Quote Originally Posted by WImPyTjeH View Post
Yeah I wanted to ask this too. Wasn't it the strenght of the legions that though outnumbered in several occasions, they could still win the battle? Wasn't Ceasar heavily outnumbered when he besieged Alesia?
Yes, Caesar's army numbered 80.000, including auxillaries and allies. The number of Gallic warriors is generally estimated to 200.000 or more. However, I have my doubts about this: 80.000 seems to have been the upper limit for Roman armies, so how the hell did the far less sophisticated Gauls cope with the logistics of 200.000 men in one place? 200.000 men isn't an army, it's a 30 km tailback. And that's not including the ox-carts, armourers, servants, priests, etc. that would have accompanied it.

Also, keep in mind that the only records we have are those of Romans or Greeks working for Romans. From periods in history in which do have records of both sides, it appears that most chroniclers count every enemy twice, and include cooks, stable boys and servants in that number. The obsession of Romans with enumerating their victories probably would have contributed to that. Lastly, battles like Alesia and Watling Street were last-ditch efforts at throwing the Romans out. The majority of combatants would have been levies, not warriors.