Gothic wagons

[Jim Webster]

In the discussion of where the wagons came from, I don't recall anyone mentioning Ammianus XXXI.4.5; at the initial Gothic crossing of the Danube:

In this expectation various officials were sent with vehicles to transport the savage horde, and diligent care was taken that no future destroyer of the Roman state should be left behind, even if he were smitten by a fatal disease. Accordingly, having by the emperor's permission obtained the privilege of crossing the Danube and settling in parts of Thrace, they were ferried over for some nights and days embarked by companies in boats, on rafts, and in hollowed tree-trunks;

So were the "Gothic" wagons actually Roman vehicles from the start?

One assumes that Goths had some wagons, but given they weren't an especially nomadic people, they'd have a lot of farm carts and similar

[Erpingham]

But I think I'm right in saying they are migrating.  So we can use the parallel of US wagon trains, where the wagons in use weren't intended as a permanent mobile home but intended to transport families to a new settled location, at which point the wagons could go back to use in agriculture or commerce.  The idea we are dealing largely with adapted Roman agricultural or haulage vehicles, as suggested in the Ammianus quote, seems plausible.

[Jim Webster]

But I think I'm right in saying they are migrating.  So we can use the parallel of US wagon trains, where the wagons in use weren't intended as a permanent mobile home but intended to transport families to a new settled location, at which point the wagons could go back to use in agriculture or commerce.  The idea we are dealing largely with adapted Roman agricultural or haulage vehicles, as suggested in the Ammianus quote, seems plausible.

Oh they were migrating, but they weren't nomads used to living in wagons. They were farmers who would just use what they had.
Perhaps even cleaning it out first 

[DBS]

As someone who had the privilege of long conversations with a former Welsh Guards RSM who, as a young sergeant, swam out of Dunkirk to the last waiting destroyer after all the little ships had been pulled back on the last day, I also suspect any vehicular transport available on the north side of the Danube would have been ruthlessly stripped down to allow suitable wood to be repurposed for raft construction, water obstacle for the crossing of...  it was what he and his handful of surviving comrades did to get their weapons and kit with them to the destroyer, with the one non swimmer in the group clinging on to the webbing on the top of the raft.  His comment was that the beach at Dunkirk on the last day was like a Sandhurst instructor's wettest dream (pun intended) when it came to "stuff from which you can build a raft for this little exercise."

I suspect that any and all carts and wagons that the Goths subsequently came across south of the Danube would have been seized with joy if the draught animals could be sourced, regardless of the intended purpose of the vehicle.  As another retired military colleague of mine, this one a lot younger and a former Colonel Commandant of the Defence School of Transport, has always argued very sagely whenever anyone slags off this or that Army vehicle - "That is as may be, but a second or even third class ride almost always beats a first class walk."

[Jim Webster]

Very true David, and I can imagine the mirth as the Gothic farmer's wife took her seat with the chickens in a carriage last used by some Roman matron   

[Erpingham]

Ok, we seem to have a consensus that the Goths would be riding in Roman wagons of various types. 

Throwing us back to the beginning, how many wagons do we think would be present at Adrianople and how would they be arranged? 

[DBS]

Well, Ammianus (Bk XXXI, 12) says that the Roman scouts saw the wagons ("carpenta") in a circle ("quae ad speciem rotunditatis detornata").  Possibly worth noting that carpentum is thought to be a Celtic loan word for a wagon - whether by Ammianus' time this might have had any specific ethnic connotation that he was seeking to make, or just one of the several words in contemporary Latin that could be used generically for a wagon, I would not dare to guess.

Thing is, how circular is the circle?  Given that in his subsequent description of the battle, he talks about different wings of the Roman army making differing progress towards the circle, that seems to indicate a very broad frontage.  So either a massive circle, meaning a massive number of wagons, or perhaps not as circular as his prose implies - more rectilinear - or perhaps less of a solid wagon circle, nose to tail, but a more intermittent arrangement, with campfires, bivouacs and gaps between vehicles or small groups of vehicles.  Maybe not a very neat arrangement, but still enough to disrupt or channel an advancing infantry line, and offer patches of hard cover for the Goths?

