NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, it's a bit of a vague question, and I'm going to leave it vague for you to decide what it means precisely.:p

But my vote would be for Comrade Stalin. Mao might have ruled over more people, but I don't think he ever wielded the same absolute authority Stalin did.

But what do you think? Should I make a poll?

Superman! Duh!

Ghengis Khan.

Ogadai Khan. A drunk? Yes. But he also had more land then even his father, albeit not much more. The point is, he had more power in his TONGUE then all of us here at NSG do with every bit of fiber in our bodies.

Ogadai Khan. A drunk? Yes. But he also had more land then even his father, albeit not much more. The point is, he had more power in his TONGUE then all of us here at NSG do with every bit of fiber in our bodies.

I don't know, I been told I have some power in my tongue ;)

I don't know, I been told I have some power in my tongue ;)

Well then... I'm not quite sure I needed to hear that...

Hitler.

Another vote for Stalin. He held absolute control over the USSR for decades. He beat the Nazis, influenced communism around the world, lead in the early space race, and commanded one of only two nuclear arsenals in the world. And in shear territory and population he still has few rivals in history.

Well then... I'm not quite sure I needed to hear that...

And that's what makes it funny.

I don't know, I been told I have some power in my tongue ;)

UNlike last night I understand this joke :)

Jesus Christ, the only person with actual powers

I think Travis Gibbs is the most powerful person whos ever lived

Hitler.

Tell that to the German dead at Stalingrad.

And that's what makes it funny.

*Runs to toilet*

Hitler.

Lame :p. Spent like what? 6 years building up a bit of power in central Europe, suddenly exploded outwards and for a couple of years was admittedly quite successful at that, then tried to invade Russia, failed, killed himself.

Not that impressive tbh

*Runs to toilet*

If its an actual problem, I do appologize. My jokes aren't meant to be problematic.

Captain Crunch - all this time and he's still crunchy in milk!

Sounds a lot like you actually HAVE defined "power", and you're just keeping it from the rest of us.

Caesar Augustus

Caesar Augustus

I second this. The first emperor of the most powerful empire the world has seen. 12 centuries. No one has been able to top that, and I don´t think anyone will.

Buddha.

I second this. The first emperor of the most powerful empire the world has seen. 12 centuries. No one has been able to top that, and I don´t think anyone will.The Roman Empire was the most influential. Not the most powerful. The Mongol Empire was four times the size of the Roman Empire. The second largest empire in the history of the world, and the largest contiguous empire ever.

Jesus of Nazareth. He may not have been powerful in the sense of Hitler, or Stalin, or Caesar, but the impact he had on the entire world is massive.

The Roman Empire was the most influential. Not the most powerful. The Mongol Empire was four times the size of the Roman Empire. The second largest empire in the history of the world, and the largest contiguous empire ever.

GF, the endurance of the Roman Empire is something that no other empire in history has been able to top. Rome was standing for 12 centuries. Caesar Augustus was the first emperor of that august empire.

The Roman Empire was the most influential. Not the most powerful. The Mongol Empire was four times the size of the Roman Empire. The second largest empire in the history of the world, and the largest contiguous empire ever.

Is total land area how we're determining power?

GF, the endurance of the Roman Empire is something that no other empire in history has been able to top. Rome was standing for 12 centuries. Caesar Augustus was the first emperor of that august empire.

That is the main point - the Roman Empire lasted WAAAAAY longer than any other Empire - size does not matter.

Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris

No, the thread says lived. As in they died. Chuck Norris never dies.

The Roman Empire was the most influential. Not the most powerful. The Mongol Empire was four times the size of the Roman Empire. The second largest empire in the history of the world, and the largest contiguous empire ever.

The Mongol Empire was unarguably large but never particularly consolidated. Their impact was far less keenly felt than the Romans, even at the height of Genghis Khan's power.

GF, the endurance of the Roman Empire is something that no other empire in history has been able to top. Rome was standing for 12 centuries. Caesar Augustus was the first emperor of that august empire.Are you counting the Republic? Or the Eastern Roman Empire? If you're counting the Eastern Empire, you need to add another two centuries to that. :p

Is total land area how we're determining power?No, that would be the British Empire.

MacGuyver?

That is the main point - the Roman Empire lasted WAAAAAY longer than any other Empire - size does not matter.

It does, actually. There are other nations that have lasted as long, but being an "empire" requires size. Also, most of that "12 centuries" was not as an empire. After Augustus, Rome lasted about four centuries.

I vaguely recall learning that George Washington was made of radiation and could kick you in half. I was convinced.

Caesar Augustus
He was just riding on Julius and Antony's coat tails. Total poseur.
GF, the endurance of the Roman Empire is something that no other empire in history has been able to top. Rome was standing for 12 centuries. Caesar Augustus was the first emperor of that august empire.
The duration of the Roman empire makes the individual rulers less significant. The fact that the Mongolia empire fell to pieces so quickly means that the initial rulers (Genghis and Ögedei, mostly) were so bad ass that they were the only thing holding it together.
The Roman empire was held together by efficient middle management and effective military strategies, the Mongolian empire was held together by spit, drunken horsemen and an enormous pair of buuz.

It does, actually. There are other nations that have lasted as long, but being an "empire" requires size. Also, most of that "12 centuries" was not as an empire. After Augustus, Rome lasted about four centuries.The Republic was circa five centuries in total.
The Western Roman Empire collapsed long before the Eastern Roman Empire, in fact.

I vaguely recall learning that George Washington was made of radiation and could kick you in half. I was convinced.

He saved all the children, but not the British children.

Are you counting the Republic? Or the Eastern Roman Empire? If you're counting the Eastern Empire, you need to add another two centuries to that. :p

I´m counting it as a whole. The end of the empire came in the 5th. century AD. On the second decade, I think.

He was just riding on Julius and Antony's coat tails. Total poseur.


If by "riding their coat tails" you mean "finished the job they couldn't", then I concede.

I´m counting it as a whole. The end of the empire came in the 5th. century AD. On the second decade, I think.The Roman Empire came to an end in 1453 AD. o_0
Where did you get that from?

We are all roughly equal in power to each other. The only reason some people appear powerful is that they have persuaded others through bluff and skilful usage of words to believe that they are rightfully in charge. Ultimately, human beings are close enough in physical strength that any able-bodied adult individual could theoretically defeat another in a direct fight. People can create institutions and ideas to justify their domination over others, sure, but ultimately its all a construction. At the base of it, Hitler is as powerful as your average person off the street.

The Roman Empire came to an end in 1453 AD. o_0
Where did you get that from?

I think she was referring to the end of the Eastern Empire. Most people draw the curtains at that point, and don't pay attention to the western Empire, which fell to the turks.

World Leaders? Dictators? They're not powerful, in a way, they're rather pathetic, always after more power, more money, more fame.

The most powerful people who ever lived are unknown. they are the anonymous individuals with powerful ideas and the passion and drive to bring them to fruition.

The Roman Empire came to an end in 1453 AD. o_0
Where did you get that from?

Thomas Cahill. Let me find you a link to this information. But the Roman Empire died, per se, with the great invasion of the Germanic tribes. Alric, king of the vandals was the first to bring the empire to it´s knees. And this was circa 410 AD.

