NationStates Jolt Archive

Its always something I have pondered. The US has an empire that spans the entire world, in the sense of an economic empire, and it has the worlds strongest military. But on the other hand Rome changed the world forever, by assimilating gallic tribes, spreading christianity, and also has given us many basic social structures by which we build current societies on.

So if the two empires were on the same scale, say Rome existed today, or the US existed back then, and the two met in conflict, which empire would be left standing?

Rome, because they had nuclear weapons and stuff.

USA for technology, Rome for uberness(didn't quite get what you meant by scale, size or weapons or something else).

Rome's empire lasted 5-600 years, spanned much of the known world, and laid the foundation for most of the current western world.

The US has managed about 75 years. Come back in another 400.

Its always something I have pondered. The US has an empire that spans the entire world, in the sense of an economic empire, and it has the worlds strongest military. But on the other hand Rome changed the world forever, by assimilating gallic tribes, spreading christianity, and also has given us many basic social structures by which we build current societies on.

So if the two empires were on the same scale, say Rome existed today, or the US existed back then, and the two met in conflict, which empire would be left standing?

Ummm not to be pedantic but is the USA realy an Empire, I don't belive they have an Emporer?

Ummm not to be pedantic but is the USA realy an Empire, I don't belive they have an Emporer?

-cough- about that.


You know what? I really don't give any thought into my threads anymore :p

-cough- about that.


You know what? I really don't give any thought into my threads anymore :p

Hehe that's fine, like i said, not wishing to be pedantic, shit I was though.

Umm Talking of Empires, didn't we Brits have the last one? Umm yep I think we did:p

Ummm not to be pedantic but is the USA realy an Empire, I don't belive they have an Emporer?

well we're not talkin about an Empire of the government sense, as in the influence across the globe. So the US has an Imperial Influence but the Romans had a Imperial Goverment.

And in answer to the OP, I reckon the Romans would win, because they have masses of land and would be able to afford a bigger Army. I am probably wrong though...

well we're not talkin about an Empire of the government sense, as in the influence across the globe. So the US has an Imperial Influence but the Romans had a Imperial Goverment.

And in answer to the OP, I reckon the Romans would win, because they have masses of land and would be able to afford a bigger Army. I am probably wrong though...


hehe that may be the case, but they didn't have machine guns, nor tanks, nor nucler weapons, nor ohh you get the picture

hehe that may be the case, but they didn't have machine guns, nor tanks, nor nucler weapons, nor ohh you get the picture

We're talkin if they were arund the same time, with the same tech. in proportion... If you get me...

British Empire. End of.

British Empire. End of.

You beat me to it damn you.

We're talkin if they were arund the same time, with the same tech. in proportion... If you get me...


I certianly do, and I agree with what Whittlesfield has just said

In terms of control of the Known World, Rome beats the US hands down. The US has a score of good allies, half a dozen puppet states, and shares economic suzerainty over the globe with Europe and Japan. But it actually controls less than 10% of the planet.

Rome, at it's height, controlled 2/3rds of the Known World. In modern terms, that would be like controlling all of Eurasia and Africa. A far larger area than even the Soviet Union ever held.

British Empire. End of.

Bravo good sah! Thats the spirit of the good ol' Emparh old boy!

In terms of control of the Known World, Rome beats the US hands down. The US has a score of good allies, half a dozen puppet states, and shares economic suzerainty over the globe with Europe and Japan. But it actually controls less than 10% of the planet.

Rome, at it's height, controlled 2/3rds of the Known World. In modern terms, that would be like controlling all of Eurasia and Africa. A far larger area than even the Soviet Union ever held.

yeah, what he said :p

Brave good sah! Thats the spirit of the good ol' Emparh old boy!

Heh yeah well done old chap! Are you a product of Impeiral India like my good self then?

In terms of control of the Known World, Rome beats the US hands down. The US has a score of good allies, half a dozen puppet states, and shares economic suzerainty over the globe with Europe and Japan. But it actually controls less than 10% of the planet.

Rome, at it's height, controlled 2/3rds of the Known World. In modern terms, that would be like controlling all of Eurasia and Africa. A far larger area than even the Soviet Union ever held.

Yeah, but think of all the area McDonalds services.

Heh yeah well done old chap! Are you a product of Impeiral India like my good self then?

Me? Not old chap, I am a product of England (7 generations straight, and still counting! sorrry to boast :p), but I've stil got the Emparh spirit, eh what!

