|
America(2005) vs Rome (when they were big) (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Floorfiller |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
lol, yes i said that. he was defeated in north africa. not italy. |
yes i know you did...i'm just saying...that they did stop him because they made a tactical manouevre that forced him to change his plan and give up his attack. the attack on North Africa in essence...stopped him hehehe :p |
|
|
| Radagast |
Unless you, as a futuristic American soldier, bring an infinite number of gas and bullets your tanks and guns will become useless soon. And when that happens, hardened, war-trained phalanx are going to skewer you like the technology dependant fool you are.
Wow, people actually do sleep with their eyes open. Amazing. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| this is kind of like the horse sized duck or 100 duck sized horses debate :stongue: |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
yes i know you did...i'm just saying...that they did stop him because they made a tactical manouevre that forced him to change his plan and give up his attack. the attack on North Africa in essence...stopped him hehehe :p |
suree, but what i meant in the very beginning was rome had a lot of trouble defending their home turf, the homeland. whereas america hasnt been invaded since 1812 by the british. |
|
|
| TranceSpeeder |
 |
|
|
| Spartan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cloudburst
it was meant as piss poor joke, that someone had ratted out on our plans to conquer the US... :p
sometimes sarcasm and average english doesn't go hand in hand... :( |
aaaaaaaaaah, RAT I get it now:p |
|
|
| eRRaTiK |
should have made the question clearer.
if the weapons and capabilities were equal.... romans would win.
americans have balls, but that's about it.
the french would run.
aussies would chuck some shrimps on da barbie and crocodile dundee on all ya sheilas.
happy australia day! :p |
|
|
| Cal |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceSpeeder
|
Oh man this pic is just begging to be photochopped |
|
|
| DJ-Dank-Poo |
well shave my balls and call them walnuts, but i think that M16's, 50 cals, 240 bravos, 249 SAW's, and the fire team support of mortars and artillery would definitely destroy an army of shields and swords... i mean if i can hit the 300m target 3 out of 4 times, and the 50m target every time, there isn't much of a chance for any of them keeping in mind a sword is only effective within 2-3 meters
;) |
|
|
| e*motion |
| europeans have soul and heart. Americans.. they have fast food. Go Rome. |
|
|
| Frode |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
yes i know you did...i'm just saying...that they did stop him because they made a tactical manouevre that forced him to change his plan and give up his attack. the attack on North Africa in essence...stopped him hehehe :p |
exactly.
And Hannibal didn't dare to attack the city of Rome. He didn't get any further than Northern Italy were his army was slowly reduced by ambushes.
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
suree, but what i meant in the very beginning was rome had a lot of trouble defending their home turf, the homeland. whereas america hasnt been invaded since 1812 by the british. |
What's your point? Rome existed for more than 1000 years, that leaves quite some time for invasions, especially when its enemies don't need to cross the atlantic ocean. |
|
|
| DjShlian |
| dats impossible. julius caesar can't live for 1000 years. it defies logic |
|
|
|
|