We are all roughly equal in power to each other. The only reason some people appear powerful is that they have persuaded others to believe that they are rightfully in charge. Ultimately, human beings are close enough in physical strength that any able-bodied adult individual could theoretically defeat another in a direct fight. People can create institutions and ideas to justify their domination over others, sure, but ultimately its all a construction.

That's all well and good for a philosophical take on it, but I think maybe we're assuming the "influential" sort of power here.

In which case I rescind my vote for Washington and cast it anew for Thulsa Doom. Dude had chicks jumping off cliffs for him.

Some pope I suppose, in terms of influencing an enormous amount of people in the way they lived.

In terms of most actual power relative to anyone else, I'd put Truman forward since he controlled the atom bomb at a time when no other did.

Thomas Cahill. Let me find you a link to this information. But the Roman Empire died, per se, with the great invasion of the Germanic tribes. Alric, king of the vandals was the first to bring the empire to it´s knees. And this was circa 410 AD.The Roman Empire ended with the invasion and capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks, led by Mehemed II.

To this point? I'd say Jesus. He has 2 billions followers at his command, and they stretch the entire world.


:D

The Roman Empire ended with the invasion and capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks, led by Mehemed II.

I'm not really sure what was left at that time could be called an Empire.

The Roman Empire ended with the invasion and capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks, led by Mehemed II.

You´re referring to the Holy Roman Empire. I´m talking about the empire of antiquity. That came to an end circa AD 410.

That's all well and good for a philosophical take on it, but I think maybe we're assuming the "influential" sort of power here.

In which case I rescind my vote for Washington and cast it anew for Thulsa Doom. Dude had chicks jumping off cliffs for him.

Well, the OP did specifically say that power wasn't being precisely defined for this thread. But, yes, you're right to say thats the more accepted definition of power. 'A has power over B to the extent that A can get B to do something they wouldn't otherwise do' and the like. Though I do believe that institutions and ideas are much more powerful than individuals. Cos I'm a crazy old structuralist like that :p

The power that one holds is directly proportionate to the amount of people they have convinced that one holds such power. Whether they actually have it or not is irrelevant.

As such, I vote Hitler. Pathetic guy? Maybe, but he was able to gather a staggering amount of people to listen to him talk on a podium. Not to mention that he has the whole 'Godwin's law' thing and has become essentially burnt into the public image as utterly and unforgivably evil.

The Popes. spicificly Pope Urban I. he started centuries of war and bloodshed as well as helped build a political giant that, when its power was in decline split in half a continent (south america) giving half to spain and half to portugal. also the popes where the only people in europe who could revoke a monarchs right to rule without bloodshed. in other words the most powerful line of rulers in history

The Republic was circa five centuries in total.
The Western Roman Empire collapsed long before the Eastern Roman Empire, in fact.

Yes. But I was of course, referring to the one with Rome as its capital city. Not the one with Constantinople.

You´re referring to the Holy Roman Empire. I´m talking about the empire of antiquity. That came to an end circa AD 410.You mean Eastern Roman Empire. You know, when the Roman Empire split itself in half and became the Eastern and Western Roman Empire. That was in the late 3rd century AD.
After the death of Theodosius the Great, there was no true united Roman Empire.

Well, the OP did specifically say that power wasn't being precisely defined for this thread. But, yes, you're right to say thats the more accepted definition of power. Though I do believe that institutions and ideas are much more powerful than individuals. Cos I'm a crazy old structuralist like that :p

Well, I haven't been here in a while, so to me you're just a mouse in a dress.

You mean Eastern Roman Empire. You know, when the Roman Empire split itself in half and became the Eastern and Western Roman Empire. That was in the late 3rd century AD.
After the death of Theodosius the Great, there was no true united Roman Empire.

No, it was the Holy Roman Empire. They followed Christianity. When the old Empire died, the Christian side limped on for a while.

Yes. But I was of course, referring to the one with Rome as its capital city. Not the one with Constantinople.But having Rome as a capital only influenced the name. Diocletian split the Empire in half, but it would still be the Roman Empire.

You´re referring to the Holy Roman Empire. I´m talking about the empire of antiquity. That came to an end circa AD 410.

Actually, no, he's not. The Holy Roman Empire was a different political entity, and never included Constantinople.

He is referring to the Eastern Roman Empire (after the Roman Empire was split, so as to make it easier to govern), also known as the Byzantine Empire.

Thomas Cahill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Irish_Saved_Civilization)

End (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_the_roman_empire#Overview) of the Roman Empire: beginning of the Middle Ages.

No, it was the Holy Roman Empire. They followed Christianity. When the old Empire died, the Christian side limped on for a while.

As I said before, the Holy Roman Empire had nothing to do with Constantinople.


Edit: To avoid further confusion...

Holy Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire)

Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Roman_Empire)

No, it was the Holy Roman Empire. They followed Christianity. When the old Empire died, the Christian side limped on for a while.You're confusing the Holy Roman Empire with the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire) - For the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire) - For the Holy Roman Empire.

Hmm... perhaps I am wrong, but at the moment i'm not thinking straight anyway.

You're confusing the Holy Roman Empire with the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire) - For the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire) - For the Holy Roman Empire.

Great minds think alike, apparently. I had just edited my post to make reference, lol.

You´re referring to the Holy Roman Empire. I´m talking about the empire of antiquity. That came to an end circa AD 410.

They are talking about the Byzantine, or Western Roman Empire.


The Holy Roman Empire was german my dear; never invaded by Turks.

Hmm... perhaps I am wrong, but at the moment i'm not thinking straight anyway.

Not perhaps. You are incorrect.

They are talking about the Byzantine, or Western Roman Empire. Eastern, B, Eastern. :p

Not perhaps. You are incorrect.

Oh wow, crush me completely why don't you. At least i'm willing to admit defeat. :p

Millitaristicly Rome was the most powerful nation untill the rise of the U.S. Rome delt with everything by killing people. the Byzantine empire was run by an Orthadox Church, and the Holy Roman Empire (compleatly unrelated) was Catholic and like any other west european power. Rome ended with the death of Constatine. He was the last king of a Non-christian Roman power

Dick Cheney....Duh

Millitaristicly Rome was the most powerful nation untill the rise of the U.S. Rome delt with everything by killing people. the Byzantine empire was run by an Orthadox Church, and the Holy Roman Empire (compleatly unrelated) was Catholic and like any other west european power. Rome ended with the death of Constatine. He was the last king of a Non-christian Roman powerTotally disregarding the conquest of Ghengis Khan, and Alexander the Great, I see.

Eastern, B, Eastern. :p

east, west... left, right... I always get those confused...

They are talking about the Byzantine, or Western Roman Empire.


The Holy Roman Empire was german my dear; never invaded by Turks.

No, no sweetie. I was always referring to the empire of antiquity. I never made reference to the western and eastern Roman empires, or the Holy Roman Empire.:wink:

As SaintB, Callisdrun, and Gauntleted Fist have pointed out, the Western Roman Empire was the half that had the actual city of Rome as its' capital, where the Eastern Roman Empire was the half that had Constantinople/Byzantine/Istanbul as it's capital. The Holy Roman Empire was a collection of German states.

