Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So I was looking at stuff, and I came upon this:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1017213

What do you think?

BTW, is this in the right forum?

There's no discussion, no way in hell could Rome win.

err, you forgot the option "what a stupid pole".

Which it obviously is, Iceland could beat Rome in a war considering modern day technology.

And if you mean in a past sense, then no because there was no one about except a few Indians when the Romans were dominating.

A single F-16 would be more than sufficient.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
err, you forgot the option "what a stupid pole".

Which it obviously is, Iceland could beat Rome in a war considering modern day technology.

And if you mean in a past sense, then no because there was no one about except a few Indians when the Romans were dominating.

Past tense there was no United States of America. There were the Americas, but no USA.

Originally posted by inimalist
A single F-16 would be more than sufficient.

Sorry for double post, but no. It would need more ammo.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Past tense there was no United States of America. There were the Americas, but no USA.

what advantage do you think the Romans might have?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Sorry for double post, but no. It would need more ammo.

?

so it is the American military without ammo?

Originally posted by inimalist
what advantage do you think the Romans might have?

I think that America wins...I didn't understand your question.

Originally posted by inimalist
?

so it is the American military without ammo?



You said that a SINGLE jet could do it, but a single jet doesn't have enough ammo or fuel.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
I think that America wins...I didn't understand your question.



You said that a SINGLE jet could do it, but a single jet doesn't have enough ammo or fuel.

Its impossible for a jet to refuel and stuff?

Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
Its impossible for a jet to refuel and stuff?

Well, by "A single F-16 would be more than sufficient." I'd assume that you'd mean only an F-16 and nothing else ie no support to refuel.

no, you set the parameters of the fight. I wasn't changing the context.

it is the entirety of the American army. In that context, a single F-16 could probably destroy all standing armies in the world at that time period.

I don't see the point of this thread?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
You said that a SINGLE jet could do it, but a single jet doesn't have enough ammo or fuel.

A single F-16 would be more than sufficent. Those were my words. In the context of the fight, deploying a single F-16 would be sufficent for the American military to win. Nowhere am I saying that it wouldn't have to refuel or reload, in fact, it is implicit in the context of the thread you made.

also

America has 12 operational aircraft carriers. They are nuclear powered.

America has nuclear subs, nuclear powered and armed.

that alone wipes the entirety of the roman empire off the map.

Two well equiped divisions of the military would be able to capture and hold Rome within a few hours.

Or three tanks.

Or one nuke.

Or a dozen huge bombs.

Really dropping a single large bomb would probably end the war if we assume the Romans aren't total morons.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


Really dropping a single large bomb would probably end the war if we assume the Romans aren't total morons.

Well, it did take two with the Japanese empire before they got the hint. Oh no I didn't.

This is what a rome fanboy said:

1. The M1A1 Abram tanks will find themselves blocked, yes, blocked by the roman limes. Caesar's ditches will slow the american advance to a hault.

2. Then , by deploying his hipaspides closer to the blocked tanks, Caesar can start taking them out one by one, using tar and greek-fire.

3. Further use of flaming arows against the 101 Airborne Division marines will prove itself of greater importance on a flat terrain, where the marines will find virtually no cover, ending up beeing pinned down by a halle of arrows.

4. To counter the enemy's mortar and heavy artilery, Caesar would sent his Heavy Cavarly upon them, slashing their crews in an instant.

5. Apache helicopters watching the area will find it dificult to take out their targets, due to the fact that the battle is already engaged by romans and the americans soldiers are virtually fighting close combat, in wich the legionaries will prevail, sooner or later.


6. With the machinegun bunkers of the American Army, Caesar can only sit back and enjoy the show as his balistae and catapults blast the entranchments apart.

7. The American Comander is taken prisoner by cavalrymen, running into HQ.

8. At precisely 3 P.M , an agreement is reached by all sides.

9. 3.30 P.M an all American surrender.

10. General Staff and GI's are taken as slaves.

A helicopter gunship turned loose on an ancient Roman army (what a great movie scene that would be) would be like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel.

Btw, anyone ever see The Final Countdown?

Originally posted by Mindship
A helicopter gunship turned loose on an ancient Roman army (what a great movie scene that would be) would be like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel.

Btw, anyone ever see The Final Countdown?

Or a well placed Daisy Cutter would wipe out a Roman legion.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
This is what a rome fanboy said:



He's also a complete imbecile, his scenario counts on the U.S. fighting a war that Caesar wants/picks, he doesn't factor in that since WWI, every single General in the world fully knows that air superiority is decisive for a win.

Having said that, one bomber could cripple anything Rome had, let alone the "Roman limes(sic)" stopping M1A1 Abrams, U.S. soldiers just fighting in close combat for the hell of it and Roman calvary going up against U.S. heavy artillery and winning, which was a special treat of moronicness.

In WWII Poland sent it's heavy calvary against the German tanks, I think everyones knows that outcome.

Originally posted by Robtard
In WWII Poland sent it's heavy calvary against the German tanks, I think everyones knows that outcome.

Punch was served?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall

1. The M1A1 Abram tanks will find themselves blocked, yes, blocked by the roman limes. Caesar's ditches will slow the american advance to a hault.

2. Then , by deploying his hipaspides closer to the blocked tanks, Caesar can start taking them out one by one, using tar and greek-fire.

3. Further use of flaming arows against the 101 Airborne Division marines will prove itself of greater importance on a flat terrain, where the marines will find virtually no cover, ending up beeing pinned down by a halle of arrows.

4. To counter the enemy's mortar and heavy artilery, Caesar would sent his Heavy Cavarly upon them, slashing their crews in an instant.

5. Apache helicopters watching the area will find it dificult to take out their targets, due to the fact that the battle is already engaged by romans and the americans soldiers are virtually fighting close combat, in wich the legionaries will prevail, sooner or later.


6. With the machinegun bunkers of the American Army, Caesar can only sit back and enjoy the show as his balistae and catapults blast the entranchments apart.

7. The American Comander is taken prisoner by cavalrymen, running into HQ.

8. At precisely 3 P.M , an agreement is reached by all sides.

9. 3.30 P.M an all American surrender.

10. General Staff and GI's are taken as slaves.



Let's see...

1. The abrams could just run them over.

2. Null via point 1

3. The marines would fire at the archers as well; they won't just sit there. And their guns would be much longer ranged and more accurate.

4. The mortars/arty would destroy them before they get close (plus the noise would scare the sh*t out of the horses) and the crew would be armed with at least pistols. Pistol >>>> ancient weapons.

5. How do the legionaries get close to the US soldiers?

6. Machinegun nests have greater range and firepower than catapults.

7. Commanders no longer fight on the front lines.

8. ok...

9. See the above points.

10. See the above points.

BTW, that Polish calvarly charge was a myth.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
6. Machinegun nests have greater range and firepower than catapults.

That's not even remotely true.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not even remotely true.

You're right. Modern day armies should start using catapults instead.

BTW, I voted USA, NOT Rome.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
You're right.

Yes I am.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Modern day armies should start using catapults instead.

That would be foolish.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes I am.



That would be foolish.

(Assuming that you're serious) Contradicting yourself here?

And at whoever voted Rome, can you come out and say why?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
(Assuming that you're serious) Contradicting yourself here?

I am serious. I'm not contradicting myself.

Machine guns aren't effective at the range catapults fire from. One or two hits from a catapult would destroy a machinegun nest. Replacing machines guns with catapults is still moronic because a) they do different things, catapults are artillery while machine guns take out softer targets at shorter range and b) we have much better forms of artillery to do the job of catapults.

I have a radical (and not serious) theory about how Rome wins a naval engagement:

First, they sneak up behind the ships via the roman ships' small size.

Then, they attach grappling hooks to the ships and and board it. They will take the Americans by surprise and in close combat on ships they'd pwn.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Punch was served?

