Rome’s greatest victories before 476 AD

Rome’s greatest victories before 476 AD

  • Battle of Sentinum 295 BC

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Battle of Zama 202 BC

    Votes: 13 28.3%
  • Battle of Pydna 168 BC

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • Battle of Aquae Sextiae 102 BC

    Votes: 5 10.9%
  • Battle of Tigranocerta 69 BC

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • Battle of Alesia 52 BC

    Votes: 15 32.6%
  • Battle of Watling Street 61 AD

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • Battle of Mediolanum 259 AD

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Battle of Naissus 268 AD

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • Battle of Châlons 451 AD

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • others

    Votes: 5 10.9%

  • Total voters
    46
I would say that not only is Alesia the greatest Roman victory, but arguably the greatest single military achievement in the history of the world.

Alexander the Great campaigns? Early muslim/Arab expansion? Norman conquest of England? Mongolian conquests? Prussia surviving 7YW intact? Israeli victory in YKW? :rolleyes:
 
Alexander the Great campaigns? Early muslim/Arab expansion? Norman conquest of England? Mongolian conquests? Prussia surviving 7YW intact? Israeli victory in YKW? :rolleyes:

I don't know, you can make an argument that Alesia was better than all of those, or at least most of them.

Now if Harold Godwin had won at Hastings, that might go down as the greatest achievement. Winning at Stamford Bridge, force marching your army and then somehow winning at Hastings.
 
I don't know, you can make an argument that Alesia was better than all of those, or at least most of them.

How so? Granted it was a hard fought victory that required serious roman ingenuity, was hard fought and delivered decisive victory.

But to say it was greater achivement than Mongol conquests which crushed several large states and provided several large victories is a big stretch or Big Alex' victories over Persia and crushing of said state is simply not correct.

Now, if you were to say great battle victory there might be case for that but you'd have to explain why it was bigger than, say, Austerlitz, Hattin....
 
How so? Granted it was a hard fought victory that required serious roman ingenuity, was hard fought and delivered decisive victory.

But to say it was greater achivement than Mongol conquests which crushed several large states and provided several large victories is a big stretch or Big Alex' victories over Persia and crushing of said state is simply not correct.

Now, if you were to say great battle victory there might be case for that but you'd have to explain why it was bigger than, say, Austerlitz, Hattin....

Austerlitz also finally ended the HRE thats pretty significant.;)
 
I would say the biggest one was Magnezia in 190 BC.

It ensured the Romans would dominate Asia Minor and Greece, and it so crippled the Seleucids that it made Roman expansion into Syria, Palestine and Egypt not only possible, but likely.

Had Magnezia (and subsequent events) gone the other way, Rome may never have had an empire in the east, which gives this battle at least as much macrohistorical significance as Alesia, which gained them dominion over Gaul.
 
Austerlitz also finally ended the HRE thats pretty significant.;)

And it was well fought on French side, including preparations for it. So all in all Alesia was big, important and good Roman victory but hardly greatest military achivement in history of the world (tm)
 
ZAMA: Their greatest victory against their biggest rival. Made them the number one power in that part of the world for at least a 1000 years. No ZAMA, no nothing else.
 
ZAMA: Their greatest victory against their biggest rival. Made them the number one power in that part of the world for at least a 1000 years. No ZAMA, no nothing else.

Defeating Hannibal while he was on his last legs. Yes, totally the greatest victory Rome ever had.
 
Either Alesia, Tigranocerta or Watling street seem the most impressive victories, to me. But I don't know if "Impressive" is the same as "great".
 
Top