As for the OP, I would have to say that Alexander of Macedon was the most powerful person to have ever lived. The size of his empire, the quickness at which it was attained, and then its' subsequent collapse following his death are proof enough.

east, west... left, right... I always get those confused...Your nick-name is now B. :p
And getting directions confused is so easy! :(

Oh wow, crush me completely why don't you. At least i'm willing to admit defeat. :p

Yes. But it's not often I win, so I have to relish it when I do. Even a tiny victory in an argument over semantics. But yes, at least you are willing to admit being mistaken. It's not that big a deal, anyway.

As SaintB, Callisdrun, and Gauntleted Fist have pointed out, the Eastern Roman Empire was the half that had the actual city of Rome as its' capital, where the Western Roman Empire was the half that had Constantinople/Byzantine/Istanbul as it's capital. The Holy Roman Empire was a collection of German states.

As for the OP, I would have to say that Alexander of Macedon was the most powerful person to have ever lived. The size of his empire, the quickness at which it was attained, and then its' subsequent collapse following his death are proof enough.

You've got your directions mixed up.

You've got your directions mixed up.

So I did.
Perhaps trying to cook dinner while posting on NSG was a bad idea :p

You've got your directions mixed up.

Not only that, the debate´s crazy. First off, I wasn´t talking about the Eastern or Western empires. I was talking about the Classical Roman Empire. The empire that died and, in dying, thus originated the Middle Ages.:tongue:

Your nick-name is now B. :p
And getting directions confused is so easy! :(

I'm not meaning to detract, but B has been my nickname on many other occassions. Its fine with me... B, Sainty, SaintB, Saint, Saint of the B, SB, BB, and several less flattering nicknames as well :D

If by "riding their coat tails" you mean "finished the job they couldn't", then I concede.
Julius didn't get much of a chance to finish anything, what with the whole "being gang stabbed," thing. Mark Antony managed to turn the Senate's victory into their death.
Augustus showed up and become the darling of people who like their brutal war-mongers with pretensions of class or decency.

No, no sweetie. I was always referring to the empire of antiquity. I never made reference to the western and eastern Roman empires, or the Holy Roman Empire.:wink:

Um, the Eastern and Western Roman empires were the two halves of the Roman Empire of antiquity. And yes you did make reference to the Holy Roman Empire. You mistakenly confused it with the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire.

"The Fall of the Roman Empire" is a phrase usually used to mean the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

The Eastern and Western Roman Empires were really both just administrative divisions of the Roman Empire as a whole. The West collapsed, and was split up among Germanic tribes that had invaded, including the Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Vandals etc.

The Eastern Roman empire did not collapse at this time, and lasted another thousand years. It would actually be better, I think, to call the East and the West merely sections of the same whole, rather than distinct empires themselves.

Not only that, the debate´s crazy. First off, I wasn´t talking about the Eastern or Western empires. I was talking about the Classical Roman Empire. The empire that died and, in dying, thus originated the Middle Ages.:tongue:Then your timing is way off. o_0
The Classical Roman Empire ceased to exist during the reign of Diocletian.

I think she was referring to the end of the Eastern Empire. Most people draw the curtains at that point, and don't pay attention to the western Empire, which fell to the turks.

Flip the empire's around, and you've got it right.

But, I'd argue, that the Byzantine Empire was just as much the successor and heir of the old, unified Empire, and after the collapse of the West, Constantinople managed to regain control of large portions of Western Empire lands under Justinian.

I'm going to say Hitler. Stalin might have been able to command more people, but most people really didn't like the purges, collectivization or the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States. Hitler, on the other hand, was not only able to command people but to actually get most of them to actually support his policies without coercion. Had a few things gone differently, the Nazi regime probably would've been the most powerful that ever existed.

Um, the Eastern and Western Roman empires were the two halves of the Roman Empire of antiquity. And yes you did make reference to the Holy Roman Empire. You mistakenly confused it with the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire.

"The Fall of the Roman Empire" is a phrase usually used to mean the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

The Eastern and Western Roman Empires were really both just administrative divisions of the Roman Empire as a whole. The West collapsed, and was split up among Germanic tribes that had invaded, including the Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Vandals etc.

The Eastern Roman empire did not collapse at this time, and lasted another thousand years.

I was talking about that. When I mentioned the Holy Roman Empire, I did so because I thought GF was mistaking my post.

The most powerful person ever does not mean the one who had the biggest empire the fastest. thats like saying the most powerful person is the one who poped the most viagra the fastest and has the largest... member shall we say. i will reiterate that the most powerfull person has to be one of the medieval popes who wielded power everybody in the most advanced section of the then world

Is it just me or did someone turn the heat up? :D

Then your timing is way off. o_0
The Classical Roman Empire ceased to exist during the reign of Diocletian.

The date of it´s demise is, according to historians, AD 410-455. My timing is not off. That´s the estimated death of the empire. I linked my source in another post.

Not only that, the debate´s crazy. First off, I wasn´t talking about the Eastern or Western empires. I was talking about the Classical Roman Empire. The empire that died and, in dying, thus originated the Middle Ages.:tongue:

You are making a distinction that does not exist. The Western and Eastern Roman Empires were administrative divisions of the classical Roman Empire you refer to. The Western section fell in the fifth century CE. The exact date is argued about extensively, some putting it at the sack by the Visigoths in the year 410, others saying it fell with the Vandal sack of 455, and others arguing that it fell in the year 476. It is essentially a meaningless debate, as the crumbling of the Western Roman Empire was a long process.

I'm going to say Hitler. Stalin might have been able to command more people, but most people really didn't like the purges, collectivization or the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States. Hitler, on the other hand, was not only able to command people but to actually get most of them to actually support his policies without coercion. Had a few things gone differently, the Nazi regime probably would've been the most powerful that ever existed.
I've often wondered what would happen if Hitler had won. Once fascism had consumed the entire world and all the establish untermenschen (Jews, gypsies, gays, communists) were destroyed, where would the Nazis turn their energies?

Lets get back tot he most powerful person!


How about Emperor Palapatine?

I've often wondered what would happen if Hitler had won. Once fascism had consumed the entire world and all the establish untermenschen (Jews, gypsies, gays, communists) were destroyed, where would the Nazis turn their energies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_(novel)

The date of it´s demise is, according to historians, AD 410-455. My timing is not off. That´s the estimated death of the empire. I linked my source in another post.The Classical Roman Empire, as you term it, is both halves of the Empire, correct?
Diocletian ended the rule of the entire empire from Rome during his reign, administratively splitting the empire. One Emperor to rule from Rome, another to rule from Constantinople.

Lets get back tot he most powerful person!

How about Emperor Palapatine?

Nah - gotta be Q. :D

Popes!!!!:mad:

Nah - gotta be Q. :D

No, because technically he hasn't lived yet.

No, because technically he hasn't lived yet.

Ah, good point, but then neither has the Emperor... (Fictional character and all )

Revan with his personal assasain droid of HK-47 is pretty decent :p

lets step away from the star wars now...

Revan with his personal assasain droid of HK-47 is pretty decent :p

ooh! Excellent game that was! :D

Ah, good point, but then neither has the Emperor... (Fictional character and all )

Yeah but he's dead, even fictionally :D

I was talking about that. When I mentioned the Holy Roman Empire, I did so because I thought GF was mistaking my post.

Ah, I see.

