Both legions and Auxilia units were often brigaded together as pairs, for instance the Batavi and the Heruli and the Lanciarii and Mattiarii were noted by Ammianus as doing so.6 When brigaded together both units would share the same standards. The standards included the usual Vexillum types as well as a new one known as a Draco which was carried by the infantry cohorts.
The organization of the Roman army also underwent a number of changes during the fourth century. These changes, begun during the reign of Diocletian and completed by Constantine, included placing the infantry and cavalry into new style field armies. The reformation of the army during this period led to the creation of three specific army groupings, two of which were technically mobile, the last was a more static defence. These groupings were the Comitatus Prasentales, the Comitatus and the Exercitus Limitanei. The first group were troops that were normally stationed around the imperial capital cities and accompanied the emperor on campaigns. The second group was the more typical regional field army that were stationed within towns, cities and forts within a diocese or province. The last group were generally based in provinces as a static defence.
Originally the Comitatius Prasentales field armies would have composed the Palatine units, both Legions and Auxila units. However, over time units of Comitatensis made their way into the Prasentales field armies, and Palatine troops were posted to the Comitatus armies. The size of a typical field army is difficult to gauge but taking some examples into account we can see that they could range from the huge to quite small. During the civil war between Constantius II and Magnentius both emperors raised armies that approached 100,000 men apiece. This would have been at the extreme end of the scale, and in all likelihood these armies were made up of a number of field armies marching together to make a much larger one. Julian’s army at Argentoratum was stated as being only between 12,000–15,000 men strong, and Ammianus wrote that it was really not large enough for the task it was allotted. Constantius II campaigned across the Danube against the Sarmatians with an army of 25,000 men; a similar number was assigned to Barbatio, one of his western generals. Julian invaded Sassanid Persia with an army that he divided into two, one part numbering 30,000 men was sent north into Armenia to then move south-east to possibly catch Sharpur in a pincer movement. Taking these numbers into account, a typical field army strength of between 25,000 and 40,000 does not seem too out of place.
The arms and armour of the Late Roman infantry and cavalry were still principally a helmet, body armour, shield, spear and sword, although these now differed from their predecessors. Gone were the elaborate helmets and segmented armour of the previous two centuries. Most troops now wore simple helmets such as the ‘intercisa’ type and wore a chain mail hauberk which ended at the elbow and knees. The pilum was now almost replaced by a spear called the spiculum which was approximately 6½ft long and was able to penetrate armour and also could be thrust to fend off cavalry. A javelin was also carried; it was approximately 3½ft long and called a verutum.7 Other spears that were used were called hasta or lancae. Shields were either oval or round and were between 2–3ft wide. The infantry carried two swords; the main one was much longer than the gladius and was known as the spatha. Some troops were also equipped with a new style, hand-hurled weapon called the mattiobarbuli or plumbatae, more popularly known as darts. They allowed the infantry to inflict casualties at a longer range than the javelin could be thrown. It may be that the Palatine infantry were issued with different body armour and helmets as shown on various monumental works such as the totally destroyed Column of Theodosius and the mostly destroyed Column of Arcadius drawn by a number of artists of varying artistic ability before they were destroyed at some point prior to the seventeenth century. These two columns displayed Theodosius’ victory against the Goths in the AD ‘380s’ and Arcadius’ victory against the Goths in AD 400. Most of the Roman infantry on those two columns are depicted as wearing muscle cuirasses, with the Goths being shown either unarmoured, as is the case on the Theodosian column, or unarmoured or wearing a mail hauberk on the Arcadian one. The Roman infantry either have a spear which is approximately 6–7ft long or one that appears to be about 3–4ft long. They have shields that were either oval, about 3ft long and 2ft wide, or they are round and about 3ft wide. They have helmets which are mostly of the ‘attic’ type with brow guards, although some appear to be wearing types known as ‘intercisa’ that were of a much simpler construction. It may be that these works depicted Palatine troops and that these troops were issued muscle cuirasses and Attic helmets as a sign of their status.8
The cavalry were made up of four main types, the shield bearing, heavily armoured cavalry called Equites Catafractarii armed with a long spear called the contus (‘barge pole’); the mailed, spear and javelin armed, shield bearing ordinary cavalry called Equites; the lighter armoured, javelin armed, shield bearing cavalry known as Equites Illyricanni or Dalmatae, and the mounted horse archers called Equites Sagittarii. Some Catafractarii were also known as ‘Clibanarii’. The Clibanarii were very heavily armoured, they wore a metal mask that covered the entire face, only the eyes and mouth having holes to see and breathe through. They wore mail armour that covered the rest of the body apart from chest which was covered in a breast plate and the arms and legs that instead had flexible, tubular, metallic armour. Julian and Ammianus stated they did not have shields as their armour made them ‘invulnerable’ to normal weapons. Their armament was the contus and possibly a bow after the manner of the Sassanid Clibanarii they were based on. The Clibanarii horses were covered in metallic armour, mostly mail and the only vulnerable areas were the bottom of their legs and their underbellies.
