sonic Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Interesting, but if the Goths were fundamentally unable to attack a walled settlement (no arguement there, they had no experience of siege warfare as such) why would Theodosius tie down so many troops in garrisons when clearly he knew better, and recent experience had proven the value of small unit tactics favoured by Sebastianus? Theodosius knew that the citizens of the cities in the Balkans would prefer to give food and valuables to the Goths rather than risk a siege. This would enable the Goths to maintain a continuous - if rather poor - level of supply. Theodosius' strategy was to force the Goths into a position where lack of food and other supplies would force them to negotiate or collapse. This worked. The main Gothic force slowly dwindled as 'weaker' elements fell behind and could be dealt with piecemeal, either 'politically' or using the small unit tactics in battle. Interestingly, the Goths who gave in and were transferred across to Asia Minor later rebelled under Tribigild. A 'stronger', rejuvenated army forced them to retire completely from the Empire. But only after they had taken control of the Imperial Court at Constantinople under the leadership of Gildas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 It's interesting then that Theodosius's strategy concerning the goths was to starve them out just like everyone else had done since they crossed the Danube. Surely though a defensive work would make a siege all the more likely a course of action, since goths would simply pounce on an open settlement and take whatever they wanted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonic Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 It's interesting then that Theodosius's strategy concerning the goths was to starve them out just like everyone else had done since they crossed the Danube. Surely though a defensive work would make a siege all the more likely a course of action, since goths would simply pounce on an open settlement and take whatever they wanted? But part of the strategy would be the removal of all stored foods to defendable sites. Don't forget that the revolt was due to shortage of food and that a victory in battle wouldn't provide that much - especially as the baggage train was left in Adrianople (I think: my memory could be playing up here! ) Many previous authors have made the mistake of seeing the Goths as an army. They weren't. They were largely composed of 'civilians'. As a result, the actual warriors are unable to just wander off anyhwere and do what they want. They are constrained by the need to protect their families from attack. In all fairness, Theodosius did not adopt the usual strategy of 'starving them out' instantly. It was only after he had been defeated personally in battle that he reverted to this tactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGolomb Posted January 14, 2010 Report Share Posted January 14, 2010 All - Viggen just posted my review of Alessandro Barbero's "The Day of the Barbarians" - a close look at the Battle at Adrianople. I thought it would be of interest to those following this thread. Reivew: The Day of the Barbarians Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca Posted January 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2010 All - Viggen just posted my review of Alessandro Barbero's "The Day of the Barbarians" - a close look at the Battle at Adrianople. I thought it would be of interest to those following this thread. Reivew: The Day of the Barbarians Yes I did read the book. Someone else recommended it earlier. A very vivid description of the events leading up to the battle. It seems to me that the Romans had maintained a delicate balance between immigration, assimilation, and Romanization, which had actually worked very well until then, when they took in more than they could handle, and their system was thrown out of order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonic Posted January 15, 2010 Report Share Posted January 15, 2010 All - Viggen just posted my review of Alessandro Barbero's "The Day of the Barbarians" - a close look at the Battle at Adrianople. I thought it would be of interest to those following this thread. Reivew: The Day of the Barbarians Yes I did read the book. Someone else recommended it earlier. A very vivid description of the events leading up to the battle. It seems to me that the Romans had maintained a delicate balance between immigration, assimilation, and Romanization, which had actually worked very well until then, when they took in more than they could handle, and their system was thrown out of order. I couldn't have put it better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artimi Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) All - Viggen just posted my review of Alessandro Barbero's "The Day of the Barbarians" - a close look at the Battle at Adrianople. I thought it would be of interest to those following this thread. Reivew: The Day of the Barbarians Yes I did read the book. Someone else recommended it earlier. A very vivid description of the events leading up to the battle. It seems to me that the Romans had maintained a delicate balance between immigration, assimilation, and Romanization, which had actually worked very well until then, when they took in more than they could handle, and their system was thrown out of order. I couldn't have put it better! In other words, they bit of more than they could chew Edited January 16, 2010 by Artimi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.