WI: Emperor Valenes does not fight at Adrianople alone

What if Emperor Valenes did not fight Adrianople alone. What if he instead waited for the Western European Emperor. Would he have won, if so how would that affect the Empire(s)?
 
Thing is, Valens didn't really wanted to fight, but more to make a demonstration of strength.

The first fights in 377 already turned badly for Romans, mostly because they charged without much reflexion Gothic forces, loosing half of their in the process : Valens basically had to scrap for secondary-quality troops in 378 in order to raise an army and he's not sure how long he could stand.

As his scouts warned him that part of the Gothic army went on an errand along the Tundja, he simply saw a good opportunity (that soon turned to be illusory, Gothic forces were more important than planned, and critically more organized) to make a show. As the real situation appeared, not willing to fight, he simply temporized.

Again, he's not so sure of his armies. So negociation about hostages, in order to secure tractations take a lot of time and in the meanwhile doesn't decide either for attack or to wait for Gratian...for three hours...

Eventually, his troops (that he didn't briefed or anything) simply decide for him : scutarii of the left flank charge Fritigern that counter-attack ( and surround Romans, as Valens forgot to scout the surroundings), and the rest is history.

Basically, the problem isn't in numbers : it's Valens himself. He was undecisive up to the last minute, and I'm not sure that Gratian (that clearly went to fight as he did in the western part of the empire) would have that much helped.

Actually, it could have been worse : with Gratian killed in Adrianople, the succession of the west and the east would have been really problematic. Meaning at least another civil conflict, and maybe no Theodosius and his re-organisation of the army.

Not that the battle had immediate that negative consequences IOTL : Goths were still unable to take the important regional cities, and had to go back to a status quo ante bellum as Romans reorganised their forces (and so effectively, one can wonder that if they didn't loose at Adrianople, if the Theodosian efficient reorganisation wouldn't have been delayed). The main issue is that a large (even if patchwork-esque) Roman army was defeated, giving Goths confidence they could anew impose themselves.

So, with a Roman victory we have at one hand an inept emperor still in charge (and Theodosius probably remaining in WRE) and a Roman army not quickly re-organised; but on the other hand Goths being forced to a new treaty (probably something akin to 382's treaty, which was basically what Valens proposed) and without having scored a victory against Romans, would probably remained divided and with a more pro-Roman stance for a time.

Eventually, it would mean, IMO, that another Barbarian people would have scored an Adrianople-equivalent against Romans, just not (and I'm not even sure of that) Goths.
 
Top