Riverine units were used extensively along the Rhine and Danube and they featured during the years AD 376 to AD 378 during Gratian’s campaigns and also during the crossing of the Danube by the Goths.
A Roman army of this period would typically form up with the infantry forming the centre and the cavalry equally divided on the flanks of the infantry, the Catafractii/Clibanarii being deployed next to the infantry, then the less heavily armoured cavalry with the lighter cavalry and horse archers deployed further out. Whilst the army was deploying for battle the infantry skirmishers, armed with javelins, darts, slings and bows, would screen the deployment and harass the enemy until the signal was given for them to fall behind the main infantry line. There would normally be a reserve line of infantry behind the main line whose task would be to plug any gaps that appeared in the main battle line. Once fully deployed the army would then march forward until they reached the range of their hand-hurled weapons when they would stop. At this point they would trade insults with the enemy and then raise their famous war-cry known as the barritus. The infantry would then throw their missile weapons, darts and javelins, whose main effect would probably be to break up the enemy formation and lower the enemy morale. This would then be followed by the signal to engage the enemy in hand to hand combat. At this point the Roman infantry would either lock shields and form a shield wall and brace themselves against the enemy attack, especially if they were facing enemy cavalry, or they would charge forward. The cavalry would attempt to drive any enemy cavalry from the field before then attacking the flanks of the enemy infantry. If all went well and the enemy became broken and routed, the signal would be given to pursue the fleeing enemy troops and it was at this point that most casualties would be caused. If the engagement went against the Romans then the signal for the retreat would be given and they would attempt to make a fighting withdrawal back to their camp if they had one in the vicinity, otherwise they would make for any terrain that provided them with protection or wait for nightfall where the darkness would afford them an opportunity to escape.
A great number of journal and magazine articles, and books, have been written about the Late Roman Empire and its army and I have included in the Bibliography those I consulted whilst researching for this book.
Chapter Sixteen
Biographies
Presented below
is a select list of the main characters that had major roles in the events leading up to Adrianople and during the battle itself.