Though at the time the West was in decline, I tend to be of the view that it was in some ways still the main part of the Empire, due basically to being the oldest part, with the founding city.

The Eastern Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire as it became (and a more accurate term, I think, because it did not include Rome itself except for a brief period in Justinian's reign), did not have many of the issues that led to the fall of the west. Its capital, Constantinople, was much more easily defended and therefore less prone to being taken either in civil war or in sacks as frequently happened to Rome. At the time, it was richer as well, and its frontier was a bit less porous, a large part of its border abutting the Persian Empire rather than a wilderness of Germanic tribal lands. And the Huns weren't pushing other tribes into it as they were in the west.

You are making a distinction that does not exist. The Western and Eastern Roman Empires were administrative divisions of the classical Roman Empire you refer to. The Western section fell in the fifth century CE. The exact date is argued about extensively, some putting it at the sack by the Visigoths in the year 410, others saying it fell with the Vandal sack of 455, and others arguing that it fell in the year 476. It is essentially a meaningless debate, as the crumbling of the Western Roman Empire was a long process.

To many historians it does exists, Callisdrun. And although it is true that the demise of the empire per se was a long process, it wasn´t until the attack of the Vandals in 455 that the Romans understood their empire was ruined. From the 5th. century onwards, we get the period better referred to as the Middle Ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_the_roman_empire

The traditional date of the fall of the Roman Empire is September 4, 476 when Romulus Augustulus, the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire was deposed by Odoacer. Julius Nepos, the legitimate emperor recognized by the East Roman Empire continued to live in Salona, Dalmatia until he was assassinated in 480.

I also recognize that others offer alternate dates, and I´m well aware that the empire subsisted, one way or another, until the late 1400s. But the empire of antiquity, the great military power from Jesus´s time all the way to AD 455 was no more.

AURRG FORGET ROME!! the empire is a shakey topic and its not clear if there is any one person responsible for it. moving on, on of the U.S. presidents (leaders of the free world and all) or a pope

I've often wondered what would happen if Hitler had won. Once fascism had consumed the entire world and all the establish untermenschen (Jews, gypsies, gays, communists) were destroyed, where would the Nazis turn their energies?

Collapse, probably. I don't think that kind of governmental/economic structure could sustain itself during peace except by preparing for war. And if you've already conquered everyone, what reason is there to prepare for war?

AURRG FORGET ROME!! the empire is a shakey topic and its not clear if there is any one person responsible for it. moving on, on of the U.S. presidents (leaders of the free world and all) or a pope

I way beat you to this conclusion.

Ah, I see.

Though at the time the West was in decline, I tend to be of the view that it was in some ways still the main part of the Empire, due basically to being the oldest part, with the founding city.

The Eastern Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire as it became (and a more accurate term, I think, because it did not include Rome itself except for a brief period in Justinian's reign), did not have many of the issues that led to the fall of the west. Its capital, Constantinople, was much more easily defended and therefore less prone to being taken either in civil war or in sacks as frequently happened to Rome. At the time, it was richer as well, and its frontier was a bit less porous, a large part of its border abutting the Persian Empire rather than a wilderness of Germanic tribal lands. And the Huns weren't pushing other tribes into it as they were in the west.

Indeed. That is all true. I was just making a specific reference.

Julius didn't get much of a chance to finish anything, what with the whole "being gang stabbed," thing. Mark Antony managed to turn the Senate's victory into their death.
Augustus showed up and become the darling of people who like their brutal war-mongers with pretensions of class or decency.

Julius had it coming. He thought he could overawe the Senate into granting him supreme authority; Augustus at least had the foresight to craft himself a supreme position out of existing institutions.

Antonius was just one in a long line of charismatic douchebags who thought he could hold Rome with a Grecian army. Sulla warmed over, if you will.

It was Augustus who was finally able to stabilize the Mediterranean world after more than a century of political strife and civil war. No simple war-monger was going to accomplish that; Augustus was as genius a statesman as he was military commander.

The 2 people who have the keys to launch the nukes

I also recognize that others offer alternate dates, and I´m well aware that the empire subsisted, one way or another, until the late 1400s. But the empire of antiquity, the great military power from Jesus´s time all the way to AD 455 was no more.The renovatio imperii of Justinian doesn't satisfy that requirement?

NO MORE ROMAN HISTORY!!!!!!! U.S./Popes

NO MORE ROMAN HISTORY!!!!!!! U.S./Popes

The people have spoken, and they wanna debate. Sorry. :p

The renovatio imperii of Justinian doesn't satisfy that requirement?

I hit a topic you like, eh?:D
It´s not about that at all, GF. Rome was Rome (empire wise) until AD 410-476. After that Europe slowly sank into the Middle Ages, a rich period unto itself, but I can´t compare it with Classical Rome at all.

To many historians it does exists, Callisdrun. And although it is true that the demise of the empire per se was a long process, it wasn´t until the attack of the Vandals in 455 that the Romans understood their empire was ruined. From the 5th. century onwards, we get the period better referred to as the Middle Ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_the_roman_empire
I am aware. The separation of the east and west was quite a bit before the "fall," though, in the 300's if I recall correctly. And Romanitas largely continued in the Eastern Empire long after the West was lost. However, for the history of western Europe, and outside the Byzantine Empire, the 5th century was the end of Roman power and the beginning of the middle ages, yes.



I also recognize that others offer alternate dates, and I´m well aware that the empire subsisted, one way or another, until the late 1400s. But the empire of antiquity, the great military power from Jesus´s time all the way to AD 455 was no more.
In my opinion, there can't really be a specific date, as it isn't really known when exactly it was that there could be no return. 455 I think is a better date than the traditional 476 CE. The Empire was basically already dead in 476, a shattered husk with only the trappings, none of the power of its former self.

Collapse, probably. I don't think that kind of governmental/economic structure could sustain itself during peace except by preparing for war. And if you've already conquered everyone, what reason is there to prepare for war?

The thing is, though, Nazi Germany wasn't really on a true war footing until 1942 when Albert Speer basically constructed a war economy from the bottom up. Prior to that, the German armed forces and the industrial power behind them were both geared to short conflicts rather than the kind of prolonged war they were actually fighting. The Soviets and UK were already mobilized for a long conflict, which gave them a considerable economic advantage over Germany that generally outstripped superior German technology (although even that was lacking in a few places, such as their continued use of bolt-action rifles rather than the semi-automatic weapons fielded by the Soviets as early as 1940).

That being said, Speer's work was nothing less than an economic miracle (albeit one based on slave labor and massive exploitation of foreign resources). Even at the height of the strategic bombing campaign in 1944, the German economy was not only producing the highest amount of war material of any year prior but the materials produced were superior in quality and firepower.

NO MORE ROMAN HISTORY!!!!!!! U.S./Popes

You will learn your place, n00b. It is not yours to end an intellectual debate concerning the end of Roman power in Western Europe.

I hit a topic you like, eh?:DI love to read about the ancient empires.
It´s not about that at all, GF. Rome was Rome (empire wise) until AD 410-476. After that Europe slowly sank into the Middle Ages, a rich period unto itself, but I can´t compare it with Classical Rome at all.Classical Antiquity is the era of a united Rome, Late Antiquity is the era of the Western collapse and Eastern/Byzantine Empire.

well actualy it is rome ended in 476 ad. That is the historicly excepted death of the Roman Empire

I am aware. The separation of the east and west was quite a bit before the "fall," though, in the 300's if I recall correctly. And Romanitas largely continued in the Eastern Empire long after the West was lost. However, for the history of western Europe, and outside the Byzantine Empire, the 5th century was the end of Roman power and the beginning of the middle ages, yes.