Well I would like to correct some statements: The roman republic was from 510 BC to 44 BC (when Caeser took dictatorial powers). The begin of the Roman Empire can be considered to be 44BC or 27BC (When Octavian took the honorific "Augustus") depending if you consider dictatorship=Empire or when the first one was named the term.

So the Roman Empire lasted from 44BC to 1453 AD with the fall of Constantinople and the death of the last East Roman Emperor Constantine XI who led the last defense of his beloved city, and throwing aside his purple regalia, dove headfirst into the rushing Ottomans, in the ensuing battle in the streets, like his soldiers and so died the last Roman Emperor that the world beheld.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but 44BC-1453 AD is nigh 1500 years not 500/600 as mentioned above.

However the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 AD and its last Emperor was Julius Nepos.



Back on topic. I think if the US would have early Roman ideaology and ideals they would forgive my terms, but Pwn the world 20x over.

Me? Not old chap, I am a product of England (7 generations straight, and still counting! sorrry to boast :p), but I've stil got the Emparh spirit, eh what!


Ahhh I see, meself I was born here, but me ma was born in India and she is the fruit of Indian woman and an English chap that used to be the harbour master in Mumbai, before the partition, what what!

Rome lasted a thousand years and left a great impression on the modern world with systems and inventions we still use/need.

So far, its Rome for duration.

However, proportionately, the US has made tremendous contributions to the world and mankind in a relatively short period of time.

A few centuries from now, I think it will have been The United States that was a better "Empire".

Ahhh I see, meself I was born here, but me ma was born in India and she is the fruit of Indian woman and an English chap that used to be the harbour master in Mumbai, before the partition, what what!

Damn Half-Colonial!

just joking, Indians are cool

So the Roman Empire lasted from 44BC to 1453 AD with the fall of Constantinople and the death of the last East Roman Emperor Constantine XI who led the last defense of his beloved city, and throwing aside his purple regalia, dove headfirst into the rushing Ottomans, in the ensuing battle in the streets, like his soldiers and so died the last Roman Emperor that the world beheld.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but 44BC-1453 AD is nigh 1500 years not 500/600 as mentioned above.

Well, it depends if you count the east as the same empire as the original Roman Empire. Granted, it was a continuation, but I still don't count it to be the same empire after they gave up reconquering the west.

However, proportionately, the US has made tremendous contributions to the world and mankind .

Although not neccessarily good ones :p


So far, its Rome for the duration


And its revolutionary technology and method of warfare... the US hasnt done that yet

The British Empire obviously beats both Rome and the USA in almost all categories - military, economic, political control, culture, and size, probably more!

Don't forget the Mongols though (who almost got to the borders of Germany you know? 33 million square kilometers... and 100 million people in sway, and only took them 53 years).

And the Egyptians, who after all had a kingdom that lasted 3 millenia virtually unchanged, with the exception of a few years under Akhenaten.

And of course China, which at the moment controls ~20% of the world's population, and ~15% of the world's Economy, and has lasted as a civilisation longer than any other in existence at the moment (any exceptions?). It doesn't have a very readily spread culture though, with the exception of their food...

For just the USA and Rome though? The USA is the more powerful nation, not just due to it's more developed technology, but because it's more centralised, organised, and coordinated. American culture spreads much more quickly than Roman culture did, and it could be argued that the USA is a proportionately stronger economy too than Rome's was for most of it's history.
On the other hand, Rome has been enduring longer (75 years is a generous estimate for the USA's history as an empire, you know that the Polish army was larger than the American one in WW2? At the beginning of the war the USA paled in comparrison to a number of European nations, and to Soviet Russia, not to mention the fact that the British Empire still existed at this time). And Rome controlled a larger portion of the known world at the time (the USA controls, on a very generous estimate, 50% of the world's population, not directly or strongly; and much less than that much of the world's land) To be honest I think we'll find the USA to be the most feeble superpower in world history, at any one time. It is certainly eclipsed by the British and Ottoman empires, probably eclipsed by the Byzantine, Mongol, and Roman empires, and China at it's peak. Greece beats America for enduring cultural influence, Egypt beats america for endurance (in fact they all do), and though short lived, Alexander the Great easily eclipses it for pure glory.

Its always something I have pondered. The US has an empire that spans the entire world, in the sense of an economic empire, and it has the worlds strongest military. But on the other hand Rome changed the world forever, by assimilating gallic tribes, spreading christianity, and also has given us many basic social structures by which we build current societies on.

