This chart is similar to how much pizza they ate. Coincidence?
Printable View
This chart is similar to how much pizza they ate. Coincidence?
I think not!
I feel I have been in all 4 quadrants at different points of my career
Can someone do an analysis of monarchs of the top 20 kds or so? :D
i can mail you the .xlsx, godly - needs excel 2013 though, otherwise you cant put labels on the datapoints without a tedious macro
also munk, what you say can be sort of true (though hard to imagine), but a spot on the chart isnt necessarily indicative of each 'quality', just how badly any of the qualities impact your fail. So in the case of swappy, i dont detect a lot of malice but his ego is galactic, and it does bring some nasty things to the table occasionally.
Shangri-La, fun facts about Texas: click here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shangri-La
Texas has the lowest number of highschool graduates (50th place), and are 30th and 33rd in Bachelor / Advanced degree. If I were a monarch, I would avoid Texans :D
Galactic ego lol
Nothing wrong knowin how good you are!!
I am leader of the greatest kingdom in the history of Utopia.
That implys that the greatest KD in the history of utopia is active today....
yes. called spartans, which is the greatest Kingdom.in the history of Utopia.
Pft stop trolling now :) but its good with confidence! Eventhough pepp hates it!
Sparta is the greatest kingdom in the history of the world. Or rather, it was. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
Btw, going to Sparta again in 3 weeks! Such a beautiful place! :)
No it wasn't...Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffi
Yeah I know. It's The Ohio State Buckeyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
I agree that IRL historical Sparta at best was a powerful local state in a corner of the world. However, the exploits of utopia's Sparta cannot be overlooked, both in longevity and achievement (perhaps more so in longevity).Quote:
No it wasn't...
well, you sort of have to compare powers to what other powers existed at the time.
When you claim Sparta wasnthe greatest kingdom in the _history of the world_ I don't think so :pQuote:
Originally Posted by tetley
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/a...empire_map.gifQuote:
well, you sort of have to compare powers to what other powers existed at the time.
Sparta is somewhere at the left.
I mean, stoffi's comment is kind of a category error. Sparta was just a city-state, not a kingdom... it obviously doesn't come close to other powers in terms of size, military might etc. But like you say, real life longevity matters too - the Achaemenid empire lasted like 200 years, Sparta lasted for 700.
Uh, "it obviously doesn't come close to other powers in terms of size, military might etc."Quote:
Originally Posted by tetley
Sparta from ~650 BC until 371 BC was the single most formidable land power in the world though.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...%2C_490_BC.png
Map is not contemporary with the time of the expedition, as by 400 BC Persia had lost Cyprus and any foothold in the Balkans. Still, 10,000 Greek mercenaries under a Spartan general travelled half way across the Persian Empire, #rekt everything in their path, and then fought their way back home through hostile territory.
Sparta also won the Peloponnesian War against Athens, which at the time commanded an Empire that destroy the entire Persian Mediterranean fleet and defeated multiple Persian forces on the Ionian Coast without consequence.
I can't fathom why anybody would ever compare the Greek states to the Persian Empire. It is like comparing a thumb tack to a balloon...
Orientalist writing has done a very good job at downplaying the achievements of the "weak" persians. Suffice to say that Cyrus the Conqueror did pretty much what Alexander did, only 200 years earlier. If you look at the history it is striking that wider Iranian cultural zone has time and again been overrun by conquerors who managed to take control of the territory relatively quickly (Cyrus, Alexander, Arsaces I, Aradshir, Rashidun Caliphate, Timur Lenk, the Mongols etc.). History is full of tales of fringe people conquering their more "developed" neighbors. An interesting theory on this was posed in the Muqaddima by the 14th century historian Ibn Khaldun through the concept of Asabiyya or "solidarity".
Anyways, if we're talking about military strength there is no doubt neither the Greeks nor Persians would stand a chance against Zhao or Qin (especially after the reforms of Shang Yang). The various Chinese states fielded huge forces of both conscripts and professional soldiers. At the battle of Changping for instance close to a million soldiers were involved in the battling.
"rich bouquet of fail" lol
I also would love to see monarchs of top 20 kds on a chart like this :p
With the help of Persia and a massive blunder by Athens. It's not like they just marched in wrecked them or something lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
looks like a good place to drop a bomb... trump trump trumpQuote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
Disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
Disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
Pillz seems to be proving both arguments I made but under the pretense of disagreeing with something I said.
A million soldiers battling would have been a sight to behold.
I think all monarchs should do a "player fail" quadrant and post them here. I'm constructing mine atm
Dunno where you got that from. But we aren't discussing Cyrus vs. Alexander, but rather Sparta's prestige and position during classical antiquity. Cyrus never fought the Spartans, else he wouldn't be called the Great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
I agree the Persians are persistent, but I hope you're not referring to the Greeks as an undeveloped fringe people. Not to mention that 200 years without a Persian victory over Greeks since the Ionian Revolt is ridiculously embarrassing for what was undoubtedly the world's largest Empire to date.Quote:
If you look at the history it is striking that wider Iranian cultural zone has time and again been overrun by conquerors who managed to take control of the territory relatively quickly (Cyrus, Alexander, Arsaces I, Aradshir, Rashidun Caliphate, Timur Lenk, the Mongols etc.). History is full of tales of fringe people conquering their more "developed" neighbors.