Close, it spawned countless punchlines.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
I have a radical (and not serious) theory about how Rome wins a naval engagement:

First, they sneak up behind the ships via the roman ships' small size.

Then, they attach grappling hooks to the ships and and board it. They will take the Americans by surprise and in close combat on ships they'd pwn.



There's a new invention, maybe you've heard of it, it's called radar.

Also, a shield, sword and spear isn't a real match against even a 9mm.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
I have a radical (and not serious) theory about how Rome wins a naval engagement:

First, they sneak up behind the ships via the roman ships' small size.

Then, they attach grappling hooks to the ships and and board it. They will take the Americans by surprise and in close combat on ships they'd pwn.



american naval patrol are accompanied by radar, subs (which Rome wouldn't even know exists) and have access to military satellites.

Even then, I don't give close quarters fighting to the Romans. They have swords. Americans have automatic shotguns, flashbangs, grenades, M16s with shotgun attachments...

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
I have a radical (and not serious) theory about how Rome wins a naval engagement:

First, they sneak up behind the ships via the roman ships' small size.

Then, they attach grappling hooks to the ships and and board it. They will take the Americans by surprise and in close combat on ships they'd pwn.



Wrong. Every US naval ship has a detachment of Marines on board. These Marines stand guard over the ship, and they use M16s. A plywood shield will not stop bullets.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I am serious. I'm not contradicting myself.

Machine guns aren't effective at the range catapults fire from. One or two hits from a catapult would destroy a machinegun nest. Replacing machines guns with catapults is still moronic because a) they do different things, catapults are artillery while machine guns take out softer targets at shorter range and b) we have much better forms of artillery to do the job of catapults.

A hail of machine gun bullets could destroy a catapult.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's a new invention, maybe you've heard of it, it's called radar.

Also, a shield, sword and spear isn't a real match against even a 9mm.

NO! Roman ships art immun te radar!!!!

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
A hail of machine gun bullets could destroy a catapult.

If they were in range. Which would require roman commander to be blithering morons or have really terrible catapults.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall




NO! Roman ships art immun te radar!!!!

I see, trolling. Oh good.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
This is what a rome fanboy said:

1. The M1A1 Abram tanks will find themselves blocked, yes, blocked by the roman limes. Caesar's ditches will slow the american advance to a hault.

2. Then , by deploying his hipaspides closer to the blocked tanks, Caesar can start taking them out one by one, using tar and greek-fire.

3. Further use of flaming arows against the 101 Airborne Division marines will prove itself of greater importance on a flat terrain, where the marines will find virtually no cover, ending up beeing pinned down by a halle of arrows.

4. To counter the enemy's mortar and heavy artilery, Caesar would sent his Heavy Cavarly upon them, slashing their crews in an instant.

5. Apache helicopters watching the area will find it dificult to take out their targets, due to the fact that the battle is already engaged by romans and the americans soldiers are virtually fighting close combat, in wich the legionaries will prevail, sooner or later.


6. With the machinegun bunkers of the American Army, Caesar can only sit back and enjoy the show as his balistae and catapults blast the entranchments apart.

7. The American Comander is taken prisoner by cavalrymen, running into HQ.

8. At precisely 3 P.M , an agreement is reached by all sides.

9. 3.30 P.M an all American surrender.

10. General Staff and GI's are taken as slaves.



The problem is, this isn't the scenario you presented.

This is more like: Rome has 10 years prep. They know exactly what the Americans will be bringing. America gets 1 poorly armed squad of novice soldiers, no access to major technology (nukes, subs, aircraft carriers, satellites), has no engineering crew, has no snipers, etc.

Then, America MUST attack the heavily fortified and prepared Roman army, using none of the intelligence they could glean from history books, and must isolate each of their divisions (tanks, artillery, soldiers) into neat groups that don't cover each other and just run at the Romans.

EVEN then, the Romans couldn't do shit to the tanks, or to the planes (flaming arrows? planes are going a bit faster than that).

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
You're right. Modern day armies should start using catapults instead.


Catapults might have a longer range than an M16 that a soldier is carrying, but it wont have a longer range than a Tank.

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Catapults.htm

says the longest recorded catapult was just over 600m, the Abraham's tank can shoot over 8000. And tanks aren't siege weapons.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

Modern artillery, like a Howitzer, can fire over 22000m.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-198

M16s are infantry weapons, they would be compared to archers and legionaries, tanks are essentially "cavalry", whereas the proper comparison would be Howitzer to catapult.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If they were in range. Which would require roman commander to be blithering morons or have really terrible catapults.

average catapults weigh in at around 400m range, though like I said, 600 for the record.

An M16 is effective up to 550m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

It would probably take a huge amount of bullets to render a catapult useless, but 1 or 2 Carl Gustavs (which I can't find the range for...) or an RPG 7 (over 900m range) would destroy it with little problem.

Or tactical airstrikes...

Carl Gustav: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_recoilless_rifle

RPG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7

Why is this even a discussion, a handful of armoured Humvees with roof-mounted .50 caliber nest would rape a Roman legion.

Originally posted by inimalist
average catapults weigh in at around 400m range, though like I said, 600 for the record.

An M16 is effective up to 550m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

It would probably take a huge amount of bullets to render a catapult useless, but 1 or 2 Carl Gustavs (which I can't find the range for...) or an RPG 7 (over 900m range) would destroy it with little problem.

A gustav is like 85mm or something. You're well into the realm of autocannon at that point, it's not a machine-gun anymore, an RPG is well an RPG not a machine gun.

It would take at least a few dozen hits to disable a catapult with any sort of normal machine-gun. At 400m most shots are going to miss. On the other hand a catapult just needs a single hit to make the position useless. I still side with catapults if gunners on both sides are good at the jobs.

Originally posted by inimalist
The problem is, this isn't the scenario you presented.

This is more like: Rome has 10 years prep. They know exactly what the Americans will be bringing. America gets 1 poorly armed squad of novice soldiers, no access to major technology (nukes, subs, aircraft carriers, satellites), has no engineering crew, has no snipers, etc.

Then, America MUST attack the heavily fortified and prepared Roman army, using none of the intelligence they could glean from history books, and must isolate each of their divisions (tanks, artillery, soldiers) into neat groups that don't cover each other and just run at the Romans.

EVEN then, the Romans couldn't do shit to the tanks, or to the planes (flaming arrows? planes are going a bit faster than that).

"you"? That wasn't ME that posted that. It was a roman fanboy.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
So I was looking at stuff, and I came upon this:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1017213

What do you think?

http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/nuclear_explosion.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
Why is this even a discussion, a handful of armoured Humvees with roof-mounted .50 caliber nest would rape a Roman legion.

What surprises me is that two people voted for the Romans.

I wonder how long it'll take Hewhoknowsall to change the thread from the Roman empire to the Lord of the rings armies because he's still bitter about the thread getting closed.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Sorry for double post, but no. It would need more ammo.


I don't think so. The Romans wouldn't know how much ammunition the jet had. They would more than most likely assume that it is from the Gods. With the right munitions and F-16 could level a Roman city. During the Roman rule who ever controlled the military controlled Rome. I highly doubt you could convince Roman soldiers to fight a jet

It wouldn't even take a jet though. A small unit of special forces soldiers outfitted with enough ammunition could conquer the entirety of Rome. It's not a question of discipline or strategy but rather, technology. In the ancient world technology was almost always the deciding factor of victory. Ancient Romans wouldn't be able to comprehend modern day warfare technology. They would kneel and worship.

The idea that its even up for discussion is laughable.

I cant believe that guy was serious with his shit. Rome goes down like a two dollar crack ho.

Originally posted by jaden101
I wonder how long it'll take Hewhoknowsall to change the thread from the Roman empire to the Lord of the rings armies because he's still bitter about the thread getting closed.

lawl

Originally posted by Robtard
There's a new invention, maybe you've heard of it, it's called radar.