So if the two empires were on the same scale, say Rome existed today, or the US existed back then, and the two met in conflict, which empire would be left standing?

Rome would smite the shit outta the US. The US can't compare to Rome at all at this point.

The US would win because we would "cheat" just like in the revolutionary war.

If it did happen I think neither empire would want the other anyway.

I think America has created the most efficient Empire the world has ever seen, the USA has tendrils everywhere and influences the policies of every nation in the world. In terms of pure influence over human beings, Imperium Americanes wins hands down. Indeed, their empire is so all-reaching, and so subtle, that most people do not even realise that they are subjects of it.

But hwat ho! Hwat Splendour the British Emparh did have! My maternal grandmama was resident in the Colonies (Bombay, donchouknow?), and though she is herself too proper an English gentlewoman to admit it, she has a fair swathe of Hindoo blood within her veins, hwat hwat.

Although not neccessarily good ones :p





Mostly good.

Its always something I have pondered. The US has an empire that spans the entire world, in the sense of an economic empire, and it has the worlds strongest military. But on the other hand Rome changed the world forever, by assimilating gallic tribes, spreading christianity, and also has given us many basic social structures by which we build current societies on.

So if the two empires were on the same scale, say Rome existed today, or the US existed back then, and the two met in conflict, which empire would be left standing?

Well, Rome had the collosseum, but America has HBO....

Rome, at it's height, controlled 2/3rds of the Known World. In modern terms, that would be like controlling all of Eurasia and Africa. A far larger area than even the Soviet Union ever held.

Umm, no. They certainly didn't control 1/3 of the known world, much less the 2/3 you state.

They had gone around the southern tip of Africa, been to the far north of Europe and Asia, as well as the far East, Java, Indonesia, etc. They controled none of these areas, each of which individually contained more area than the entire Roman Empire at its greatest extent. Therefore the Romans did not control 2/3 of the known world.

The Roman Empire lasted from 29BC to around 400 or so AD. About 450 years. Afterwards it became the Byzantine Empire, which was decidedly more Greek and Eastern than the Roman Empire was. They certainly kept much that was Roman but were no longer the Roman Empire. If we go by name alone the Roman Empire was around until the mid 1800s and then became Germany. No one would believe that the Germans kept Roman culture alive.

In answer to your question there is no answer. NO way to adequately compare the two empires. Yes, America is an Empire, as much as Germany was an empire under the Holy Roman Empire.

Ummm not to be pedantic but is the USA realy an Empire, I don't belive they have an Emporer?

America has King George :headbang:

The US has managed about 75 years. Come back in another 400.

Do you honestly believe the United States will last another 400 years? Let me rephrase that: Do you think humanity will last another 400 years before we blow ourselves to Hell?

But on topic:

I think Rome would win, solely on the basis they cared about their Emperor, and would have (in RL times) a massive economy which would have made the US look like some Amazonian Tribe dealing in bat guano.

I gotta say... Pax Americanna sucks compared to Pax Romanna and Pax Britannica.

Just saying...

And I'm aware I suck at latin spelling. Prolly grammar too... :(

Do you honestly believe the United States will last another 400 years?

Nope, which was partially my point.

It is difficult to compare the two. The rules have changed drastically since then. The USA rules by choice and by example not by force, usually.

The American empire is the only democratic empire. As we have seen in the news it is difficult to build consensus on anything let alone important things.

Economically is a different story

Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, McDonalds, IBM, Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle just to name a few. There is definitely more money in the American empire.

It is difficult to compare the two. The rules have changed drastically since then. The USA rules by choice and by example not by force, usually.

The American empire is the only democratic empire. As we have seen in the news it is difficult to build consensus on anything let alone important things.

Economically is a different story

Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, McDonalds, IBM, Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle just to name a few. There is definitely more money in the American empire.

I have to add GE to your list. I feel responsible to do so as a stockholder.

Point of Order

What year are we saying the American Empire started?

Theoretically 1776 started USA

I would say not until after WWII.

Also when did the Roman empire reach it maximum size / strength?


If we judge by when it started we are almost at 400 years now.

Point of Order

What year are we saying the American Empire started?

Theoretically 1776 started USA

I would say not until after WWII.

Also when did the Roman empire reach it maximum size / strength?


If we judge by when it started we are almost at 400 years now.

They're not gonna give you that. Now you've gotten their attention again, they'll be turning their tiny puds on you, trying to squirt piss on your statement.

