Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
spurgistan wrote:a) China ftw.
b) I assume by Greeks you refer to Athenians? Alexander had a nice run, but the Macedonians didn't really accomplish a lot beyond kicking the crap out of Asians. As well as possibly being the first gay president.
got tonkaed wrote:I think i could go either way here...id tentatively say the romans...but you certainly could make pretty persuasive arguments about the greatness of either society without making a fool out of oneself.
Jenos Ridan wrote:got tonkaed wrote:I think i could go either way here...id tentatively say the romans...but you certainly could make pretty persuasive arguments about the greatness of either society without making a fool out of oneself.
It depends greatly on the criteria one is using.
I'd say for now neither.
spurgistan wrote:a) China ftw.
b) I assume by Greeks you refer to Athenians? Alexander had a nice run, but the Macedonians didn't really accomplish a lot beyond kicking the crap out of Asians. As well as possibly being the first gay president.
AndrewLC wrote:spurgistan wrote:a) China ftw.
b) I assume by Greeks you refer to Athenians? Alexander had a nice run, but the Macedonians didn't really accomplish a lot beyond kicking the crap out of Asians. As well as possibly being the first gay president.
Rome could of kicked chinas ass (Yes I'm starting this arguement again)
AndrewLC wrote:spurgistan wrote: China ftw.
Rome could of kicked China's ass (Yes I'm starting this arguement again)
muy_thaiguy wrote:Jenos Ridan wrote:got tonkaed wrote:I think i could go either way here...id tentatively say the romans...but you certainly could make pretty persuasive arguments about the greatness of either society without making a fool out of oneself.
It depends greatly on the criteria one is using.
I'd say for now neither.
And go with the, Burgundians? Franks? Saxons? Dacians? Egyptians? Trojans (even though there is some speculation that the Romans descended from them)? Or would it be *duh duh duuuh!* CC!?![]()
muy_thaiguy wrote:On one side, we have 10s of thousands of highly trained professional soldiers whom are used to going up against opponents that outnumber them. On the other hand, we have people that will give a farmer a spear, a helmet, and told to go rush the enemy and overwhelm them with sheer numbers (up to 1 million man armies sometimes, but that ends up draining your man power that you may need for oh say, farming?).
Jenos Ridan wrote:
Well, if they meet as comtemporaries, China would not have had the advantange of gunpowder weapons.
Also, from what I know about Roman tactics, it would not go so hot for the Chinese. But that is because, in spite of reading Sun Tzu, I know very little of how China would have fought.
Jenos Ridan wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:On one side, we have 10s of thousands of highly trained professional soldiers whom are used to going up against opponents that outnumber them. On the other hand, we have people that will give a farmer a spear, a helmet, and told to go rush the enemy and overwhelm them with sheer numbers (up to 1 million man armies sometimes, but that ends up draining your man power that you may need for oh say, farming?).Jenos Ridan wrote:
Well, if they meet as comtemporaries, China would not have had the advantange of gunpowder weapons.
Also, from what I know about Roman tactics, it would not go so hot for the Chinese. But that is because, in spite of reading Sun Tzu, I know very little of how China would have fought.
That, MTG, is what I was afraid off.
reminisco wrote:Cylons beat Romans.
Cylons beat China.
Cylons FTW.
All Our Base Are Belong to Them!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users