Most Important Battles Challenge (5)

Thanks 1Historygenius for showing a lot of effort into the debate. The Battle of AdrianopleDate: August 9th, 378Armies Engaged: The Eastern Roman Empire (Army of Thrace and the 1st and 2nd Armies in Emperor's Presence) versus The Goths (Various Forces)Main Leaders: Emperor Valens (The Eastern Roman Empire) versus Fritigern (The Goths) The BattleOn the morning of 9 August, Valens decamped from Adrianople, where he left the imperial treasury and administration under the guard of the legions. The reconnaissance of the preceding days informed him of the location of the Gothic camp north of the city. Valens arrived there after marching for seven hours over difficult terrain. At around 14:30,the Roman troops arrived in disorder, exhausted and dehydrated, facing the Gothic camp that had been set up on the top of a hill. The Goths, except for their cavalry, took position in front of their wagon circle,inside of which were their families and possessions. Fritigern's objective was to delay the Romans, in order to give enough time for the Gothic cavalry to return. The fields were burnt by the Goths to delay and harass the Romans with smoke, and negotiations began for an exchange of hostages. The negotiations exasperated the Roman soldiers who seemed to hold the stronger position, but they gained precious time for Fritigern. A detachment of Romans began the battle without orders to do so, believing they would have an easy victory, and perhaps over-eager to exact revenge on the Goths after two years of unchecked devastation throughout the Balkans. The imperial scholae of shield-archers under the command of the Iberian prince Bacurius attacked, but lacking support they were easily pushed back. Then the Roman left-wing reached the circle of wagons, but it was too late. At that moment, the Gothic cavalry, alerted by messengers from the embattled wagon circle, arrived to support the infantry. The cavalry surrounded the Roman troops, who were already in disarray after the failure of the first assault. The Romans retreated to the base of the hill where they were unable to maneuver, encumbered by their heavy armor and long shields. The casualties, exhaustion, and psychological pressure led to a rout of the Roman army. The cavalry continued their attack, and the massacre continued until nightfall.[1]ImplicationsFirst, the Roman Empire was no longer seen as the greatest military power in the region. That now passed to the barbarians. "The Battle of Adrianople marks the point in history where the military initiative passed to the barbarians and should never be truly be regained again by Rome."[2][5] In addition to this, a large number or prime soldiers were lost during this battle, including the Emperor himself. "A huge portion of the Eastern Roman Empire’s military strength was destroyed and the Emperor was dead."[3] Roman forces were never able to fully recover their strength. This was the major driver behind hiring barbarian mercenaries for the Roman armies. As the borders of the empire were no longer defensible, barbarians poured in hoping to espace the Huns. This obviously had major impacts on defense as the army was even weaker than before, allowing other barbarian tribes to invade.[4]Second, and very importantly, the Western Roman Empire would never have fallen so quickly, if even at all in the foreseeable future. Stopping the barbarian hordes would have secured the empire's borders from other invasions. "The Gothic rebellion would have ended right then and there, with any survivors expelled to the borders. Roman military strength would have remained at a high level so the upcoming barbarian incursions could have been more ably confronted."[3] Obviously, the sack of Rome would not have happened and Roman dominance would continue. That very thing right there would have had enormous implications on history. If the Roman Empire was not in danger, the Dark Ages could never have ushered in. "Perhaps more importantly, the Roman spirit would not have had to deal with the immense blow that the loss to the barbarians and the death of Valens was. Certainly, it would be fair to say that Rome, east and west, would have lasted longer then it did but how much longer is open for debate. It may have been just a few years or decades. Or maybe the Dark Ages might never have happened."[3] It's safe to say that the Roman Empire would have lasted longer and if superceded, most likely could be ushered into the Eastern Roman Empire. Thus, with the Roman Empire still around, classical antiquity's vast knowledge would still have been there and gained upon instead of being disintegrated in the Dark Ages. Humanity would be further along today. This would have caused Latin to still be the predominant language. The languages we know and speak today would be all but gone. All of this is very likely. On the more speculative side, with a strong Empire (both East and West), the rise of Islam would have been slowed down, if never happened at all. When strength returned to the Empire, they could invade the Middle East, and possibly even Asia, conquering India, China, and Japan, and ceasing those nations from existing. Africa would be reshaped too. The implications on the Americas is pure speculation, but it is likely that the Americas would be much different than we know them today. Who knows what history would be like today? This quote sums it all, "The mighty Empire which layed the foundation for so much of European culture and society began its descent at the crest of a hill, just north of that city."[3] Laying the foundation for the medieval European empires. Sources[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]: http://www.roman-empire.net...[3]: http://neverfeltbetter.wordpress.com...[4]: http://www.historynet.com...[5]: Lanning, Michael Lee. The Battle 100: The Stories Behind History's Most Influential Battles. http://www.youtube.com...