The US is bad and dumb and we havent lasted this long and cant last any longer. :rolleyes:

Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, McDonalds, IBM, Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle just to name a few. There is definitely more money in the American empire.

Try adding a few car companies if you want to talk big.

As a rebuttal I'll throw in one name and it was during the last days of the Republic Pre-Empire. Crassus' wealth would be a drop in the bucket to those later Roman businessmen who excelled during the Empire but Crassus had enormous wealth in his day. He had a huge mass production network, though his specialization was in archetectual pursuits. He was the major landowner in Rome during his day and employed thousands of slaves that were experts in all forms of construction.

The Equites that did most of the financing for the Empire would more than equate with the wealth of the corporations you named. Most of the innovations econmically today could find their counterpart in Roman society. I always like the story of the Equite in Marseilles who set up a fund that allowed his club to celebrate his birthday in perpetuity. Unfortunately the club didn't survive as long as his fund did.

As great as the Romans were economically, I think China of the same period was probably economically more powerful than Rome. The Empire saw Rome weakening militarily (from its inception) and as a society and economically from around 160 onwards. When Rome became an Empire its best days weree already behind it.

Its always something I have pondered. The US has an empire that spans the entire world, in the sense of an economic empire, and it has the worlds strongest military. But on the other hand Rome changed the world forever, by assimilating gallic tribes, spreading christianity, and also has given us many basic social structures by which we build current societies on.

So if the two empires were on the same scale, say Rome existed today, or the US existed back then, and the two met in conflict, which empire would be left standing?

Go play "Civilization IV" and amuse yourself with the results.

Historically, Rome hands-down. The United States has only existed for barely 230 years.

If America can stand for a thousand years then I will take a harder look at considering us a greater empire then Rome.

Ummm not to be pedantic but is the USA realy an Empire, I don't belive they have an Emporer?

Rome was a republic for a couple generations, too. So who knows...

Its always something I have pondered. The US has an empire that spans the entire world, in the sense of an economic empire, and it has the worlds strongest military. But on the other hand Rome changed the world forever, by assimilating gallic tribes, spreading christianity, and also has given us many basic social structures by which we build current societies on.

So if the two empires were on the same scale, say Rome existed today, or the US existed back then, and the two met in conflict, which empire would be left standing?

i played civ4 as rome, and took over america.

so it's rome.

btw in that game, ii had planes, nukes, and all that jazz in the 17th century.

Its always something I have pondered. The US has an empire that spans the entire world, in the sense of an economic empire, and it has the worlds strongest military. But on the other hand Rome changed the world forever, by assimilating gallic tribes, spreading christianity, and also has given us many basic social structures by which we build current societies on.

So if the two empires were on the same scale, say Rome existed today, or the US existed back then, and the two met in conflict, which empire would be left standing?

The US has an empire? Having influence in world politics does not mean an empire....don't you need to own territory to constitute an empire? In territory size the USSR/Russia has had more territory than America has ever had since the end of the World Wars.
Also the British and Mongol Empires were both larger than the Roman Empire. Surely they would appear before the two empires mentioned?
To answer the question - Rome because it lasted longer and was actually an empire, unlike the USA.

It is difficult to compare the two. The rules have changed drastically since then. The USA rules by choice and by example not by force, usually.

I agree if you change the "usually" to a more realistic "sometimes".;)


The American empire is the only democratic empire.

I think that Romans were better at that. After some years (about 50 usually), inhabitants of countries conquered by Roma became Roman citizens with full right. I, as citizen of Italy, live in the US Empire (Italy being part of the NATO), but I have no representation at the US government.

Anyway, Roma wins. More than 10 centuries of undisputed supremacy throughout Europe, Mediterranean and Middle East (let's say, since the Punic Wars to the time of the Crusades if we include the Eastern Roman Empire).

Sorry to answer the question. Rome, because like others have mentioned the USA is not really an Empire. The USA is suppose to be a "Super Power" but which country isn't these days.

For the most part I think Rome had little competition most countries were still painting themselve and banging on shields.

When the Roman Empire did fall it ushered in the Dark Ages and we all remember how much fun they were.

Rome conquered more of the known world. They drastically changed the entire cultures of the areas that they conquered. I'm certainly not underestimating America's influence, but their impact on the world has never been as huge as that of Rome.

The American Empire will have a monumentous effect on the world.

It'll practically destroy it. That includes the US of course...

Judging by how the US is doing in Iraq, I'm inclined to believe the Roman empire has it beat easily. What parts of the world the US does control, it does so with remarkable laxity compared to Rome.

