthungi and Tervingi Goths appealed to Valens for a place to live. Valens, seeing this as an opportunity to increase his military, agreed to admit into Thrace those Goths who were led by their chieftain Fritigern, but not the other groups of Goths, including those led by Athanaric, who had conspired against him before. Those who were excluded followed Fritigern, anyway. Imperial troops, under the leadership of Lupicinus and Maximus, managed the immigration, but badly -- and with corruption. Jordanesexplains how the Roman officials took advantage of the Goths.

" (134) Soon famine and want came upon them, as often happens to a people not yet well settled in a country. Their princes and the leaders who ruled them in place of kings, that is Fritigern, Alatheus and Safrac, began to lament the plight of their army and begged Lupicinus and Maximus, the Roman commanders, to open a market. But to what will not the "cursed lust for gold" compel men to assent? The generals, swayed by avarice, sold them at a high price not only the flesh of sheep and oxen, but even the carcasses of dogs and unclean animals, so that a slave would be bartered for a loaf of bread or ten pounds of meat."
Jordanes
Driven to revolt, the Goths defeated the Roman military units in Thrace in 377.

In May 378, Valens aborted his eastern mission in order to deal with the uprising of Goths (aided by Huns and Alans). Their number, Valens was assured, was no more than 10,000.

"[W]hen the barbarians ... arrived within fifteen miles from the station of Nike, ... the emperor, with wanton impetuosity, resolved on attacking them instantly, because those who had been sent forward to reconnoiter -- what led to such a mistake is unknown -- affirmed that their entire body did not exceed ten thousand men."
- Ammianus Marcellinus: The Battle of Hadrianopolis​

By August 9, 378, Valens was outside of one of the cities named for the Roman emperor Hadrian, Adrianople*. There Valens pitched his camp, built palisades and waited for the Emperor Gratian (who had been fighting the Germanic Alamanni**) to arrive with the Gallic army. Meanwhile, ambassadors from the Gothic leader Fritigern arrived asking for a truce, but Valens didn't trust them, and so sent them back.
The historian Ammianus Marcellinus, source of the only detailed version of the battle, says some Roman princes advised Valens not to wait for Gratian, because if Gratian fought Valens would have to share the glory of victory. So on that August day Valens, thinking his troops more than equal to the reported troop numbers of the Goths, led the Roman imperial army into battle.

Roman and Gothic soldiers met each other in a crowded, confused, and very bloody line of battle.

"Our left wing had advanced actually up to the wagons, with the intent to push on still further if they were properly supported; but they were deserted by the rest of the cavalry, and so pressed upon by the superior numbers of the enemy, that they were overwhelmed and beaten down.... And by this time such clouds of dust arose that it was scarcely possible to see the sky, which resounded with horrible cries; and in consequence, the darts, which were bearing death on every side, reached their mark, and fell with deadly effect, because no one could see them beforehand so as to guard against them."
- Ammianus Marcellinus: The Battle of HadrianopolisAmid the fighting, an additional contingent of Gothic troops arrived, far outnumbering the distressed Roman troops. Gothic victory was assured.

Death of Valens
Two-thirds of the Eastern army were killed, according to Ammianus, putting an end to 16 divisions. Valens was among the casualties. While, like most of the details of the battle, the details of Valens' demise are not known with any certainty, it is thought that Valens was either killed towards the end of the battle or wounded, escaped to a nearby farm, and there was burned to death by Gothic marauders. A supposed survivor brought the story to the Romans.
So momentous and disastrous was the Battle of Adrianople that Ammianus Marcellinus called it "the beginning of evils for the Roman empire then and thereafter."

It is worth noting that this catastrophic Roman defeat occurred in the Eastern Empire. Despite this fact, and the fact that among the precipitating factors for the fall of Rome, barbarian invasions must rank very high, the fall of Rome, barely a century later, in A.D. 476, did not occur within the Eastern Empire.

The next emperor in the East was Theodosius I who conducted clean up operations for 3 years before concluding a peace treaty with the Goths. See Accession of Theodosius the Great.


