for shits and giggles: USA versus the Roman Empire

[pres2032]

and because i can't think of another topic. so after you pick, say why.


let's say the Roman Empire has survived and it controls most of Europe and North Africa. Britain, Germany, and the Scandanavian countries are the other European countries. Russia, China, and Japan also exist. The middle East are colonies of the Roman Empire. it has modern technology. With Bush in charge, you know he'd bring us to war with them. so who wins, and why?

let's say there are no nukes, because world war I and II never happened. so this is a strictly conventional war.

[CubsFan1982]

1. Simple.

We have more nukes. :D

[hickman1937]

2. Bingo. Also more people with that winning profile,

Rich, and Mean.

[pres2032]

3. let's say nukes were never invented

because the world wars never happened, so this is a conventional war.

[mark414]

4. roman empire

they conquered the world

we can't conquer iraq

[CubsFan1982]

5. Why do you hate America?

Traitor! :P

Seriously, no nukes? I'd say the US by default. It would be too close.

[pres2032]

6. yeah, it'd be too easy to have nukes

I'd imagine it to devolve into a trench war, similiar to world war 1

[Placebo]

7. Roman Empire

At least they were fab and left their mark on the planet in a way America never can or will...and in some ways that's a good thing, but still.

At least we'd get cool public baths and homogay sex abounding.

[pansypoo53219]

8. romans

since we no longer are willing to sacrifice and gosh darn it, we can't miss an episode of american idol.

[pres2032]

9. you never know, there could be a "roman idol"

:crazy:

[rwenos]

10. USA, Since . . .

Many reasons, primarily from probable alliances.

Scandinavians were never conquered by Rome, I don't think -- didn't they only get as far as Germany? The Scandies and Balts would be on the US side.

Also, the conflict you describe leaves out geopolitical alliances. The Russians and Chinese would be natural allies with the US in a multi-continental war against Rome. Probably Latin Americans would sympathize with Rome (religious, cultural and linguistic reasons), but that alliance would not match US, Russia, China, Japan, and the British Commonwealth countries -- Canada and Australia most prominently.

Also, the Romans never pushed north of Hadrian's Wall in the British Isles. Add the Irish, Scots and Welsh to the US side.

South Africa and India would most likely side with the US against Rome also, if for no other reason than as a counterbalance to the Islamic alliance with Rome.

Israel would be overrun and occupied by Rome, but would be a fertile source of espionage and intel from the surrounding Islamic countries.

Interesting speculation, eh?

[pres2032]

11. see, that's where i was hoping this thread was going to go

I've always wondered what it'd be like if the US and the Roman Empire coexisted. Latin America is an interesting situation. Being that it was colonized mostly by spain and being that Rome controlled spain, would Latin America just be a Roman Colony?

The War could set up where we fight the Romans in Mexico and South America while the Brits, Germans, and Russians fight them in Europe. We might even get the Japanese to help us in South America.

[rwenos]

12. We'd Face Latin America Alone, But

would most likely be drawn into a continental war in Europe too. With the Brist and Germans on our side, I don't see how Rome could ever hold on to the Iberian Peninsula. I figure most of the large land engagements (probably tank warfare in open country, with strategic bombing to back it up) would take place in Spain, Morocco and the rim of Africa.

Yes, the Japanese would help us in Latin America. Their manufacturing, combined with ours, would blow away any air power and/or mechanized forces the Romans could transport from the Mediterranean basin.

The Brits and Germans, especially with Scottish Special Forces, helped by Scandinavian manufacturing and Baltic electronic micro-manufacture and countermeasures (the Balts are very big in ECM in the US aerospace industry, always have been since Molotov sold them out in 1940), would out-produce the Souther European manufacturing economy. The Luftwaffe and RAF together would BLAST the Italian mainland, level the Roman capital, and make hash of efforts to secure the oilfields.

Really, the more I think about it, the war in Europe would be over in weeks. The US would invade and conquer Mexico in the same period of time, and pacify the rest of Latin America along the way.

There'd be lots of blood spilled in the Middle East, really bad. Iran, Iraq, Syria -- tank warfare, sacking of cities, WW1 level war of attrition, probably the primary Russian center of operation.

Think we should collaborate on a military/science fiction pulp novel?

