Impetuous Federate?

[Ade G]

Does anyone know of a reference to federate troops being impetuous?
The closest I have found is that they were not as well drilled as regular Imperial troops.
Combined with the fact that several Auxilia Palatina units had tribal backgrounds (not counting the Gallo-Romans trying to look hard) I am trying to find any evidence for "wild" behaviour on the field of battle.

I recall that DBMM had them as Irr Bd (I), Irr Ax (S) and Reg Bd (I).
ADLG makes them impetuous heavy infantry or cavalry and I want to get my ducks in a row for when the army lists are reviewed.

[DBS]

I suppose it depends on whether you think Valens' army at Adrianople had foederati, and whether any such foederati were part of the uncommanded attack on the laager.  I suppose the point is that even if they were technically not foederati, late Roman troops had their moments of impetuosity, but was it because they were semi-tamed hairy barbarians under their uniforms, or had unit officers who thought they knew better than the emperor and his staff and thought there was no point fannying around?

[Duncan Head]

Depends, of course, on what you envisage "impetuous" as meaning...

How about the Saracens attacking the Goths outside Constantinople in 378?

"A troop of Saracens ... desiring to attack the horde of barbarians of which they had suddenly caught sight, rushed forth boldly out of the city to attack them ... one of their number ... with drawn dagger rushed into the thick of the Gothic army, and after killing a man applied his lips to the throat and sucked the blood that poured out..." (Ammianus)

That sounds like a spontaneous attack without waiting for orders, and a ferocious one at that. (Unfortunately Zosimus' parallel account does mention they were on patrols ordered by the Emperor.)

[Jim Webster]

Doesn't Ammianus mention Gallic Legions being Impetuous, attacking the Sassanid army on their own from the siege

Just from memory here

[Ade G]

Having read the responses I am put in mind of Goldsworthy's "The Roman Army at War" which has multiple examples of Roman troops impetuous and rash behaviour and the repeated efforts to curb this. So it seems the federate were no more or less rash than anyone else but prior to becoming "official" regulars were probably less manoeuvrable.
Would that be a working hypothesis as the search continues?

[Jim Webster]

Having read the responses I am put in mind of Goldsworthy's "The Roman Army at War" which has multiple examples of Roman troops impetuous and rash behaviour and the repeated efforts to curb this. So it seems the federate were no more or less rash than anyone else but prior to becoming "official" regulars were probably less manoeuvrable.
Would that be a working hypothesis as the search continues?

Certainly there are times reading Caesar's Gallic war when you wonder which side is the impetuous barbarians 

[lionheartrjc]

I now regard the idea of "barbarians" being more impetuous as a myth. In the MeG army lists last year we introduced the option to replace the "devastating chargers" with a javelin/short spear for all the Celtic/Gallic/Germanic armies. I would have quite happily removed the devastating chargers option but this would have upset too many players.

We class foederate infantry in Later Roman armies at "Tribal", so less manoeuvrable than the Auxilia/Legionaries.  There is a lot about the Later Roman army that remains uncertain.

Richard

[Ade G]

Having read the responses I am put in mind of Goldsworthy's "The Roman Army at War" which has multiple examples of Roman troops impetuous and rash behaviour and the repeated efforts to curb this. So it seems the federate were no more or less rash than anyone else but prior to becoming "official" regulars were probably less manoeuvrable.
Would that be a working hypothesis as the search continues?

Certainly there are times reading Caesar's Gallic war when you wonder which side is the impetuous barbarians 

Wars in Judea as well. Even under Belisarius there are individuals racing about to answer challenges

[Ade G]

I now regard the idea of "barbarians" being more impetuous as a myth. In the MeG army lists last year we introduced the option to replace the "devastating chargers" with a javelin/short spear for all the Celtic/Gallic/Germanic armies. I would have quite happily removed the devastating chargers option but this would have upset too many players.

We class foederate infantry in Later Roman armies at "Tribal", so less manoeuvrable than the Auxilia/Legionaries.  There is a lot about the Later Roman army that remains uncertain.

Richard

Sounds workable and eminently sensible Richard. My personal opinion is that only proper allied warriors would be impetuous in the "barbarian" stereotype and even then it seems to be relative to the situation. The myth of the "lesser-legionary" of the Patrician periodalso falls down when trying to find evidence.

[Imperial Dave]

Why not?

Demonstrable martial prowess was probably as important as following orders

If we look at finds from the later empire, martial accoutrements bleed into the fabric of society. Whilst not a direct proof of impetuous behaviour on the battlefield, it highlights the importance of appearing of "fighting material". As we drift into the heroic age, it could mean rash/bold/impetuous behaviour was acceptable if not downright sought after...