The Battle of Adrianople (Hadrianopolis)

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Yes,militarily this battle marks the ascendance of the cavalry over infantry that had dominated the previous millenium under rome's legiosn.After adrianopole the barbarian tribes lost tehir fear of rome.Ironically the eastern roman imperial army lost the battle and the western roman empire felt the fallout.

But one thing is wrong,this wasn't the worst roman defeat since cannae.Arausio holds that honour in between.

 

[Jaanbaz]

Who Were Goths and where did they come from?
The term "Gothic" was used in the Renaissance to describe certain types of art (and architecture -- think gargoyles) in the Middle Ages, according to Shelley Esaak's Art History 101. This art was considered inferior, just as the Romans had held themselves superior to the barbarians. In the 18th century the term "Gothic" morphed into a genre of literature that had elements of horror.Esther Lombardi (Classic Literature Guide) describes the genre as "characterized by supernaturalism, melodrama, and sensationalism." In the late 20th century it morphed again into a style and subculture characterized by heavy eyeliner and all-black clothing.
Originally, the Goths were one of the barbarian horseback riding groups that caused trouble for the Roman Empire.

Ancient Source on the Goths - Herodotus
The ancient Greeks considered the Goths to be Scythians. The name Scythian is used in Herodotus (440 B.C.) to describe barbarians who lived on their horses north of the Black Sea and were probably not Goths. When the Goths came to live in the same area, they were considered to be Scythians because of their barbarian way of living. It is hard to know when the people we call Goths began to intrude on the Roman Empire. According to Michael Kulikowski, in Rome's Gothic Wars, the first "securely attested" Gothic raid took place in A.D. 238, when Goths sacked Histria. In 249 they attacked Marcianople. A year later, under their king Cniva, they sacked several Balkan cities. In 251, Cniva routed Emperor Decius at Abrittus. The raids continued and moved from the Black Sea to the Aegean where the historian Dexippus successfully defended a besieged Athens against them. He later wrote about the Gothic Wars in his Scythica. Although most of Dexippus is lost, the historian Zosimus had access to his historical writing. By the end of the 260s the Roman Empire was winning against the Goths.

Medieval Source on the Goths - Jordanes
The story of the Goths generally begins in Scandinavia, as is told by the historian Jordanes in his The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, chapter 4:" IV (25) Now from this island of Scandza, as from a hive of races or a womb of nations, the Goths are said to have come forth long ago under their king, Berig by name. As soon as they disembarked from their ships and set foot on the land, they straightway gave their name to the place. And even to-day it is said to be called Gothiscandza. (26) Soon they moved from here to the abodes of the Ulmerugi, who then dwelt on the shores of Ocean, where they pitched camp, joined battle with them and drove them from their homes. Then they subdued their neighbors, the Vandals, and thus added to their victories. But when the number of the people increased greatly and Filimer, son of Gadaric, reigned as king--about the fifth since Berig--he decided that the army of the Goths with their families should move from that region. (27) In search of suitable homes and pleasant places they came to the land of Scythia, called Oium in that tongue. Here they were delighted with the great richness of the country, and it is said that when half the army had been brought over, the bridge whereby they had crossed the river fell in utter ruin, nor could anyone thereafter pass to or fro. For the place is said to be surrounded by quaking bogs and an encircling abyss, so that by this double obstacle nature has made it inaccessible. And even to-day one may hear in that neighborhood the lowing of cattle and may find traces of men, if we are to believe the stories of travellers, although we must grant that they hear these things from afar."

Germans and Goths
Michael Kulikowsi says the idea that the Goths were associated with the Scandinavians and therefore Germans had great appeal in the 19th century and was supported by the discovery of a linguistic relationship between the languages of the Goths and Germans. The idea that a language relationship implies an ethnic relationship was popular but doesn't bear out in practice. Kulikowski says the only evidence of a Gothic people from before the third century comes from Jordanes, whose word is suspect.

