Gothic wagons

[Erpingham]

It seems to me, from my very general awareness of the Adrianople battle, that the Roman army needs to be able to attack frontally but also from two flanks.  Any wagon fortifications needs to represented in a way that would allow this, so a shallow "C" shape or Matt's suggestion of a line with bent back ends would fit the picture.  Would the line cover the whole table width, with any Goth flank marches coming in from the side of the table, or would space need to be allowed for them to come round the wagon line?

[CarlL]

Couple of reflections on the discussion so far:
1. The Goths may not have been reliant on captured wagons: as farmers, and woodsmen, with craftsmen amongst their tribes, wood can be felled, farms or boatyards stripped of wood or metals for construction of wagons. They were seeking admission to the Empire to flee an enemy, so wagons to escape the frontier and threat of capture would be part of the plan not simply a last resort?
They may not have expected the initial Roman refusals to assist them, and would have had much involvement with the transportation available when the Romans bargained a heavy price (in enslavement of Goths) for assisting passage across the Danube or assisting survival once crossed.
The Goth anger created by the Roman heavy handed treatment would have stoked a no holds barred response when the Gothic revolt occurred.
2. The Goths used a wagon laager to protect their families and animals while mounted foragers went far and wide. It was intended as a defensive structure. So it was probably the Roman focus of attack, with a Roman intention to enslave or butcher those they encountered.  So it should perhaps be the focal terrain item? (Wasn't it on a hilltop too? Long time since I read my sources and wrote about re-enacting this battle in Slingshot.)  Thus a Roman army spreading to 'besiege' and assault this 'laager' (whatever its shape); would leave its rear and not just its flanks mightily exposed. The returning Goth cavalry would have the soft under-belly of the Roman army to cut at.
3. The Goth wanderings over many generations from the Baltic to the Danube may not have been a nomadic wandering, more a 'slash & burn' agricultural migration where wagons may have been a permanent feature. (But my assumptions may be too much influenced by the later Hussite wanderings and creation of townships within the walls of their wagon laagers.) Wagons may be a feature of their culture and simply not commented by the Romans on till the Roman defeat at the base of the wagon laager at Adrianople? And not commented on later as other aspects would have pre-occupied the Romans and their commentators, facing a now internal 'enemy' with the booty from defeating the army of one half of the Roman Empire. Much weaponary, armour (mail, and helmets) and military horses must have fallen to the Goths both before and after Adianople as they initially marched south from the Danube the after Adrianople, paid to march West by Roman East.
CarlL

[Duncan Head]

2. The Goths used a wagon laager to protect their families and animals while mounted foragers went far and wide. It was intended as a defensive structure. So it was probably the Roman focus of attack, with a Roman intention to enslave or butcher those they encountered.  So it should perhaps be the focal terrain item? (Wasn't it on a hilltop too? Long time since I read my sources and wrote about re-enacting this battle in Slingshot.) 

Terrain at Adrianople is a whole other question... but Ammianus doesn't mention a hill. IIRC one other brief account - Orosius? - says the Gothic laager was "in a suitable location", but that could be anything

[aligern]

A hill does make sense for command and control, oversight of the enemy movements and combat advantage.  However, it makes even more sense to be by a river. which would defend one flank and give access to a water supply...and IIRC that isn't mentioned either? If there are 20, 000 warriors and 4-5,000 horses plus 4,000 draught animals and 40,000 dependents...that's a hell of a lot of fluid intake!  An opponent who contested the water supply would bring the army to heel in 3-4 days.
Roy

[Erpingham]

  An opponent who contested the water supply would bring the army to heel in 3-4 days.
Roy

I was instantly reminded of something I read during our discussion about horse archers and guns.  Its part of an account of Anthony Jenkinsons travels in Tartar territory in 1558

But after we had slaine divers of their men and horses with our Guns, they durst not approach so nigh, which caused them to come to a truce with us untill the next morning, which wee accepted, and encamped our selves upon a hill, and made the fashion of a Castle, walling it about with packes of wares, and layd our Horses and Camels within the same, to save them from the shot of arrowes : and the theeves also incamped within an arrow shot of us, but they were betwixt us and the water, which was to our great discomfort, because neither we nor our Camels had drunke in two dayes before.

Jenkinson's caravan had no choice but to pay for safe passage.