Also, a shield, sword and spear isn't a real match against even a 9mm.

night vision

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I still side with catapults if gunners on both sides are good at the jobs.


Likely Scenario:

"ZOMG! Wut iz tat?!?!?!?!?"

"Looks like an incoming projectile."

"Shant we moooooove, dude?!?!??!?!?!"


"Yup"



*Both run forward 10 yards.*


*Deep thud is felt with rock splintering or flame splashing out.*

*Both U.S. infantrymen just look at the pretty fire. Then they fire an RPG at the catapult and watch it blow up...before the catapulters have a chance to load another bomb.*

The end.

Romans were so successful in their time not because they had more advanced weapons and a lot of people, but because they had the best strategy.
USA is unsuccesful in Iraq, Afghanistan and was so in Vietnam because it has the most advanced weapons but very weak strategy.

A famous Arab proverb says:
An army of sheep lead by a lion will defeat an army of lions lead by a sheep.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Likely Scenario:

"ZOMG! Wut iz tat?!?!?!?!?"

"Looks like an incoming projectile."

"Shant we moooooove, dude?!?!??!?!?!"


"Yup"



*Both run forward 10 yards.*


*Deep thud is felt with rock splintering or flame splashing out.*

*Both U.S. infantrymen just look at the pretty fire. Then they fire an RPG at the catapult and watch it blow up...before the catapulters have a chance to load another bomb.*

The end.




Because two guys can dismount a machine gun and run with it out of their hiding place in a matter of seconds and the apparently disassemble it in the space of a few minutes and put it back together as a loaded rocket-propelled grenade launcher that they can operate with perfect accuracy with little or no training?

Actually that sounds insane, my idea makes a lot more sense.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Romans were so successful in their time not because they had more advanced weapons and a lot of people, but because they had the best strategy.
USA is unsuccesful in Iraq, Afghanistan and was so in Vietnam because it has the most advanced weapons but very weak strategy.

I think you're underestimating the sheer discrepancy in technological levels here . . .

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
A famous Arab proverb says:
An army of sheep lead by a lion will defeat an army of lions lead by a sheep.

Only if that's a giant lion. Also Hitler said the same sort of thing, so it must be wrong.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because two guys can dismount a machine gun and run with it out of their hiding place in a matter of seconds and the apparently disassemble it in the space of a few minutes and put it back together as an rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

Actually that sounds insane, my idea makes a lot more sense.

Who said they would they would do all of that? Why would the? Why would they even setup a machinegun nest anyway? Really stupid.


Why wouldn't they pick up an RPG and one round while waiting for what I calculate a 14 second travel time, is not doable? (The math was using a range of 400m...it comes out to a little over 14 seconds.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Who said they would they would do all of that?

I did.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why would the?

Because it's the only way to replicate the circumstances you suggested. Two guys with nothing but a machine-gun would have to be Captain America and Reed Richards to dismount it and turn it into a loaded, highly accurate RPG launcher.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why wouldn't they pick up an RPG and one round while waiting for what I calculate a 14 second travel time, is not doable? (The math was using a range of 400m...it comes out to a little over 14 seconds.)

Because they're guys who have decided to fight catapults with machine-guns. They have no choice in the matter. Either they fight catapult with machine guns or they don't (in which case they cease to exist, as they are hypothetical soldiers that exist only for the moronic task of fighting catapults with machine guns).

Go back and read the comment that started this particuar line of discussion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think you're underestimating the sheer discrepancy in technological levels here . . .

I think sucess rates of wars in Afghanistna and Iraq speak for themselves.
You can bomb and bomb and bomb and nuke, but the sheer fact is, when you get on the ground, troops return in body bags and the country is still not conquered.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Also Hitler said the same sort of thing, so it must be wrong.

Hitler's Germany was the first to ban smoking in public places, to promote health education, organising medical lectures and raising tobacco tax, so you must live in a Nazi country.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think sucess rates of wars in Afghanistna and Iraq speak for themselves.
You can bomb and bomb and bomb and nuke, but the sheer fact is, when you get on the ground, troops return in body bags and the country is still not conqured.

this is true, but neither of those insurgencies are bent on military victories. The Roman military wasn't built to run guerrilla tactics.

EDIT: what I mean is, they were meant to create a situation of attrition from indirect conflict, whereas the Romans had a conventional army based on direct conflict.

How are the Romans going to beat an aircraft carrier? Or nuclear subs?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think sucess rates of wars in Afghanistna and Iraq speak for themselves.
You can bomb and bomb and bomb and nuke, but the sheer fact is, when you get on the ground, troops return in body bags and the country is still not conquered.

The people in Iraq and Afganistan have guns and explosives. Roman legions wouldn't even understand what those are. I mean with a SMG I could probably take out Romes best warrior.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Hitler's Germany was the first to ban smoking in public places, to promote health education, organising medical lectures and raising tobacco tax, so you must live in a Nazi country.

I live in my own little world. So that's libel

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The people in Iraq and Afganistan have guns and explosives. Roman legions wouldn't even understand what those are. I mean with a SMG I could probably take out Romes best warrior.


Probably?

Originally posted by Mindset
Probably?

I have very poor sense of direction.

lol

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I did.

I know. But I contradicted you. HA!



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because it's the only way to replicate the circumstances you suggested. Two guys with nothing but a machine-gun would have to be Captain America and Reed Richards to dismount it and turn it into a loaded, highly accurate RPG launcher.

The "circumstance" does not specify where they are, and for what reason. They just step out of the way, and fire an RPG. That's it.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because they're guys who have decided to fight catapults with machine-guns. They have no choice in the matter. Either they fight catapult with machine guns or they don't (in which case they cease to exist, as they are hypothetical soldiers that exist only for the moronic task of fighting catapults with machine guns).

No they didn't. They decided to use automatic assault rifles...standard issue, and they happen to have an RPG member in the platoon. Woo woot!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Go back and read the comment that started this particuar line of discussion.

Read the whole thread before interjecting my dose of reality.

I liked the post that the OP of the Romans vs US thread posted about how the Romans build nuclear bombs for their catapults.

Only, they have no means to manufacture weapons-grade materials, nor create an implosion fuse to set off the reaction, nor any of the knowlege needed to do any of this. They haven't even gotten to firearms yet. Absolute dumbass.

Originally posted by inimalist
this is true, but neither of those insurgencies are bent on military victories. The Roman military wasn't built to run guerrilla tactics.

EDIT: what I mean is, they were meant to create a situation of attrition from indirect conflict, whereas the Romans had a conventional army based on direct conflict.

How are the Romans going to beat an aircraft carrier? Or nuclear subs?

You missunderstood. I never said either would win the other in the sense the way it is presented in the first post.

It is ridiculous to compare Roman army with fighting jets, and even more ridiculous to go into it, at all.
This was not the point I was raising.

But if Romans were put up to speed with the technology and modern warfare or USA was to go back to basics, Romans may have had an advantage.

The reason above poll does not work is percicely because the way we wage war has changed - the tactics are not straight out war on a field, and therefore cannot be compared.

We can debate if the Romans would be succesfull in utilising their military minds to adapt to modern warfare.

One thing we can be fairly sure of is that if USA is to go back to the rules and weapons of olden warfare they would be crushed by Romans, purely because of the tactics which USA military lacks on the ground and which Romans had.

The reason USA lacks tactics on the ground is precicely because they have fighting jets and nukes, and because the way we wage war is changed.

From that point of view, as I am about to repeat myself, if USA is to be equated with Romans, we can conclude with some confidence that Romans would crush USA, but what we can discuss and never be sure of, is if Romans were to be equated with USA and modern warfare, would they adapt well to the new rules of war, or not.