The Romans
Flavius Julius Valens
Born AD 328 at Cibalae in Pannonia. He was the younger brother of Flavius Valentinian, who made Valens his co-emperor, being the second son of Gratianus the Elder. He was one of the ‘Protectors Domesticus’ during Julian’s campaign and then served Jovian in this role after the death of Julian. How active this early career was is not known, Ammianus and Zosimus hint that his military career at this point was rather nondescript. He was appointed as a ‘Tribunus Stabuli’ on 1 March AD 364 and on 28 March 364 was proclaimed ‘Augustus’ by his brother, now emperor, Valentinian I. He was married to Albia Domnica who bore him three sons. Valens faced a serious problem in AD 365 when Procopius, a relation to Julian, declared himself Augustus in Constantinople. Valens defeated Procopius at the battle of Nacolea in AD 366 after many of Procopius’ officers and men changed sides. Procopius fled the battle but was taken to Valens’ camp by two of Procopius’ officers who despite this were executed along with Procopius. Valens’ first Gothic war was instigated by Procopius hiring Goths for his rebel army. During the years AD 371 to AD 372 Valens survived an assassination attempt by Sallustius, one of the Scutarii, and another usurper by the name of Theodorus arose and suffered a similar fate to Procopius. During AD 371 Sharpur II, the King of Kings of Sassanid Persia who had plagued Emperor Constantius II and defeated Julian, began agitating over Armenia. Valens despatched several experienced generals and a large army which defeated the Sassanid army in battle, both sides settling down to an uneasy peace. During AD 373 Valens was involved with the plot to remove the young Armenian King Pap from his throne, an act Ammianus described as ‘a terrible crime’. Pap managed to initially escape being captured but was then murdered at a banquet. Relations with the Sassanids broke down again over Armenia and Hiberia and this prompted Valens to attempt to build three armies for his proposed invasion of Sassanid Persia with assistance from the Goths. He also faced revolts in Isauria and by Saracens led by Queen Mavia. The events of AD 376, which saw the arrival of the Goths on the frontier and their subsequent revolt and movement into Roman territory did not appear to have put paid to this dream Valens had of attacking the Sassanids, as Goths were stationed all over the eastern cities in preparation for the proposed invasion as discussed in Chapter Twelve.
Ammianus, who may have met Valens in person, gave a good summing up of Valens’ character after his death at Adrianople:
Thus then died Valens, at the age of almost fifty and after a reign of a little less than fourteen years. Of his merits, as known to many, we shall now speak, and of his defects. He was a firm and faithful friend, severe in punishing ambitious designs, strict in maintaining discipline in the army and in civil life, always watchful and anxious lest anyone should elevate himself on the ground of kinship with him; he was excessively slow towards conferring or taking away official positions, very just in his rule of the provinces, each of which he protected from injury as he would his own house, lightening the burden of tributes with a kind of special care, allowing no increase in taxes, not extortionate in estimating the indebtedness from arrears, a harsh and bitter enemy of thievish officials and of those detected in peculation. Under no other emperor does the Orient recall meeting better treatment in matters of this kind. Besides all this, he combined liberality with moderation, and although there are many instances of such conduct, yet it will suffice to set forth one. Since there are always at court some men who are greedy for others’ possessions, if anyone, as often happens, claimed a lapsed estate or anything else of the kind, he distinguished clearly between justice and injustice, allowing those who intended to protest a chance to state their case; and if he gave it to the petitioner, he often added as sharers in the gifts gained three or four absentees, to the end that restless people might act with more restraint, when they saw that by this device the gain for which they were so greedy was diminished. As to the public buildings which he restored or built from their very beginning in various cities and towns, in order not to be prolix I say nothing, but leaving this matter to the objects themselves to demonstrate it more obviously than I can. Such conduct is worthy, I think, of emulation by all good men; let me now run through his defects.
He was immoderately desirous of great wealth, and impatient of toil, rather affecting awesome austerity than possessing it, and somewhat inclined to cruelty; he had rather an uncultivated mind, and was trained neither in the art of war nor in liberal studies; he was ready to gain advantage and profit at the expense of others’ suffering, and more intolerable when he attributed offences that were committed to contempt of, or injury to, the imperial dignity; then he vented his rage in bloodshed, and on the ruin of the rich. It was unendurable also, that although he wished to appear to refer all controversies and judicial investigations to the laws, and entrusted the examination of such affairs to the regular judges as being specially selected men, nevertheless he suffered nothing to be done contrary to his own caprice. He was in other ways unjust, hot tempered, and ready to listen to informers without distinguishing truth from falsity, a shameful fault, which is very greatly to be dreaded even in these our private affairs of every-day occurrence.
He was a procrastinator and irresolute. His complexion was dark, the pupil of one of his eyes was dimmed, but in such a way as not to be noticed at a distance; his body was well-knit, his height neither above nor below the average; he was knock-kneed, and somewhat pot-bellied.
Eagles in the Dust Page 16