Battle of Adrianople

[Xiahou]

I've read a bit about this lately, and there seems to be a lot of conflicting information- particularly in regards to the strengths of the opposing forces. So, I wanted to see if any Monastery posters had any useful insights or links that could shed more light on it.

Just to name a couple references: Wikipedia estimates the Roman forces at 15-30k and the Goth forces at 10-20k. I'm far from an expert on the matter, but it seems hard for me to believe that a crack, battle hardened Roman force would be so totally defeated by an inferior Goth force. Maybe someone will explain otherwise.

Another writeup I recently read was from Battles of the Ancient World. I believe they estimated the Roman force at 15k and the Goths at about 20k- almost half of which was their calvary which was off foraging/raiding only to return at a decisive point in the battle. This sounds a bit more reasonable to me- but I'm still not really sure.

Discuss.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

Peter Heather in "The Fall of the Roman Empire" puts forth a much more believable (imo) scenario.

The Goths crossed (with permission) the Danube in 376AD. The Romans granted this permission to the Tervingi Goths but denying passage to the Greuthungi Goths. Each of these groups could field around 10000 warriors. The available Roman forces on the Balkan were guarding the area opposite the Greuthung to prevent passage. However after the failed Roman attempt to assasinate the Tervingi leaders, the Goths were an enemy forces and the Roman forces were redeployed to contain them. This allowed the Greuthungi to cross the Danube and link (later on) with the Tervingi. The Goths now were able to field 20000 warriors. Valens was in the middle of a war with Persia and had to agree to a costly peace to face the Goths. Even so, he could not afford to leave the East defenceless so he could only spare around 15000 men from Armenia. He also contanted Gratian which promised and equally sized force. Between them, they would enjoy a comfortable 1.5:1 advantage. Gratian had started sending some troops to the East but in February 378AD the Lentienses crossed the upper reaches of the frozen Rhine. This attack was repulsed but Gratian received intelligence that it was only an opening attack and that a full scale invasion was planned by the Alamanni. Gratian launched a preemptive attack but this meant that part of the expeditionary army was pulled back. Valens reached Constantinople in 12 June 378 and waited for Gratian. In August he still didn't come and the troops were become restive. The Goths were seen approaching Adrianople and their number (faultily) estimated at 10000. Valens believing that he had to do with just the Tervingi decided to give battle. However the Greuthungi were also there so Valens gave battle with a 1:1.3 disadvantage.

[Tiberius of the Drake]

You also have to take into consideration that the goths werent just an untrained rabble. Fritigern , the goth leader at Adrianople, was a former client/barbarian commander in the Roman army. at this time in Roman history, their were few legions in the traditional sense. The Romans, both east and west, now relied more and more heavily on "Barbarian" Auxiliaries and native commanders.Therefore I would make sense that Fritigern had good training, experiance and could train his troops in a more organised fashion.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Just to name a couple references: Wikipedia estimates the Roman forces at 15-30k and the Goth forces at 10-20k. I'm far from an expert on the matter, but it seems hard for me to believe that a crack, battle hardened Roman force would be so totally defeated by an inferior Goth force. Maybe someone will explain otherwise.

I'm not into war history much, so I've got very little to contribute.

One thing struck me though. You speak of an inferior Goth force, and quote, besides a book that I can't access, Wikipedia as a source.
I guess this is one of those times where Wikipedia is unreliable. I read the French wiki entry, and it gives drastically different numbers. For example, it speaks of losses alone of 40 000 Roman and 79 000 Goths. These numbers they base on a Spanish histrorian, José I. Lago. T the whole page looks like a translation of the Spanish wiki entry. I've got no idea which version is correct, the English or French/Spanish one, but the differences are so great that you'd think they are speaking about different battles altogether.

[Whacker]

For example, it speaks of losses alone of 40 000 Roman and 79 000 Goths. These numbers they base on a Spanish histrorian, José I. Lago. T the whole page looks like a translation of the Spanish wiki entry. I've got no idea which version is correct, the English or French/Spanish one, but the differences are so great that you'd think they are speaking about different battles altogether.

I'd just like to offer that the French site may not neccesarily be 'incorrect'. It was well known and established that ancient historians exaggurated numbers, sometimes grossly for the purposes of trumping up history. One only need look up some of the varying accounts of the battles of the Greco-Persian war in the 5th century BC, some indicate that the Persian host numbered over half a million fighting men at times, clearly unrealistic and highly inflated. If the article references Lago's numbers simply as a reference and not as historical 'fact', then there really shouldn't be a problem, modern scholars can often make good educated 'guesses' as to how many soldiers took part in the battle. As you said Louis, simple yet interesting ways to view the same subject.