Originally posted by jaden101
I wonder how long it'll take Hewhoknowsall to change the thread from the Roman empire to the Lord of the rings armies because he's still bitter about the thread getting closed.

Please explain WHERE I said that. I'm not at all upset about it, so why do you say something with absolutely no basis? BTW, I was gone for a week because I was on vacation.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Romans were so successful in their time not because they had more advanced weapons and a lot of people, but because they had the best strategy.
USA is unsuccesful in Iraq, Afghanistan and was so in Vietnam because it has the most advanced weapons but very weak strategy.

A famous Arab proverb says:
An army of sheep lead by a lion will defeat an army of lions lead by a sheep.

That was all guerrilla warfare. Especially the first two, because the terrorists don't show themselves/wear the same clothing as citizens, so it's sorta hard to find them isn't it? And their goal isn't to conquer the nation or otherwise they would've won a long time ago, ie the gulf war.

And aren't US Generals better than Roman ones given that the latter were often chosen by nobility and not skill?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
I liked the post that the OP of the Romans vs US thread posted about how the Romans build nuclear bombs for their catapults.

Only, they have no means to manufacture weapons-grade materials, nor create an implosion fuse to set off the reaction, nor any of the knowlege needed to do any of this. They haven't even gotten to firearms yet. Absolute dumbass.

That wasn't me! Why do you have to make things up?????

Still a silly thread.


I'd like to see a total war game encompassing the last 6000year of human advances though, it would be fun to destroy a whole army with a few modern soldiers.

Bear with me here in case I am wrong, but question:

Are we talking about the full might of the modern United States armed forces versus the full might of the Roman Army? Or are there certain restrictions? Can the United States modern forces only use certain weapons?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Still a silly thread.


I'd like to see a total war game encompassing the last 6000year of human advances though, it would be fun to destroy a whole army with a few modern soldiers.

Empire Earth

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
That was all guerrilla warfare. Especially the first two, because the terrorists don't show themselves/wear the same clothing as citizens, so it's sorta hard to find them isn't it? And their goal isn't to conquer the nation or otherwise they would've won a long time ago, ie the gulf war.

And aren't US Generals better than Roman ones given that the latter were often chosen by nobility and not skill?



That wasn't me! Why do you have to make things up?????

Erm, no. America is trying to conquer the said countries but has failed and continues to fail.
If you declare a war on a country, you do need to subjugate the enemy, ie conquer the country or make the surrender in order to claim victory. How difficult is that?

And regardless of if it's a guerrilla warfare or not is not an excuse.

If those are the rules of the war, either adapt to it and have a better strategy than opponent, or don't start wars at all.

Saying, ''well its a guerrilla warfare and soldiers are dressing up as bla bla bla'' is a lame ass excuse from a country which claims to be the best military power in the world - in all retrospects.

That is the problem they should have thought of before invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraqis and Afghanistanis certainly thought of it and it is working better for them than an all out military confrontation.

Originally posted by inimalist
Empire Earth

What happened to the Canadian flag in avvy?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What happened to the Canadian flag in avvy?

meh, decided to back off the patriotism a bit

it was a bit of a reaction anyways, lol

c'mon, Man-Thing!!!!

Originally posted by dadudemon
The "circumstance" does not specify where they are, and for what reason. They just step out of the way, and fire an RPG. That's it.

If they're just using a machine gun then by definition they cannot have an RPG. It's that simple.


Originally posted by dadudemon
No they didn't. They decided to use automatic assault rifles...standard issue, and they happen to have an RPG member in the platoon. Woo woot!

How are they producing these things when THEY ONLY HAVE A MACHINE GUN?

Originally posted by inimalist
what advantage do you think the Romans might have?

That the USA has a friendly fire problem and kills a lot of its own combatants

Originally posted by inimalist
Empire Earth

So fun, but so time consuming!

Note: the expansion to EE II actually has ragdoll physics for when you fire artillary or cannon fire at soldiers. Funny stuff XD

Originally posted by AngryManatee
So fun, but so time consuming!

Note: the expansion to EE II actually has ragdoll physics for when you fire artillary or cannon fire at soldiers. Funny stuff XD

damn, never played number 2. But ya, some epic games going from prehistory to mechs, but days are lost so quickly.

LoL, all this nonsense about America; all spawned from anti-American foolery. Fact is, in an all out war, America's military defeats any single country in the world right now, and multiple countries in many a scenario. Comes down to who has the bigger Military budget and better weapons.

Vietnam did not defeat America, America defeated America in that war. Mass protest in the U.S., idiots like Jane Fonda taking pictures with the Vietcon, etc. etc. etc.

Iraq, America smashed Saddam's army with ease, the colossal error was taking out Saddam and expecting the country would come together. Bush Sr. did not make this mistake in the first Iraq campaign.

Afghanistan isn't a war, it's little more than an ongoing enemy mine sweep; I'm pretty sure more Aghan combatants are dieing than U.S. soldiers.

I'm starting to wish Ron Paul had won and had been able to put his radical ideas into play.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Erm, no. America is trying to conquer the said countries but has failed and continues to fail.
If you declare a war on a country, you do need to subjugate the enemy, ie conquer the country or make the surrender in order to claim victory. How difficult is that?

And regardless of if it's a guerrilla warfare or not is not an excuse.

If those are the rules of the war, either adapt to it and have a better strategy than opponent, or don't start wars at all.

Saying, ''well its a guerrilla warfare and soldiers are dressing up as bla bla bla'' is a lame ass excuse from a country which claims to be the best military power in the world - in all retrospects.

That is the problem they should have thought of before invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraqis and Afghanistanis certainly thought of it and it is working better for them than an all out military confrontation.
The thing is the civilians weren't the enemies. We didn't go to war with them, we went to liberate them (and steal their oil). And conquering a country isn't as easy as beating the ruling party. If that were the case Iraq would have a McD's on every block by now. And how is the fact that the people still waging war dressing up as civilians not a good excuse? Are they just supposed to go in and carpet bomb the area and say forget it? Then you'd be on here complaining that they killed everyone. And it's not a claim. Check, or ask anyone in the world. The U.S. has the most advanced, most destructive, most powerful military in the world. There is not a single country around that has an airforce, armed forces, or navy with as much strength as the U.S. It's not an opinion it's a fact. Now I'm not sure what you consider "best" but the U.S. also has the most well trained for every situation and is the only nation that has the ability to deploy forces to anywhere in the world in a moments notice. Britian, China, Russia, no one else has that capability. Or do you mean "best" as in they can go in and instantly create peace? Look at the region, no one has been able to make peace there in the last thousand years. As far as Afghanistan goes, that was an emotional reaction from an angry nation. If you house terrorist who admit to killing thousands of civilians and refuse to give them up, expect to have your regime removed from power. And no one is saying the strategy of the U.S. was perfect....George Bush was in charge. Nearly every American (around 60% of them) realize he was an idiot and made political and military decisions that weren't based on intel or strategy. Thats why he's listed as one of our worst presidents ever on almost every list thats been made by historians. He also had the lowest approval rating ever. And how is anything the afghans or iraqi militants doing effective or better? Their regimes not in power and they've been forced to hide in mountains, caves, and holes in the ground. There only offensive ability is to strap bombs on themselves and blow up civilians and military targets alike. Thats like saying all the police around the world are doing a worse job than the criminals b/c they don't stop every single crime from happening. There are extremist and people who want oppression to stay, to achieve their goals they tell young men that if they strap bombs to themselves and blow up places they'll enter heaven with 40 virgins by their side. It takes a little while to change the crazy, outdated beliefs of people. And yes I do think the belief that women and free speech and whatnot needs to be oppressed is outdated. Either way what does any of the whole America vs anyone other than the topic starters scenario have to do with anything? Rome is not iraq, nor are they afghanistan. There military strategy never involved strapping bombs to people and sending them into places. So unless this is the U.S.A. from the 1800's vs the roman empire, and the U.S. doesn't get to use guns, then I'd say the U.S. win with the U.S. of one tank. Or a bomber jet.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Bear with me here in case I am wrong, but question:

Are we talking about the full might of the modern United States armed forces versus the full might of the Roman Army? Or are there certain restrictions? Can the United States modern forces only use certain weapons? Someone? Anyone?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Someone? Anyone?
dunno, but it would have to be a severe handicap on the U.S. side for the Roman empire to even stand a chance. Even if it was just like the civilians from the bay area CA, they'd probably still beat rome. The lack of firearms is a severe handicap for Rome.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai


Word walls are annoying. I'd edit.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
dunno, but it would have to be a severe handicap on the U.S. side for the Roman empire to even stand a chance. Even if it was just like the civilians from the bay area CA, they'd probably still beat rome. The lack of firearms is a severe handicap for Rome. Well, the way I see it, the United States wouldnt even have to deploy any ground troops. All that would need to be done is sit back and let battleships and a few A-10 Warthogs get the job done. Big battleship cannons go boom boom, Roman soldiers go bye bye. A-10's mop up the rest.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, all this nonsense about America; all spawned from anti-American foolery. Fact is, in an all out war, America's military defeats any single country in the world right now, and multiple countries in many a scenario. Comes down to who has the bigger Military budget and better weapons.

Vietnam did not defeat America, America defeated America in that war. Mass protest in the U.S., idiots like Jane Fonda taking pictures with the Vietcon, etc. etc. etc.

Iraq, America smashed Saddam's army with ease, the colossal error was taking out Saddam and expecting the country would come together. Bush Sr. did not make this mistake in the first Iraq campaign.

Afghanistan isn't a war, it's little more than an ongoing enemy mine sweep; I'm pretty sure more Aghan combatants are dieing than U.S. soldiers.

I'm starting to wish Ron Paul had won and had been able to put his radical ideas into play.

I'd put the Mujaheddin in a category as a modern "army", and it is certainly one that has given the most dominant powers of the world a run for their money.

I understand that the full, unrestricted might of the American military could turn the entire middle east into "glass", but as far as their engagements with them thus far, the asymmetrical tactics of the "terrorists" have been highly effective.

I agree with you on Vietnam, and there is some similarity there with Laos and Pakistan in hindering the ability of the Americans to fight a successful war.

so, ummmm, I'm just going to throw this out there, but my feeling is that the modern Mujaheddin would annhiliate pretty much anything Rome sent at them as well.

Rpgs, Mortars, suicide bombs, psychological warfare, Aks, snipers... ya... We are talking about 2000 years of technological difference.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd put the Mujaheddin in a category as a modern "army", and it is certainly one that has given the most dominant powers of the world a run for their money.

I understand that the full, unrestricted might of the American military could turn the entire middle east into "glass", but as far as their engagements with them thus far, the asymmetrical tactics of the "terrorists" have been highly effective.

I agree with you on Vietnam, and there is some similarity there with Laos and Pakistan in hindering the ability of the Americans to fight a successful war.

I wasn't factoring in nukes, as no one wins in a nuclear war.

America is fighting with rules that allow it not to win, the 'Mujas' have no rules, hiding among civilians for safety, using their youth as living bombs etc. etc. etc. They're fighting the more intelligent, yet brutal war; it's very effective, you're correct.

Granted, the U.S. can't win in the sense of a conventional war (WW1, WW2) here, itnever could. America needs to write new rules(or toss them out in kind) for this kind of warfare, until then, it will be the ongoing nonsense we see now.

The U.S. should have invested heavily into (re)building Afghanistan in the 80's, after the Soviets were driven out, made that country a solid ally with modern schools, hospitals and an economy.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, ummmm, I'm just going to throw this out there, but my feeling is that the modern Mujaheddin would annhiliate pretty much anything Rome sent at them as well.

Rpgs, Mortars, suicide bombs, psychological warfare, Aks, snipers... ya... We are talking about 2000 years of technological difference.

Of course they would. AK47s defeat spears.

The one advantage Rome would have here over the U.S. fighting the Mujas, the Roman citizenship fully supported the Roman military machine and wouldn't scoff at the Legions crucifying everyone and anyone. ie civilian support can make or break a war.

Originally posted by Robtard
I wasn't factoring in nukes, as no one wins in a nuclear war.

America is fighting with rules that allow it not to win, the 'Mujas' have no rules, hiding among civilians for safety, using their youth as living bombs etc. etc. etc. They're fighting the more intelligent, yet brutal war; it's very effective, you're correct.

Granted, the U.S. can't win in the sense of a conventional war (WW1, WW2) here, itnever could. America needs to write new rules(or toss them out in kind) for this kind of warfare, until then, it will be the ongoing nonsense we see now.

I totally agree, the US needs to redefine what victory means against insurgent groups. Dictators are easy, because it is just removing the political leadership. According to the Rand Institute, the only really effective way to "beat" an insurgency is to incorporate them into the political establishment. Unfortunately, any even appearance of negotiating with "terrorists" is political suicide for an American politician. Obviously talks are going on in secret.

My only caution would be that, in throwing away the rules, we may be defeating ourselves. The West is great because it has such restrictions. I'm not saying we can't morally fight terrorism or Islamic radicalism, just that, if it means we have to disregard individual liberty, I'm not sure it is worth it.

Originally posted by Robtard
The U.S. should have invested heavily into (re)building Afghanistan in the 80's, after the Soviets were driven out, made that country a solid ally with modern schools, hospitals and an economy.

Totally, or at the very least, prevented Pakistan from essentially making the Afghan government a puppet of the ISI.

however, building schools and the like is the rhetoric used by Canadian politicians to support our military campaign there now. My answer to that is that there are places in Canada where girls don't have full access to schools. I'm really not sure how I feel about the concept of a government building any nation but its own.

Originally posted by Robtard
Of course they would. AK47s defeat spears.

It seemed like it was being insinuated that because America could or could not defeat the Muj, that would be reflective of their ability to defeat Rome.

Originally posted by Robtard
The one advantage Rome would have here over the U.S. fighting the Mujas, the Roman citizenship fully supported the Roman military machine and wouldn't scoff at the Legions crucifying everyone and anyone. ie civilian support can make or break a war.

True, it would be very difficult for Muslim extremists to travel through the population of Rome undetected, and even in Iraq there are numerous instances of local groups kicking out foreign fighters, simply because the people on the ground really know what is up.

I think that only matters in modern war, because the technological asymmetry is in favor of the American army. The Muj wouldn't have to use their traditional hit and run or car bomb tactics, as their basic personal weaponry has better accuracy and range than the typical Roman siege weapons. If anything, the fact that Islamic fighters are typically against such a powerful opponent might mean they are less capable of fighting the conventional style battle that would win against the Romans.

Originally posted by inimalist
I totally agree, the US needs to redefine what victory means against insurgent groups. Dictators are easy, because it is just removing the political leadership. According to the Rand Institute, the only really effective way to "beat" an insurgency is to incorporate them into the political establishment. Unfortunately, any even appearance of negotiating with "terrorists" is political suicide for an American politician. Obviously talks are going on in secret.

My only caution would be that, in throwing away the rules, we may be defeating ourselves. The West is great because it has such restrictions. I'm not saying we can't morally fight terrorism or Islamic radicalism, just that, if it means we have to disregard individual liberty, I'm not sure it is worth it.



Totally, or at the very least, prevented Pakistan from essentially making the Afghan government a puppet of the ISI.

however, building schools and the like is the rhetoric used by Canadian politicians to support our military campaign there now. My answer to that is that there are places in Canada where girls don't have full access to schools. I'm really not sure how I feel about the concept of a government building any nation but its own.



