USA vs Roman Empire IN A WAR

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was thinking that they are organized into sections....for hundreds of miles. 😄

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe they are inexplicably and conveniently arranged in a line and the artillery can kill them all with one hit.

I don't think any artillery has a range of two million kilometers.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think any artillery has a range of two million kilometers.

You forgot about the americans and how fat they are. It's 3 million. 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
You forgot about the americans and how fat they are. It's 3 million. 😄

How many Americans were there in ancient Rome?

Fat Boy > Romans.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How many Americans were there in ancient Rome?

Oh, I thought the thread went to "World" versus American Military.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think any artillery has a range of two million kilometers.

But isn't that exactly what they want you to think?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, I thought the thread went to "World" versus American Military.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I think it is 6 billion magically appearing trained Roman soldiers vs. US Army, not the world....6 billion seems coincidental.

Okay.

Well, in that case, one tank would be enough...if they have enough ammo. 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay.

Well, in that case, one tank would be enough...if they have enough ammo. 😄

By the time you made a tank big enough to hold enough ammo to kill 6 billion people it could probably just run them over.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
By the time you made a tank big enough to hold enough ammo to kill 6 billion people it could probably just run them over.

lulz

It would have to be able to run for a looooong time. But, yeah, it could just run everything over.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay.

Well, in that case, one tank would be enough...if they have enough ammo. 😄

Not that I think that a tank wouldn't lose against that many people. It's not like they are perfectly impenetrable and impossible to destroy.

Plus the Romans have Maximus Decimus Eridius.

With that taken into account: That tank/the entire US army is doomed. 😛

Originally posted by Robtard
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.

There is some truth to your post but the random slaughters occured more than you think. I studied this quite extensively years ago and the Roman completely obliterated several Norse tribes most notably the Cimbri.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall

So slaughtering innocent men, woman and children makes the Romans deserve credit? And that way is better? Umm...

Innocent is a subjective word and one modern culture likes to apply very liberally.
War is not nice and if you're going to do it you might as well do it right. Protecting your own should be your priority and the best way to do that is total war against your enemy which yes, includes "innocent" men, women, and children which while not usually direct combatants contribute to the war effort in some way. Women work in factories making munitions for the military. Children work on farms producing food to feed the military. Thus if they are supporting enemy soldiers through these means it makes them justifiable targets as well.

War is never supposed to be nice.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Innocent is a subjective word and one modern culture likes to apply very liberally.
War is not nice and if you're going to do it you might as well do it right. Protecting your own should be your priority and the best way to do that is total war against your enemy which yes, includes "innocent" men, women, and children which while not usually direct combatants contribute to the war effort in some way. Women work in factories making munitions for the military. Children work on farms producing food to feed the military. Thus if they are supporting enemy soldiers through these means it makes them justifiable targets as well.

War is never supposed to be nice.

Would you be saying that if YOU were the man/woman/child?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Would you be saying that if YOU were the man/woman/child?

Why does that matter?

Also, I'm fairly sure he's a man, woman or child.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why does that matter?

Also, I'm fairly sure he's a man, woman or child.

Difference between THE and A

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Would you be saying that if YOU were the man/woman/child?

I am a man and the answer to your question is yes. War has always been with humanity and always will be until we eventually destroy ourselves. To deny it/and our, nature is foolish. When it's your time it's your time.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
I am a man and the answer to your question is yes. War has always been with humanity and always will be until we eventually destroy ourselves. To deny it/and our, nature is foolish. When it's your time it's your time.

So Rome wins, because surely her brutal tactics will allow them to beat the USA...not. They actually have to capture a village in order to burn it down, which is impossible for them if said village is part of the USA.