RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: The biggest battle of Roman
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hi,
which one was the biggest battle of Roman and how long it
took time to finish it ?
please tell me about this topic in explain,


regards-sajid
That depends? Roman vs. Roman? Probably the Battle of Mursa. Roman vs. non-Roman? Probably the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields.

But my knowledge of prior eras is limited, and I'd suspect there may have been larger in the Late Republic or Early-Mid Principate
I would think the Battle of Philippi, between Octavian/Antony and Brutus/Cassius Longinus in 42BC. Not sure if the highest estimates are accurate (400,000+ counting auxiliaries) but by all accounts it was pretty big. High estimates for other battles (like Vercellae against the Cimbri or Watling Street against Boudicca) probably included noncombatant members of the tribe.
I cant say which was biggest in general and no one can tell you for certain, all we have are guesses based on usually very imperfect sources.However as for the Romans vs Romans I also favor Philippi as probably the biggest ever fought.
Little forgotten Battle of Arausio in which up to 120.000 Romans/Allies were killed, which was reason enough for Marius to begin reform of the army is definitely up there
Quote:I would think the Battle of Philippi, between Octavian/Antony and Brutus/Cassius Longinus in 42BC. Not sure if the highest estimates are accurate (400,000+ counting auxiliaries) but by all accounts it was pretty big.

Yes, 400.000 for both armies is perhaps a bit high. But the army of the triumvirs had 17 legions plus allies, if I remember right. The republican army was a bit smaller. I don't know of any higher number of classic legions in any roman army.

The biggest army of the principate was perhaps Tiberius' invasion force 6 AD with 12 legions plus auxilia. But this army has never fought.
Estimates of Mursa vary but I would suggest that combining the numbers of troops of both Magnetius' and Constantius II' armies we would not be far off if we said that there were 200,000 troops present. Both Magnetius and Constantius had appealed to various barbarian tribes for support, Magnetius appealed to the Franks and Burgundians, Constantius to the Goths so we cannot be sure if the armies were totally 'Roman' in nature.
I am sceptical to numbers given by Zosimus.If I remember correctly he also states that Julian killed 60 000 Germanics at Argentoratum-well compare this with Ammianus 6000/8000 dead which is much more ground and certainly also much more realistic number.
Not saying that his numbers on Constantine vs Licinius battles must be necessarily heavily exaggerated but I guess his numbers rather fits total number of soldiers Constantine and Licinius had in their respective armies on campaign rather than literally number of men that really clashed at those battles.
I've noticed Ancient Authors tend to just add a "0" to the end of the size of an army. But there could be other reasons for this as well: the strategicon reports the difficulties of scouting and determining the size of an enemy force, especially by an inexperienced scout, and tells how to make an army appear larger than it actually is. He even states that "Scythian" (Hun/Avar) armies are the most difficult as their units are not regularly organized, they usually disperse their armies over a wide distance, etc. etc.

For example, Aetius' army of 60,000 in 425, for example, may have been reported as 60,000 men, but was in reality far less. The Huns of the Tisza couldn't field more than about 10,000 men.