It seemed like it was being insinuated that because America could or could not defeat the Muj, that would be reflective of their ability to defeat Rome.



True, it would be very difficult for Muslim extremists to travel through the population of Rome undetected, and even in Iraq there are numerous instances of local groups kicking out foreign fighters, simply because the people on the ground really know what is up.

I think that only matters in modern war, because the technological asymmetry is in favor of the American army. The Muj wouldn't have to use their traditional hit and run or car bomb tactics, as their basic personal weaponry has better accuracy and range than the typical Roman siege weapons. If anything, the fact that Islamic fighters are typically against such a powerful opponent might mean they are less capable of fighting the conventional style battle that would win against the Romans.

This reminds me - I don't know if you heard, but Mujahedeen's in Bosnia are known as the ''White Al-Quaida'' because they're in many cases blonde and ''European looking''. Due to this, they may be easier for them to mingle in Americas and/or Europe.
I just read that Osama Bin Laden has a Bosnian passport. (?!?!)

Wahabbi mosques are springing around left right and center - not just in Europe, but everywhere.
Scary. Very freakin scary.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If they're just using a machine gun then by definition they cannot have an RPG. It's that simple.

No, because I said they do have an RPG, so they do.




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How are they producing these things when THEY ONLY HAVE A MACHINE GUN?

They don't. They also have an RPG. It's in a little RPG plastic carrying case in their Humvee. 313




Okay, they have just their standard issue Automatic Assault rifles. They still just step out of the way and fire some shots in the direction of the Catapult. Still, game over.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm starting to wish Ron Paul had won and had been able to put his radical ideas into play.


THANK YOU!


Originally posted by Robtard
I wasn't factoring in nukes, as no one wins in a nuclear war.


Yes, if the US only launched them against the Eastern part of the world, and didn't get in exess with them, and fired them before the other guys, we wouldn't see the radioactivity travel our direction, and the cloudiness shouldn't happen either.


Also, we may be able to just launch all of them and still black out of the sun for two years, and still survive, but, if I'm not mistaken, we would get some radioactive fall out if we clouded the sky up.

It's simple...take them out before they know what's coming.


Since we have the largest functional stock of ICBM's, by far, no one stands a chance. MWAHAHAHAHAHAA!

America is fighting with rules that allow it not to win, the 'Mujas' have no

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, because I said they do have an RPG, so they do.

Then they have a weapon other than a machine gun and it's a different discussion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They don't. They also have an RPG. It's in a little RPG plastic carrying case in their Humvee. 313

Then they have a weapon other than a machine gun and it's a different discussion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, they have just their standard issue Automatic Assault rifles. They still just step out of the way and fire some shots in the direction of the Catapult. Still, game over.


Then they have a weapon other than a machine gun and it's a different discussion.

This reminds me of the joke that goes:
How does Batman beat Superman without Kryptonite?
By using Kryptonite.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since we have the largest functional stock of ICBM's, by far, no one stands a chance. MWAHAHAHAHAHAA!

iirc, doesn't Russia have more nukes, if we compare bomb for bomb, but America has the most technologically advanced and powerful?

Originally posted by dadudemon
America is fighting with rules that allow it not to win, the 'Mujas' have no

But it is because they have those rules that we can even hope they succeed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then they have a weapon other than a machine gun and it's a different discussion.



Then they have a weapon other than a machine gun and it's a different discussion.



Then they have a weapon other than a machine gun and it's a different discussion.

This reminds me of the joke that goes:
How does Batman beat Superman without Kryptonite?
By using Kryptonite.

So...why would they NOT have standard issue weapons? As we say in the versus forums, you can't gimp the combatants so one can one because you like them more.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So...why would they NOT have standard issue weapons? As we say in the versus forums, you can't gimp the combatants so one can one because you like them more.

They wouldn't have the weapons because by definition if it's machine guns vs catapult all they can have is machine guns on the one side and catapults on the other. There's no other option.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They wouldn't have the weapons because by definition if it's machine guns vs catapult all they can have is machine guns on the one side and catapults on the other. There's no other option.

Yes there is.

This is Roman vs. American scenario. A machine gun nest being fired upon by a catapult, will have infantry that have, you guessed it, standard issue weapons. They'd have grenades, probably some RPGs and rounds, pistols, body armor in ideal situations, and, you guessed it, almost everyone will have an Assualt Rifle: the M4 Carbine.


Badda boom.


And if they are Marines, the FN SCAR (really awesome name.)...and we might even see a few FN40GL. AHA!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes there is.

This is Roman vs. American scenario. A machine gun nest being fired upon by a catapult, will have infantry that have, you guessed it, standard issue weapons. They'd have grenades, probably some RPGs and rounds, pistols, body armor in ideal situations, and, you guessed it, almost everyone will have an Assualt Rifle: the M4 Carbine.

That wasn't the point I was originally responding to. I already told you to go back and look at what started the machine-guns vs catapults discussion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That wasn't the point I was originally responding to. I already told you to go back and look at what started the machine-guns vs catapults discussion.

And I already told you that I'm fully aware of the contents of the thread.


Which is why I said the following:




Originally posted by dadudemon
So...why would they NOT have standard issue weapons? As we say in the versus forums, you can't gimp the combatants so one can because you like them more.


I simply interjected with something a bit more real world (as real as it could get in such a retarded vs. thread) and not something that wouldn't happen.

You find me a modern machine gun next by the US military that doesn't have the units equipped with their M4 Carbines.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Well, the way I see it, the United States wouldnt even have to deploy any ground troops. All that would need to be done is sit back and let battleships and a few A-10 Warthogs get the job done. Big battleship cannons go boom boom, Roman soldiers go bye bye. A-10's mop up the rest.

They don't use battleships anymore.


OK, just to make it more fair: Rome gets all of Greece, Macedonia, Mongols, Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, and WW2 Ethiopia on it's side

And USA doesn't get nukes or air support

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
They don't use battleships anymore.


OK, just to make it more fair: Rome gets all of Greece, Macedonia, Mongols, Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, and WW2 Ethiopia on it's side

And USA doesn't get nukes or air support Fine, then the United States military uses aircraft carriers. Alot more powerful than battleships.

And technology still wins.

4 people (NOT me) who voted for Rome: come out!!!

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Fine, then the United States military uses aircraft carriers. Alot more powerful than battleships.

And technology still wins.

But I never said what "Egyptians" and "Greece" meant. It could very well be not the ancient ones, but Egypt and Greece 2000 years in the future.

You'd think the whole premise of an ancient army again a small band of modern weaponry was a pretty good idea for a film.

You'd be wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrkOo0Cay_Y

http://www.e-m-s.de/cover-large/samurai_commando.jpg

Originally posted by jaden101
You'd think the whole premise of an ancient army again a small band of modern weaponry was a pretty good idea for a film.

I enjoyed The Last Samurai srug

How is this thread 6 pages long?

One fully armed marine platoon and 2 helicopters would destroy half the Roman army.


If the entire US military had to only use weapons available in Roman days..then I think the discipline of the Roman army and their experience fighting that type of war would make them prevail.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
So I was looking at stuff, and I came upon this:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1017213

What do you think?

BTW, is this in the right forum?

Spike TV beat you to it with the series Deadlist Warrior.

As far as I know, there is no one mre deadly, badass and butch that your average American footsoldier.

America for the win.

If you argue, you're a terrorist.

Originally posted by KidRock
How is this thread 6 pages long?

One fully armed marine platoon and 2 helicopters would destroy half the Roman army.


If the entire US military had to only use weapons available in Roman days..then I think the discipline of the Roman army and their experience fighting that type of war would make them prevail.
The entire US military is something like 1.3million people on active duty. How many did the Romans have at their peek?

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
Spike TV beat you to it with the series Deadlist Warrior.

As far as I know, there is no one mre deadly, badass and butch that your average American footsoldier.

America for the win.