What´s funny is that the separation between East and West Empires can be attributed to 2 things: religious and political schisms. Some historians go as far as blaming the Christian for Rome´s downfall.

In my opinion, there can't really be a specific date, as it isn't really known when exactly it was that there could be no return. 455 I think is a better date than the traditional 476 CE. The Empire was basically already dead in 476, a shattered husk with only the trappings, none of the power of its former self.

Yes, I´m more inclined to consider AD 455 as the date of the empire´s demise.

The thing is, though, Nazi Germany wasn't really on a true war footing until 1942 when Albert Speer basically constructed a war economy from the bottom up. Prior to that, the German armed forces and the industrial power behind them were both geared to short conflicts rather than the kind of prolonged war they were actually fighting. The Soviets and UK were already mobilized for a long conflict, which gave them a considerable economic advantage over Germany that generally outstripped superior German technology (although even that was lacking in a few places, such as their continued use of bolt-action rifles rather than the semi-automatic weapons fielded by the Soviets as early as 1940).

That being said, Speer's work was nothing less than an economic miracle (albeit one based on slave labor and massive exploitation of foreign resources). Even at the height of the strategic bombing campaign in 1944, the German economy was not only producing the highest amount of war material of any year prior but the materials produced were superior in quality and firepower.

True, they didn't run out of guns and ammo. They ran out of people to wield them.

Still, I don't think that the Nazi system was sustainable without an enemy to face.

not realy, after subduing the world Hitler would probaby have to turn his armys into a huge police force to keep everybody in line

well actualy it is rome ended in 476 ad. That is the historicly excepted death of the Roman EmpireI'm sorry, but I do not believe that you can end half of a thing, and claim that the entirety of the thing is ended.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that you can end half of a thing, and claim that the entirety of the thing is ended.

Indeed. This person clearly isn´t honestly following the debate going on here. *nod*

Indeed. This person clearly isn´t honestly following the debate going on here. *nod*Possibly, or he really doesn't want to watch a few people debating the power, effect, and collapse of Rome. :p

but if you where to cut your brain in half, would you beive that you still have a brain if half of it died? the true roman empire that upheld the city of Romes political system ended in 476, after that date it changed its iner workings intierly and became a totaly diferent state.

What´s funny is that the separation between East and West Empires can be attributed to 2 things: religious and political schisms. Some historians go as far as blaming the Christian for Rome´s downfall.
I could definitely see it being a contributing factor. I also think that being adopted as the state religion was the worst thing to happen to Christianity.

The separation was really a crappy deal for the west, which was declining in wealth at the time.

Yes, I´m more inclined to consider AD 455 as the date of the empire´s demise.

Even then, though, it was the fruit of seeds that had been sown long before. For example, one of the biggest problems was when the Rhine froze over in 406 CE. This allowed an enormous influx in "barbarian" tribes crossing over, they themselves fleeing the Huns and looking for more hospitable climes.

In the end though, it is difficult to say what exactly caused the fall of the western Roman Empire, or when exactly the point of no return was, because there were so many contributing factors. 476 is basically a non-date, the final nail in the coffin, and only maybe at that.

but if you where to cut your brain in half, would you beive that you still have a brain if half of it died? the true roman empire that upheld the city of Romes political system ended in 476, after that date it changed its iner workings intierly and became a totaly diferent state.

The date of the specific demise of the empire is questionable, read mine and Callisdrun´s exchange. If you´re talking about the classical empire, the estimated end is AD 455. If you´re referring to the Western and Eastern factions of the empire, those lasted longer. Read GF´s posts.

but if you where to cut your brain in half, would you beive that you still have a brain if half of it died? the true roman empire that upheld the city of Romes political system ended in 476, after that date it changed its iner workings intierly and became a totaly diferent state.

Actually there have been instances in which a whole hemisphere of the brain of a patient was removed, and not only did they remain alive, but they remained relatively normal functioning as well.

Even then, though, it was the fruit of seeds that had been sown long before. For example, one of the biggest problems was when the Rhine froze over in 406 CE. This allowed an enormous influx in "barbarian" tribes crossing over, they themselves fleeing the Huns and looking for more hospitable climes.

In the end though, it is difficult to say what exactly caused the fall of the western Roman Empire, or when exactly the point of no return was, because there were so many contributing factors. 476 is basically a non-date, the final nail in the coffin, and only maybe at that.

i agree

but if you where to cut your brain in half, would you beive that you still have a brain if half of it died? the true roman empire that upheld the city of Romes political system ended in 476, after that date it changed its iner workings intierly and became a totaly diferent state.Disregarding Justinian's renovatio imperii, I see.

The date of the specific demise of the empire is questionable, read mine and Callisdrun´s exchange. If you´re talking about the classical empire, the estimated end is AD 455. If you´re referring to the Western and Eastern factions of the empire, those lasted longer. Read GF´s posts.

Yes. At 455, it's pretty safe to say the Western section, which was the one that contained Rome itself, was finished. It persisted in name for a little while after that, but it had no power, really.

The Eastern Roman Empire, which would later come to be called the Byzantine Empire, lasted until 1453.

Disregarding Justinian's renovatio imperii, I see.

Justinian did try to reconquer the west, most notably Italy. After his reign this didn't last long, though, and so all it really accomplished was further devastation due to war on the Italian peninsula.

that would be improbable, diferent sides of your brain do differnt stuff

This thread has officially jumped the shark.

When I think of it Nazi Germany wasn't all that powerful pretty much for the same reasons it would be bad in bed.

Started off fast, reached its peak in a short amount of time, and then faded away with a whimper to be all but forgotten.

Justinian did try to reconquer the west, most notably Italy. After his reign this didn't last long, though, and so all it really accomplished was further devastation due to war on the Italian peninsula.It wasn't just the reconquest of the Western Empire, though that was the main focus of it.
The lasting effect of the renovatio imperii is most notably the Corpus Juris Civils. In English, the "Body of Civil Law."
Used as the basis for most systems of justice around the world. It even affected the church, because of ecclesia vivit lege romana.
"The church lives under Roman Law."

Justinian did try to reconquer the west, most notably Italy. After his reign this didn't last long, though, and so all it really accomplished was further devastation due to war on the Italian peninsula.

and thus did not rebuild the roman empire in any sense, just put the last nail in the coffin

Even then, though, it was the fruit of seeds that had been sown long before. For example, one of the biggest problems was when the Rhine froze over in 406 CE. This allowed an enormous influx in "barbarian" tribes crossing over, they themselves fleeing the Huns and looking for more hospitable climes.

Alric, the king of the vandals, said so well. They all wanted to be like Rome. Besides, while I was reading Cahill, he says something interesting. The Barbarians crossed the Rhine not because they wanted to attack Rome. They were driven by hunger and since they had adopted the farmer lifestyle of Rome, they needed more hospitable climates to establish farms.

In the end though, it is difficult to say what exactly caused the fall of the western Roman Empire, or when exactly the point of no return was, because there were so many contributing factors. 476 is basically a non-date, the final nail in the coffin, and only maybe at that.

