Roman battle tactics after Constantine's reform

[caldrail]

The German tribes cooperated better in the 4th century. To say they were a civilised state is an exaggeration. In fact, it was Roman influence that brought the German tribes together despite the policy of divide and conquer. You might consider that the Romans had in fact suffered a loss in terms of propaganda and politics.

 

As for the oriental armies, I agree, they were well organised. A nice website here...

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/parthians/parthian_army.php

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/sassanids/sassanian_army.php

 

Bear in mind the difficult terrain that the Romans and Persians faced each other across. Largely arid and relatively empty. For a large army to cross and fight at the other end was a major effort. TYrajan was a success in this respect, having reached the Caspian Sea, but notice that his successor Hadrian gave it back, partly as a political nicety to ensure the persian king did not go to war as he was threatening to (and his daughter was returned to him as well), but also because there was very little about that territory that held any real appeal to the Romans, never mind the difficulty of ruling an area that large.

[Late Emperor]

Bear in mind the difficult terrain that the Romans and Persians faced each other across. Largely arid and relatively empty. For a large army to cross and fight at the other end was a major effort. TYrajan was a success in this respect, having reached the Caspian Sea, but notice that his successor Hadrian gave it back, partly as a political nicety to ensure the persian king did not go to war as he was threatening to (and his daughter was returned to him as well), but also because there was very little about that territory that held any real appeal to the Romans, never mind the difficulty of ruling an area that large.

 

The sassanids actually launched a few massive attacks against the Romans in IVth century but after checking I agree that they mostly launched small raids against the imperial borders. I guess that also Julian's defeat against them was due not only to his poor leadership but also the decline of the army tactical ability.

[auxilia]

The sassanids actually launched a few massive attacks against the Romans in IVth century but after checking I agree that they mostly launched small raids against the imperial borders. I guess that also Julian's defeat against them was due not only to his poor leadership but also the decline of the army tactical ability.

I'm not sure about Julian's "poor leadership". The Romans gained the upper hand at Ctesiphon but they never managed to enter the city. Apparently, someone didn't react on time and seized the opportunity, so the Persians barricaded themselves in the city. Was it Julian or some of his commanders?

 

The phrase 'overking' is our label rather than an actual rank. Fritigern wouldn't qualify for it anyway, because he wasn't the most senior goth at the time. Athanaric was his rival and the two squabbled - though I do accept that might be a dramatic inclusion to the history since not all Roman sources of the time refer to such a struggle, such that Fritigern had to ask for Roman aid. Athanaric on the other hand was the first foreign king to visit Constantinople, in it's new guise as Roman capital in the east, and concluded a peace agreement that lasted until 395.

Unfortunately, there's a major confusion regarding the peace treaty from 382AD. Athanaric did visit Constantinople but I ultimately reject any possibility that it was him who signed the PEACE treaty from 382AD.

He probably did sign something....Perhaps, a low level deal concerning his small band of followers. It is suggested he transferred his bodyguards to the Roman military in the return for asylum. But, in no way we may consider Athanaric as a Goth who signed the famous peace treaty from 382AD. Simply, he didn't have any authority over the Goths in question whatsoever. The Tervingii had been fighting for 5 years on the Roman soil under their leaders without any input from Athanaric. He spent those years on the north of Danube with his small band. He lost most of his "kingdom" when the Alans and Huns attacked them, prior to 376AD. The Tervingii couldn't care less for Athanaric. So, the agreement from 382AD was signed with renegade Tervingii leaders, not Athanaric.

 

I strongly suggest you to check this masterful work:

Theodosius and the Goths: The limits of Roman power

[Gaiseric]

Just a few thoughts.

 

We do have some idea of the differentiation of barbarian leaders. In the fragments of Dexippus, for example, when refering to an invasion by the Vandals stopped by Aurelian, he refers to both 'Basileius' and 'Archons' as being present in the negotiations. Although he does also refer to Aurelian as a 'King', so there is some ambiguity. And then you have those nobles who lead retinues, who are described as 'princeps'.

 

Vale,

 

Gaiseric

[caldrail]

The problem is we see the goths as a coherent tribe with a single leader. This wasn't the case. They were made up of a variety of factions, including non-goths among them (Goths welcomed anyone who wanted to partake in their warrior lifestyle), and there a number of them that comprised a sort of ambiguous upper class, Fritigern and Athanaric being only two of them. Their fortunes waxed and waned according to circumstance. It just so happened Fritigern had his hands on the reigns at Adrianople - partially, I suspect, for his escape of the mass assassination attempt earlier and his subsequent victory over the hastily mobilised Thracian Army.