re: Who would win between Rome and Ancient China?

quote:

---

ManBearTiger
Who would win between Rome and Ancient China?
quote:
romans ... they were expansionist more than the chinese, i think ... so they'd have more incentive to develop ways to kill people ...


.

Roman Empire at its peak:



Mongol Empire:

---

he said 'chinese', not mongols ...

quote:

---

The Roman soldier was one of the three best soldiers, along with the German soldier of WW2 and the Confederate soldier of the American war between the states.

---

Huh.

quote:

---

f you're speaking of multicultural and mestizo/mulatto Rome, then Ancient China would win easily the same way the Germanic Visigoths won easily. China's ethnic collectivism and refusal of multicultural subterfuge would give them the advantage over a mixed up Rome. The Germanics easily finished off Rome due to the fact Rome was already intermixed and watered down from within, and therefore the Visigoths had the advantage in collective solidarity and homogeneous socialism.

---

this might seriously be the biggest load of meaningless pretentious verbiage i've ever encountered

Rome

quote:

---

Are you kidding? The Confederate soldiers lost due the fact they lacked the work ethic and strength of the German and Irish Midwesterners of the Union who never relied on slaves to do their alpha labor for them.

---

98% of Confederate soldiers were not slave owners, and were often in worse shape than slaves were as far as working conditions, hours, etc., so no. Sounds like your knowledge of this comes from a single sound bite or the rantings of a professor not educated in this subject area.

True but its still a stretch to call a confederate soldier one of history's three greatest.

The Norse/Normans/Scandinavians would definitely be at the top. The Slavs, especially Cossacks and Russians, are great warriors and downright brutal. The Soviets singlehandedly defeated the Axis powers of Europe in WW2.


The Afrikaners/Boers were mentioned as the most rugged and noble warriors by Winston Churchill, but there weren't too many of them.

quote:

---

It was motivation, determination, and backs against the wall.

---

This may have made them fight harder because they were defending their homes. I don't think it means that they were better soldiers. What would make better soldiers is if they received some kind of better training than the men in the North. I still think this comes down some kind of Southern romanticism that is heavily associated with the time period.

The Norse/Danes conquered half of England. They didn't simply raid.

quote:

---

98% of Confederate soldiers were not slave owners, and were often in worse shape than slaves were as far as working conditions, hours, etc., so no. .

---

The TD Confederate apologists / revisionists are out early in the morning.

Without even looking at your misleading 98% stat I can tell you that nearly a third(30% or so) of Southern Households owned slaves(nearly 50% of families in some states) . "Technically" because a young man or woman's name isn't on the bill of sale or deed doesn't mean they didn't abuse nor benefit off the backs of their slaves.

I am quite sure most 18/19/20 year old Privates in Iraq or Afghanistan didn't own much either just like their Civil War counterparts . When you peel back the layers of your misleading bullshite I bet the numbers more properly reflect these young men came from slaveowning families.


In some cases all of the men in the slaveowning family left for war , but I bet not many of them 'technically'(deed) owned the slaves themselves . Father, Grandfather ,Uncle & other family members 'owned' the slaves.

Just because White women(wives) didn't personally own the slaves doesn't mean they didn't benefit from them, abuse them or have a stake in slavery. Just because the fighting age sons(heirs) weren't old enough to personally 'own' slaves doesn't mean they didn't abuse ,rape nor benefit from their family owning them.


Just like the only 5 or 6% of Southerners owened slaves is BS so are your stats.