Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

if america was that shitty and england was that great yes people would find ways i never said it would be easy but if its as u say then it would be done.

At 9/19/05 06:29 AM, ASKDodge wrote: How so? Nazi Germany held a larger area and had control over a larger poulation.
The British Empire, at its height, held control over 1/3 of the earth's landmass

yes but rome had the bigger influence and remember alexander.

At 9/19/05 04:45 PM, lapis wrote: The Greeks were the first real superpower - they were already very strong culturally and then Alexander of Macedon conquered the entire Middle East.

To my knowledge, Persia was the first real superpower. That is until Alexander conquered it, as you say. Though I much prefer the Greeks over the Persians, it must also be said that Alexander did not exactly conquer the Middle East and Asia. Most of his empire had already been collectivized under a single banner by the Persians, and upon defeating Derius the Great, Alexander more inherited the Persian empire than conquered it.

My own personal favorite is the Roman Empire. Unlike Alexander's Empire which fragmented upon his death, Rome lasted for hundreds of years. Rome was advanced technologically and culturally as well. The Dark Ages that swept across Europe were a huge step back from the advancement of Rome. Roman culture is felt world-wide even today, which makes it a legacy as well as a superpower.

rule Brittania, Brittania rule the waves! (crap song)
but not anymore it seems...

At 9/19/05 06:29 AM, ASKDodge wrote: How so? Nazi Germany held a larger area and had control over a larger poulation.
The British Empire, at its height, held control over 1/3 of the earth's landmass

Yeah, for only a couple of years. England and Rome held their power for centuries.

China. 5000 years of continuous history, and every Asian country has its language based on it (same way as Europe's languages are based on latin). Compare that to the US 200-year-old history.

Of course somebody's gonna say "but they were beaten in such and such", and that is true, but they were not changed as a result. They adapted and continued their history. The major changes were brought by themselves (e.g. cultural revolution).

To quote Sun Tzu (and make a cheesy quote) a best general is not the one that won the most wars, but the one that avoided the most.

At 9/19/05 05:36 PM, The_Toller wrote: I would like to propose the Swedish Empire as the greatest empire;P

http://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Swedish_Empire

Damn Sweeds, I knew they were up to no good!

At 9/19/05 07:55 PM, Empanado wrote: To say that Mongols were short-lived and relied solely on their force would be an understatement. The Mongols lasted some good centuries, and while a good share of their existence they were despotic, in Khan's times they were pretty advanced in comparison to the Western World.

Oh come on now, the mongols had control for less then half a century, and lost it all in one century. And advanced? I really want to hear you reasoning for this... The only real technology they had was what they used from thier polish and Russian territory. The strategy was using a bow while on a horse is rather old, think back, the Scythians were famous for exactly that. While it is effective, really it's greatest advantage is it catches everyone by suprise, since it's such a massively innefective strategy nobody ever uses it and nobody thinks to build a defense for it, but then every thousand years someone tries it again.

Now, while being attacked by a Mongol Horde wasn't particularly a good thing, the Mongol system itself was pretty well-stablished, if notoriously, well, tough. Example:

(The Yassa prescribes these rules:) to love one another, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to give false witness, not to be a traitor, and to respect old people and beggars. Whoever violates these commands is put to death.

Eh? Am I speaking to a priest all of the sudden? Since when was the advancement of the civilization gauged by its morals.

Anyways. My personal favorites were the incans. They didn't do much for the world, but they had a nice system going on. Too bad a civil war screwed them up.

Who build an empire lengthwise? I mean seriously, that can't be efficient.

At 9/20/05 05:33 PM, Jimsween wrote: And advanced? I really want to hear you reasoning for this... The only real technology they had was what they used from thier polish and Russian territory.