Kulikowski on the Problems of Using Jordanes
Jordanes wrote in the second half of the sixth century. He based his history on the no longer extant writing of a Roman nobleman named Cassiodorus whose work he had been asked to abridge. Jordanes did not have the history in front of him when he wrote, so how much was his own invention can't be ascertained. Much of Jordanes' writing has been rejected as too fanciful, but the Scandinavian origin has been accepted.

Kulikowski points to some of the far-fetched passages in Jordanes' history to say that Jordanes is unreliable. Where his reports are corroborated elsewhere, they can be used, but where there is no supporting evidence, we need other reasons for accepting. In the case of the so-called origins of the Goths, any supporting evidence comes from people using Jordanes as a source.

Kulikowski also objects to using archaeological evidence as support because artifacts moved around and were traded. In addition, archaeologists have based their attribution of Gothic artifacts to Jordanes.

So, if Kulikowski is right, we don't know where the Goths came from or where they were before their third century excursions into the Roman Empire.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

The origin of the goths is said to be the baltic island of gotland.They were mix scandinavian-german.They originally displaced the sarmatains in the steppes and took over their lands.However from the sarmatians these goths who were originally foot soldiers learned horsemanship.They learned the use of the stirrup,the long lance.The gothic cavalry that played a crucial role at adrianopole emerged from this.However the goths couldn't keep their mastery of the western steppes.They in turn were attacked and displaced by the huns.Fleeing from the huns,thats how they entered the roman empire.

 

[IND151]

Interesting article.

Good read.

 

[Declein]

Yes,militarily this battle marks the ascendance of the cavalry over infantry that had dominated the previous millenium under rome's legiosn.After adrianopole the barbarian tribes lost tehir fear of rome.Ironically the eastern roman imperial army lost the battle and the western roman empire felt the fallout.

But one thing is wrong,this wasn't the worst roman defeat since cannae.Arausio holds that honour in between.

No don't think so. If anything, it signals that the roman legions, in their imperial professional form were a thing of the past, not that they were surpassed in any way by cavalry.
If the Goths invaded just 1 and 1/2 century earlier I think they would have ended up crucified in some ditches along a minor roman road, cavalry or no cavalry.

 

[Jaanbaz]

The origin of the goths is said to be the baltic island of gotland.They were mix scandinavian-german.They originally displaced the sarmatains in the steppes and took over their lands.However from the sarmatians these goths who were originally foot soldiers learned horsemanship.They learned the use of the stirrup,the long lance.The gothic cavalry that played a crucial role at adrianopole emerged from this.However the goths couldn't keep their mastery of the western steppes.They in turn were attacked and displaced by the huns.Fleeing from the huns,thats how they entered the roman empire.

They were definitely belonging to the ''Germanic'' stock.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

No don't think so. If anything, it signals that the roman legions, in their imperial professional form were a thing of the past, not that they were surpassed in any way by cavalry.
If the Goths invaded just 1 and 1/2 century earlier I think they would have ended up crucified in some ditches along a minor roman road, cavalry or no cavalry.

I meant in a symbolic fashion.Indeed what u say that it marks the last gasp of the legions.But they were being inccreasingly surpassed by cavalry.The huns rampaged through europe with their cavalry hordes,infantry continued to be very relevant when fighting other infantry-but increasingly at a disadvantage against cavalry.See in the east byzantium's wars were now more and more decided by cataphracts.Belisarius used infantry as fodder.
As for 1.5 century earlier scenario i concur,roem at the peak of her power is near invincible.Cavalry wouldn't have made any difference.By this time legions were barbarized,slacking in discipline and no longer homogeneous nor enjoyed prestigious citizenship rewards after caracalla's 'reforms'.

They were definitely belonging to the ''Germanic'' stock.

They definitely were,but their origins may have been in scandinavia.

 

[Declein]

I meant in a symbolic fashion.Indeed what u say that it marks the last gasp of the legions.But they were being inccreasingly surpassed by cavalry.The huns rampaged through europe with their cavalry hordes,infantry continued to be very relevant when fighting other infantry-but increasingly at a disadvantage against cavalry.See in the east byzantium's wars were now more and more decided by cataphracts.Belisarius used infantry as fodder.
.

