the largest empire in history

[Kenny83]

I'm quite suprised that I don't see the Persians on that list, actually.

 

[clen]

If I'm an idiot then I'd hate to imagine what that makes most people in your book. By long-ass time, I meant in the span of a lifetime. To me 50 years is quite a while. And who do you refer to when you mean aggressive civilians? The Iraqi insurgents who are NOT engaging in straight combat, but striking from the shadows at random? Or simply our own criminals, in which case the police are not the same as the military, dumbass. If they were we'd have replaced police cruisers with hummers and tanks and would therefore be under martial law, which we're not and never will be. In a straight mono-y-mono battle our weaponry can cripple most armies within a few airstrikes. You should see just how much power and area is used by our bombers, especially the stealth, who's payload is massive and offloaded at a frightening rate which can take out several football fields.

How exactly is a bomber against a few militia a Mano a Mano fight?

 

[J-Dude]

Forgive my choice of words. I meant army against army, not soldier vs. soldier.

 

[Growler]

Yet you're the only country to have unleashed a nuclear catastrophe.

Vapourizing 80,000 people and killing 60,000 more slowly with radiation poisoning doesnt exactly sound like "straight combat"

Its that kind of arrogance that makes people hate the US.

Um... Cause the USA was the only country in history to do such a thing... Japanese had their bataan death march... Rome had their senseless killings in the ring... Germany should be hated too right..cause of their nazi stuff right?
Talk about arrogance...

 

[Mountain Dewd]

Um... Cause the USA was the only country in history to do such a thing... Japanese had their bataan death march... Rome had their senseless killings in the ring... Germany should be hated too right..cause of their nazi stuff right?
Talk about arrogance...

That wasnt the point I was making, if you're talking war crimes then the USA would only really get the one mention.

My point was moronic little ego stroking comments about "straight combat", without actually looking at America's history in modern warfare are stupid.

One only has to look as far back as Vietnam to see how America's edge isnt as great as people like to think it is.

About mountain dewd's comments on America, we saved many lives by using the nuclear bomb. The casualties would have been immense if we had invaded Japan, one can hardly blame the U.S. for using the weapon we had spent years and billions of dollars (and this was billions of dollars in the 40's, not today) to produce, especially considering it saved more lives than it took and we knew that at the time.

Not to mention how necessary the atomic bomb was to demonstrate to Russia how powerful our country was. We now had leverage against Russia to stop their expansion and combat their aggression, which could have arguably saved countless lives. But hey, continue to hate us and our arrogance, who cares if your right?

I know the strategic reasons for using it, but saying it "probably saved thousands of lives" isnt the same as it actually being true, it may well have, but it doesnt make it right in any sense.

I dont hate America, I just find it Ironic how the only nation that resorted to nuking another country, is now policing the Nuclear weapons programs of other nations.

 

[uncover bunker]

ok guyz.....let me repeat my self again.....there would be no hyper technology and modern weapon in the discussion.


back to the topic. i think british had the upon hand in economy than rome and greek(they have the most largest trading network in the world.) but for the military....i'll go with rome and monchuria(whom destroyed three empires in 2 years.... mongollia, china and korea)

 

[Skiwan]

The whole atomic bombing of Japan isn't a clear cut case, they were not, as some believe, intent on fighting to the death under just any circumstances. They were seeking peace with the soviets, however there was an American invasion force in Ketsu-Go, and the Japanese refused any kind of peace treaty with the allied forces untill the invasion force had sustained heavy losses and/or was driven out. After the first bomb was dropped the soviet peace treaty was violated and the soviets also decided to send an invasion force, the same day the Americans dropped the second bomb.

There is also the fact that there were two types of bombs used, or were they just being tested? It's hard to say, but there really was no need for the second bomb to be dropped, the Japanese had pretty much admitted defeat, and were trying to pursue diplomatic negotiations, they were reaching decisions on the same day Nagasaki was bombed. It's interesting that a more powerful and devastating bomb was used on the second target.

I'm straying from the point here a little. The British empire, without a doubt, was the largest in terms of landmass. The British empire was about military and economic control, but also has had heavy cultural influences as most invading forces always have, but the impact is most noticeable today from the fact that English is now the most common language. The Romans as some are saying, had a great empire, however a lot of their technologies and even their mythologies were lifted from their conquered nations, it was their military control which governed almost their entire reign. They had an outstanding impact on the development of the human race. It's almost impossible to compare "largest" empires through such ages though....

 

[Kasey]

It's a tie between the Covenant and UNSC. But Master Chief is still the best. So I'll say sparta since he was in project SPARTAN

 

[Barney]

ok guyz.....let me repeat my self again.....there would be no hyper technology and modern weapon in the discussion.

Well then starting this topic was kind of dumb since it's obviously going to come up...also you can't really compare 2 empires if they were hundreds or thousands of years apart because times change and so does technology and how the whole world works in general as well.

 

[ZeroNightmare]

i'm not bashing rome or anything, they did good for a few hundred years.

but there were other people that had sewage systems and running water. alot earlier.

 

[Mountain Dewd]

Thats true, India and Egypt had complex irrigation systems.

However nothing even close to what Rome had, it provided its citizens with running water on a scale that had not even come close to being attempted in the past, and it took something like a thousand years for a more efficient design than the Roman aqueduct to appear.

Rome was the first truly modern city.

After two years of studying ancient history in high school, I wish I could actually remember something without my friend Wikipedia

 

[Tassadar]

The United Federation of Planets.

 

[Zeonix]

I don't really see how I was flaming...
Agamenon was probably (hopefully:scared joking, and so was I. (hence the smilies)

EDIT: wait... any offense taken from me making fun of "humans causing global warming" theory was entirely intentional.

