Is America the Greatest Superpower in History?

[DAVIDE]

debunked like ages ago, DNA tests proved they aren't. Sadly.

they arent chinese either, closest to south europeans than chinese

again, i am asking for power projection. Like US sending troops to Iraq tens of thousands of miles away in a few weeks and take down a regime. Can Rome do that? Then Rome is not as great a superpower because its power is less than that of USA.

Rome could do that easily. But it's was a waste of military/human resources, considering china was a sort of commercial partners

[bushbush]

they arent chinese either, closest to south europeans than chinese

like xinjiang people. No they aren't roman. I was hoping they were.... it would be so awesome.

Rome could do that easily. But it's was a waste of military/human resources, considering china was a sort of commercial partnership

I don't think they could send troops to china and win a battle there. I really don't. They are restricted by technology of the time. US has the tech to do that today. That's the difference.

Rome was the USA in its own world, like china or india in their own spheres. But US is the TRUE superpower of the globe. All thanks to technology.

[Mithradates]

India was the mauryan empire...gosh...learn something about other parts of the world if you think the only great powers outside of europe was China and India (both btw were comparable to Rome)...Didn't europe get smacked by forces coming from East later? remember those people?

Im talking about the Roman Empire and not the Republic

What other great powers were around that time?

Yes, I remember to those eastern people who become powerful LATER.

(btw that was not really an answer to my post)

[bushbush]

Im talking about the Roman Empire and not the Republic

What other great powers were around that time?

Yes, I remember to those eastern people who become powerful LATER.

(btw that was not really an answer to my post)

Han dynasty and mauryan empire were the two that could match up with Rome, and they were in the same era.

[DAVIDE]

like xinjiang people. No they aren't roman. I was hoping they were.... it would be so awesome.

why not. In Yongchang has been found many roman artifacts

on the left muslim woman, center confucian scholar, right roman legionary (it's not a romans statue)

I don't think they could send troops to china and win a battle there. I really don't. They are restricted by technology of the time. US has the tech to do that today. That's the difference.

well, let's specify:

- Were romans able, to send troops in china? yes
- Were romans able to win a battle in china, against a warlord? it's depends by many factors, as the logistics etc..

Rome was the USA in its own world, like china or india in their own spheres. But US is the TRUE superpower of the globe. All thanks to technology.

Technology helps but it's not the main factor

[Mithradates]

Han dynasty and mauryan empire were the two that could match up with Rome, and they were in the same era.

Mauryan Empire 322 BC –185 BC

Roman Empire 27 BC– 476 AD

That leaves only the Han Chinese.

I don't think they could send troops to china and win a battle there. I really don't. They are restricted by technology of the time. US has the tech to do that today. That's the difference.

The Romans were restricted by technology just like the US is restricted by the form of its government so there is no difference.

[bushbush]

Mauryan Empire 322 BC –185 BC

Roman Empire 27 BC– 476 AD

That leaves only the Han Chinese..

i am talking about classical era in general.

The Romans were restricted by technology just like the US is restricted by the form of its government so there is no difference.

lol Romans weren't restricted by its own form of government? Even dictatorship had constraints....but that doesn't chagne the fact that US' dominance of teh world is way beyond that of Rome.

why not. In Yongchang has been found many roman artifacts

really? source? DNA shows those ppl aren't related to romans.

well, let's specify:

- Were romans able, to send troops in china? yes
- Were romans able to win a battle in china, against a warlord? it's depends by many factors, as the logistics etc..

Can they send troops to china? They will have to go through all the kingdoms along the way, Rome had trouble to even fully conquer the Persians....

Technology helps but it's not the main factor

to me that's the biggest difference between rome and USA.

[Mithradates]

i am talking about classical era in general.

Than the US cant be considered as a superpower if we talk about the modern era IN GENERAL too.

lol Romans weren't restricted by its own form of government? Even dictatorship had constraints....but that doesn't chagne the fact that US' dominance of teh world is way beyond that of Rome.

Its a fact because you say so?

Romans dominated the world by the most dominating way, they conqered it.

The US influences the world.

The military power of the US is irrelevant (funny, isnt it?) because only in theory can be used against 90% of the other countries but not in reality.

[bushbush]

Than the US cant be considered as a superpower if we talk about the modern era IN GENERAL too.
.

any other country in the modern era that can project its power as far and as strong and as quick as the US can? or in fact, in entire human history!1?

Its a fact because you say so?

Romans dominated the world by the most dominating way, they conqered it..

dude...they dominated like a corner of the world. They didn't dominate pretty much most of asia, africa, new world at all. They can't even send troops to most of those areas. US can. And US has done so many times. That's teh difference in dominance.