Yes, but that (the shift towards cavalry) was a cause of the decline of the roman legionnaire status & roman legion, not an innate superiority of the cavalry over infantry. Basically it meant that the later roman emperors used cataphracts not because they were superior, but because they could not replicate the combined weapons approach of their forefathers. The recruitment base for the legionaire wasn't there anymore, and that led to the rise of the cavalry as the main army branch

The Romans, in their imperial highday, did encounter plenty of cavalry, including cataphracts and horse archers, and they rarely posed a threat to the legions. (excluding Carrhae). The parthians were beaten to a bloody pulp more than once, so were the alans, sarmatians, persians, palmyrians, armenians...All used heavy cavalry and/or mounted archers. All lost time and time again.

More importantly, the romans themselves, after encountering heavy cavalry, never really bothered to incorporate them in the legions (with few specialized exceptions).This speaks volumes in itself, considering the speed with which they usually adopted "superior" tactics or weapons

This is worth a read for anyone : http://s_van_dorst.tripod.com/Ancient_Warfare/Rome/Sources/ektaxis.html , written by Arrian, it details from contemporary sources how the romans prepared to fight against a horse army. Combined arms at it's best, it's a very interesting insight on what the roman really was

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Yes, but that (the shift towards cavalry) was a cause of the decline of the roman legionnaire status & roman legion, not an innate superiority of the cavalry over infantry. Basically it meant that the later roman emperors used cataphracts not because they were superior, but because they could not replicate the combined weapons approach of their forefathers. The recruitment base for the legionaire wasn't there anymore, and that led to the rise of the cavalry as the main army branch

Agree more or less.
There was one more factor.Rome could no longer mobilize trained manpower like she used to.And now faced constant threats on multiple frontiers.They needed a mobile force which could fight constantly and move quickly.

Another factor when checking the infantry's relative effectiveness is that the germanic adversaries which were predominantly infantry that rome faced during late imperial times were no longer tribes of the republican or early imperial era like the celts of gaul and britain or ariminius's hotch potch confederations.These were super confederations of tribes which could mobilize much greater manpower and were much more militarily effective,many had been in contact with roman civilization for a time and had adopted many ideas.Many of their forces were armed with full mail armour (mail armour seems to have prolifereated greatly )unlike the earlier foes who were much less armoured like the gauls or cimbri who are described as naked or bare chested.Without armour and shield u are always going to be in trouble against legionaries.Also around this era i think the pilum had been abandoned,the pilum gave a great advantage in neutralizing the enemy shield in many cases-so this could have led to problems.
The increasing size,sophistication and power of the germanic confederations is apparent from the times of marcus auerlisu who even during rome's heyday and deploying the bulk of the legions had to employ all his energies for the entire later part of his life to crush the quadi and marcomanni.Could u possibly imagine mostly 2 german tribes -say suebi or ubii or cheruscii ,or a couple of gallic tribes cause this much problem for rome even when she was employing her full strength.
Last time 2 tribes caused such problems was against the cimbri and teutones,and that was before the marian legions,institutionalized cohort organization or augustus's imperial reforms,also rome's first serious conflict with germans.

 

[Declein]

Another factor when checking the infantry's relative effectiveness is that the germanic adversaries which were predominantly infantry that rome faced during late imperial times were no longer tribes of the republican or early imperial era like the celts of gaul and britain or ariminius's hotch potch confederations.These were super confederations of tribes which could mobilize much greater manpower and were much more militarily effective,many had been in contact with roman civilization for a time and had adopted many ideas.Many of their forces were armed with full mail armour (mail armour seems to have prolifereated greatly )unlike the earlier foes who were much less armoured like the gauls or cimbri who are described as naked or bare chested.Without armour and shield u are always going to be in trouble against legionaries.

I have seen this point being made before,but I'm not convinced...if it was more a case or bad timing for the roman empire, or the fact that the germans were more dangerous enemys..i've read a lot of pro/contra opinions on this

Edit; Austerlitz, I will continue this interesting debate later, I need to do some research before I post and unfortunately don't have the time right now