Let's Discuss Poland
- Thread starter Methos
- Start date
- Status
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
hmm? Rome did send legion after legion. well, sort of. they sent some of their best legions into Germania.
America did sort of bomb us to the stone age - all those **** chemicals they dropped on us?
Mongols also got defeated by the Mamluks, the Vietnamese, and those cases weren't plain luck. the Spainish had a really heck of a hard time subjugating the Mayans (took them nearly two centuries, until 1697, to finish the job, and even then...). the Chinese invaded Vietnam, and failed every time (except for the first) - and the Chinese were the most advanced and prosperous nation on eath, and they really wanted to snuff Vietnam.
America did sort of bomb us to the stone age - all those **** chemicals they dropped on us?
Mongols also got defeated by the Mamluks, the Vietnamese, and those cases weren't plain luck. the Spainish had a really heck of a hard time subjugating the Mayans (took them nearly two centuries, until 1697, to finish the job, and even then...). the Chinese invaded Vietnam, and failed every time (except for the first) - and the Chinese were the most advanced and prosperous nation on eath, and they really wanted to snuff Vietnam.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Evil Twin
Demented Sociopath
Which were so complacent they brought their families along. Hence why they lost. They didn't really try after that, concentrating more on consolidating their already conquered territory.
Yes, America was quite nasty in that war. But Nowhere near as nasty as it could have been. I'm talking about burning the entire jungle down, atomic bombs on cities, etc. etc.
America could have made Vietnam a memory if it wanted to. Of course, then it would become a pariah state and China would eventually kick their butt so they didn't.
Most of those cases are in fact due to luck and over-expansion. A superpower has more to think about than just invading one nation. In the case of the Mayans, their society had already fallen before the Spanish arrived. So the Spanish had to search high and low for the remnants to destroy them. Which they did do.
In any case, it's certainly possible for superpowers to not win against small nations for varying reasons. This however does not make Ethiopia particularily special, which is my point.
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
But compared to African nations such as Somalia, Liberia, Eritrea... it was a major power.
Quildavyr
Man of sick jokes!
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
How benevolent of America to not commit the biggest mass-murder in history, even though it could... extraordinary restraint...
america didnt use nuclear weapons against vietnam because if it had have done they would have had 7 or 8000 soviet nuclear warheads raining down on them. that was why, fear, not humanitarian concern
Evil Twin
Demented Sociopath
Er.. that's exactly my point. Only I forgot to say Russia and China would kick their butt.
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
Don't be stupid LuKo.
Moderator Action: Borderline Flaming. Warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Dennis_Moore
Unholy Roman
But compared to African nations such as Somalia, Liberia, Eritrea... it was a major power.
Especially considering that they used that power to subjugate and annex Eritrea.
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
Exactly, I chose those nations specifically because they are the ones Italy annexed partially or fully.
Militarily speaking, any nation of the times couldn't have compared directly to Britain or even to France (although could still win skirmishes in certain areas - their war machines were too stretched).... but Italy and other European nations were still relatively superpowers against their colonial targets! It makes Ethiopias victory all the more impressive.
Evil Twin
Demented Sociopath
Actually it doesn't since the more an empire stretches itself, the less likely it is to successfully conquer new territory. See Rome.
Dennis_Moore
Unholy Roman
Umm, I did not follow the board properly this time
, and by dumb luck I still managed to be historically correct. I was actually referring to the Ethiopian annexation of Eritrea in 1961...err never mind (I'm working at the same time, so hopefully I'm not making such mistakes in my work).
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
That's what I said, admittedly reading it again, not too clearly... even though Britain and France were extremely powerful, they were stretched too thin and could be beaten in specific local skirmishes.
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
Umm, I did not follow the board properly this time
I was actually referring to the Ethiopian annexation of Eritrea in 1961...err never mind (I'm working at the same time, so hopefully I'm not making such mistakes in my work).
OH!
Yeah I thought you were talking about Italian colonisation in 1889.
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
Yes my argument from another post about something completely different and in no way connected to this.... defined therefore as "stupid".
I was, in that other completely disconnected post, referring to a well-known reinterpretation of classical history by German philosophers and writers (who also laid the ground work on Nazi "philosophy") to favour Greece's "whiteness" and neglect its Afro-Asiatic roots.... if you want to argue about it, go and argue with the scholars, I was merely referring to them.... and I even gave you a book title which I am sure you looked up, read and digested before coming back to make such a remark.
For those interested, the book was "Black Athena" by Martin Bernal.
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
Have you got anything to say or just mumbling crap like usual?
Why are you referring to a totally different post about a totally different topic? It is "stupid" to use arguments made in one discussion and try to link them to another totally disconnected one. If you want to debate, do it on your own merit.
Get it together.
- Status
Similar threads
