USA vs Roman Empire IN A WAR

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
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.

How is that any different in concept to Rome having MANY difficulties post war? You do know that the empire fell (declined) because of the inability to manage, right? (Of course you know. You probably know more so than I do.)

As far as military campaigns, which was your original point, we were quite successful in those I mentioned. We were UBER successful. 🙂 So quick that we would make Julius blush.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
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.

both desert storm (which was only mandated to stop Saddam's invasion forces) and the invasion/destruction of the Iraqi state (which was the sole mandate of the Iraq invasion) were incredibly successful.

The nearly unplanned occupation and rebuilding, being fought against an entirely different enemy than the Iraqi army, is a complete failure.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
This is why I need to get out of the SW forums.

Hewhoknowsall... did you ever play Rome: Total War? The whole "capture the village" brought images of that game. And where the hell do 6 billion Romans come from?

No, but I played Medieval 2: Total War. It was very good. Did you even bother to read? Someone said that IF Rome had 6 billion people then they'd win...

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

If the USA is given enough time to produce non modern weapons and get used to them, then they'd win (it isn't fair to all the sudden strip them of all their weapons and give them no time to make new ones, cause then they'd have no weapons).

1. Even without "modern" weapons, the USA could still make more "modern" and polished versions of muskets, cannons, longbows, steel weapons/armor, etc. All of these are beyond the Romans.

2. Only modern weapons are restricted, so they still get computers and phones, giving them a HUGE advantage.

3. USA generals are quite familiar with Roman strategies and tactics, given that Roman strategies/tactics are studied by armies today.

4. USA FAR outnumbers the Romans.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
If the USA is given enough time to produce non modern weapons and get used to them, then they'd win (it isn't fair to all the sudden strip them of all their weapons and give them no time to make new ones, cause then they'd have no weapons).

1. Even without "modern" weapons, the USA could still make more "modern" and polished versions of muskets, cannons, longbows, steel weapons/armor, etc. All of these are beyond the Romans.

2. Only modern weapons are restricted, so they still get computers and phones, giving them a HUGE advantage.

3. USA generals are quite familiar with Roman strategies and tactics, given that Roman strategies/tactics are studied by armies today.

4. USA FAR outnumbers the Romans.

I replied to a post where you said Americans, using Roman weapons, can beat 6 billion Romans.

All of these caveats essentially render that moot.

You are correct, however, my point was not addressing anything you brought up.

It could be said to be equally unfair to allow the Americans any technology, as even radio communications would hugely tip the battle in their favor.

i thought he meant beat the romans as they were. i hope he didnt mean theyd beat 6 billion with equal tech

Are you implying there's something America can't do?

no of course not

313 Good.

if i said that captain americas ghost will come kick me in the teeth or somthing

Originally posted by inimalist
I replied to a post where you said Americans, using Roman weapons, can beat 6 billion Romans.

All of these caveats essentially render that moot.

You are correct, however, my point was not addressing anything you brought up.

It could be said to be equally unfair to allow the Americans any technology, as even radio communications would hugely tip the battle in their favor.

How large was the Roman Army?

Has the debate now turned to American soldiers without the equipment they train with? (Rifles, pistols, grenades, bazookas, etc;?) And what about Jets and ships? Sorry, like I said, I haven't realy been following the thread lately.

I agree on your point about radio communications. Modern communications pwn pigeons with notes tied to their legs.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
How large was the Roman Army?

When fully mobilized they could reach about 450k counting cavalry.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Has the debate now turned to American soldiers without the equipment they train with? (Rifles, pistols, grenades, bazookas, etc;?)

Yes, and I assume so.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When fully mobilized they could reach about 450k counting cavalry.

Yes, and I assume so.

Well, I would think that an average American foot soldier would be outclassed against a Roman foot soldier, if they were to fight with the weapons that Romans fought with. SEAL's (768 members), Delta Force, Green Beret's, Rangers, I'd say these are the elite that can go toe to toe with a Roman foot soldier and hold ther own. In the end, America would pwn the Romans with our sheer numbers.

HAS ANYBODY EVER HEARD OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION???
That makes it as such that even within warfare, there are rules of engagement and rules of conduct. So to compare America's aggressiveness versut Rome is stupid.
That's like comparing Vikings and Shoalin Monks. Two different philosophies

Originally posted by LordFear
HAS ANYBODY EVER HEARD OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION???
That makes it as such that even within warfare, there are rules of engagement and rules of conduct. So to compare America's aggressiveness versut Rome is stupid.
That's like comparing Vikings and Shoalin Monks. Two different philosophies

Using a show of overwhelming force to quickly end a conflict does not remotely violate the Geneva Convention.

Let's do some categories; who wins in each one?

1. All out, no nukes
2. USA can't use modern WEAPONS
3. 1, only Rome has 6 billion soldiers
4. The entire medieval age and classical age vs USA, no nukes
5. Hand to hand combat (no weapons/armor) between Marine and Legionary...

1 USA
2 USA
3 Rome
4 Medieval and Classical Age
5 No idea

I recon USA would win the Classical and Medieval...just because of formation.

Romans were one of the first professional armies (I think Spartans or some other Greek tribe might have been the first, not sure though) - as in the people were employed to do that job and devoted their lives to it, as opposed to the Medieval Europe where farmers and peasensts would go to fight when their noble requested so which was initially requested by king or queen.

In an all out war, American soldiers would have been professionals, while the other side would not be.

On the other hand, they seem to have had some greatest success, so they may have been able to overpower USA.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you implying there's something America can't do?

staying away from McDonalds,
solve global warming issues,
find WMD are just a few things that spring to mind 😂

Originally posted by GCG
staying away from McDonalds

MickyDees is an integral part of America's shadow military. There's no reason to avoid it.

Originally posted by GCG
solve global warming issues

Easily solved by declaring that global warming isn't a problem in the first place.

Originally posted by GCG
find WMD

That's because the World Movement for Democracy doesn't have a single centralized location 😒

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Easily solved by declaring that global warming isn't a problem in the first place.

Indeed.