View Poll Results: Which military was more effective and efficient in its prime?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Sparta

    14 41.18%
  • Rome

    20 58.82%
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68

Thread: DEBATE: Sparta or Rome?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Way, way, Waaaaaay over the rainbow
    Posts
    838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axer NZ View Post
    Sun Tzu was primarily a military theorist, and he never commanded in any major battles. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't expect an armchair general spouting homilies to keep his troops from being turned into chopped liver.
    You have much to learn, young grasshoppa.

  2. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigilstone17 View Post
    You have much to learn, young grasshoppa.
    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.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Way, way, Waaaaaay over the rainbow
    Posts
    838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axer NZ View Post
    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.

  4. #54

    Default

    whos dissing on me

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    They see me lurkin', they hatin'.
    Posts
    2,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski View Post
    Sigilstone17, I would never say such vile and putrid words!


    The history of Classical Antiquity, the Medieval Period and the Byzantine Empire as well as the philosophical concepts and viewpoints of Platonic, Aristotelian, Ciceronian, Medieval Scholastic, Renaissance, Enlightenment and Romantic philosophy are not mere interests or passions that I harbor and pursue but rather my life's purpose and my greatest happiness and ebullience in life!
    Ahh yes I agree. I love histroy too.
    ProLurker

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Out of town at the moment, and without internet access
    Posts
    1,371

    Default

    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.
    "I'm not crazy, OK? I'm totally, completely sane.
    Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go blow up this dead body."
    Agent Washington, Red vs Blue

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Derby, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    7,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigilstone17 View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alusair View Post
    If you don't care enough to make yourself understandable, don't be surprised if others don't care enough to try to figure out what you're trying to tell them.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lost in Space
    Posts
    7,183

    Default

    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...
    Last edited by Cosmic Fury; 03-25-2010 at 09:55 PM.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Out of town at the moment, and without internet access
    Posts
    1,371

    Default

    Considering ONLY the quality of the troops, Sparta definitely beats all. Everywhere. The only thing even close to being comparable is the Samurai.
    "I'm not crazy, OK? I'm totally, completely sane.
    Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go blow up this dead body."
    Agent Washington, Red vs Blue

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armbarchris View Post
    Considering ONLY the quality of the troops, Sparta definitely beats all. Everywhere. The only thing even close to being comparable is the Samurai.
    Japanese Samurais are much more trained in the mental arts than the Spartans. 1 vs 1, Samurais will win.
    Quit.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •