What ancient Empire do you think was the most imposing?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Socialist696 (558 posts) -

I think its the Roman Republic. They based all their wars on the idea that if they aren't first to strike, they would be first struck and that it was necessary to keep subjugating their neighbors to ensure their existence. The Republic's capital Roma was sacked by the Gauls and after they reformed they went on a spree of war and conquest. The than most powerful group of nations in Europe the Greeks than answered the pleas of the Greek settlements in southern Italy (Tarentum, Croton) and Pyhrrus of Epirus took on the task of suppressing the Roman tribes power gobble. But that failed and even though he won the battle, the Romans inflicted such losses to his ranks he was unable to contend with the Romans (or the Carthaginians for that matter).

"What a battlefield I am leaving for Carthage and Rome" - Pyhrrus of Epirus is quoted saying. I'm sure I don't need to go into all the details of the Punic Wars, the invasion of Macedonia and Greece, the war with Selecuia or the gauls, germania, iberia, britons, or thracians. Long story short, Rome gobbled up all of its neighbors in a rapid amount of time (something not outdone until the Mongols hordes sweeped across Eurasia, except they conquered more in a fraction of the time due to their methods). The Roman Legions - the early Republic armies (early hoplie/phalanx, polybian, and Marian reformed Legions) were constantly growing to ever new standards of proffesional, organized and skillfull levels. They had solid systems for engagement, successful training regimes, and a very mobile and flexible army (which proved to defeat all its adversaries - from the Phalanx-Eastern Armies of Greece and those who were influenced by it and the barbarian tribal armies of various styles). Their armies must've been a truely intimidating sight to any army going up against it.

Also, a look at the Roman culture yields alot of cruelty. They were cruel in many instances, their woman were caniving and active in politics of the men from the sidelines (example being Cornelia and Fulvia), the people enjoyed bloodshed and killings in the arenas. The crusifying of people is also a cruel manner. The politics were relentless, cutthroat and fierce during the last days of the Republic resulting in two civil wars on a large scale, mass killings of political enemies, and suffering for many Romans. Overall, I feel anyone living in the time of Rome who was not a Roman citizen would honestly be scared **** of them. Both as a nation and as a people. I know I wouldn't want to be on the bad side of a nation with so much power and so little regard for human life lol.

#2 Posted by supa_badman (16666 posts) -

Wanna say the Aryans when they took most of south asia

they were dicks tbh

EDIT: well, maybe I wouldn't say they were an empire, but an ancient civilization nonetheless. I think it counts

#3 Posted by redstorm72 (4636 posts) -

The Galactic one that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away.

#4 Posted by Aljosa23 (26192 posts) -

The Mongols, probably. They would have conquered all of Europe too if Genghis Khan transfered power smoothly at his death.

Edit: or the Roman Republic if only for the sheer length of time they dominated.

#5 Posted by wis3boi (32070 posts) -

Protheans

#6 Posted by johnd13 (8545 posts) -

The Romans were indeed intimidating. The greek invasion in Asia under the command of Alexander the Great was also phenomenal for the time. Not an empire but his armie was a force to be reckoned with nonetheless.

#7 Posted by hiphops_savior (8082 posts) -

The Mongols, probably. They would have conquered all of Europe too if Genghis Khan transfered power smoothly at his death.

Edit: or the Roman Republic if only for the sheer length of time they dominated.

Aljosa23
I think you mistaken Genghis for Ogotai. Genghis died on the way to Xi Xia while Ogotai's death was what prevented the Mongols from overruning Europe. Back on topic, I would argue the Assyrian Empire was one of the most fearsome in the Ancient Near East, simply for their use of psychological warfare.
#8 Posted by blue_hazy_basic (28787 posts) -

I think its the Roman Republic. They based all their wars on the idea that if they aren't first to strike, they would be first struck and that it was necessary to keep subjugating their neighbors to ensure their existence. The Republic's capital Roma was sacked by the Gauls and after they reformed they went on a spree of war and conquest. The than most powerful group of nations in Europe the Greeks than answered the pleas of the Greek settlements in southern Italy (Tarentum, Croton) and Pyhrrus of Epirus took on the task of suppressing the Roman tribes power gobble. But that failed and even though he won the battle, the Romans inflicted such losses to his ranks he was unable to contend with the Romans (or the Carthaginians for that matter).