[Jim Webster]

The number of wagons probably has more to do with the ability of a Roman province to supply wagons to enthusiastic and widely travelled looters than it has to Gothic resources. After all, the Goths crossed in 376AD and the battle was in 378AD

If wagons, carts and suchlike were common in the provinces, then the Goths could well have an awful lot of them. Indeed some of the major players could have several, there may even have been an attempt to put together an 'army supply column'. After all if the commander can control looted food it means that there is the possibility of more efficient distribution and better control of men who don't have to spread out to loot.

Given that a lot of the Goths would have military experience serving in the Roman Army I don't think we can rule the idea out

[DBS]

If wagons, carts and suchlike were common in the provinces, then the Goths could well have an awful lot of them.

For what it is worth, Cato reckoned that a vineyard of 240 iugera ought to have three pairs of draft oxen, three pack asses to shift manure, an ass to turn the mill, three large carts and six ploughs.

[Jim Webster]

If wagons, carts and suchlike were common in the provinces, then the Goths could well have an awful lot of them.

For what it is worth, Cato reckoned that a vineyard of 240 iugera ought to have three pairs of draft oxen, three pack asses to shift manure, an ass to turn the mill, three large carts and six ploughs.

Given that 240 iugera is about 150 acres, that means there are an awful lot of carts to go at

[Duncan Head]

Throwing us back to the beginning, how many wagons do we think would be present at Adrianople

As many as necessary to transport the baggage and dependents of however many warriors there were. Which we don't know.

[Erpingham]

Throwing us back to the beginning, how many wagons do we think would be present at Adrianople

As many as necessary to transport the baggage and dependents of however many warriors there were. Which we don't know.

A fair point.  However, if one were to try to represent such an encampment in a refight of Adrianople, can we do it the other way round?  Choose our preferred make up of the Goth army, then estimate the number of vehicles and animals and propose a scale of encampment appropriate to our chosen army?  I think you can probably get away with various estimates but it seems to me, the camp needs to be proportionate to the armies involved or the result may be distorted..

[Duncan Head]

Depends also on how much of the camp you think you need to represent on the table - I don't think we necessarily need the whole circuit of fortification.

[aligern]

We can have a sensible estimation of the number of Goth warriors.  The Roman scouts had mistakenly assessed the barbarians as having 10,000 men and this number incited Valens to attack before Gratian could arrive to help.  At 10k the Goth army was expected to be relatively easy meat.   However, we have to expect that the scouts were  not complete tyros and were perhaps deceived by the absence of much of the cavalry on a foraging expedition and perhaps the difficulty of getting a sight and thus count of all the wagons. That suggests that the Goths did not have a huge force of say 40,000 , but a force that was within the bounds of error around 10,000 as an underestimate and many cavalry being missed .  Had there been 40,000 men then the Goths  would have crushed the  Romans with numbers.
Of course, the estimate of the scouts  would always be prone to error. Valens will have known that their 10,000 could be out by say 50%  and would still be confident of beating them even if there were 15,000.
Hence I suggest a reasonable figure would be :
15,000 infantry
1,000 cavalry with the laager.
5,000 cavalry out foraging.
This would give a force of  20,000 plus, enough to be a challenge to Valens, but still within the Roman army's  capabilities, until the arrival of the Gothic cavalry on the flank,is factored in.

Roy

[Bohemond]

Depends also on how much of the camp you think you need to represent on the table - I don't think we necessarily need the whole circuit of fortification.

As I said at the 2021 conference, following Simon MacDowell's talk. A straight-ish line of wagons bent back on each flank would seem to do the job well enough. I know it's along way off chronologically, but the Flemish at Mons-en-Pevele and the English at Crecy, protected the rear of their armies with the transport carts and wagons, and, in the latter case the horse-lines as well, since the knights were dismounted, rather than a defensive line behind which to fight. Although, as we know from Thom Richardson's book on the Royal Armouries in the 14thc. at Crecy there were 100 carts known as 'ribauts' also used to provide cover for the archers, presumably in the front rank.