Doomhammer wrote:Regardless, corruption did not and could not have anything to do with military performance. The Greeks were using an archaic system and Romans weren't. And to be fair, the Roman army was still far from its heyday. Marius' comprehensive reforms came long after the conquest of Greece
I believe that if the city is corrupted, the army is in bad shape.First of all, the money goes to the corrupted and not to were it's supposed to(one part is the army budget), and second, there is hatred amongst the army and depression so morale is low therefor the army has low military performance.About the Roman army you're right, but still they were fighting with swords and swords can win spears, if used correctly and the Roman army of the time might not be professional but they were good at the art of war.
Doomhammer wrote:Well, these aren't excuses now, are they?
It's hard to deal with something you don't know don't you think?Especially when the enemy is advancing so fast and when you are not in your upturn.
Doomhammer wrote:That could not have happened because the Romans were still far from establishing themselves in Italy and pacifying the Samnites and other none Roman Latins. For the record, the Romans did "pwn" the Greeks and their colonies in Southern Italy and Sicily
I meant if everything had happened earlier.If the Romans had conquered Italy and started the attack against Greece before the Peloponnisian war.
Doomhammer wrote:And yeah, the Romans fought of the armies of Pyrrus of Epirus, which was a fairly impressive feat as well
I expected that.Pyrrus was strong at the time, but not as strong as the Romans.And he was almost alone.Just the declined Macedonians joined him and....well they were declined.
Doomhammer wrote:Not for fun obviously. If I was besieging a city, I would cut off all supplies too. Heck, I'd take the precaution of taking their food and burning their crops (or taking the crops, whatever) just in case my army had to go somewhere else
I was been sarcastic.Obviously not just for fun.As i said it was so that they may surrender with no casualties.(for the besieging army)
Doomhammer wrote:No. Spartans weren't really into philosophers, at least not like the more "liberlol" cities like Athens
Spartans were not all Greeks.The rest of cities withdrew their armies to keep an eye on the slaves and the Spartans were doing the same thing, but so that they may exercise more.The slaves were taken care of by the women of Sparta.In fact a lot of times that the men of Sparta were gone the slaves revolted and their revolts were suppressed by the women.(they were like Mice Tyson
)
Doomhammer wrote:For the record, I've researched extensively on the Peloponnesian War(s) and I think Sparta is badass.
Sure, but if you take a look, just a look not a deep one
, at Athens' strategy.....man....that's some badass!
EVERYONE WHO IS AGAINST US MUST(!!!!) BE EXTERMINATED!!
Doomhammer wrote:Absolutely false. The Assyrian Empire was the most successful multi-ethnic empire that had ever existed up to that time, and it established the framework followed by the Persian and Roman multi-ethnic empires. And no empire could survive for nearly 700 years just by pillaging and destroying everything. Nineveh was one of the greatest cities of the ancient world, and some scholars now believe that the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were actually located in Nineveh. And then there is the famous Library of Ashurbanipal, which preceded the Library of Alexandria by many centuries, and which preserved the remains of the Sumerian and Akkadian cultures. Without the Assyrians, we would not have the Epic of Gilgamesh; most of Sumerian culture and mythology would be a mystery to us. The Assyrians made great cultural and civil progress in their time
You're absolutely correct.I phrased it wrong.The Assyrians had a great culture.I never meant to say anything degrading about them.I just meant that the Spartan Phalanx was the mightiest unit of the ancient world.The Spartan Phalanx was just a supreme killing machine.The Assyrians were an empire(a great empire if you want).You can't compare heteronyms.If you compare the Spartan Phalanx and the Assyrian horse lancer, then i believe we can say that Spartan Phalanx was better than the Assyrian horse lancer.OK?
You should calm down.I don't mean to lower the value of other cultures besides mine.You should pay more attention to what i am talking about.For example, i was comparing the army units, not the whole state.And as i said, sorry about before, it came out wrong.