Okay, I thought that sounded plausible, Whacker. I thought for a minute there that Lago was an ancient historican. But I googled him, and it turned out he is a contemporary historian. He studied classical history at the university of Madrid, but he doesn't look like the definitive authority on classical warfare or Gothic migrations. More like the next historian hobbying his way on the web. I don't know what he bases his numbers on.

Anyway, my point was not so much to add anything to this topic itself, as to share my amazement at the inaccuracies of wikipedia. I've got no idea who's correct, but one entry is completely off. 46.500 Romans versus 155.000 Goths in one entry, and 15-30k Romans versus 10-20k Goths in the other.

Wait, I just checked more languages. Most entries have different numbers again. What a mess!

Finnish: Romans 60k versus Goths 60k
German: 30 vs 20
Czech: 15/30 vs. 20/50
Italian: 40 vs 70
Dutch: 12/15 vs 30
Norwegian: direct translation of English (or the other way round)
Swedish: can't find it. Speaks of 40.000 death Romans though
Serbocroatian: 15/30 vs 20

Polish: Looks like a translation from Spanish (French?). Interestingly, they come up with the exact same breakdown and number of troop types as the French/Spanish one, but with a 'correction'(?): 12.500 heavy infantry, not 122.500. I think this is more plausible, I wondered about that high number earlier. If true, however, that leaves not enough troops in the French entry for their casualty number of 80k Goths.