We need more men like Flavius Silva.

No poll?

If you guys are going to argue the merits of two systems you should have a basic understanding of the two systems being compared. Most don't seem to have a handle on Roman society or its neighbors, nor what was the known world back then.

Anyone stating that Rome controlled most of the known world has no idea what they are talking about. Roman businessmen were in China during the days of the Empire. Many were in India plying the most lucrative Indian Ocean trade bypassing the more commonly known silk road. Yet somehow to those arguing these points these places are not part of the known world, or is it that Rome controlled China, Persia, Parthia, India, etc?

Can you guys be any more Western thinking? Is it even possible?

I think that Romans were better at that. After some years (about 50 usually), inhabitants of countries conquered by Roma became Roman citizens with full right. I, as citizen of Italy, live in the US Empire (Italy being part of the NATO), but I have no representation at the US government.

Anyway, Roma wins. More than 10 centuries of undisputed supremacy throughout Europe, Mediterranean and Middle East (let's say, since the Punic Wars to the time of the Crusades if we include the Eastern Roman Empire).

Totally wrong. People did not become Roman citizens within 50 years of being conquered by Rome. Don't know where you came up with that one.

Rome controlled Italy, and not even the north at the start of the Punic Wars (264BC). It wasn't until 146BC that they finally took Carthage. By then they had Spain, Tunisia, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Albania, Crete, and getting inroads in Turkey. It wasn't until the time of Julius Caesar (up until 44BC) that Egypt, Mauritinia, half of Turkey, Palestine, Gaul, Morroco, and Libya were under Roman control. For all of Europe you need to go into the time of the Empire when Britain, Greater and Lesser Germanica, and Dacia were all added. Therefore your statement of over a thousand years of undisputed mastery over Europe isn't even true, much less Africa and the Middle East.

If you are going to argue a point, at least have some facts straight.

Totally wrong. People did not become Roman citizens within 50 years of being conquered by Rome. Don't know where you came up with that one.

Rome controlled Italy, and not even the north at the start of the Punic Wars (264BC). It wasn't until 146BC that they finally took Carthage. By then they had Spain, Tunisia, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Albania, Crete, and getting inroads in Turkey. It wasn't until the time of Julius Caesar (up until 44BC) that Egypt, Mauritinia, half of Turkey, Palestine, Gaul, Morroco, and Libya were under Roman control. For all of Europe you need to go into the time of the Empire when Britain, Greater and Lesser Germanica, and Dacia were all added. Therefore your statement of over a thousand years of undisputed mastery over Europe isn't even true, much less Africa and the Middle East.

If you are going to argue a point, at least have some facts straight.

I hate to pile on, Risottia, but Undivulged is right on the citizenship thing and the timeline. Which is not to say that the SPQR didn't have good run of several hundred years before the western half of the Empire fell away. The Eastern half did marvelously well for another 700 or 800 years until Turks and Crusaders and such whittled Byzantium down. And only went under in 1453.

All free inhabitants of the Empire did get cisitzenship rights in 211 AD, I think that's the year, bestowed by Caracalla. I think he wanted to raise his tax revenue.

The United States is not an empire, there is no political will or desire domestically for the US to be one and the appropriate amount of resources to be one are not expended to maintain one. Only be redefining the term empire can you make the United States appear to be one.

As such, Rome wins by default, because it is the only empire on the list.

The United States is not an empire, there is no political will or desire domestically for the US to be one and the appropriate amount of resources to be one are not expended to maintain one. Only be redefining the term empire can you make the United States appear to be one.

Absolutely but this is NationStates General, since when did accuracy in terms make any difference? :p

Sorry to answer the question. Rome, because like others have mentioned the USA is not really an Empire. The USA is suppose to be a "Super Power" but which country isn't these days.


Pretty much every nation besides the US is not a superpower.

Absolutely but this is NationStates General, since when did accuracy in terms make any difference? :p

Agreed.

I'm saying the Llama Empire is the greatest one yet, but we'll have to see how the rise of the Waffle Empire goes. There's the potential to challenge that previous high.

Agreed.

I'm saying the Llama Empire is the greatest one yet, but we'll have to see how the rise of the Waffle Empire goes. There's the potential to challenge that previous high.

Yes, the Llamas are certainly different class of Empire. As for the Waffles, if they can deal effectively with the growth of the Pancake Republic, yes, they might just achieve new heights.