[DAVIDE]

really? source? DNA shows those ppl aren't related to romans.

and where did they take the roman dna' sample?

Can they send troops to china? They will have to go through all the kingdoms along the way, Rome had trouble to even fully conquer the Persians....

Romans had troubles just in carrhae

[redxavier]

There's some irony in the discounting of older empires because they were limited by their technological reach, centuries from now the United States too will be discounted as it was deemed they hadn't significant influence over enough planets.

Also, going by the criteria that precludes the Romans from being a superpower, i.e., they couldn't exercise control over far flung regions, how does that not also outrule the US? Aren't people grossly exaggerating the influence of the US in such countries as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. in order not to appear grotesquely hypocritical?

I voted no, as it's far too short a time period to have any kind of meaningful perspective. 20 years at most? And not as uncontested as some would have us believe. It's also more a point of the rest of the world being weak(er) at this point in history rather than the US being 'super'. Most great powers from history have had rivals to struggle against or overcome. Their victory over such rivals, their achievement of that supremacy over worthy adversaries, is precisely how and why they are considered great powers. Can a nation that rose to such prominence by filling a vaccuum truly be considered the greatest in history?

A controversial point no doubt, but when the US has been challenged, when it has contended and emerged victorious against a power that, say, actually has more power than a South American island, then can we start adding them to the list.

Also, there's more to military strength than the ability to flatten buildings. The experience of the last 50 years has made that clear. That the US cannot fight on a third front in our present only reinforces the disconnect between US projected power and the reality.

[Mithradates]

any other country in the modern era that can project its power as far and as strong and as quick as the US can? or in fact, in entire human history!1?

Any other country compared to the today's US or the US 150 years ago?
See how important 150 years can be what you just skipped when you came up with the Roman Empire failed to dominate the Mauryans thing?

dude...they dominated like a corner of the world. They didn't dominate pretty much most of asia, africa, new world at all. They can't even send troops to most of those areas. US can. And US has done so many times. That's teh difference in dominance.

The world was different back than, in the roman times ~120 million people lived on the entire planet, Rome dominated which was worth it, the great powers of its time.
Dominating quasi empty landmasses is not "domination", its a waste of resources.

Yes, Rome doesnt dominated China (just like the US isnt dominating it too)

The US cant send troops to project power to 90% of the world including Europe, India, China, Australia etc etc because that means the US must start war with them which will NOT happen.

The US army cant be used for power projection.

[Comrade the Colonel]

Any other country compared to the today's US or the US 150 years ago?

well he said modern era, so i would hope that means today

[Randarkmaan]

There's some irony in the discounting of older empires because they were limited by their technological reach, centuries from now the United States too will be discounted as it was deemed they hadn't significant influence over enough planets.

It's not about discounting or belittling older empires because of their limited technological level compared to the present. It's just stating the fact that due to technological advances that exist today and did not exist 2000 years ago, the phenomenon known as the "superpower" did exist. In fact not until very recently. You should gauge Rome by what it was in its own time. Not as something that only exists in our time, nor against powerful countries today, who's power may also rest on different foundations.

I hope you understand what I mean. What I'm trying to say is that the definition of superpower requires certain technological advances to have been made for it to be possible to apply to a country. That's it. Why is it any insult or underestimation of the power of Rome to deny their status as superpower? In their time, there were no, NONE, ZERO, superpowers in the world and they wouldn't appear before over 1500 years. Taking "superpower" into a historical evaluation of Roman power is completely irrelevant (I won't repeat why). And in fact is mostly only done in sensationalist History Channel documentaries and other popular history-articles and documentaries.

When empires have influence and control over different planets, this will also be because of technology and because of the lack of this techonlogy in previous centuries, old empires will not be deemed to have been such "powers" (whatever they may choose to call it).





Rome is overrated and has as many fanboys as the German army of WWII

[Boyar Son]

Same could be said for america. How long have we been in Afgahnistan now? 6 years?
The shortest ever war was fought by the empire, and dont you forget it.

how long did it take for Iraq to fall, both times?


thought so.

wake up people, its not like europe is gonna admit USA#1. they´d rather join together in a confederation of countries and be cooperative then do that. (acknowledging still that its because USA holds so much power over them individually).

[Gelgoog]

A controversial point no doubt, but when the US has been challenged, when it has contended and emerged victorious against a power that, say, actually has more power than a South American island, then can we start adding them to the list.