"What a battlefield I am leaving for Carthage and Rome" - Pyhrrus of Epirus is quoted saying. I'm sure I don't need to go into all the details of the Punic Wars, the invasion of Macedonia and Greece, the war with Selecuia or the gauls, germania, iberia, britons, or thracians. Long story short, Rome gobbled up all of its neighbors in a rapid amount of time (something not outdone until the Mongols hordes sweeped across Eurasia, except they conquered more in a fraction of the time due to their methods). The Roman Legions - the early Republic armies (early hoplie/phalanx, polybian, and Marian reformed Legions) were constantly growing to ever new standards of proffesional, organized and skillfull levels. They had solid systems for engagement, successful training regimes, and a very mobile and flexible army (which proved to defeat all its adversaries - from the Phalanx-Eastern Armies of Greece and those who were influenced by it and the barbarian tribal armies of various styles). Their armies must've been a truely intimidating sight to any army going up against it.

Also, a look at the Roman culture yields alot of cruelty. They were cruel in many instances, their woman were caniving and active in politics of the men from the sidelines (example being Cornelia and Fulvia), the people enjoyed bloodshed and killings in the arenas. The crusifying of people is also a cruel manner. The politics were relentless, cutthroat and fierce during the last days of the Republic resulting in two civil wars on a large scale, mass killings of political enemies, and suffering for many Romans. Overall, I feel anyone living in the time of Rome who was not a Roman citizen would honestly be scared **** of them. Both as a nation and as a people. I know I wouldn't want to be on the bad side of a nation with so much power and so little regard for human life lol.

Socialist696
Without meaning to be a d!ck some of your info up there isn't right. The real might of Rome lay in its ability to soak up huge casualties and keep fighting (Ie Hannibal never losing a battle on Roman soil but still being unable to defeat them) whereas the old Hellenic armies were based on a core of elite professionals and they simply couldn't afford to large numbers of men (which is why their warfare, while endemic, usually had very low casualty rates). This is why we have the phrase Pyrrhic victory, from Pyrrhus, whom you quoted. His army defeated the Romans but even though they won and lost less men the victory was completely hollow as Rome could afford to throw waves more of men at them while they were broken. Also the Romans weren't particularly bad overlords, in fact for most of their territory they brought huge benefits (after the initial fighting of course! :P ) as long as the populace behaved.
#9 Posted by blue_hazy_basic (28787 posts) -

The Mongols, probably. They would have conquered all of Europe too if Genghis Khan transfered power smoothly at his death.

Edit: or the Roman Republic if only for the sheer length of time they dominated.

Aljosa23
I'd have said Mongols too, but they weren't really ancient :P
#10 Posted by ZX81plus3 (181 posts) -

The Syrians where the first and the worst.

#11 Posted by ThePoliteArtist (231 posts) -

The British Empire, god bless murica'.

#12 Posted by Socialist696 (558 posts) -

[QUOTE="Socialist696"]

I think its the Roman Republic. They based all their wars on the idea that if they aren't first to strike, they would be first struck and that it was necessary to keep subjugating their neighbors to ensure their existence. The Republic's capital Roma was sacked by the Gauls and after they reformed they went on a spree of war and conquest. The than most powerful group of nations in Europe the Greeks than answered the pleas of the Greek settlements in southern Italy (Tarentum, Croton) and Pyhrrus of Epirus took on the task of suppressing the Roman tribes power gobble. But that failed and even though he won the battle, the Romans inflicted such losses to his ranks he was unable to contend with the Romans (or the Carthaginians for that matter).

"What a battlefield I am leaving for Carthage and Rome" - Pyhrrus of Epirus is quoted saying. I'm sure I don't need to go into all the details of the Punic Wars, the invasion of Macedonia and Greece, the war with Selecuia or the gauls, germania, iberia, britons, or thracians. Long story short, Rome gobbled up all of its neighbors in a rapid amount of time (something not outdone until the Mongols hordes sweeped across Eurasia, except they conquered more in a fraction of the time due to their methods). The Roman Legions - the early Republic armies (early hoplie/phalanx, polybian, and Marian reformed Legions) were constantly growing to ever new standards of proffesional, organized and skillfull levels. They had solid systems for engagement, successful training regimes, and a very mobile and flexible army (which proved to defeat all its adversaries - from the Phalanx-Eastern Armies of Greece and those who were influenced by it and the barbarian tribal armies of various styles). Their armies must've been a truely intimidating sight to any army going up against it.

Also, a look at the Roman culture yields alot of cruelty. They were cruel in many instances, their woman were caniving and active in politics of the men from the sidelines (example being Cornelia and Fulvia), the people enjoyed bloodshed and killings in the arenas. The crusifying of people is also a cruel manner. The politics were relentless, cutthroat and fierce during the last days of the Republic resulting in two civil wars on a large scale, mass killings of political enemies, and suffering for many Romans. Overall, I feel anyone living in the time of Rome who was not a Roman citizen would honestly be scared **** of them. Both as a nation and as a people. I know I wouldn't want to be on the bad side of a nation with so much power and so little regard for human life lol.

blue_hazy_basic

Without meaning to be a d!ck some of your info up there isn't right. The real might of Rome lay in its ability to soak up huge casualties and keep fighting (Ie Hannibal never losing a battle on Roman soil but still being unable to defeat them) whereas the old Hellenic armies were based on a core of elite professionals and they simply couldn't afford to large numbers of men (which is why their warfare, while endemic, usually had very low casualty rates). This is why we have the phrase Pyrrhic victory, from Pyrrhus, whom you quoted. His army defeated the Romans but even though they won and lost less men the victory was completely hollow as Rome could afford to throw waves more of men at them while they were broken. Also the Romans weren't particularly bad overlords, in fact for most of their territory they brought huge benefits (after the initial fighting of course! :P ) as long as the populace behaved.

I was giving a broard summary of the Roman Republic from 300b.c.e roughly to 14A.D. The Romans originaly legions were comprised of less quality, more quantity this is true. The velites, hastati, principes, triarii, equites and aux troops were mostly from allied states, not Roman citizens. After the It wasn't until after the 2nd Punic War that Rome eliminated that system altogether and instead made it so every troop is equal in training and fights unified (as opposed to being organized by ability to afford equipment and in terms of experience). They organized the cohorts into units mixed equally with experienced veterans and inexperienced recruits which proved VERY effective in the overall ability of the unit. So yes, what you say is true for the earlier part of the Republic (as soon in the 2nd Punic War and Pyrrhic invasion) but not so much for the mid-later Republic (which I referenced in my paragraph - "the early Republic armies (early hoplite/phalanx, polybian, and Marian reformed Legions) were constantly growing to ever new standards of proffesional, organized and skillfull levels" - so I don't think I'm incorrect. I think you just misunderstood and thought I was perhaps speaking of only 300 B.C.E. to the Macedonian invasion. Either way, we're both correct so no bother lol. PS : Hannibal could've defeated Rome. He just lacked the proper siege equipment to do so. Not to mention the Romans STUPID errors in logistics and battle at Trebia and Trasimene that Hannibal exploited. Cunning general he was.

#13 Posted by Socialist696 (558 posts) -

soldiers_race017-t.jpg

Gotta like the lorica segmentata, some seriously cool looking armour.

#14 Posted by Socialist696 (558 posts) -
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

The Mongols, probably. They would have conquered all of Europe too if Genghis Khan transfered power smoothly at his death.

Edit: or the Roman Republic if only for the sheer length of time they dominated.

blue_hazy_basic
I'd have said Mongols too, but they weren't really ancient :P

The Huns would be a pretty good substitute.
#15 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

The Mongols, probably. They would have conquered all of Europe too if Genghis Khan transfered power smoothly at his death.

Edit: or the Roman Republic if only for the sheer length of time they dominated.

Socialist696

I'd have said Mongols too, but they weren't really ancient :P

The Huns would be a pretty good substitute.

This. Not counting the barbaric ones, I'd say Rome.

This is how I always pictured the fall of Rome.

#16 Posted by Kinthalis (5340 posts) -

Rome was actually pretty great, specially in comparison to the area's it conquered/anexed prior to Roman rule. Aquaducts, public works, protection, culture, heck even religious tolerance (at least up until Christianity took over).

As cruel as they could be, their cruelty was pretty much status quo for the time period, and the benefits were significant.

#17 Posted by Socialist696 (558 posts) -
Pretty much why I just glorified them. But its undeniable they enforced their realms with harsh punishments for those who had rebellion on their mind or did wrong. Crassus sure had no problem lining the roads with Spartacus armies remnants. They had plumbing (pretty good plumbing too), firefighters and militia police to patrol, they had various cultures integrated into theirs peacefully (Greeks, Africans, Middle Easterners, some barbarian originating people) and they also made contact with China (although nothing came of it). They are also said to have made it to North America accidently and unknowingly. I read a article about Roman items turning up somewhere in the Americas (a result of a lost ship or the sort). Their healthcare was also pretty good (much more credit to the Greeks though).
#18 Posted by bnarmz (1370 posts) -
hmmm, The Han dynasty (china), and Egypt has the most interesting history (imo), their innovations and contributions to the world are still considered to be some of the best. The Macedonia and Achaemenid empires were grand but their history and contributions arent that interesting to me.
#19 Posted by lowkey254 (5906 posts) -
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

The Mongols, probably. They would have conquered all of Europe too if Genghis Khan transfered power smoothly at his death.

Edit: or the Roman Republic if only for the sheer length of time they dominated.

I agree, the Mongols would have ruled the from sea to sea if Genghis had done things "correctly".
#20 Posted by rilpas (8161 posts) -
probably the Roman or the British The Spanish empire was pretty ruthless as well Afaik the Portuguese Empire was never very imposing :P
#21 Posted by jimkabrhel (15436 posts) -

The Daleks or the Borg.

#22 Posted by GhoX (5371 posts) -
Roman Republic wasn't an ancient empire. Roman Empire was. A lot of the events you mentioned didn't take place during the Empire era, which didn't begin until the rise of Augustus.
#23 Posted by Kinthalis (5340 posts) -

Roman Republic wasn't an ancient empire. Roman Empire was. A lot of the events you mentioned didn't take place during the Empire era, which didn't begin until the rise of Augustus.GhoX

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empire

An empire does not necessarily need to be ruled by an emperor. The Roman Republic, in control of many peoples, certianly qualifies as an empire, regardless of it's governmentla structure.

Which by the way wasn't all that democratic anyway. The government was almost entirely in control of a few wealthy, land owning individuals.

#24 Posted by WiiRocks66 (3488 posts) -

The Romans.

#25 Posted by supa_badman (16666 posts) -

I'm not sure what you mean by 'imposing' TC, Romans were generally pretty lenient in terms of treating people; the women were otherwise treated well and had some rights in comparison to other ancient civilizations, even in terms of the Colosseum, prisoners were let go if people demanded it. Hell, even before Nero and Caligula, they were tolerant of the Christians so long as they didn't really bother anyone. They just started attacking them out of superstition

If there was any political system that was really imposing, I'd say the Qin (At least I think it's Qin) Dynasty in Ancient China where Legalism was the official doctrine and pretty much made everyone's life sh!tty

I stick by the Aryans though because they imposed the caste system on the Harappans and restricted women's rights, not to mention racist and were overall violent ass h**les. Romans weren't really that bad

#26 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7926 posts) -
Probably the Mongols, or if you could consider what Alexander the Great amassed to be an empire.