As you stated, this was all a slow process that started who knows where and ended who knows how. We perhaps can conclude that the 5th. century AD was a turning point. When specifically in the 5th. century, who knows...

that would be improbable, diferent sides of your brain do differnt stuff

Apparently there's a lot of backup.

Hemispherectomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy)

ah but then you are refering to the removal of the temporal lobe which is the far front of the brain and responsible for everything short of breathing/ neccicaritys. the removal of which turns the patient into what can be best dicribed as a vegetabe

Collapse, probably. I don't think that kind of governmental/economic structure could sustain itself during peace except by preparing for war. And if you've already conquered everyone, what reason is there to prepare for war?
There's also the Holocaust, which was central to Nazi philosophy (containing and destroying the "inferior races" being part of the process by which they were supposed to overcome their psychological issues) and required a constant supply of victims.

Alric, the king of the vandals, said so well. They all wanted to be like Rome. Besides, while I was reading Cahill, he says something interesting. The Barbarians crossed the Rhine not because they wanted to attack Rome. They were driven by hunger and since they had adopted the farmer lifestyle of Rome, they needed more hospitable climates to establish farms.
Indeed. A lot of them really admired the Roman Empire and wanted to emulate them, since to them it seemed very successful and a fine way to live.


As you stated, this was all a slow process that started who knows where and ended who knows how. We perhaps can conclude that the 5th. century AD was a turning point. When specifically in the 5th. century, who knows...
Indeed, there were just so many problems that it's impossible to really single out one as the root cause of Rome's collapse.

455 CE as a date is better than 476, though. I think it is true, as you said, that when the Vandal sack happened, it was clear that it was never coming back.

Batman

Superman! Duh!

Technically, he's an alien. An illegal alien too.

Batman



Technically, he's an alien. An illegal alien too.

Is that a TV show reference?

Is that a TV show reference?

No. Superman fell out of the sky and landed in Kansas. That means he wasn't born in the US and I doubt he had the proper Kryptonian immigration papers. Therefore he isn't a US citizen, technically.

No. Superman fell out of the sky and landed in Kansas. That means he wasn't born in the US and I doubt he had the proper Kryptonian immigration papers. Therefore he isn't a US citizen, technically.

True, but who is going to try and deport him?

ah but then you are refering to the removal of the temporal lobe which is the far front of the brain and responsible for everything short of breathing/ neccicaritys. the removal of which turns the patient into what can be best dicribed as a vegetabe

Um, no, it's the removal of an entire hemisphere of the brain.

You must learn, n00b.

most powerful man ever was Publius Aelius Hadrianus emperor of Rome. had the most diverse units and largest military force under his command. He also greatly expanded engineering in the empire allowing it to start growing again.

most powerful man ever was Publius Aelius Hadrianus emperor of Rome. had the most diverse units and largest military force under his command. He also greatly expanded engineering in the empire allowing it to start growing again.Why Hadrianus? Why not Traianus?
Or Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus?

It wasn't just the reconquest of the Western Empire, though that was the main focus of it.
The lasting effect of the renovatio imperii is most notably the Corpus Juris Civils. In English, the "Body of Civil Law."
Used as the basis for most systems of justice around the world. It even affected the church, because of ecclesia vivit lege romana.
"The church lives under Roman Law."

That's true, he did reorganize the entire legal system.

Why Hadrianus? Why not Traianus?
Or Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus?

Hahah. You said anus. Twice.

That's true, he did reorganize the entire legal system.The basis for the basis of our own own justice system, I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hahah. You said anus. Twice. It's in their name.

It's in their name.

Poor suckers.

Reagan.

Poor suckers.They were emperors of Rome. They could execute people for thinking looking at them funny*. I'm sure they didn't care. :p
*Imperium Maius.

Why Hadrianus? Why not Traianus?
Or Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus?

Because he was not scared to be outside of Rome during peace time. Otehr emperors only left Rome to fight a war (when backstabbing would be at a minimum). Marcus was so scared of backstabbing military over throw he insisted he form a CO-emperor.

Reagan.

Hahah. you said Reaganus.

Once more, a good joke gets buried in a page change> :( It was a really good bit about Hitler too.)

They were emperors of Rome. They could execute people for thinking looking at them funny*. I'm sure they didn't care. :p
*Imperium Maius.

Yeah, I know. Maybe in respect for them, we should all add "anus" to the end of our names.

Except you, for obvious reasons.

Hahah. you said Reaganus.

*marks you down on the list*

Never take his name in vain. You will be killed by space-based lasers when the Great One rises again.

Because he was not scared to be outside of Rome during peace time. Otehr emperors only left Rome to fight a war (when backstabbing would be at a minimum). Marcus was so scared of backstabbing military over throw he insisted he form a CO-emperor.With good reason. Over half of all the emperors died of assassination/murder.

Reagan.

Not really. Senile old man, shitty governor, and shitty president.

*marks you down on the list*

Never take his name in vain. You will be killed by space-based lasers when the Great One rises again.

Joke's on you. I AM a space-based laser.

Except you, for obvious reasons. Nice.

Not really. Senile old man, shitty governor, and shitty president.

*another one on the list*

Never insult the Great One.

*another one on the list*

Never insult the Great One.Time for a little regacide, is it?

Joke's on you. I AM a space-based laser.

Good thing the Great 1/4 had that satelite whacked earlier this year with the ABM turned ASAT, so now We can just take you out anyway.

*another one on the list*

Never insult the Great One.

The Great One is named Wayne Gretzky.

The Great One is named Wayne Gretzky.

Wrong great one. I mean President Ronald Reagan.

*marks you down on the list*

Never take his name in vain. You will be killed by space-based lasers when the Great One rises again.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fWkEjT1r3Fo

Wrong great one. I mean President Ronald Reagan.

There is only one Great One, and he's the guy who score 200+ points in a season, twice.

With good reason. Over half of all the emperors died of assassination/murder.

yeah but he was able to free travel. And give back land in a peace agreement. (returning land with out a fight would have lead to a civil war for any other Cesar.)

yeah but he was able to free travel. And give back land in a peace agreement. (returning land with out a fight would have lead to a civil war for any other Cesar.)Possibly. We'll never know, will we?

There is only one Great One, and he's the guy who score 200+ points in a season, twice.

Yes, but no one cares about hockey. Everybody cares about Reagan.

*another one on the list*

Never insult the Great One.

I pissed on his grave.

There is only one Great One, and he's the guy who score 200+ points in a season, twice.

He did it four times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Gretzky#Statistics

1981-82
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86

Yes, but no one cares about hockey. Everybody cares about Reagan.

In Canada, a mob will lynch you for saying that. :p

He did it four times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Gretzky#Statistics

1981-82
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86

Oops. Pardon me. I'm a Leafs fan so I tend to ignore a lot of big numbers, like, for example, "41 and counting."

True, but who is going to try and deport him?

Lex Luthor of course, he's a true American hero.

No. Superman fell out of the sky and landed in Kansas. That means he wasn't born in the US and I doubt he had the proper Kryptonian immigration papers. Therefore he isn't a US citizen, technically.

True, but who is going to try and deport him?

Lex Luthor of course, he's a true American hero.

