Advertisement
by Equalium » Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:09 pm
by Libertarian California » Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:11 pm
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.
by Paketo » Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:14 pm
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.
by Frisivisia » Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:19 pm
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.
by Equalium » Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:24 pm
by United Kingdom of Poland » Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:42 pm
by Strykla » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:20 pm
by Shaggai » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:29 pm
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.
by Trollgaard » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:31 pm
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.
by Nazis in Space » Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:54 pm
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.
by Arglorand » Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:59 pm
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.
by Lesbia » Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:00 pm
Romneyerica wrote:Has anyone said Mericah warrior culture yet?
by Anachronous Rex » Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:30 pm
by Mushet » Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:05 am
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.
by The ivain isles » Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:09 am
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
by Altito Asmoro » Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:19 am
by Strykla » Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:19 am
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.
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.
by OMGeverynameistaken » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:10 am
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:18 am
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.)
by Altito Asmoro » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:22 am
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...
by Shaggai » Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:12 am
by Sociobiology » Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:51 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bear Stearns, Bovad, Cyptopir, Danternoust, Dumb Ideologies, Ebrein, Ethel mermania, General TN, Glorious Freedonia, Keltionialang, Kreushia, Likhinia, Ors Might, Plan Neonie, Singaporen Empire, Stellar Colonies, The Black Forrest, Theodorable, Tungstan
Advertisement