Goths!

[eques]

Not a period I have much knowledge of, but have recently gained a bit of a yen for a 6mm Gothic army after reading up on Theoderic.

The Field of Glory army lists give the Visigoths the standard mix of fierce warriors and cavalry, while the Ostrogoths are pretty much all cavalry and archers, except they get some spearmen after Theoderic conquers Italy.

Is that all vaguely accurate?  What sort of tactics did an army consisting entirely of shock cavalry use?  Why did the Ostro and Visigoths diverge so much?

Also, would the Goths of Adrianapole have looked the same as the Goths of Theoderic the Great?

[Patrick Waterson]

Roy, I think this is your field ... but anyone else with information please feel free to expound.

[aligern]

whereI am on Goths of both sorts post about 400 AD at the moment is this. They very likely mirror the structure of migration period German societies and thus  have a small group of princely families, a large group of Optimates or Free Goths of varying economic power, about the same number if half free Goths tied to the above plus some slaves. The Optimates serve both on horse and foot, the half. free serve very likely on foot. I suggest that there are more archers in the 'Ostrogoth' army than the 'Visigoth', though the comment in Gregory of Tours about one side at the battle of Vouille trying to use weapons. at a distance might well mean that the Visigoths are using bows. Rouche, a French historian, seems to think that the reference is support for horsearcher Visigoths, but this is unlikely.

The section from Procopius that gave rise to the foot archer/ cavalry mix can be taken as implying that the Goths on foot are archers and those on horse spearmen and no other troop type is mentioned. There is also a letter of Cassiodorus, who was a high official in Theoderic's government, that sends an expedition of 500 cavalry and 2000 archers to support Mundo in the Balkans and a letter sending young lads for archery training. I would put against that the performance of the army in battle under Witiges where the central infantry block is clearly capable of acting as a support to the cavalry. Now if we followed the old WRG interpretation of the army cmposition Theoderic's army would be composed of Psiloi bow and charging HC. Clearly the Psiloi bow would not be capable of acting as a firm base and protection for its cavalry. Later at Taginae Procopius coearly says that the Goth infantry at this late stage in the war are too few to be able to receive the retreating cavalry into gaps in their ranks and protecting them. Hence P obviously expects that in a normal situation the infantry would protect the cavalry whilst they reformed and that at least strongly implies a formed body of infantry.
There is one possibility that has suggested itself to me and that is that the Goth infantry are mixed spear and bow , either the front ranks being bow or the whole having bow shield and spear. There is a source that may be attributable to this period which implies that Early Byzantine infantry carried both and the Maurikian Strategikon clearly envisages solid Byzantine infantry formations with both bow and spear. 
There is no particular reason why Theoderic should have gained spearmen in Italy. He definitely added new groups to the army, the Old Germans, some Gepids, some Huns, but there is no reason why the spear elements of the army should not always have been there.
On another note I think there is enough logic to have at least a coupke of units of Goths on armoured horses. Procopius refers to them, culturally it would fit with the Goths contacts with Sarmatians, right up to the migration to Italy and there were previously units of Sarmatian Laeti (military settlers) in Northern Italy probably used by Odovakar against the Rugi.
So I would go for:
A unit or two of armoured lancers on armoured horses.
Several units of armoured cavalry with a mix of lance and javelin.
Several units close order foot with combined spear and bow.
Some skirmishers with bows.
In the invasion possibly one unit of LC Huns with bows.
I have my doubts about the tactical separation of the Hunnic contingent, but there seems little doubt that they were in the migration force. Likely in real life they formed their own unit of close order horse and just carried the bow as a secondary weapon rather than operating a a detatched horse archer units.
I conluded long ago that the best way to reconcile the frequent references in the sources to cavalry using javelins was to  equip cavalry units with front rank lancers and rear ranks, for whom a lance is not terribly useful, with javelins, but you could deploy separate units. The Goths in Italy had contingents from various associated nations such as the Rugi, the Gepids,  Sarmatians, Suebi. Perhaps these formed separate units with differing equipment styles, hence some with contus, some with javelins.
Roy

[eques]

Many thanks

[aligern]

I neglected your question as to why Visigoths and Ostrogoths diverge so much, Harry.
It is accepted that before 376 there are no Visigoths and Ostrogoths, rather there are Goths with two major groupings, Tervingi centred in Dacia and Greutingi located north of the Black Sea. When the Huns attack the Alans and drive them into the Greutungs and the Huns and Alans then attack the Tervingi a large number of Tervingi and then some Greutungs and Alans cross the Danube and beat the Eastern Romans at Adrianople. The Visigoths emerge from Alaric's rebellion in the early 400s They comprise groups of Goths plus liberated slaves and Roman deserters. They are moved off West to be eventually settled around Toulouse. The Ostrogoths come about from a union of Goths who come into the Empure after the collapse of Attila's Empire in 454 and other Goths who appear to be there already. The two groups are combined by Theoderic who then goes to some lengths to nation build them into a unified group.
The warfare styles of the Visigoths and Zostrogoths are similar. It is likely that the Greutungs absorbed Sarmatian mounted techniques in their push into the steppe from 150 AD to about 350 . Wolfram thinks that the visigoths absorbed these skills in contact with the Alans in the period 390-410. Either way both groups end up with good cavalry. Both appear to have reasonable infantry, bow and spear atned as I described above. The proto Visigiths do use waggon laagers and appear to operate like warband against the Romans in the Adrianople campaign, but that might just as easily be interpreted as spearmen. There are plenty of missiles at Adrianople and later the Visigoths seem to have had rather passive infantry and their most notable arm later was the noble  heavy cavalry. So I  would not see a great difference in the two earlier. Before the Visigoths the Tervingi operated as typical Germans, ambushing a Roman emperor in the marshes, but once they are formed into Visigoths they look to have become much more sub Roman with infantry as a passive base and cavalry that advanced and retreated using the infantry as protection and. firebase.  That would make them just like the Ostrogoths. The Greutungs most likely made an increase in their cavalry component earlier in order to compete on the plains against Sarmatians, but that is based upon logic rather than hard evidence
Roy

