Sumeria .vs. Roman Empire

[The Roswell Man]

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0004.htm

http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public...pecial/war.html

make your minds up.....

[marduk]

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0004.htm

http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public...pecial/war.html

make your minds up.....

687611[/snapback]

My moneys on the sumerians because the romans didn't exist when their armies were ready to take to the field

so the romans would lose by default for not showing up for another 3000 years

Edited June 20, 2005 by marduk

[The Roswell Man]

i mean at the height of their civs

(at they most powerful)

[marduk]

i mean at the height of their civs

(at they most powerful)

687631[/snapback]

The Romans would probably kick ass purely because they'd had an extra 3000 years to learn how to fight

but it'd cost them

the sumerians believed in an afterlife for the fallen

they had no fear

They'd be happy to die in battle

Roman soldiers all wanted a life after the army

Even in the roman period they didn't conquer babylonia which was what sumeria became.

By that time there wasn't anything there worth having

[Dark_Lord]

The romans actually conquered Babylonia, and burnt to ashes the parthian capital, Ctesifons, twice. However, it was more costly to keep those territories than their revenues, consequently they were shortly after abandoned. Babylona was however already in ruins at the height of the roman empire.

[marduk]

The romans actually conquered Babylonia, and burnt to ashes the parthian capital, Ctesifons, twice. However, it was more costly to keep those territories than their revenues, consequently they were shortly after abandoned. Babylona was however already in ruins at the height of the roman empire.

687728[/snapback]

Yeah it died in 1600bce as far as i'm concerned

it was never the same after that

people started calling it assyria

i mean

Assyria ?

thats not even close

[The Roswell Man]

was that was ethopia b4

[marduk]

was that was ethopia b4

687739[/snapback]

No Roswell

Ethiopia is on a different continent

Heres some maps for those unfamiliar with the area under discussion

[Erikl]

The Romans would win, obviously, because they were in a more advanced period of the same age - the classic one.

Also, the Romans, who took their culture and most of their technologies from the Greeks, knew all the secrets of Sumerian warfare, thanks to the Hellenistic culture of the Greeks, which was the result of West and East combined.

So while the Sumerians had no knowledge of western techniques, the Romans knew alot about eastern tactics, especially ancient ones such as those of the Sumerians.

[marduk]

The Romans would win, obviously, because they were in a more advanced period of the same age - the classic one.

Also, the Romans, who took their culture and most of their technologies from the Greeks, knew all the secrets of Sumerian warfare, thanks to the Hellenistic culture of the Greeks, which was the result of West and East combined.

So while the Sumerians had no knowledge of western techniques, the Romans knew alot about eastern tactics, especially ancient ones such as those of the Sumerians.

687746[/snapback]

The sumerian culture rose so quickly mainly because they had bronze before anyone else on earth.

it fell when their enemies discovered iron.

The romans had iron

the sumerians didn't

But then again the sumerians had elite fighting units that had trained in martial warfare since they were 5

i don't think the romans would be able to stand up very well against them

They were psychos bred for battle

[Erikl]

The Romans would win, obviously, because they were in a more advanced period of the same age - the classic one.

Also, the Romans, who took their culture and most of their technologies from the Greeks, knew all the secrets of Sumerian warfare, thanks to the Hellenistic culture of the Greeks, which was the result of West and East combined.

So while the Sumerians had no knowledge of western techniques, the Romans knew alot about eastern tactics, especially ancient ones such as those of the Sumerians.

687746[/snapback]

The sumerian culture rose so quickly mainly because they had bronze before anyone else on earth.

it fell when their enemies discovered iron.

The romans had iron

the sumerians didn't

But then again the sumerians had elite fighting units that had trained in martial warfare since they were 5

i don't think the romans would be able to stand up very well against them

They were psychos bred for battle

687757[/snapback]

Mind you those "psychos" were the forefathers of the western and the middle-eastern civilizations .

And the Romans weren't much gentler themselves... *cough* the slaughter of Carthage *cough*.... *cough* the genocide of millions of Gauls in France *cough*... *cough* the genocide of 500,000-1 million Jews in Judea *cough*... and the list goes on and on...

[Dark_Lord]

Maybe you underextimate the role of discipline at war. Few armies in the course of history were as disciplined as the roman army was.

[marduk]

Maybe you underextimate the role of discipline at war. Few armies in the course of history were as disciplined as the roman army was.

