[simo7]

The 65k figure is what ancient historians reported, in reality it’s almost certainly order of magnitudes lower. Exaggerated figures are usually the case with ancient reports (especially about battles).

[Archelaos]

There were eight Roman legions and a lot of allied troops that had been mostly annihilated. Rome was subsequently no longer in a position to oppose Hannibal in an open field battle. From this alone one can conclude that the Roman losses must have been considerable. The figures given by Polybius and Livius may or may not be approximately correct, but I think they are in the right order of magnitude.

[hugh-avherald]

Are you suggesting that fewer than 1000 men died in this battle?

[ReptileMan]

Fewer than 10000

[simo7]

Fewer than 10k wouldn't be surprising at all, yes.

[ffgjgf1]

So why did it affect Rome this mich to force them to start conscripting slaves and criminals? Wouldn’t make much sense if “only” 10 000 men were lost.

[InCityDreams]

"And there fell that day on the fields of battle and at the different fords of the river Jordan, forty and two thousand of the Ephremites."

42,000 or 2,040?

Even the illuminati can't get old numbers correct (these days).