If you argue, you're a terrorist.

WTF? I watch that show, On Tuesdays, so far it's been.

Apache Vs Gladiator
Samurai Vs Viking
Spartan Vs Ninja

(Formers all won)

Tomorrow it's Pirate Vs. Knight.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
The entire US military is something like 1.3million people on active duty. How many did the Romans have at their peek?

About 375k, this included all forces foreign and domestic the Roman's could draw upon,

Originally posted by Robtard
About 375k, this included all forces foreign and domestic the Roman's could draw upon,
then even if the U.S. were using rocks and sticks they'd win. A million trained soldiers vs 375k soldiers/slaves seems unfair.

this made me LOL

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
then even if the U.S. were using rocks and sticks they'd win. A million trained soldiers vs 375k soldiers/slaves seems unfair.

Na, not with rocks and sticks.

The Legions often fought greater numbers, what pulled them through was their superior technology and battle strategies. 100 trained men in formation can easily take out 300 greasy haired Germanic savages while they're wildly running about and swinging a pitchfork.

Originally posted by Robtard
WTF? I watch that show, On Tuesdays, so far it's been.

Apache Vs Gladiator
Samurai Vs Viking
Spartan Vs Ninja

(Formers all won)

Tomorrow it's Pirate Vs. Knight.

No ninja vs pirate? For shame.

Originally posted by Robtard
Na, not with rocks and sticks.

The Legions often fought greater numbers, what pulled them through was their superior technology and battle strategies. 100 trained men in formation can easily take out 300 greasy haired Germanic savages while they're wildly running about and swinging a pitchfork.
yea but the 1.3 million active military members aren't greasy haired Germanic savages. They're trained members of the most well trained armed forces in the world (current). Plus you gotta think that several members of the U.S. forces have studied the strategies of the ancient roman generals.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No ninja vs pirate? For shame.

That would have been epic, who knows, maybe they will do some repeats, if they get another season and run out of new warriors.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
yea but the 1.3 million active military members aren't greasy haired Germanic savages. They're trained members of the most well trained armed forces in the world (current). Plus you gotta think that several members of the U.S. forces have studied the strategies of the ancient roman generals.

Still, a 'stick and rock' in the hands of a Green Beret isn't going to do much against a Roman Legion.

Originally posted by KidRock


If the entire US military had to only use weapons available in Roman days..then I think the discipline of the Roman army and their experience fighting that type of war would make them prevail.

Actually USA would still win:

1. They outnumber the romans.

2. Only use WEAPONS of roman times? Then they still have phones/computer so they can communicate several thousand times faster than the romans, which is a HUGE advantage.

3. USA Soldiers are well trained. Roman Legionarries are too, but a lot of the army are conscripts and peasants, whom aren't that well trained.

4. USA knows all about the Romans and their tactics. The Romans know nothing about the USA.

5. The USA still has a much better economy, even in this crisis (or maybe not, IDK)

6. USA has better medical knoledge, more soldiers died of disease than war in those times.

Hell, would the Romans ever understand the highly advanced technology that is used by the US military? Or how a friggin machine gun works? Or what a Jet is and how it works?

Originally posted by JacopeX
Hell, would the Romans ever understand the highly advanced technology that is used by the US military? Or how a friggin machine gun works? Or what a Jet is and how it works?

Of course not! Here's a question:

If you somehow took a cell phone into the past, which of the following would understand that it's technology and not magic?:

Stone Age
Classical
Medieval
Renaissance
Enlightenment
WW1/2

I'd say the last 2, maybe last 3.

Na, really depends who saw it. People have the concept of technology and it's advancement.

Originally posted by Robtard
Na, really depends who saw it. People have the concept of technology and it's advancement.

I'm saying an average, educated (although most weren't, but oh well) person from that era.

Originally posted by Robtard
That would have been epic, who knows, maybe they will do some repeats, if they get another season and run out of new warriors.

For their computer simulation, do they factor in skill? And how accurate is it anyway?

In order to test it's accuracy, they should do a battle like "US Marine vs Knight" and see who wins. If the Marine loses, then they know that something's wrong.

...so, this thread is serious? Who voted for Rome?

I'll be honest and say I haven't read past the first page, sorry if I'm ignoring some great argument for the Roman legionnaires to cripple America, but... no.

There hasn't been a great argument for Rome.

Oh, good! That still does not explain the six people that voted for the Roman Empire to come out on top.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Of course not! Here's a question:

If you somehow took a cell phone into the past, which of the following would understand that it's technology and not magic?:

Stone Age
Classical
Medieval
Renaissance
Enlightenment
WW1/2

I'd say the last 2, maybe last 3.

Ancient Greece and Medieval Iraq/Spain had very materialistic portions of society. Potentially more than today. How many Americans do you think would be able to distinguish the technology of 2000 years in the future from a miracle?

Aristotle, Averroes and others would certainly think to question any supernatural claim to a cell phone. Their religion might make them think it is something divine, I suppose.

The Enlightenment period, I think, would be the earliest at a stretch, but my money would be on the World War One period. Someone would see it being extremely useful for ending the Great War and would figure out how to apply it...

NEWSFLASH! Cellphone destroys Great Britain, Austro-Hungary celebrates!

You think Aristotle would see a cell phone and be like, "oh, clearly magic"

Or the Scientists of Medieval Baghdad?

Common people, of course, but that would be the same in any day. You aren't giving people of history enough credit to think they couldn't figure out it wasn't magic (not that they could necessarily figure out how it works exactly or understand its purpose).

Personally, I don't think even a medieval date vendor in Baghdad would see it as magic, just something far more advanced than he's ever seen, most likely coming from an advanced, yet unknown civilization.

This is of course taking into account he's of at least average intelligence.

@Rex

Here is an argument made in another forum (NOT by me) for Rome:

1. The M1A1 Abram tanks will find themselves blocked, yes, blocked by the roman limes. Caesar's ditches will slow the american advance to a hault.

2. Then , by deploying his hipaspides closer to the blocked tanks, Caesar can start taking them out one by one, using tar and greek-fire.

3. Further use of flaming arows against the 101 Airborne Division marines will prove itself of greater importance on a flat terrain, where the marines will find virtually no cover, ending up beeing pinned down by a halle of arrows.

4. To counter the enemy's mortar and heavy artilery, Caesar would sent his Heavy Cavarly upon them, slashing their crews in an instant.

5. Apache helicopters watching the area will find it dificult to take out their targets, due to the fact that the battle is already engaged by romans and the americans soldiers are virtually fighting close combat, in wich the legionaries will prevail, sooner or later.


6. With the machinegun bunkers of the American Army, Caesar can only sit back and enjoy the show as his balistae and catapults blast the entranchments apart.

7. The American Comander is taken prisoner by cavalrymen, running into HQ.

8. At precisely 3 P.M , an agreement is reached by all sides.

9. 3.30 P.M an all American surrender.

10. General Staff and GI's are taken as slaves.

Originally posted by inimalist
You think Aristotle would see a cell phone and be like, "oh, clearly magic"

Or the Scientists of Medieval Baghdad?

Common people, of course, but that would be the same in any day. You aren't giving people of history enough credit to think they couldn't figure out it wasn't magic (not that they could necessarily figure out how it works exactly or understand its purpose).

I think I misunderstood the question, then. I took it as the 'understand and potentially use.' What is the word for that, taking technology more advanced than your own and developing your own by going backwards from the final product?

Originally posted by Captain REX
I think I misunderstood the question, then. I took it as the 'understand and potentially use.' What is the word for that, taking technology more advanced than your own and developing your own by going backwards from the final product?

Reverse engineering?

Originally posted by Captain REX
I think I misunderstood the question, then. I took it as the 'understand and potentially use.' What is the word for that, taking technology more advanced than your own and developing your own by going backwards from the final product?