687786[/snapback]

This'll be the same Roman Army that was finally destroyed by invading barbarians hordes with no discipline whatsoever

The nazi's were well disciplined too

Didn't help in the end did it in either case.

I know that mentioning Nazi's in the same breath as romans is a little nasty of me but hey

they used the same standard.

[LordBailey]

Maybe you underextimate the role of discipline at war. Few armies in the course of history were as disciplined as the roman army was.

687786[/snapback]

This'll be the same Roman Army that was finally destroyed by invading barbarians hordes with no discipline whatsoever

The nazi's were well disciplined too

Didn't help in the end did it in either case.

I know that mentioning Nazi's in the same breath as romans is a little nasty of me but hey

they used the same standard.

687845[/snapback]

Simple answer to this.....is based on what kind of environment they were fighting. If they were in the desert, then the Sumerians. If they were in a more temporate or hilly region, then the Romans. Tactics is also about the only thing that would make a huge difference in a battle between these two. The General would also have a big impact on the outcome.

Another point, The Romans used something that the Sumerians hadn't ever fought against. HEAVY CAVALRY and SPEAR CAVALRY. If the region was temporate, meaning that horses were plausable, then the Romans would OWN the Sumerians. Not to mention their "Testudo", or Turtle formations, which would make them almost impervious to archers and spears. This of course is the direct result, as was mentioned before, of the Helenistic Age and them learning about some 3,000 years of warfare before them and the tactics used.

Bottom line, ROME had better generals who were schooled in the tactics required to win a battle in almost any terrain, using almost any means nessesary. Most of the BIG Roman losses were the direct result of surprise attacks on a main, marching legion. Head the head, no one could directly fight the Roman Legion.

[marduk]

Maybe you underextimate the role of discipline at war. Few armies in the course of history were as disciplined as the roman army was.

687786[/snapback]

This'll be the same Roman Army that was finally destroyed by invading barbarians hordes with no discipline whatsoever

The nazi's were well disciplined too

Didn't help in the end did it in either case.

I know that mentioning Nazi's in the same breath as romans is a little nasty of me but hey

they used the same standard.

687845[/snapback]

Simple answer to this.....is based on what kind of environment they were fighting. If they were in the desert, then the Sumerians. If they were in a more temporate or hilly region, then the Romans. Tactics is also about the only thing that would make a huge difference in a battle between these two. The General would also have a big impact on the outcome.

Another point, The Romans used something that the Sumerians hadn't ever fought against. HEAVY CAVALRY and SPEAR CAVALRY. If the region was temporate, meaning that horses were plausable, then the Romans would OWN the Sumerians. Not to mention their "Testudo", or Turtle formations, which would make them almost impervious to archers and spears. This of course is the direct result, as was mentioned before, of the Helenistic Age and them learning about some 3,000 years of warfare before them and the tactics used.

Bottom line, ROME had better generals who were schooled in the tactics required to win a battle in almost any terrain, using almost any means nessesary. Most of the BIG Roman losses were the direct result of surprise attacks on a main, marching legion. Head the head, no one could directly fight the Roman Legion.

687885[/snapback]

Heavy cavalry on sand ?

the sumerians had camels

[snuffypuffer]

What if they fought on a giant chessboard?

[marduk]

What if they fought on a giant chessboard?

687930[/snapback]

Then whoever was calling the shots would win.

But the sumerians wouldn't be allowed to use bishops

they'd have to use gods instead

thats a piece that can move to any square on the board and do anything when it gets there

[LordBailey]

Maybe you underextimate the role of discipline at war. Few armies in the course of history were as disciplined as the roman army was.

687786[/snapback]

This'll be the same Roman Army that was finally destroyed by invading barbarians hordes with no discipline whatsoever

The nazi's were well disciplined too

Didn't help in the end did it in either case.

I know that mentioning Nazi's in the same breath as romans is a little nasty of me but hey

they used the same standard.

687845[/snapback]

Simple answer to this.....is based on what kind of environment they were fighting. If they were in the desert, then the Sumerians. If they were in a more temporate or hilly region, then the Romans. Tactics is also about the only thing that would make a huge difference in a battle between these two. The General would also have a big impact on the outcome.

Another point, The Romans used something that the Sumerians hadn't ever fought against. HEAVY CAVALRY and SPEAR CAVALRY. If the region was temporate, meaning that horses were plausable, then the Romans would OWN the Sumerians. Not to mention their "Testudo", or Turtle formations, which would make them almost impervious to archers and spears. This of course is the direct result, as was mentioned before, of the Helenistic Age and them learning about some 3,000 years of warfare before them and the tactics used.