[valentinianvictor]

The difficulty of defining Gothic arms and equipment is the fact that they were often just as well armed and armoured as their Roman counterparts, usually as a result of wearing captured armour.
Technically the Goths were at war with the Romans from the first incursion of the Roman Empire in AD238 until the assimilation of the Goth's with the Lombards who invaded Italy in the AD560's, over 300 years!

From AD238 to AD332 the Goth's devasted large areas of the Roman Empire From Italy eastwards, they even reached the walls of Rome at one stage and defeated and killed the Emperor Decius in battle in AD251 at the Battle of Abrittus. The Gothic King Cniva who led the Goth's who defeated the Roman army stayed for almost a year inside the border of the Empire. The Goth's gained a huge amount of arms and armour both at Abrittus and also when they sacked a large number of towns and cities during the time Cniva was inside the Empire. The Goths were probably one of the most dangerous tribes the Roman's faced and were certainly the most troublesome one during the 'Crisis of Empire' during the 3rd Century AD. It was the crushing defeat inflicted upon them by one of the son's of Constantine the Great, the future Emperor Constantius II, in AD332 that put a temporary break on the Gothic shenanigans and were treaty bound to supply troops on demand. however, Between AD367 and AD369 the Emperor Valens mounted three campaigns against the Goths, and in 369 defeated the then Greuthungi King, Athanaricus, in battle and renegotiated the treaty which proved quite disastrous as history was to prove less than ten years later.

When the Goth's, having to flee their homelands north of the Danube and the Caspian Sea due to constant attacks by the Alans and Huns, were allowed to cross over the Danube in AD376 the two Roman's charged with supervising the Goth's so bungled it that it led to open revolt by the Goths who captured a great deal of arms and armour before the Battle of Adrianople and I think the only difference may have been at that time was in fighting style and tactics.

[aligern]

Hi Adrian. Wasn't Athanaric a Tervingian Goth king rather than a. Greutung??
Roy

[valentinianvictor]

Hi Adrian. Wasn't Athanaric a Tervingian Goth king rather than a. Greutung??
Roy

Well Roy, there's a thing. Ammianus made the comment that during the campaign of AD369 'With like persistence in the third year also he (Valens) made a bridge of boats to cross the river at Novidunum and forced his way into the barbarian territory; and after continuous marches he attacked the warlike people of the Greuthungi, who lived very far off, and after some slight contests Athanaricus, at that time their most powerful ruler, who dared to resist with a band which he believed to be more than sufficient for himself, was forced to flee, in fear of utter destruction. Then he himself with all his men returned to Marcianopolis as a suitable place (considering that region) for passing the winter.' Amm Bk XXVII, 5, 6. So, up to AD369 Athanaricus was King of the Greuthungi.

Whilst it could be questioned that Ammianus was mistaken, because later in Bk XXXI, 3, 4 he stated  'On learning of these unexpected events, Athanarichus, the chief of the Theruingi (against whom, as has been told before, because of aid which he had sent to Procopius, Valens had recently taken the field) attempted to stand his ground, and if he too should be attacked like the rest, was ready to put forth all his strength.' I would suggest that Athanaricus' defeat may well have led to him having to flee and took up with the Tervingi Goth's, and then established himself as a King over a portion of them. Athanaricus must have still had some good relations with the Greuthungi as Ammianus noted that in the next paragraph, Bk XXXI, 3, 5 'Accordingly, he established his camp near the banks of the Danastius, conveniently at some distance from the stockade of the Greuthungi, and sent Munderichus, afterwards in charge of the frontier throughout Arabia, with Lagarimanus and some other men of high rank, to a distance of •twenty miles in advance, to observe the advance of the enemy, while he himself in the meantime, disturbed by no one, was preparing his army for battle.' The plan was for the Tervingi under Athanaricus' command would team up with the Greuthungi and the combined Gothic tribes would defeat the Hun's heading towards the river. Unfortunately the Hun's got wind of the plan and avoided the Gothic advance guard and fell on the combined Gothic encampment at night, defeating the Goth's and causing Athanaricus to flee once more.

[eques]

Thanks everyone.

What was the passage in Procopius that led to the "Cavalry and Archers" interpretation inField of Glory?

[aligern]

Its where Belisarius uses his horse archers to win skirmishes outside Rome while B is besieged there. It goes something like Belisarius noticed that nearly all the Roman cavalry are horse archers whereas the Gothic archers go on foot under the protection of the heavy infantry (hoplitai) ...so their cavalry do not have bows. Belisarius then brings on skirmishes with bodies of horse and every time destroys tge Zgoth cavalry sent out against them.
I'd like to say here that the Byzantine cavalry are deploying as the single skirmishing unit that horse archer armies use. They thus have the whole field to use and, if threatened can withdraw under the cover of the archers and machines. on the walls of Rome.
Roy

[eques]

Thanks