[pres2032]

16. aren't you underestimating the Roman capabilities?

remember, the Romans were the most advanced tactically, in weaponry, and in training in their time. I have no doubt that they'd stay on the leading edge. I think the Roman air force would put up quite a fight with the RAF and the Lufwaffe.
Also too, being that Rome controls the Mediterranian, they'd have to have an impressive navy, so I'd imagine there'd be a jutland-esque battle for control of those waters.
I think if anything, it almost progresses where the Brits and Germans focus all their focus on cracking the Roman's european possesions. I do think that the US takes Mexico quite easily and then focuses on Africa and perhaps helping the Russians in the Middle east. there would be nasty guerilla warfare in the Amazon too, but it would be just a nusense. As africa is being taken, the US navy wages war in the Med. to prepare for the invasion of europe. Then you'd have an American invasion of Sicily and Spain with the Brits and Germans moving from the North. I think the European war lasts at most 3 years, followed by a couple years of rooting out roman special forces and guerrillas in Iran and the Amazon.

about the book, i'd love too! i actually started one a while ago where the Romans were out of europe, but conquered all of africa and the Romans and Americans were engaged in trench warfare in South Africa.

[rwenos]

21. Rome Would Have to Rely on Sea Power

You're right the Romans were technologically advanced, but what we're really talking here is Southern Europe v. Northern Europe. Assuming a WW2-level conventional technological base, no nukes, but with sophisticated electronics like now, I still think the war in Western Europe would center on the Iberian Peninsula (open country, well-suited to American-style tank warfare). If Rome couldn't hold Spain, down goes Rome La Capital. Down goes the Empire, then.

Also, the Russians would do a Marshall Zhukov-like smash-job on Greece, Turkey, and the 'Stans. It would be ugly, millions butchered in a long, filthy conventional trench war, as is characteristic of wars in that region.

I just don't see the Southern European powers being able to match British/German/Scandinavian/American manufacturing and technological prowess. Put England on Rome's side and you have a longer, bloodier war, but the Scots would LOVE a chance to sack London (centuries-overdue payback for Coloddin), and the Scots have more balls than the Brits anyway.

South America's a sideshow. Russian Bear grinds middle eastern theater to dust, drenched in blood. USA, et al. win a war of maneuver in Western Europe.

Maybe if Rome got South Africa in on their side, they'd have a puncher's chance, but I still see the outcome going USA's direction.

Damn, I may have to write this. When you see the pulp novel in your local Safeway, remember my "thank you" for sharpening the plot right here!

[pres2032]

23. yeah, i think that's how it'll be

kinda horrifying thinking of the Middle Eastern Front.

I say we collaborate on the book, that'd be so much fun.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

13. The Romans will beat those uncivilised American barbarians

For the glory of Rome!

[rwenos]

14. So What About RAF/Luftwaffe?

Where would Rome get air power to match Brits/Germans together? (Let alone American high-altitude bombers and carrier-based fighter escorts.)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

15. Remember most of Britain was a Roman province (England and Wales)

Most of the RAF would be controlled by Rome.

[pres2032]

17. but not the whole time

eventually the Romans left. I'd imagine once the Britons were able to build an effective insurrgency, they'd eventually push them out.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

24. The Britons in the Britannia didn't build an insurrgency

they thought "oh crap, who's going to help us now". Picts were attacking from Scotland and Angles, Saxons and Jutes were attacking from Jutland and Germania. The Britons had become fully integrated into Roman culture and didn't want to see the legions leave to protect Rome.

There were rebellions in Britannia during the 300sCE but these were in support of Roman generals making power-plays to seize control of the Roman Empire.

Rome rule extended from 43CE to 409CE in Britannia which I think is a significant time.

[mr fry]

18. why does bush go to war with them?

rome never controlled the middle east effectivly .... in fact it was their downfall ... that said .. if the roman empire survived ... the us would not exist except as a roman outpost thus no war

[pres2032]

19. remember, the US was once a British "outpost"

and we all know how effectively that went. The North American Romans could've revolted and formed their own country. Or if we're saying the British are not under Roman control, they could've started America.

[mr fry]

25. rome owned britain

saxons romans?

if the romans were still in power the saxons would have been crushed thus Us would be a roam colony not saxon and thus no war between romans and US

this argument is stupid... if rome had not colapsed they would rule the world

[pres2032]

26. stupid? yeah

but it is interesting to think about if the US and the Roman Empire were to Coexist.

We could also throw this in: if the Romans did rule Europe, who's to say that they'd cross the ocean? that might have allowed the Incan and Aztec Empires to develop and so the US might be an Aztec nation.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

20. We'd win, but It'd be the most Pyrrhic victory in history.

We'd lose more troops than all the wars we've fought combined. Heck, I just can't bring myself to vote against the US, but we'd get killed.

[baron j]

22. If Rome hadn't become christian, I'd say Roman Empire

because it would've had 2000 years of technological advancement, unhindered by the suppression of thought, science, and health/medicine by the church.