sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,128
- 5,657
- 126
Originally posted by: tagej
I would leave nukes out of the equation, because just having them doesn't give you anything -- the Soviets/Russians have enough to obliterate the earth as well, but they are not a true military power right now.
I'd have to say Rome under Ceasar and other emperor was the truest dynasty -- they literally conquered, subdued and assimilated pretty much the entire world known at the time. The US might be able to project power right now in a certain spot where needed, but the US in no way shape or form could occupy, subdue and assimilate (and keep control of!) every country in the world. Not even close. Look at how much trouble we have 'holding' on little country like Iraq in line, I don't see how the US would conquer and subdue countries like India, China, Russia etc.
I guess if you looked back in time Ghengis Kahn and his Mongols would have to rank up there as well. If you look at the map at the amount of territory he conquered in his time, it was even larger (in square miles) than what the Romans held.
Have to pretty much agree. Nukes, tanks, stealth aircraft, and aircraft carriers are moot to the arguement. When the Romans ruled, the US and all it's power didn't. I think a major difference between the US and Rome is not so much the capability, but the willingness to use the capability. Rome was far more willing than the US.