That is iffy. It would be difficult to deport Superman, seeing as how

A) Clark Kent is a tax-paying citizen with a full set of citizenship papers. It's varied, but either the Kents faked his birth (assisted by a sudden blizzard that hit Smallville and buried the town for three months in snow) or they got adoption papers. However it was done, Clark Kent has a social security number.

B) He's too well loved.

C) The mayor of Metropolis actually deputized him. This was so he could keep doing that whole 'sweeping down from the sky and saving the world' bit.

That is iffy. It would be difficult to deport Superman, seeing as how

A) Clark Kent is a tax-paying citizen with a full set of citizenship papers. It's varied, but either the Kents faked his birth (assisted by a sudden blizzard that hit Smallville and buried the town for three months in snow) or they got adoption papers. However it was done, Clark Kent has a social security number.

B) He's too well loved.

C) The mayor of Metropolis actually deputized him. This was so he could keep doing that whole 'sweeping down from the sky and saving the world' bit.
but you know lex luthor did win the presidency.

but you know lex luthor did win the presidency.

His campaign included numerous photo-ops with Superman. Then, following that whole "Public Enemies" fiasco, he lost the presidency. Then he was put on trial, got off, was publicly embarrassed, tried to kill Superman again (more kryptonite), failed, and has been repeatedly trying again and again.

That is iffy. It would be difficult to deport Superman, seeing as how

A) Clark Kent is a tax-paying citizen with a full set of citizenship papers. It's varied, but either the Kents faked his birth (assisted by a sudden blizzard that hit Smallville and buried the town for three months in snow) or they got adoption papers. However it was done, Clark Kent has a social security number.

Whether Clark Kent has adoption papers or a birth certificate wouldn't matter though. The Kents obviously didn't write in "Krypton" for place of birth, therefore wouldn't any birth certificates or adoption papers etc. be considered forgeries?

B) He's too well loved.

Cause no one knows he's an illegal :p

Queen Victoria, to some extent.

The Thatcher/Reagan partnership.

Dodi Al Fyad, about 10 years ago. He could of bought down the royals in a finger snap, and he tried too. And yes, at the time he was untouchable due to his publicity.

:(

Roman empire's vastly over-rated anyway, largely because the people (Europeans) who lived under its rule went on to be the most powerful people in the present day and wrote all the history books (and also I'm guessing most of us here are of European descent as well). It wasn't that much more impressive than any of the Persian, Babylonian or Assyrian empires that existed east of it. And even if you're looking for stability, there's an empire that was founded long before Rome exceeded its size and still exists today, China. So stop naming Romans in my beautiful thread :p

:(

Roman empire's vastly over-rated anyway, largely because the people (Europeans) who lived under its rule went on to be the most powerful people in the present day and wrote all the history books (and also I'm guessing most of us here are of European descent as well). It wasn't that much more impressive than any of the Persian, Babylonian or Assyrian empires that existed east of it. And even if you're looking for stability, there's an empire that was founded long before Rome exceeded its size and still exists today, China. So stop naming Romans in my beautiful thread :p

We'll name Rome as much as we want because, even if you don't like it, Rome lasted as an empire for 12+ centuries and it's influence can still be felt to this day. From Rome's Latin stem languages like Spanish, French, Portuguese and Italian. It even influenced English, making it the rich language it is today. From Rome (be heriatage of the Greeks) we inherited classical art, philosophy, rethoric, dialectics. Rome influenced the world so strongly, it cannot be ignored.:wink:

Yes, but no one cares about hockey. Everybody cares about Reagan.

Blasphemy!

Rupert Murdoch

Geghis Khan - lord of Asia.
They say that the horse was the locomotive of history. Those mongols could sure ride horses.

Geghis Khan - lord of Asia.
They say that the horse was the locomotive of history. Those mongols could sure ride horses.

Watched Mongol last night, good, not too shaby.

But I'm gonna have to say, most poweful person ever?

My Dad.:D

there are no powerful persons. only powerful positions, in politics or in human society. the only power possessed by any human person, is that GIVEN them, by other human persons.

that being said, of course there have been kings and other so called "leaders".

but there is no intrinsic morally legitimate basis for any INDIVIDUAL's "power".
(beyond the 'sphere' of their own personal existence)

:(

Roman empire's vastly over-rated anyway, largely because the people (Europeans) who lived under its rule went on to be the most powerful people in the present day and wrote all the history books (and also I'm guessing most of us here are of European descent as well). It wasn't that much more impressive than any of the Persian, Babylonian or Assyrian empires that existed east of it. And even if you're looking for stability, there's an empire that was founded long before Rome exceeded its size and still exists today, China. So stop naming Romans in my beautiful thread :p

The Persian And Assyrian empire collapsed in a far shorter time frame.
The Chinese half of the dynasties were foringers who had taken over(Jurchen, Manchurian, Mongol.) The empire of china also was not continuous and fell apart twice in the warring states period and three kingdom period.

We also are not naming the strongest empire we are naming the strongest person. The Chinese emperors were almost always held in check by either the Bureaucrats or the eunuchs by the 3rd ruler of the dynasty.

Geghis Khan - lord of Asia.
They say that the horse was the locomotive of history. Those mongols could sure ride horses.

And terrorize the Chinese. *nod*

Alexander the Great. He DID conquer the entire known world...

Alexander the Great. He DID conquer the entire known world...

and what is conquest, but bullying who'se ass is kissed by historians, usually with idiological axes of their own to grind?

In my opinion, it'd either be Timur the Lame or Caesar Augustus.

Probably George V.

Alexander the Great. He DID conquer the entire known world...

After he declared the part his soldiers refused to follow him into(India) unknown. And he did die from being a drunk.

Ghandi

wait Gandhi, wrong spelling

sorry for double posting

Alexander the Great. He DID conquer the entire known world...
That's just because the Macedonians were terrible at making maps.
"I am ruler of all the World!"
"What about the stuff on the other side of that river, over there?"
"I don't see it. Now shut up or I'll kill you, burn down your home town and rape your mother."

Whether Clark Kent has adoption papers or a birth certificate wouldn't matter though. The Kents obviously didn't write in "Krypton" for place of birth, therefore wouldn't any birth certificates or adoption papers etc. be considered forgeries?

Technically true. Marvel took this on when they did that whole "Squadron Supreme," by having the government find the alien baby, and making him a ward of the state under abandonment law.

Cause no one knows he's an illegal :p

Everybody knows that he's an alien. But nobody thinks that he actually lives in the U.S. with a cover identity. Mostly they just think that he lives in an undisclosed isolated area (the whole point behind his Fortress of Solitude), and thus they can't technically deport him without establishing a residence within the U.S. Besides, I'm pretty sure that the Fortress is built on floating Arctic ice, technically placing his home in international waters.

Attilla, the Hun.

Attilla, the Hun.

As opposed to the stockbroker?

As opposed to the stockbroker?
Or Attila the bun.

What? Shut up, you think I'm gonna use my A-list material for page 14? Like Hell, I'm not.

That is the main point - the Roman Empire lasted WAAAAAY longer than any other Empire - size does not matter.

The Chinese Empire lasted longer to be honest.

As opposed to the stockbroker?
or Al-Geddafi's son :p

I, for one, would say Putin.

