NationStates

Amazons <3

What I mean is:
Vietnamese Women
Woson in China

greed and death wrote:The goths they sacked the eternal city of roman.
Everyone else either did it before or after it was the eternal city.

Greatest achievement in human history the Sack of Rome was.

Rome = 21st Century America.

Therefore, New York will be sacked by northern barbarians.

Libertarian California wrote:

greed and death wrote:The goths they sacked the eternal city of roman.
Everyone else either did it before or after it was the eternal city.

Greatest achievement in human history the Sack of Rome was.

Rome = 21st Century America.

Therefore, New York will be sacked by northern barbarians.

the Canadians will sack New York

Libertarian California wrote:

greed and death wrote:The goths they sacked the eternal city of roman.
Everyone else either did it before or after it was the eternal city.

Greatest achievement in human history the Sack of Rome was.

Rome = 21st Century America.

Therefore, New York will be sacked by northern barbarians.

I knew those damn Canucks were up to something. We'll send a Legion to Buffalo immediately.

Frisivisia wrote:

Libertarian California wrote:
Rome = 21st Century America.

Therefore, New York will be sacked by northern barbarians.

I knew those damn Canucks were up to something. We'll send a Legion to Buffalo immediately.

Quoted. All 3 of you.

Equalium wrote:

Frisivisia wrote:I knew those damn Canucks were up to something. We'll send a Legion to Buffalo immediately.

Quoted. All 3 of you.

try 300,000 bub, plus we already have artillery on grand island aimed at the bridges.

Has anyone said Mericah warrior culture yet?

Romneyerica wrote:Has anyone said Mericah warrior culture yet?

Far too many people.

That is, only a few. But it's so obviously wrong that that's way too many.

The New Lowlands wrote:

South Zimbabwe wrote:
You're a dinossaur.. you were beaten by a meteor, Cocroaches survived it, you didn't. Does that meen the T-Rex is less dangerous than a Cocroach?

The Spartans, IIRC, were also shit at sustained warfare.

Not really; one Spartan was worth five to ten of any other warrior in the field in more ways then one. They were always off campaigning; the Doric word for spring/summer means campaign season.

The Pelopennesian War lasted for thirty years. Only in the last third was Persia involved at all, after the Sicilian Expedition, the fighting, and how Sparta was on the brink before Mantinea and in that single stroke won an extremely important victory.

It is true they could not sustain bad losses, but their strengths laid in winning where it really counted. I would argue that a war between Sparta at its height right after the Persian War, against Republican Rome which didn't even need to conquer it, would be very different than how history played down. Leuktra was lost because of several key factors, but were I to go into them it would take up a whole nother post.

The armies of Macedon are a close second to me. They lost to Rome because of several poor leaders, mostly in military areas. Pydna, Macedon's final battle against Rome which they lost, was lost because Persius could not lead men. Alexander could have done so much better.

Strykla wrote:

The New Lowlands wrote:The Spartans, IIRC, were also shit at sustained warfare.

Not really; one Spartan was worth five to ten of any other warrior in the field in more ways then one. They were always off campaigning; the Doric word for spring/summer means campaign season.

The Pelopennesian War lasted for thirty years. Only in the last third was Persia involved at all, after the Sicilian Expedition, the fighting, and how Sparta was on the brink before Mantinea and in that single stroke won an extremely important victory.

It is true they could not sustain bad losses, but their strengths laid in winning where it really counted. I would argue that a war between Sparta at its height right after the Persian War, against Republican Rome which didn't even need to conquer it, would be very different than how history played down. Leuktra was lost because of several key factors, but were I to go into them it would take up a whole nother post.

The armies of Macedon are a close second to me. They lost to Rome because of several poor leaders, mostly in military areas. Pydna, Macedon's final battle against Rome which they lost, was lost because Persius could not lead men. Alexander could have done so much better.

Sparta was good at what they did. If you could beat what they did, though, they were crap.

Strykla wrote:

The New Lowlands wrote:The Spartans, IIRC, were also shit at sustained warfare.

Not really; one Spartan was worth five to ten of any other warrior in the field in more ways then one. They were always off campaigning; the Doric word for spring/summer means campaign season.

The Pelopennesian War lasted for thirty years. Only in the last third was Persia involved at all, after the Sicilian Expedition, the fighting, and how Sparta was on the brink before Mantinea and in that single stroke won an extremely important victory.

It is true they could not sustain bad losses, but their strengths laid in winning where it really counted. I would argue that a war between Sparta at its height right after the Persian War, against Republican Rome which didn't even need to conquer it, would be very different than how history played down. Leuktra was lost because of several key factors, but were I to go into them it would take up a whole nother post.

The armies of Macedon are a close second to me. They lost to Rome because of several poor leaders, mostly in military areas. Pydna, Macedon's final battle against Rome which they lost, was lost because Persius could not lead men. Alexander could have done so much better.

Well, you also have to realize the the armies of Macedon under Persius were not the same as the Macedonian army under Alexander. It lacked the level of combined arms that Alexander's army had.

As I recall Alexander's army had a ratio of cavalry to infantry of something like 1:6, while the later Macedonian armies struggled with ratios of 1:10.

Different animals entirely.

Libertarian California wrote:New Englanders.

I'm currently reading a book about the American Revolution in Massachusetts. A lot of book is compiled using primary-source accounts of what happened (as in things that were written by the people there).

The minutemen were stone cold badasses. Some of the things they did to loyalists and British regulars were intense.

The minutemens' tendency to lose 90% of their engagements makes me question this assessment. You don't get to be a badass when you're the one being routed 90% of the time.

Nazis in Space wrote:

Libertarian California wrote:New Englanders.

I'm currently reading a book about the American Revolution in Massachusetts. A lot of book is compiled using primary-source accounts of what happened (as in things that were written by the people there).