Also, there's more to military strength than the ability to flatten buildings. The experience of the last 50 years has made that clear. That the US cannot fight on a third front in our present only reinforces the disconnect between US projected power and the reality.

says who? We haven't been fighting a war since 2003, we have been "nation building"/ occupation duty dealing with insurgencies. Besides we can fight on many fronts at the same time, when you control the air and the sea, you can stop enemy movements. Russia and china might seem like big bad threats, but their airforces and navies are a joke and not up to snuff.

If you want to take a modern example of what it would take to challange the US, look at the german buildup of dreadnaughts during ww1. They realized that you do not have to match your opponent 1:1, but what you need is something like at 3:5 relation. It enables you to provide enough of a threat to decimate a good chunk of your opponents armed forces so that they would be unable to exert dominance over their theatre. So far no nation comes even close to matching to even a 3:5 relation of our sea or air power. Sure china has a large army, but it has no way to effectively feed that army when mobilized, it has no way to transport them to foreign theatres much less move them across their own territory in a timely fashion.

china is a paper tiger, when you cut off its supply chain, its troops are pretty much easy pickings.

If you ever read about the first gulf war, people think about how fast an engagement that was. In reality the buildup of forces was quite a bit slower then schwarzkopf would have liked. Since then we have greatly improved our quick reaction forces. In 72 hours we can have 10s of thousands of marines any where in the world, we have carriers and supply transports positioned all over so that they can deploy heavy equipment without having to come from the US( again its why we have hundred of military bases all over the world).

The logistical capabilities of the US to project its power is immense. Even though we have been scaling down our armed forces since the end of the cold war, our actual capabilities have expanded exponentially. One B-52 bomber today can do what entire fleet of B-17s needed for. One bomber can take on dozens of individual targets in a single run with smart munitions such as JDAM. Or one bomber can destroy an entire armor front ( literally thousands of tanks) with smart anti-tank munitions. We can infiltrate any air defense network in the entire world.

You can cry about the wars in iraq and afghanistan all you want, but the US does not have to fight an insurgency war if it does not want to.

[bushbush]

and where did they take the roman dna' sample?

didn't we have a thread awhile ago on this and the DNA test showed they aren't. I think they are testing if they are related to europeans.

Romans had troubles just in carrhae

wait, all the troubles against the Persians? the barbarians? These enemies along were already pushing the romans to the limits, let along sending more troops to conquer China and India...really impossible task, until the modern age, with the emergence of TRULY global empires like Britain and today the USA.

Any other country compared to the today's US or the US 150 years ago?
See how important 150 years can be what you just skipped when you came up with the Roman Empire failed to dominate the Mauryans thing?

um....no country in the last 150 years or in history can be compared to the US in terms of dominance...the simple fact that ROmans can't even ship troops out of its immediate areas is enough to give US the nod as the greatest, if not the only, true superpower (maybe britain can make a case too).

The world was different back than, in the roman times ~120 million people lived on the entire planet, Rome dominated which was worth it, the great powers of its time.
Dominating quasi empty landmasses is not "domination", its a waste of resources.

Yes, Rome doesnt dominated China (just like the US isnt dominating it too)

then it didn't dominate the world. You can't just use excuse like "waste of resources" lmao. the Roman known world was like what, 35% of world population? That's not even majority of the world and the rest were collustered around China and India, which headed two other worlds just as big and civilized, if not bigger and more civilized. If Roman cna't even REACH those areas, how could it be called a GLOBAL superpower?

[quote=Mithradates;5523053]
The US cant send troops to project power to 90% of the world including Europe, India, China, Australia etc etc because that means the US must start war with them which will NOT happen./quote]

why can't they? didnt they send troops europe and asia in ww2 and "project" their power? to mid-east a few times in recent years? to central and south america even at early history of USA? Rome was not even close to do that.

The US army cant be used for power projection.

lol? wut's with US' thousands of military bases around the world and a history of foreign intervention tell you then? please....

[Chukada1]

Please stop arguing that Rome was a superpower close to, equal to, or better then the United States because of your Romaphillia and your strong distaste for anything American. It is clear by the very definition of the word "Superpower" that the only two contenders can be the Soviet Union or the U.S, and it's clear which is the stronger power. I can't believe more people said no, then yes...when the answer is obviously clear. Oh well, Europeans hate Americans, what can you do?

Mithradates, you make my head hurt with your arguements.

[Norpheus]

Rome was in its world, Europe and arabia, a much stronger empire than USA. Globably, I woudl say Britain was more influent than USA is today at its peak.

[bushbush]

Rome was in its world, Europe and arabia, a much stronger empire than USA. Globably, I woudl say Britain was more influent than USA is today at its peak.

superpower = global. If you are only the big dog in your own region, you are a regional power at best.