Originally posted by Bardock42
Well it depends all on the situation really doesn't it? Where they are at, how fast they pick up modern technologies. Though 6 billion is just a ridiculous number, it makes no sense in any infrastructure sort of way.
If we factor in that they just 'poof' and are amassed all over the U.S. and they can upgrade themselves with modern tech, then it would be next to impossible for the U.S. to repel them.
Going on some make-believe massive battlefield were the U.S. military is on one side and the 6bil legionnaires are on another, then the Romans lose, in time.
Originally posted by RobtardI don't think so. Barring the ultimate option of nuking everything, in a sort of draw, which I guess would be possible for the US. 6 billion on a battlefield vs. the US army, would probably win, I think. Exterminating 6 billion people without WMDs seem incrediblz hard. And all the foot soldiers of the US would eventually die against enough spears and then they could use their weapons and boy this debate is silly, isn't it?
If we factor in that they just 'poof' and are amassed all over the U.S. and they can upgrade themselves with modern tech, then it would be next to impossible for the U.S. to repel them.Going on some make-believe massive battlefield were the U.S. military is on one side and the 6bil legionnaires are on another, then the Romans lose, in time.
Well, you do have to give thr Romans credit though, for their day they were far more effective than the US is militarily today. Whenever there was any type of uprising in a province the Romans would randomly pick a village and kill every man, woman, and child in it. They also carried out all kinds of brutal public executions of their enemies and sold many into slavery. They also plundered the countries they conquered.
The US on the other hand invades countries and then tries to be nice, saying we are there to help. Just like in the old peter Sellers movie "The mouse that roared" where a fictional impovrished third world country invades America, knowing they will lose the initial conflict but also knowing the US will pay to rebuild their country. It's so true.
The Roman method was better.
No, no, no. They didn't do the random slaughter thing, as it isn't productive. If there was an uprising, they'd make an example of those uprising, usually the leaders and then scaling down a bit. Killing an entire village or people brings a negative cash-flow for the Empire, as dead bodies can't be taxed or made to work.
There are some examples like Masada where the Roman's cleaned house, but then again, the last Israelite defenders committed suicide, over surrendering to the Romans, who would have slain the leaders and enslaved the rest.
All in all, Rome did so well for so long because they were somewhat lax over who they conquered, they let those they conquered keep their native religions and customs, just as long as the conquered paid tribute to Rome and obeyed Roman laws first and foremost.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think so. Barring the ultimate option of nuking everything, in a sort of draw, which I guess would be possible for the US. 6 billion on a battlefield vs. the US army, would probably win, I think. Exterminating 6 billion people without WMDs seem incrediblz hard. And all the foot soldiers of the US would eventually die against enough spears and then they could use their weapons and boy this debate is silly, isn't it?
Yes, yes it is silly and getting sillier by each page.
New scenario, what if it was 6 billion Roman zombies?
All in all, Rome did so well for so long because they were somewhat lax over who they conquered, they let those they conquered keep their native religions and customs, just as long as the conquered paid tribute to Rome and obeyed Roman laws first and foremost.
JUST LIKE THE PERSIAN ACHAEMENID EMPIRE!!! (The Persians win at administration.)
Edit: 6 billion Persian zombies.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think so. Barring the ultimate option of nuking everything, in a sort of draw, which I guess would be possible for the US. 6 billion on a battlefield vs. the US army, would probably win, I think. Exterminating 6 billion people without WMDs seem incrediblz hard. And all the foot soldiers of the US would eventually die against enough spears and then they could use their weapons and boy this debate is silly, isn't it?
But if the Roman Empire suddenly magically had 6 billion people in it (meaning that they still would have to cross the Atlantic/Pacific) then they'd lose. Food problems, communication/organization problems, and the fact that they're ships can't do shi*t to ours.
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Well, you do have to give thr Romans credit though, for their day they were far more effective than the US is militarily today. Whenever there was any type of uprising in a province the Romans would randomly pick a village and kill every man, woman, and child in it. They also carried out all kinds of brutal public executions of their enemies and sold many into slavery. They also plundered the countries they conquered.The US on the other hand invades countries and then tries to be nice, saying we are there to help. Just like in the old peter Sellers movie "The mouse that roared" where a fictional impovrished third world country invades America, knowing they will lose the initial conflict but also knowing the US will pay to rebuild their country. It's so true.
The Roman method was better.
So slaughtering innocent men, woman and children makes the Romans deserve credit? And that way is better? Umm...
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
But if the Roman Empire suddenly magically had 6 billion people in it (meaning that they still would have to cross the Atlantic/Pacific) then they'd lose. Food problems, communication/organization problems, and the fact that they're ships can't do shi*t to ours.
It depends on way too many factors to make a conclusive statement, to me, anyways.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think so. Barring the ultimate option of nuking everything, in a sort of draw, which I guess would be possible for the US. 6 billion on a battlefield vs. the US army, would probably win, I think. Exterminating 6 billion people without WMDs seem incrediblz hard. And all the foot soldiers of the US would eventually die against enough spears and then they could use their weapons and boy this debate is silly, isn't it?
I disagree.
1000 Abrams tanks are more than enough to take out 6 billion people. Tell me, sir, how are 6 billion people ever going to destroy one Abrams tank? This assumes that they have pistols, spears, and swords.
Originally posted by dadudemonWe are assuming they send wave after wave after wave of people attempting to destroy the tanks until they are all exterminated?
I disagree.1000 Abrams tanks are more than enough to take out 6 billion people. Tell me, sir, how are 6 billion people ever going to destroy one Abrams tank? This assumes that they have pistols, spears, and swords.
I don't know...still....6 billion people...I'd assume the soldiers inside would have to leave the tanks or starve before all those are killed, really.