Also, on topic, I would also very much like some education and further solid information on the subject at hand.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Okay, I thought that sounded plausible, Whacker. I thought for a minute there that Lago was an ancient historican. But I googled him, and it turned out he is a contemporary historian. He studied classical history at the university of Madrid, but he doesn't look like the definitive authority on classical warfare or Gothic migrations. More like the next historian hobbying his way on the web. I don't know what he bases his numbers on.

Anyway, my point was not so much to add anything to this topic itself, as to share my amazement at the inaccuracies of wikipedia. I've got no idea who's correct, but one entry is completely off. 46.500 Romans versus 155.000 Goths in one entry, and 15-30k Romans versus 10-20k Goths in the other.

Wait, I just checked more languages. Most entries have different numbers again. What a mess!

Finnish: Romans 60k versus Goths 60k
German: 30 vs 20
Czech: 15/30 vs. 20/50
Italian: 40 vs 70
Dutch: 12/15 vs 30
Norwegian: direct translation of English (or the other way round)
Swedish: can't find it. Speaks of 40.000 death Romans though
Serbocroatian: 15/30 vs 20

Polish: Looks like a translation from Spanish (French?). Interestingly, they come up with the exact same breakdown and number of troop types as the French/Spanish one, but with a 'correction'(?): 12.500 heavy infantry, not 122.500. I think this is more plausible, I wondered about that high number earlier. If true, however, that leaves not enough troops in the French entry for their casualty number of 80k Goths.

[Husar]

The german entry says ca. 30.000 Romans....ok, Louis already looked that up, let me add that it says the goths made the roman cataphracts flee and then destroyed the roman infantry with their own cavalry. Don't know whether that's correct, but it's a possibility

I'd also like to add that the romans weren't all that good, after all they hid behind big walls in certain places because they were unable/afraid to go further.

But yeah, it seems quite hard to say how many they were, after all you can't count them anymore.

[Spino]

I was always under the impression poor leadership and poor deployment doomed the Roman army that day. The Romans were operating under the impression that the Goths could be easily dispatched and began the battle in a rather disorderly fashion. Valens lack of decisive, forceful leadership combined with opportunistic Gothic cavalry sealed their fate.

Roman legions of that period were still quite disciplined and effective but they were still vulnerable to the pitfalls of bad orders. Keep in mind Crassus took some outstanding troops with him into Parthia ruled Persia but nothing could save them from his mediocre military mind and mammoth ego.

[Xiahou]

It's very confusing to me, because the progression of the battle would seem to suggest overconfidence and poor deployment. But, if Valens was so overconfident, why did he ask Gratian for reinforcements?

There's also the often referenced claim that the scouts severely underestimated the size of the Goth force. The author from the book I cited earlier (Phyllis G. Jestice) claims this was because a large portion of the force was cavalry and was off foraging when the camp was scouted. She also claims that neither side seemed eager to fight evidenced by the length of the negotiations. That is, if either side felt a clear advantage, they would've just attacked and destroyed the enemy.

The Goth forces had been barricaded within their wagon train, while the Roman force was still not fully deployed for battle during negotiations. Things apparently went wrong when Roman cavalry (which she states were usually undisciplined) on the right wing took it upon itself to probe the Goth lines and were strongly driven back in disorder. A portion of the cavalry from the left wing was sent out drive the Goths back to their encirclement and apparently they met with initial success, but eventually stalled and needed reinforcement. At this point, a large force- mostly cavalry(consisting of Greuthungi, Huns and Alans), that had returned from foraging, joined the battle and quickly drove the Roman cavalry from the field. The Goths then poured out of their encampment as the cavalry flanked the Roman force which, except for 2 elite legions, broke and fled. Regardless, most of the force was slaughtered.

Sounds kind of like a well-timed surprise attack.

[Innocentius]

Not very on topic, but while we're at number of participants in ancient (or medieval) battles it's almost always safe to assume that the lowest number given is the most likely. One must remember that battles in past times didn't neccessarily have to be that big to be decisive.

Of course, there were really huge battles but I don't see the fascination by great numbers reflected in the works of many historians (especially older ones, around the 19th century). The example with the Persian armies, as brought up by Whacker, is an excellent example of exaggerations in ancient sources, uncritically treated by more modern historians.