The Chinese Empire lasted longer to be honest. It's more like China has had several empires. Not just one overall "Chinese Empire".

Technically true. Marvel took this on when they did that whole "Squadron Supreme," by having the government find the alien baby, and making him a ward of the state under abandonment law.



Everybody knows that he's an alien. But nobody thinks that he actually lives in the U.S. with a cover identity. Mostly they just think that he lives in an undisclosed isolated area (the whole point behind his Fortress of Solitude), and thus they can't technically deport him without establishing a residence within the U.S. Besides, I'm pretty sure that the Fortress is built on floating Arctic ice, technically placing his home in international waters.

Technically he resides in the North Pole. So he is working illegally in the US.

Caligula was fairly powerful, as was Claudius. Also the whole Khan lot.

Caligula was fairly powerful, as was Claudius. Also the whole Khan lot.

Caligula is one of those historical figures I reveered and despise at the same time. He was a genius and a nutcase all in one.

Caligula is one of those historical figures I reveered and despise at the same time. He was a genius and a nutcase all in one.

Is he the one who made his horse a senator?

Is he the one who made his horse a senator?The one and only.

Is he the one who made his horse a senator?

Aye, that be him.

wooo! I was right for once! :D

The one and only.

And centuries before Mr. Ed would decide to run for office.

Is he the one who made his horse a senator?

No, he made him a consul, which was even more powerful.

wooo! I was right for once! :D

No, actually. Sorry mate.

And centuries before Mr. Ed would decide to run for office.I'm not into the sixties, thanks.

Caligula did refer to himself, and dress himself, as a god. :p

I'm not into the sixties, thanks.

Caligula did refer to himself, and dress himself, as a god. :p

Did you ever see the 1970s film? OMG!

Caligula did refer to himself, and dress himself, as a god. :p

What decent Roman Emperor didn't?

No, actually. Sorry mate.

Ouch. :(

What decent Roman Emperor didn't?

What was the name for the cult to the Roman Emperor?

No, he made him a consul, which was even more powerful.He didn't suceed. "Tried/planned" to make him a consul. :p
But Caligula did claim that Incitatus was a "combination of all the gods, and should be worshipped as such."

What was the name for the cult to the Roman Emperor?

No idea.:p

Chuck Norris

/thread

You people are posting so fast I can't keep up... :eek:

Chuck Norris

/thread

He was disqualified on the basis that he is still alive, and, presumably, is incapable of ever truly dying.

You people are posting so fast I can't keep up... :eek:

Slow fingers. :p

He was disqualified on the basis that he is still alive, and, presumably, is incapable of ever truly dying.

You dare to disqualify Chuck Norris?

OK budy...its YOUR funeral.:p

Did you ever see the 1970s film? OMG!Don't remember, probably not. :p

What was the name for the cult to the Roman Emperor?
It's refered to as the "Roman Imperial Cult" in English. Not sure if there was any official name established for it, or not.

You dare to disqualify Chuck Norris?

OK budy...its YOUR funeral.:pChuck Norris is old. I'll simply outlive him. That's right. I'll outlive Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris is old. I'll simply outlive him. That's right. I'll outlive Chuck Norris.

nobody can outlive Chuck Norris.

...And With Strange Eons Even Death May Die... but not Chuck Norris.

nobody can outlive Chuck Norris.

...And With Strange Eons Even Death May Die... but not Chuck Norris.I am Nobody. It's nice to meet you.

Yup, anonymous for the win. :D

I am Nobody. It's nice to meet you.

Yup, anonymous for the win. :D

You are someone who is asking to get his butt roundhouse kicked.:mad::mad:

You are someone who is asking to get his butt roundhouse kicked.:mad::mad:He's 68. :p

He's 68. :p

He is much older than that....

-...and God said "There be light", and Chuck Norris said "say please..."-

He is much older than that....

-...and God said "There be light", and Chuck Norris said "say please..."-"Chuck Norris facts" is a rip-off of the Vin Diesel Fact Generator.

"Chuck Norris facts" is a rip-off of the Vin Diesel Fact Generator.

Blasphemy!!!...you'll rot in hell for saying such a thing. :mad:

The Chinese Empire lasted longer to be honest.

Not really because it fell apart, 2 times and was ruled by foreigners 3 times.

Zhou lasted 800 years
then you have the warring states period for 700 years.
then you have the Qin dynasty for 15 years
then the Han dynasty for 14 years
then you have three kingdoms period for 60 years
Jin dynasty for 155 years
Then the time of Northern and Southern dynasty (Civil war )160 years.
then the Sui dynasty for 37 years.
Then the tang dynasty for 300 years.
then 53 years of 5 dynasty 10 kingdoms.
Then you have the Song dynasty for 200 years(actually less since the Jurchen aka Jin controlled the northern half for a large portion of time)
Then you have the Yuan dynasty for 200 years ,which was rule by Mongols so not a Chinese dynasty.
then you have the Ming dynasty for 300 years.
Then you have the Qing dynasty for 250 years. (again not Chinese so not Chinese rule)

The longest time frame that you have Chinese rule of Chinese is during the zhou period. However at this time the country was very decentralized and China is not regarded as an empire until the Qin.
After that the longest period of chinese rule is the tang and sui dynasty's lasting 337 years.

Don't remember, probably not. :p

Rent it sometime and be amazed.:D

refered to as the "Roman Imperial Cult" in English. Not sure if there was any official name established for it, or not.

Thanks. I´ll take a look and try and find out it´s official Latin name.

William Ewart Gladstone or Benjamin D'isreali

Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw

Queen Victoria has to be up there somwhere

Ben "Yahtzee" CroshawZero Punctuation, for the fucking win.
"Since, you know, HALO IS ALREADY MORE POPULAR THAN GOD."
"Oh, and by the way, I THINK HITLER WAS RIGHT!"
That guy is epic win. :D

Truman. For a few years, he had control over the largest and arguably the most powerful military in the world, as well as being the only man with access to nuclear weapons. Nobody could have struck back with anything like the force he had at his disposal.

Not really because it fell apart, 2 times and was ruled by foreigners 3 times.

Zhou lasted 800 years
then you have the warring states period for 700 years.
then you have the Qin dynasty for 15 years
then the Han dynasty for 14 years
then you have three kingdoms period for 60 years
Jin dynasty for 155 years
Then the time of Northern and Southern dynasty (Civil war )160 years.
then the Sui dynasty for 37 years.
Then the tang dynasty for 300 years.
then 53 years of 5 dynasty 10 kingdoms.
Then you have the Song dynasty for 200 years(actually less since the Jurchen aka Jin controlled the northern half for a large portion of time)
Then you have the Yuan dynasty for 200 years ,which was rule by Mongols so not a Chinese dynasty.
then you have the Ming dynasty for 300 years.
Then you have the Qing dynasty for 250 years. (again not Chinese so not Chinese rule)

The longest time frame that you have Chinese rule of Chinese is during the zhou period. However at this time the country was very decentralized and China is not regarded as an empire until the Qin.
After that the longest period of chinese rule is the tang and sui dynasty's lasting 337 years.The existing living culture on Earth is not really the Chinese, it is most likely one of the hunter-gathering tribes of Africa. As for who can claim the titles as longest existing civilzation, that is a subject up for debate.

Chuck Norris.

A pope or u.s. prez for like the hundreth time