caldrail Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 Alesia. About 45,000 Romans and 'supposedly' 250,000 Gauls. Definately, the double circumvillation by itself was something only the greatest Roman Generals could achieve. Let alone the odds against them. PC The double circumvallation wasn't planned by caesar, it was a matter of expediency. He had to find some way of keeping out the gallic relief army and still maintain a siege of alesia. Caesar ran into manpower problems because of this decision and found it difficult to find enough soldiers to man the palisades. In fact this was another example of a situation going horribly wrong but Caesar keeping his head - it might well have cost him it. As for the construction, that was simply the legions doing what they had trained for. They must have denuded the local area of trees for the construction. Also remember that the gauls inside alesia were desperately short of food, something caesar was well aware of, and the entire reason why he proceeded with this siege in the first place. Actually I agree, it was Caesar doing what he did best that comes across in this action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 The "battle of Gaius street" where Marcus beat Spurius , Appius , Manius , Servius , Sextus , Quintus , Numa and Vullero in 35 BCE after He (Marcus) insulted Numa's sister . It was 1:8 !!! Cannae , some 90,000 v. some 35,000 - Genuine numbers , not exaggeration Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 The battle of Strasbourg in AD 357 was a massive victory for Rome. Julian had an army of about 12,000 men while the Alamanni had around 35,000. The Romans lost around 200 men, while the Alamanni suffered casualties in excess of 6,000. Even the leader of the Germanic warbands, Chnodomar was captured by the Romans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Paulinus Maximus Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 The battle of Pharsalus Pompey some 45-50.000 men ( plus another 7 cohorts guarding the camp) v Caesar's 22,000 men (plus 2 cohorts left to guard his camp) I'd say the odds were firmly stacked in Pompey's favor, but we all know the outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) The escape of Spartacus from the toe of Italy. Crassus had built a wall to trap him there after the pirates had stiffed him for his cash and sailed away without his followers on board. The only course open to Spartacus was to break out. Although a talented commander, Spartacus lost 6,000 men for only 100 roman casualties. Or what about Horatio at the bridge? Single handedly he kept an enemy army from crossing into Rome until the bridge could be destroyed. Edited January 19, 2007 by caldrail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Or what about Horatio at the bridge? Single handedly he kept an enemy army from crossing into Rome until the bridge could be destroyed. Yes ! It was something like 0.85 against 4,200 ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Technically he did lose that one! But a strategic and personal victory nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PARTHICOS Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 the greatest is hannibal army at cannae, he defeated a well trained roman army that has superior numbers than his. alesia not comparable to cannae, gaugamela and other great outnumber battles, you see in alesia a well train roman army fought against some stoopid northern barbarian, in cannae two great civilization clash in gaugamela same thing even during those times they call carthage and persia as barbarians, but in reality they are equally civilized like rome and greece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oats Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 the greatest is hannibal army at cannae, he defeated a well trained roman army that has superior numbers than his. alesia not comparable to cannae, gaugamela and other great outnumber battles, you see in alesia a well train roman army fought against some stoopid northern barbarian, in cannae two great civilization clash in gaugamela same thing even during those times they call carthage and persia as barbarians, but in reality they are equally civilized like rome and greece. I don't know about "well-trained." At the time, the Roman Legions simply employed a "let's all move forward" type tactic and the only major previous engagement that they actually had a tough time with was Phyrrus. As I recall, the Roman Legions did not employ much in the way of tactics given that their troops were levied from the population on a need-be basis and that the training required for tactical maneuvers hadn't been required against the Etruscans and other enemies of Rome- yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crastinus Posted April 18, 2007 Report Share Posted April 18, 2007 I am going to have to agree with Gaius Paulinus. Caesar was at a 2 to 1 disadvantage at Pharsalus. Also these werent Gauls or Dacians that he was fighting but rather trained Roman legions facing him, grantd they werent as seasoned as Caesar's gallic vets but still. And even though it proved his undoing Pompeius Magnus also had a 7 to 1 advantage in Cavalry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshotgene Posted April 18, 2007 Report Share Posted April 18, 2007 Most of the Hannibal victories were exceptional. I am doing my doctoral thesis on the repition of history. I am comparing the lives of Hannibal, Robert E. Lee, and Erwin Rommel. All three came from pretty humble backgrounds. All three rose to prominence. And all three were brilliant generals. Unfortunately, all three fought a war that could easily have been won, had they reinforcements and supplies. Unfortunately, their countries thought it a lost cause or the supplies were attacked, thus starving the generals. Hannibals greatest victories were on Lake Trasimene, and Cannae. Whenever you have a battle, and a new term is added to the language of the people, such as "Ham Stringing", you know it was an awesome battle. Something like 90,000 Romans versus 35,000 Carthaginians. Hannibal had the advantage of the field, dust, and wind. The Romans had the strength of their hastati, and other 2 levels of troops. Still the Carthaginians won obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonic Posted April 28, 2007 Report Share Posted April 28, 2007 It all depends on who you believe. if you follow the traditional historians, the greatest victory has to be Ad Decimum under Belisarius. According to the traditional view, the Vandals fielded an army of 160,000 men (see for, example, Harbottle's 'Dictionary of Battles' under 'Carthage 2'), but I don't know where they get the numbers from . According to Procopius, Belisarius won the battle with only 5,000 cavalry! Odds of 32:1. Beat that!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.