Total War History: Battle of Adrianople (Part 1/4)

The Roman Empire was created through conquest, and continued to be fueled by its military. Expansion was punctuated by huge territorial gains following massive conflicts between nations. In time, the Roman Empire came to rule an enormous area with territory stretching as far as Britain, Dacia, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. The rate of expansion began to peak as the empire's borders solidified around natural boundaries. To the north, this would largely be defined by the Rhine and Danube rivers. To the south, by the deserts of North Africa. And to the east, by the buffer region marking the border between Roman and Sassanid territories. This huge land was under the dominion of a long line of Roman emperors following the footsteps of Augustus, who had ruled from 31 BC to 14 AD. The question of imperial succession, however, was one that would constantly haunt the Roman Empire and its stability. Early on, heirs were adopted by their predecessors and took power when they had reached a mature age. This proved to be quite effective, providing more capable rulers. With greater frequency, however, there would be emperors born to the purple. These young rulers did not have a very good track record. Handed such an incredible gift, they all too often fell victim to the temptations of absolute power. The hard and often dull work of managing an empire was not very attractive to the inexperienced youths who turned instead to pleasures of imperial life. Important figures of the emperor's court could thus find themselves in positions of power by exerting control over the young ruler. Favor of the emperor brought with it great fortune and the court became filled with yes-men who were unlikely to share unpleasant truths with the leader of the Roman Empire. This insulation did not bode well for strong rule and led to the erratic behavior of emperors, most egregiously showcased by Nero and Commodus. Their often capricious behavior alienated the army and politicians, which then bred conspiracy and plots for murder. The Praetorian Guard in Rome proved an especially important political player. In these matters, it found itself in a position to make or break rulers. Promotions and huge sums of cash would be needed to secure the goodwill of the Praetorians, but even this could not always be counted on to avert their blades. By the 3rd century, it became apparent that the army itself could choose leaders. Legions would declare their allegiances to new rulers, and usurpations became frighteningly common. It was now far easier to become emperor, since a man only needed to gain the support of the troops. Some strong emperors were able to establish a certain degree of control, but this increasingly proved to be the exception. More turmoil meant more vacuums of power, which powerful figures battled to fill. In this vicious cycle of infighting, military might was often the deciding factor. The 3rd century is often referred to as an age of crisis, which saw frequent civil war and infighting. Significant portions of the empire even began to break off. The formation of the Gallic and Palmyrian empires in the west and east respectively testified to the lack of a strong, centralized authority. Eventually, a more powerful emperor would be able to restore unity, but at great cost. Despite the best attempts of such competent rulers to stem the fracturing of their authority, by the mid 4th century, the empire was split between east and west. The threat of internal conflict would persist throughout the Roman Empire and contributed significantly to its transformation. Persistent civil war had a major impact on the economy, politics, and military of the empire. Economically, civil war caused massive disruptions to trade and the collection of taxes. This depleted imperial coffers, which were simultaneously being drained by the demands of the army. Another downside of civil war was that it did not bring the huge quantities of captives or plunder which would typically accompany foreign expeditions. Funds were being spent on the army, but the army was paying for itself. In response, coinage was debased in an attempt to stretch the purchasing power of the emperor's funds. This resulted in unprecedented levels of inflation which deteriorated the situation even further. Fortunes varied from region to region, but it seems that on the whole, both trade and the economy were on the decline. Politically, the empire was also stressed by civil wars. Ascending to power was perhaps easier, but holding it was certainly not. New emperors were constantly on the lookout for potential threats to their rule. The legions were the primary source of trouble. This meant that emperors had to remain in the good graces of their senior army officers. Payments to the troops, known as donatives, also became the first step in securing the throne. Increasing army pay was another option employed by some more desperate and short-sighted emperors. Because of this close tie between the army and the throne, the emperor spent longer amounts of time on campaign with the troops to keep an eye on things. The center of power moved with the emperor in his court. The rest of the empire still needed caring to, but such control could not be delegated to potential rivals of the emperor. As a result, the emperor tended to favor promoting equestrians to senior posts rather than the richer, senatorial counterparts who were seen as more of a threat. Eventually, a larger bureaucracy would be formed to help control the empire. Once again, the emperors carefully crafted the system to prevent it from becoming an avenue for usurpers to gain power. This civil force would be separated from the military command structure, thus stripping it of any real means of seizing power. The separation of military and civil command was an important one, which was in direct contrast to the warrior politicians of earlier times. Additionally, the provinces of the empire were broken up into smaller regions which made management and taxation easier. It may also have been done so that it was harder for a single governing figure to amass enough control of the empire with which to launch a rebellion. Virtually all of the emperors motives were geared towards self-preservation, and we should not necessarily conclude that they were for the good of the empire. These changes were implemented slowly, but represented a significant change in the way the empire was managed. Perhaps the most obvious manifestation of this was the waning of Rome's importance. Politically and strategically, neither the senate nor Rome were now of more than marginal importance to the emperors. The city was still the largest in the empire, but the capital now lay elsewhere. This resulted in the moving of the capital to Mediolanum, and later Ravenna in the west, and Constantinople in the east. Lastly, civil wars had a major impact on the Roman military. To put things bluntly, the army wasted much of its strength fighting itself. Not only was the rank and file being killed in battle, but the commanding officers often faced removal or execution if they ended up supporting the wrong side of a conflict. As we have seen, rulers were very paranoid, and the