No, I meant whether or not they would realize that it isn't magic.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Of course not! Here's a question:

If you somehow took a cell phone into the past, which of the following would understand that it's technology and not magic?:

Stone Age
Classical
Medieval
Renaissance
Enlightenment
WW1/2

I'd say the last 2, maybe last 3. You mean if they just found it lying somewhere? Or if you explained it to them? And in how far would the cellphone even work? It's not like there's any signal or other device you could call back in their time. Then you have like what, 10 hours charge before it dies, and they can't speak the language of the writing on it. It's a very odd question, really.

Either way it really depends on who found it.

That's it. Thanks Shak. I started to say 'Backwards technology!' but that just sounds like someone assembled something incorrectly or is still favoring an outdated piece of tech over currently available stuff. So yeah, I was thinking more of 'who could reverse engineer it,' which would be starting around the mid-1800's, with the Industrial Revolution.

Eh, I'm not buying it, Hewhoknowsall. The Americans can operate everything from a distance. The Romans cannot fight our jet fighters for anything, and I doubt the Americans would let the cavalry/footsoldiers get into close combat. Greek Fire worked great against wooden ships on the sea... dunno how well it would go with something metal unless used differently.

Originally posted by Captain REX
Oh, good! That still does not explain the six people that voted for the Roman Empire to come out on top.

Probably joking, but I'd be interested to see their arguments.

Likewise, just for kicks.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
@Rex

Here is an argument made in another forum (NOT by me) for Rome:

1. The M1A1 Abram tanks will find themselves blocked, yes, blocked by the roman limes. Caesar's ditches will slow the american advance to a hault.

2. Then , by deploying his hipaspides closer to the blocked tanks, Caesar can start taking them out one by one, using tar and greek-fire.

3. Further use of flaming arows against the 101 Airborne Division marines will prove itself of greater importance on a flat terrain, where the marines will find virtually no cover, ending up beeing pinned down by a halle of arrows.

4. To counter the enemy's mortar and heavy artilery, Caesar would sent his Heavy Cavarly upon them, slashing their crews in an instant.

5. Apache helicopters watching the area will find it dificult to take out their targets, due to the fact that the battle is already engaged by romans and the americans soldiers are virtually fighting close combat, in wich the legionaries will prevail, sooner or later.


6. With the machinegun bunkers of the American Army, Caesar can only sit back and enjoy the show as his balistae and catapults blast the entranchments apart.

7. The American Comander is taken prisoner by cavalrymen, running into HQ.

8. At precisely 3 P.M , an agreement is reached by all sides.

9. 3.30 P.M an all American surrender.

10. General Staff and GI's are taken as slaves.

Whoever made this argument was a moron. I'm assuming thats supposed to say the tanks would be blocked by the roman lines. A tank could run over 1/2 of the roman empire without slowing. And they're made to withstand high temperature incendiary rounds. And all the arguments he made seem to be based on a belief that for some reason America wouldn't be firing at the Romans.

My sentiments exactly. Not to mention that tanks have machine guns mounted on them; if someone gets in the way, blow them apart. Tanks were also designed specifically for the task of running over trenches in WWI, so ditches will do shit all.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
@Rex

Here is an argument made in another forum (NOT by me) for Rome:

1. The M1A1 Abram tanks will find themselves blocked, yes, blocked by the roman limes. Caesar's ditches will slow the american advance to a hault.

2. Then , by deploying his hipaspides closer to the blocked tanks, Caesar can start taking them out one by one, using tar and greek-fire.

3. Further use of flaming arows against the 101 Airborne Division marines will prove itself of greater importance on a flat terrain, where the marines will find virtually no cover, ending up beeing pinned down by a halle of arrows.

4. To counter the enemy's mortar and heavy artilery, Caesar would sent his Heavy Cavarly upon them, slashing their crews in an instant.

5. Apache helicopters watching the area will find it dificult to take out their targets, due to the fact that the battle is already engaged by romans and the americans soldiers are virtually fighting close combat, in wich the legionaries will prevail, sooner or later.


6. With the machinegun bunkers of the American Army, Caesar can only sit back and enjoy the show as his balistae and catapults blast the entranchments apart.

7. The American Comander is taken prisoner by cavalrymen, running into HQ.

8. At precisely 3 P.M , an agreement is reached by all sides.

9. 3.30 P.M an all American surrender.

10. General Staff and GI's are taken as slaves.

I do enjoy how the author of that loves to go on about Roman Siege equipment but doesn't once mention Howitzers, mobile rocket launchers or the artillery the US posses.

The Roman Army was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all time. But this is just a stupid comparison, and saying the US would dominate them isn't discrediting the Roman Army at all. Hell we still study them today at West Point I bet.

It's like comparing the United States to the Galactic Empire.

And yes, we do have a thread like that on this board...

Originally posted by Captain REX
It's like comparing the United States to the Galactic Empire.

And yes, we do have a thread like that on this board...

The US clearly wins that one. AMERICA! **** YEAH! Especially the lick my butt part.

Originally posted by Captain REX
It's like comparing the United States to the Galactic Empire.

And yes, we do have a thread like that on this board...

Why does that not surprise me...?

Originally posted by Captain REX
It's like comparing the United States to the Galactic Empire.

And yes, we do have a thread like that on this board...

There are several differences:

1. In that thread, THE WORLD (not a single country) has the advantage in numbers, supplies, aircraft and longe ranged weaponry. The Empire has the advantage in tech.

2. In this thread, USA has the advantage in...well...everything.

3. The Empire isn't as overpowering to the world as USA is to Rome. Romans have a HUGE range disadvantage and can do NOTHING to tanks or aircraft. The Empire does NOT have an advantage over us in range (in fact, we do since the Empire doesn't get access to artillery/missiles in that scenario), nor can they mow us down in the thousands before we get close to them.

you just tried to argue in favor of USA vs Galactic Empire?

It's not like they have various superweapons capable of destroying planets or stars.

or orbital bombardment platforms...

actually, the empire v america is probably a good comparison. The biggest disadvantages the Romans would have would be mobility and range, also that, compared to the American military, it would be stationary and incapable of retreat (especially given ICBM tech).

Same could be said in this scenario. Regardless of how powerful the Americans were, there would be no place they could go for reprieve or to regroup. They would literally be isolated to a location (earth) which the galactic imperial army could turn into ash, much like the American army could do to Europe. Both could do it from a distance the other couldn't account for (intercontinental or orbital range) and there is nothing that could be done to prevent the attack given the essentially prehistoric tech the Americans or Romans would have, comparatively.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
There are several differences:

1. In that thread, THE WORLD (not a single country) has the advantage in numbers, supplies, aircraft and longe ranged weaponry. The Empire has the advantage in tech.

2. In this thread, USA has the advantage in...well...everything.

3. The Empire isn't as overpowering to the world as USA is to Rome. Romans have a HUGE range disadvantage and can do NOTHING to tanks or aircraft. The Empire does NOT have an advantage over us in range (in fact, we do since the Empire doesn't get access to artillery/missiles in that scenario), nor can they mow us down in the thousands before we get close to them.

You didn't pay attention when you watched Star Wars.

Ewoks took out the empire on Endor.

And their recent technological innovations were the wheel and the catapult.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Ewoks took out the empire on Endor.

And their recent technological innovations were the wheel and the catapult.

George Lucas being an idiot aside, a 5 year old could have come up with a better battle strategy for the Empirical troops.

The Empire has the World in numbers.

Yeah absolutely.

It was gonna be wookies originally on Kashyyk.
How cool would that have been...?
Finally getting to see a wookie pulling arms out of sockets and shit.
Plus the distance between Wookie tech and imperial tech would have been shorter.
But with enough of a gap to get the message of "Even a small disadvantaged force can make a big change.."


But nooooooooooooooooooooooooo........















F***ing Ewoks.