Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
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.
I never said Rome wins. I said they were fare more effective in their military pursuits than the USA is.
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
I never said Rome wins. I said they were fare more effective in their military pursuits than the USA is.
Actually, the USA has made a greater impact on the world in their many successful wars: WW2 determined the fate of Europe and possibly the world. USA has a higher kill to death ratio/less casualty rate, and is overall much more orderly and civilized. *waits for someone to laugh at this and go on a rant about how uncivilized and fail the US is*
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
lawl.
rant content includes:
Death Penalty, Texas, [Texas & Death Penalty], systemic racism, etc.The only reason those wars were 'worse' or more influential is because a). they are more recent and b). they were total wars- Nationalism made them bigger than older wars.
ALL OF THOSE were also practiced by the Romans, to a MUCH more severe degree.
They TORTURED you before death and for much milder things
They KILLED Jews and Christians
They OPPRESSED and CONQUERED nations. Thinks Iraq/Afghanistan is bad? To the Romans that's nothing.
Just for fun, I shall now argue for Rome (not serious though and NOT intended to be good points...am I allowed to do this?) Responce to myself:
1. The Romans could just move out of the way of the ungainly tanks. You fail.
2. See MY above
3. LOL. Do you really think that assault rifles outrange Roman longbows (who are better than English longbows) The archers could quickly ambush them, and the Romans had longbows that are more effective than guns.
4. They aren't accurate vs something as fast moving as a horse! You should look up how fast a horse is, moron.
5. They move in a tight formation w/their shields up, and their calvarly and archers would distract them; a bunch of horsemen charging at you while the air is filled with a wall of arrows will cause a severe morale drop if you're not used to it (which the USA isn't)
6. No. The catapults are LONGER ranged and MORE powerful.
7. Good god, do you REALLY think that the horses couldn't run a few miles?
Originally posted by Bardock42
This sounded like "Yes, I do", to me.
If I were, then I'd actually try to make good arguments for rome under the guise of being sarcastic.
And besides, I support USA when I claim that they'll beat 6 billion Romans AND that they are more successful (in some ways) than Rome. I also said that even if USA were to use Roman weapons then they'd still win.
Originally posted by HewhoknowsallWhatever, Rome fanboy.
If I were, then I'd actually try to make good arguments for rome under the guise of being sarcastic.And besides, I support USA when I claim that they'll beat 6 billion Romans AND that they are more successful (in some ways) than Rome. I also said that even if USA were to use Roman weapons then they'd still win.
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
I also said that even if USA were to use Roman weapons then they'd still win.
The American military against 6 billion Roman forces and America only has Iron age weapons?
I don't see America winning without their tech. True, history might teach them some ways to defeat the Romans unconventionally, but I don't see it.
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Actually, the USA has made a greater impact on the world in their many successful wars: WW2 determined the fate of Europe and possibly the world. USA has a higher kill to death ratio/less casualty rate, and is overall much more orderly and civilized. *waits for someone to laugh at this and go on a rant about how uncivilized and fail the US is*
Just look at how the USA has practiced war since WWII. All were failures (except Panama and Grenada), and none of them had to be.
And as for being "more orderly and civilized"..I can't say I agree. We are more technologically advanced, and we have what comes with being so.
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Just look at how the USA has practiced war since WWII. All were failures (except Panama and Grenada), and none of them had to be.And as for being "more orderly and civilized"..I can't say I agree. We are more technologically advanced, and we have what comes with being so.
I'm quite sure we toppled Iraq in mere hours in both desert storm and the Iraq invasion.
It is a little disingenuous to try and compare Roman v American military conquest
ignoring that the Americans have far stricter and, imho, moral attitudes toward military aggression, the types of enemies they fought are totally different.
There are analogs, but effective asymmetrical warfare is, to the best of my knowledge at least, a product of the last 100-200 years (maybe ignoring some of the African campaigns of European generals, and even then, recent history compared to Rome).
What is the Roman equivalent of a car bomb? Or of jungle guerrilla warfare?
Originally posted by inimalist
It is a little disingenuous to try and compare Roman v American military conquestignoring that the Americans have far stricter and, imho, moral attitudes toward military aggression, the types of enemies they fought are totally different.
There are analogs, but effective asymmetrical warfare is, to the best of my knowledge at least, a product of the last 100-200 years (maybe ignoring some of the African campaigns of European generals, and even then, recent history compared to Rome).
What is the Roman equivalent of a car bomb? Or of jungle guerrilla warfare?
The Germanic Tribes slowly eating away at their borders. Oh, wait. That contributed to the "toppling" of the Great Roman Empire. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm quite sure we toppled Iraq in mere hours in both desert storm and the Iraq invasion.
You call that a success? After Desert Storm we had to go back in and do it all over again a decade later. And why are we still there six years later? Far more combat happened after the initial invasion than during it. By any military standard Iraq was a failure.