ascension of the latest emperor was often accompanied by bloody purges of both military and civil staff, and in some cases, even of the royal family. Throughout much of Rome's history, victorious armies owed their successes to vigorous training and prolonged operation under able commanders. Both of these qualities proved significantly harder to come by in the chaos of civil war. Add to this the persistent threats along the frontier, and there was cause for substantial change. When discussing the effects of such 3rd and 4th century conditions on the Roman army, we can broadly talk about four main points. These are summarized as follows. Size of the army, specialization of the army, barbarization of the army, and restructuring of the army. A detailed look at each of these is outside the scope of this particular series. Instead, we shall have to be satisfied with an overview of each. Let us begin with the first point, the size of the Roman army. Though we lack precise numbers, we are rather sure that on average the armies of the 3rd and 4th century were not as large as their predecessors. This was due to the prevalence of smaller scale fighting and raiding taking place all along the frontier, rather than the relatively rare set piece battles. Simply put, a couple massive armies were less effective than many smaller detachments. Breaking the army into pieces also meant that there was less of a risk of a usurper turning any particular force against the emperor and posing too much of a threat. We can also add to this list the fact that the empire's ability to fund large standing armies was diminished by the economic concerns we have already discussed. The second point concerns the specialization of the Roman army. In the past, the legions had typically consisted of a uniform force of heavy infantry who were formed into cohorts. These troops had similar arms, armor, and fighting styles. The legions added versatility to their force by drawing on auxiliaries who were skilled in other areas such as archery or cavalry engagements. By the time of the 3rd and 4th century, there were even more of these troops being used in the army. Substantial divisions of auxiliary forces would supplement the armies both in the field and on the defense. The Roman troops also began to adapt themselves. Fighting against the cavalry armies of the east led to the development of Rome's own heavily armored horsemen meant to match their Persian counterparts. Both horse and foot archers also played important roles in these engagements. Along the frontiers, the Romans also became accustomed to attacking and defending fortified positions. This led to the increased use of engineers, architects, siege specialists, and dedicated artillery crews. We can perhaps conclude that the improved abilities of the Roman army helped compensate for its smaller size. The third point involves the barbarization of the Roman army. The empire during this time was suffering from the attrition of civil war and also population stagnation or decline brought on by plagues among other things. Again, we have no finite numbers, but the general trend meant that finding recruits proved increasingly hard despite the size of the empire. Additional impediments involved issues with imperial revenue, army pay, army supply, desertion, and the reluctance of individuals to serve. In response, the army increasingly turned to barbarians for a source of fresh manpower. The Roman administration of this period often settled people from beyond its borders as a matter of border security. Doing so helped keep them from forcefully entering the empire and also turn them into colonists who could help prop up populated buffer zones behind the frontier. As a part of the settlement deal, the tribes entering Roman lands were often required to supply a fixed number of troops over time. The recruit starved army took full advantage of this. Barbarian recruits were treated much like regular recruits, became mixed into the ranks, and received the same training and equipment as everyone else. These barbarian communities slowly became romanized and increasingly entered higher ranks of the army. Previous claims that the barbarization hurt the performance of the army has largely been brushed aside by modern historians. We can now turn to our fourth point, the restructuring of the Roman army. Much of the organizational changes within the legions were gradual and came as a result of the three previously mentioned points. The more distinct changes that we will focus on are brought about by the Emperor Diocletian who ruled between 284 and 305. Along with formally splitting the empire in two, Emperor Diocletian also divided the Roman army in two. He did so to better address the dual threats of internal and external pressures. The current weakness of the Roman army was that it was spread thin across the frontier and any substantial breakthrough at one point could overwhelm the defenses and go unchecked. Dealing with such threats required troops to be drawn away from other fronts which would then be opened up to more attacks. Diocletian's solution was to separate the army into border units known as Limitani and reserve units known as Comitatenses. Limitani were stationed in forts along the border and tasked with policing the area around their base of operations. In this capacity they intercepted raiding parties, conducted punitive missions, and patrolled the waterways. Limitani were smaller than the field army counterparts but had more varied forces fielding greater numbers of light troops and cavalry. Typically these border forces were not as well paid and had somewhat lower standards for recruitment. They were nonetheless the front line of the empire's defense. The limited number of Limitani would be capable of holding off relatively small forces of up to around 500 men. In the face of a larger concentrated assault they would fall back to their fortified positions or nearby walled cities and await the arrival of the field armies. The Comitatenses were subject to being moved and redeployed to meet emerging threats. They were not located in army bases like field armies of the past but were instead spread out and billeted in cities to reduce the strain of their upkeep. Comitatenses included the familiar Roman heavy infantry who were reinforced by substantial auxiliary forces grouped together in elite units known as Palatina. The cavalry, skirmisher, and specialist forces previously mentioned swelled their ranks even further. One of our sources indicates that there were five of these field armies active in the east and seven in the west. Individually they could deal with minor breakthroughs and together combat major threats. Limitani and Comitatenses worked in fundamentally different ways but together helped properly secure the empire. The implementation of these two forces would contribute to the relative recovery and stability of the Roman empire in the fourth century. We should however recall that the development of this army model was merely a product of their times. The legions of the early empire were by no means outdated, they simply could not be supported. It is in this context that we shall now turn to the theater of war and the events leading up to that fateful day of battle.