Using the technology of your conquered enemies is not a vice. The Mongols were quick to take over the advancements of the Chinese (gunpowder) like the Romans learned everything from the Greeks. The Mongols were skilled metal workers and among the first to use stirrup - other than that technology wasn't their forte. But look at Roman scientific achievements - they were good at architecture but that's about it. The only great inventions in the Mediterranean in the period 200 BC - 400 AD were made by Greeks under Roman rule (if any). The only thing that the Romans could do which the Mongols couldn't was keep their empire together.

The strategy was using a bow while on a horse is rather old, think back, the Scythians were famous for exactly that. While it is effective, really it's greatest advantage is it catches everyone by suprise, since it's such a massively innefective strategy nobody ever uses it and nobody thinks to build a defense for it, but then every thousand years someone tries it again.

Lol, a little more respect please. Greeks were wise to fear the nomads of the east. These 'ineffective' horse archers smashed Crassus at Carrhae and the Roman empire in it's last days couldn't stand up to Hunnic horse archers. It's a pretty simple technique maybe, and it neads good generals, experience and trained men (hunters and nomads) to handle them, but when used effectively they beat can most other non-gunpowder armies.

And "nobody uses it"? Only people who have learned to handle bows and horses sine childhood are able to use the techniques effectively, that's why Europeans didn't use it. That and a simple lack in horses.

At 9/20/05 06:01 PM, lapis wrote: Using the technology of your conquered enemies is not a vice. The Mongols were quick to take over the advancements of the Chinese (gunpowder) like the Romans learned everything from the Greeks. The Mongols were skilled metal workers and among the first to use stirrup - other than that technology wasn't their forte.

Which would hint that really they were in power only by force... And that it wasn't as much of a civilization as much as it was an army.

But look at Roman scientific achievements - they were good at architecture but that's about it. The only great inventions in the Mediterranean in the period 200 BC - 400 AD were made by Greeks under Roman rule (if any). The only thing that the Romans could do which the Mongols couldn't was keep their empire together.

If any? And all by the greeks? Come on now. They had conquered the greeks by 200BC. While they may have no made huge strides in technology, they spread thier technology all across Europe. Thier cultural achievements were massive. Which is something you certainly can't say for the mongols.

Lol, a little more respect please. Greeks were wise to fear the nomads of the east. These 'ineffective' horse archers smashed Crassus at Carrhae and the Roman empire in it's last days couldn't stand up to Hunnic horse archers. It's a pretty simple technique maybe, and it neads good generals, experience and trained men (hunters and nomads) to handle them, but when used effectively they beat can most other non-gunpowder armies.

Because the armies are not equipped to deal with such a tactic. It's the same as urban warfare, everyone forgets about it after long enough, and then someone uses it again. Horse archers can easily be taken by foot archers and light cavalry, two things rome wasn't exactly famous for, nor was eastern Europe.

And "nobody uses it"? Only people who have learned to handle bows and horses sine childhood are able to use the techniques effectively, that's why Europeans didn't use it. That and a simple lack in horses.

If it was so massively effective they would have trained people to do that very thing. It's just not, it's effective mainly because tactics are not suited to deal with it. Much like the American army's logistical warfare during the revolutionary war, or the German army's blitzkreig.

Worst Superpower?

Hmmm, now normally I'd say the U.S. but China just pisses me way too much, they're going to overcome all of us by sheer numbers.

Also, there are not only too many of them, they are also poor, cheap and immigrate to other countries.

At 9/19/05 06:46 AM, ASKDodge wrote: I agree, but I'd just like to wait a while for some american to come on and start bragging about the US and how they are the"sole superpower" and that they are the defenders of the free-world, etc..
Then we can have some fun taking their arguments apart...

Not all of us are like that.

Excuse my vision, it's negative 410 ( My doctor measures it that way, but I think it's probably a 3 digit measurement, my vision is -4 I think from 20/20 )

Greatest Empire:

The Roman Empire For Sure, common, from 100 A.D. to 400 A.D. They ruled all of the known world, and the Meddetarenian.