You have much to learn, young grasshoppa.
Printable View
Was that an attempt to refute my statement? Generally, if you're trying to prove someone wrong, you at least provide a LITTLE explanation of why they are wrong.
Of course, if they're actually right, it's pretty tough to think of counterarguments that don't involve a single cryptic statement with no backing. So I suppose, in this case, you can be excused.
Well look at it this way; here we sit, year 2010, trying to figure out which side from when before Jesus was born would win. There's practically no intellectualism needed (no offense, Conrad) because we can only speculate on who would have won. Sparta, Rome, Sun Tzu, Polar Bears. There's just no way of knowing. So, I have to act on what I know from where I sit. I know that Rome was a great empire and Sparta raised everyone to be soldiers and Sun Tzu was a brilliant tactician, even if he never did really command any forces. Even then, we don't know if Sun Tzu actually saw battle or not, records may have been lost, history fabricated, truth changed to lies, you get the point. Now, I say Sun Tzu would have won based on knowing that the man was a military genius, whether or not he had an army was never in the question. We're only going on the bare minimum of questions and not taking other factors like weather conditions, army size, how healthy the soldiers are, travel distance, etc. into account.
Sun Tzu, that's my final answer.
whos dissing on me
How can you say Sun Tzu never had an army? He was his country's top general, and defended it in multiple wars against larger nations. And if he had been born in either Rome or Sparta, you can bet your butt they would still be rulign the world by now.
Of course you are right about that, there is no way of knowing, the best known version is told by the victor who would normally be glorifying themselves.
Rome is known to have done so alot to make themselves look better but this argument is coming to be based on the size of their lands so obviously Rome would look to be the most likely victor but no-one seems to be comparing the achievements and failures to see which victory would be more likely between the two forces.
Please note that this debate is over the efficiency and effectiveness of the Spartan and Roman militaries...
Was Rome more effective and efficient, or was Sparta when it came to troops?
It doesn't matter over vast numbers (very much), but rather the quality of the troops that they trained...
THAT is what this debate is over, and I think that Conrad is hitting at the true topic of this debate closer than most of you are...
In other words, would you rather lead a legion of Spartans against a legion of Romans, OR
Would you rather lead a legion of Romans against a legion of Spartans,
Given any circumstances, or the scene of battle.
The debate is over the quality of said troops, not the quantity...
Considering ONLY the quality of the troops, Sparta definitely beats all. Everywhere. The only thing even close to being comparable is the Samurai.