Bottom line, ROME had better generals who were schooled in the tactics required to win a battle in almost any terrain, using almost any means nessesary. Most of the BIG Roman losses were the direct result of surprise attacks on a main, marching legion. Head the head, no one could directly fight the Roman Legion.

687885[/snapback]

Heavy cavalry on sand ?

the sumerians had camels

687923[/snapback]

Read it again....That's what I said. It would depend on the terrain...

And camels can do nothing if they can't get through the Roman Triarii (Long Spearmen). I still say Roman Victory...

[Falco Rex]

You can't seriously believe a bunch of loose city states full of flood plain squatters would beat one of the greatest fighting forces of all time?

In tactics alone the Romans outclassed the sumerians 100 times; not to mention thier engineering and artillery knowledge..

Remember we're talking about each at the height of their power, not the Romans' who were demoralized, de-populated and softened by internal strife and Christianity..Of course they lost to waves of barbarians..

But the Roman Army of the Late Republic/Early Empire?

The Sumerians wouldn't last a month..

[LordBailey]

You can't seriously believe a bunch of loose city states full of flood plain squatters would beat one of the greatest fighting forces of all time?

In tactics alone the Romans outclassed the sumerians 100 times; not to mention thier engineering and artillery knowledge..

Remember we're talking about each at the height of their power, not the Romans' who were demoralized, de-populated and softened by internal strife and Christianity..Of course they lost to waves of barbarians..

But the Roman Army of the Late Republic/Early Empire?

The Sumerians wouldn't last a month..

687985[/snapback]

RIGHT ON Brotha! hehe My thoughts exactly!

[marduk]

You can't seriously believe a bunch of loose city states full of flood plain squatters would beat one of the greatest fighting forces of all time?

In tactics alone the Romans outclassed the sumerians 100 times; not to mention thier engineering and artillery knowledge..

Remember we're talking about each at the height of their power, not the Romans' who were demoralized, de-populated and softened by internal strife and Christianity..Of course they lost to waves of barbarians..

But the Roman Army of the Late Republic/Early Empire?

The Sumerians wouldn't last a month..

687985[/snapback]

RIGHT ON Brotha! hehe My thoughts exactly!

688001[/snapback]

I did already say the romans would win

but then its hardly a fair fight

lets try the romans against the U.S. marine corps next huh

[LordBailey]

You can't seriously believe a bunch of loose city states full of flood plain squatters would beat one of the greatest fighting forces of all time?

In tactics alone the Romans outclassed the sumerians 100 times; not to mention thier engineering and artillery knowledge..

Remember we're talking about each at the height of their power, not the Romans' who were demoralized, de-populated and softened by internal strife and Christianity..Of course they lost to waves of barbarians..

But the Roman Army of the Late Republic/Early Empire?

The Sumerians wouldn't last a month..

687985[/snapback]

RIGHT ON Brotha! hehe My thoughts exactly!

688001[/snapback]

I did already say the romans would win

but then its hardly a fair fight

lets try the romans against the U.S. marine corps next huh

688005[/snapback]

ROFLMAO!!! Very True point you have made.....

Or maybe we could do Napoleon's Grande Armee against the Nazi 7th Panzer Division.....OOOOO FUN!

[marduk]

You can't seriously believe a bunch of loose city states full of flood plain squatters would beat one of the greatest fighting forces of all time?

In tactics alone the Romans outclassed the sumerians 100 times; not to mention thier engineering and artillery knowledge..

Remember we're talking about each at the height of their power, not the Romans' who were demoralized, de-populated and softened by internal strife and Christianity..Of course they lost to waves of barbarians..

But the Roman Army of the Late Republic/Early Empire?

The Sumerians wouldn't last a month..

687985[/snapback]

RIGHT ON Brotha! hehe My thoughts exactly!

688001[/snapback]

I did already say the romans would win

but then its hardly a fair fight

lets try the romans against the U.S. marine corps next huh

688005[/snapback]

ROFLMAO!!! Very True point you have made.....

Or maybe we could do Napoleon's Grande Armee against the Nazi 7th Panzer Division.....OOOOO FUN!

688008[/snapback]

Or the french muskateers + dogtanion versus The Sith.

[Mr Ed]

Romans would win easily.

[marduk]

Romans would win easily.

688013[/snapback]

You haven't read a single previous post have ya Ed

lol

Steel circle stylie