Back on topic...

I don't think they had much of an empire though.

I said we're going to fight the aliens because THEY are causing global warming. Trust me. I'm head of the NSA (No, I didn't intend to type NASA).

Rome did borrow a lot of technology, but what made the Romans amazing is that they made everything they took 100 times better than the original. So Rome deserves some credit for it's technological superiority.

There's no point in asking "who is stronger?" if we're not allowed to talk about their technology. After all, it is technology that makes one country's military superior to the other (unless you're willing to sacrifice a million people to take over a city).

@ Mountain Dewd: In conventional warfare, America is unmatched. When America attacks a country, the "enemy" is forced to use unconventional tactics i.e. guerilla warfare. Why can't a superpower defeat guerillas? Well, technically it could if it was willing to kill anyone and everyone, but the goal is to kill the guerillas, not civilians. This becomes increasingly difficult when the guerillas dress up as civilians, and when you realize the civilians are aiding the guerillas. What do you do at that point? Your options are extremely limited.

However, put America in the ring with another country's military (something tangible like "China's Army"; not THE TALIBAN! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE AND NOWHERE LIKE NINJAS!), and the opposition doesn't stand a chance.

While you may think it hypocritical that America is trying to police other nations when it comes to nukes, it does make sense. America isn't willing to use nukes unless we get nuked, in which case our Scorched Earth policy goes into effect and everyone dies. We don't have to rely on nukes because our conventional weapons are extremely effective. However, a smaller nation like Iran or NK might. It's no secret that the Iranian president believes Israel doesn't have a right to exist. It's no secret that many middle eastern leaders agree with him, and it's no secret that they've promised to remove Israel from the face of the Earth. While there is no hard evidence that they would actually use nukes, it's probably best not to "wait and see", because if they do use nukes on their sworn enemy, I can guarantee Israel is going to try to take out as many of their enemies as possible before the inevitable occurs.

That said, I think everyone should have nukes. Then make a treaty stating if anyone uses a nuke, every other country has to band together and wipe that country off the face of the Earth. There. Problem solved.

Any who, I'm not sure how we're supposed to compare "the strongest nations". If we can't talk about technology or military superiority, what's the point? None of the countries listed became powerful by being completely diplomatic. They flexed their muscles every so often and reaped the benefits of being superior in that department.

 

[Barney]

This man states the truth and that part about the Taliban made me lol

 

[uncover bunker]

how many time i repeated my self to everyone not to talk nuker in this discussion......that would makes the compareson being more lame...(soviet/us could a planet.......but does that makes any sense!?)

otherwise rome never steal tech from other race....

 

[Zeonix]

Nukes don't matter since we're unable to use them in most situations. However, if we begin to discuss weapons used in a conventional war, it becomes pretty obvious who has the overwhelming advantage in terms of military technology.

Whenever Rome took over a country, they'd "steal" that nation's best technology (and aspects of their culture, except in the case of Greece, where they adopted just about everything) and make it better.

 

[DiebytheSword]

The one thing I haven't seen mentioned once, which has kind of surprised me, is that the United States has the greatest force projection of any nation in recorded history. Nearly our entire military can strike anywhere, and maintain sustained combat in those areas indefinately. No other nation can boast this (especially nations like Russia and China which have superior defences [in numbers], but no ability to push that power on to other land masses than their own) although a few of the other 1st world nations like Brittain and France can move large amounts of very well trained soldiers to trouble areas.

Also, as far as conventional warfare is concerned, the united states does hold significant advantages in large scale scenarios, for instance, our Blue Water Navy is the strongest on earth (if not, it is certainly in the top 3), but we would fare badly in Brown Water engagements. Our Main battle tank has proven far superior to every counterpart manfactured against it, specifically the Russian made T-80 and T-90, who's kill/loss ratio against the Abrams is utterly appalling. Again though, our armed ground forces suffer badly against guerilla tactics and Democratic knee capping. I find it ironic that the party trying so hard to pull our boys home are the ones that voted down all the armor and weapons that our military was claiming costs them lives, for instance, better body armor, and armor on the humvees. Guess the blood on their hands got a little to high, after all it's one thing to kill the enemy, another entirely to kill your neighbor's kid.

Our Air Force, however, has had the advantage since Vietnam, the lessons of that war were hard learned in the air (never go up without your knife). Since then, our BVR engagement capabilities have proven devistating to soviet era craft, and the numbers will only get worse with the current generation of stealth fighters. Though I will admit, the US stockpile of short range IR weapons, like the AIM-9 sidewinder, are badly in need of an overhaul. The AIM-9X will be a godsend for us, and unabridged horror for the poor sap who manages to get in on a F-22 or F-35.

 

[J-Dude]

@Cucumba: Jesus dude, is there anything you don't know? I knew that our military was superior, but not to that extent...all of a sudden I feel much safer.

 

[Gman5690]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. british empire (34,121,300 km sq)
2. the spanish (25,012,110 km sq)
3. mongols (23,005,002 km sq)
4. russian empire (22,990,900 km sq)
5. soviet union (22,402,200 km sq)
6. russian federation (17,075,400 km sq)
7. roman empire (14,112,139 km sq)
8. abbasics dynasty (13,997,210 km sq)
9. manchurian empire(included china) (11.221,090 km sq)
10. greek empire (10,350,600 km sq)
11. united state (9,631,420 km sq)


PS: which is the strongest in history

OI! you forgot the galactic empire!!...disgraceful!

 

[dan_esf_fanatic]

i know but we have like 1000000000000000000000000000 of em

Doesn't matter how much you have, only takes like 3 to destroy basically anything. Oh and BTW, about your airforce, don't get too comfortable, since we beat them with microwaves.