Conquer Club

My history class got into a big argument today about great societies throughout history. The question was which was greater the Greek or the Roman. Please leave your opinion

Personally i believe Rome was the greatest

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.

I believe that I saw a signature somewhere that posited that although the Greeks invented sex, the Romans were the first to include women.

Either Mayan or Egyptian -- they each lasted longer than either Greek or Roman, and many would say they have each had a more persistant influence on the world. Or, perhaps better to say that Greece and Rome would not be what they were without Egypt.

Depends on how you define "great," and which particular Greek society you're referring to.

If "great" means militarily, then Rome. If "great" means inventing shit and making smart people with togas who come up with quotes, then Greek.

something my high school latin teacher used to say:

"barbarian greece made her barbarian captor captive"

so, it all depends on how you define greatness, as others have said, but much of Roman society was co-opted from the Greeks, especially their entire religion.

in the sense that the Greeks basically "authored" the Romans, i'd go with the Greeks.

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.

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.

Can't forget Alexandria which became basically the greatest library/smart people convention of the ancient world for several centuries.

Anyways, it depends on what you are looking for. Sheer size in territory? Well, Rome wins that one hands down, cultural impact? Greece, since the colonized nearly the entire Mediterranean, including the Italian peninsula, and thus having a direct impact on the Romans (except for the whole Legionnairy and Cohort thing).

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.

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!?

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: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)

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?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street

I know its Wiki, and probably highly exagturated by the Romans, but BAM

AndrewLC wrote:

spurgistan wrote: China ftw.

Rome could of kicked China's ass (Yes I'm starting this arguement again)

Hmmmm........

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.

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!?

Don't get all bend out of shape MTG. It is hard to gauge which had the trully greatest impact. I could easily say it was one or the other, and make that statement stick to a degree with limited facts.

I really should have said both, co-equally.

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.

Well I'd personally say Rome because they took Greek ideas and spread them out enough for them to impact western culture.

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.

Well, the last post of mine was more of a comedic relief (note the CC part in there), and not meant to be taken too seriously.

And I only know a little myself on what Han China had. What I do know is that they used massive armies.

Little history lesson: At the end of the Han Dynasty, China erupted into civil war between 3 rival kingdoms, Wei Wu and Shu. (I really don't feel like going into this, but Dynasty Warriors and Romance of the 3 Kingdoms tells how it pretty much went down). They all used armies that numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and sometimes in the millions. At the beginning of this, there were around 56 million people in China. At the end of the wars, there were around 16 million.

I forgot all about China (duh!)

So, my new vote is for:

Egyptians, Mayans, Chinese and ancient Persians

Actually, there are a few others, but the list is getting long.

Anyway, the point is that there is a lot more to the Ancient world and how we got to where we are now than just Greece and Rome.

Cylons beat Romans.

Cylons beat China.

Cylons FTW.



All Our Base Are Belong to Them!

reminisco wrote:Cylons beat Romans.

Cylons beat China.

Cylons FTW.



All Our Base Are Belong to Them!

Templar beat Cylons!

It all depends on how you define great. Greek society was great on the arts and science. Rome was great on engineering. In the end I would argue that the latter is more important in the short term, but without both you can't really go very far in the long term. This was why both in the long term failed.

It should also be pointed out that Roman engineering was still used well into the middle ages and even beyond. (The evolution of the standard train guage can be traced to the width of a Roman horse's ass.) Greek science, on the other hand, held back Europe for centuries.

I'd go with Greeks in general, because of their advancement for the time, but actually I'd judge Egyptians as better.

my vote is for the British Empire. now that was a truly global empire.