The minutemen were stone cold badasses. Some of the things they did to loyalists and British regulars were intense.

The minutemens' tendency to lose 90% of their engagements makes me question this assessment. You don't get to be a badass when you're the one being routed 90% of the time.

To be fair, they were kind of outnumbered and outgunned.

Romneyerica wrote:Has anyone said Mericah warrior culture yet?

I choose Romneyerica.

Lesbia wrote:Pxoria

I suppose you thought that was terribly clever.

Nazis in Space wrote:

Libertarian California wrote:New Englanders.

I'm currently reading a book about the American Revolution in Massachusetts. A lot of book is compiled using primary-source accounts of what happened (as in things that were written by the people there).

The minutemen were stone cold badasses. Some of the things they did to loyalists and British regulars were intense.

The minutemens' tendency to lose 90% of their engagements makes me question this assessment. You don't get to be a badass when you're the one being routed 90% of the time.

And these are primary source accounts, could be telling tall tales.

Cetacea wrote:Imperial America - it's ability to take an undisciplined rabble and indoctrinate them to fully invest in the projection of military righteousness around the world is unparalleled in history, even Imperial Britain didn't achieve that level of righteous fury

^ This.

Romneyerica wrote:Has anyone said Mericah warrior culture yet?

Too common.

Shaggai wrote:

Strykla wrote:Not really; one Spartan was worth five to ten of any other warrior in the field in more ways then one. They were always off campaigning; the Doric word for spring/summer means campaign season.

The Pelopennesian War lasted for thirty years. Only in the last third was Persia involved at all, after the Sicilian Expedition, the fighting, and how Sparta was on the brink before Mantinea and in that single stroke won an extremely important victory.

It is true they could not sustain bad losses, but their strengths laid in winning where it really counted. I would argue that a war between Sparta at its height right after the Persian War, against Republican Rome which didn't even need to conquer it, would be very different than how history played down. Leuktra was lost because of several key factors, but were I to go into them it would take up a whole nother post.

The armies of Macedon are a close second to me. They lost to Rome because of several poor leaders, mostly in military areas. Pydna, Macedon's final battle against Rome which they lost, was lost because Persius could not lead men. Alexander could have done so much better.

Sparta was good at what they did. If you could beat what they did, though, they were crap.

Doesn't that apply to any nation? Rome was crap when it was defeated. As was Macedon. And France, Germany, etc.

Trollgaard wrote:

Strykla wrote:Not really; one Spartan was worth five to ten of any other warrior in the field in more ways then one. They were always off campaigning; the Doric word for spring/summer means campaign season.

The Pelopennesian War lasted for thirty years. Only in the last third was Persia involved at all, after the Sicilian Expedition, the fighting, and how Sparta was on the brink before Mantinea and in that single stroke won an extremely important victory.

It is true they could not sustain bad losses, but their strengths laid in winning where it really counted. I would argue that a war between Sparta at its height right after the Persian War, against Republican Rome which didn't even need to conquer it, would be very different than how history played down. Leuktra was lost because of several key factors, but were I to go into them it would take up a whole nother post.

The armies of Macedon are a close second to me. They lost to Rome because of several poor leaders, mostly in military areas. Pydna, Macedon's final battle against Rome which they lost, was lost because Persius could not lead men. Alexander could have done so much better.

Well, you also have to realize the the armies of Macedon under Persius were not the same as the Macedonian army under Alexander. It lacked the level of combined arms that Alexander's army had.

As I recall Alexander's army had a ratio of cavalry to infantry of something like 1:6, while the later Macedonian armies struggled with ratios of 1:10.

Different animals entirely.

This is true; Alexander was what was holding his empire together, and after his death the Diadokhi splintered it with interwarring. Further, Diadokhi armies made such a poor showing after Alexander because they were too complicated - Alexander was the only one who had the smarts to use all the set pieces.

I wouldn't say the Ptolemies did too badly. They lasted 200 years longer than the average Egyptian dynasty, and nearly 30 years longer than the longest-reigning native dynasty (the 18th, as I recall.)

They also came fairly close to taking over Rome, via Cleopatra's vagina. (Sometimes real history puts Game of Thrones to shame.)

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:I wouldn't say the Ptolemies did too badly. They lasted 200 years longer than the average Egyptian dynasty, and nearly 30 years longer than the longest-reigning native dynasty (the 18th, as I recall.)

They also came fairly close to taking over Rome, via Cleopatra's vagina. (Sometimes real history puts Game of Thrones to shame.)

You said a bad word! Nail him to a cross!
Marcus Antonius and Brutus had their way with her, too... Cleo had an integrity that would make many prositutes blush...

Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:I wouldn't say the Ptolemies did too badly. They lasted 200 years longer than the average Egyptian dynasty, and nearly 30 years longer than the longest-reigning native dynasty (the 18th, as I recall.)

They also came fairly close to taking over Rome, via Cleopatra's vagina. (Sometimes real history puts Game of Thrones to shame.)

You said a bad word! Nail him to a cross!
Marcus Antonius and Brutus had their way with her, too... Cleo had an integrity that would make many prositutes blush...

Really?

The ivain isles wrote:

Cetacea wrote:Imperial America - it's ability to take an undisciplined rabble and indoctrinate them to fully invest in the projection of military righteousness around the world is unparalleled in history, even Imperial Britain didn't achieve that level of righteous fury

^ This.

Every damn attitude they had has been had to a much greater degree than they ever managed. Their military strength came from being the most powerful country at the latest point in time, not their attitudes. The Assyrians were way better.

I always had a soft spot for the Norsemen for combining warrior culture, gender equality*, and a rather modern legal system.

* well more equal than any civilization up until modern times.