I don't know much about Chinese antiquity except they were like the last civilization on Earth to invent writing independently. But until 10,000 Chinese are shown to have bested an entire Empire the size and scale of Persia, I will stand by my statement.Quote:
Anyways, if we're talking about military strength there is no doubt neither the Greeks nor Persians would stand a chance against Zhao or Qin (especially after the reforms of Shang Yang). The various Chinese states fielded huge forces of both conscripts and professional soldiers. At the battle of Changping for instance close to a million soldiers were involved in the battling.
Conversely, why would anybody believe the Chinese? I doubt they're much more reliable than the Greeks, Romans, or Persians when it comes to reporting troop strengths for large battles.
Quote:
With the help of Persia and a massive blunder by Athens. It's not like they just marched in wrecked them or something lol
- Persia conquers Lydia and takes the Ionian Greek city states
- Athens instigates revolt against Persia and burns down the captial
- Persia invades Greece and gets BTFO
- Persia invades Greece and gets BTFO
- Greece ransacks Persia and Persian sympathizers along the Ionian Coast and in Thrace without notable resistence
- Athens defeated in Egypt by Persians, finally
- Athens destroys the entire Persian fleet without notable resistance
- Athens takes Cyprus - resistance is met!!! and pestilence strikes
- Greece has the bloodiest and most costly war in it's history (to that point) in the form of the Peloponnesian War (Persia backs both sides to weaken the Greek states)
- 10,000 Greeks ransack the Persian Empire for months on end
- Greece is subjugated by Macedonians (Greek barbarians)
- Greco-Macedonian Army obliterates Persia
Abridged version of Greco-Presian military history until the rise of the Parthians.... Pretty one-sided 200 years imo
Tl:dr
Some say the movie 300 was not a Hollywood production but filmed by the romans! Bart was also walking around that time kicken persians ass.
The Greeks were a fringe people. Yes, the Persians did send expeditions to try to subdue them, but it was never more than a border-nuisance. It was a combination of internal troubles and unification under Macedon rulership that led to the hellenistic conquest, just as the Arabs were able to conquer their large Empire due to the fact both the Roman and Sasanian Empires were exhausted.Quote:
I agree the Persians are persistent, but I hope you're not referring to the Greeks as an undeveloped fringe people. Not to mention that 200 years without a Persian victory over Greeks since the Ionian Revolt is ridiculously embarrassing for what was undoubtedly the world's largest Empire to date.
Size isn't all, population is what matters. Yes the achaemenid Empire was big, but its population wasn't.. It is true that Chinese civilization is "only" about 3000-3500 years old. Yes writing was invented later than in the fertile crescent.Quote:
I don't know much about Chinese antiquity except they were like the last civilization on Earth to invent writing independently. But until 10,000 Chinese are shown to have bested an entire Empire the size and scale of Persia, I will stand by my statement.
Conversely, why would anybody believe the Chinese? I doubt they're much more reliable than the Greeks, Romans, or Persians when it comes to reporting troop strengths for large battles.
Your second point however is erroneous. The Chinese already were way ahead of anything the Middle East or the West could offer in the fields of administration and standardization. The Chinese already invented a form of pre-modern Fordism, whereby weapons and tools were mass produced. Each tool carried the signs that allowed the user to retrace it to the exact place it was fabricated, and when.
As said, the Greeks lived on the fringes of the "Perso-Iranian" world. The technology of the time simply did not allow the Empire to stretch out even further, as keeping it together in its current state was hard enough. The Empire was plagued by internal struggles and rebellions. It is therefore no wonder that Alexander's "Empire" fell apart right after his death. The Greeks were never a mortal threat to the Persians (who in their turn were just a minority ruling a kaleidoscope of different people).Quote:
Abridged version of Greco-Presian military history until the rise of the Parthians.... Pretty one-sided 200 years imo
Hi peppie, Six years ago I was in a good KD and I would have been in the bottom right quad. Not for the reasons you posted. I was a clueless nub. I wanted everyone to match my activity. Log in 3-4 times per day. Army in/Army out, and posted such many times. I was too aggressive, and abusive.
I did not think about RL. School, jobs, children, rental units, even pets. Also we only had 21 provs and fought good KDs of 25. We also had 2-3 ppl in vacation at all times as most KDs do. We wound up 4/3 in WW. I was a normal mate oow, I only ranted during wars. I was asked to leave eoa cause of the drama. Another casualty of clueless nub syndrome. Thats too bad as they were the best KD I was ever in and we would have been better the next age...
t00t, you don't know what ya got til its gone
ps isn't Greece the lowest standard of living in all of Europe?
Exactly how Iranian-centric are you trying to be here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
http://i.imgur.com/uUMx81m.png
Pic related is the Mediterranean and Asia Minor prior to Cyrus' conquests. Illyrians, Thracians, and Dacians were full barbarians. Noticed the extent of Greek colonization. Persia took all of Anatolia, some of the Black Sea, some of Thrace, the Levant, and Egypt. Greece thus sat on the fringe only by virtual of remaining independent.
I can't be ****ed to find it now, but evidence of Mycenaean settlements(c. 1600 - 1100 BC) were present in Italy, Sicily, Sardina, and Spain as well as the Ionian Coast. During 1300-1200 BC at least an Mycenaean citadel was waging war against the Hittites. So they weren't even a fringe military power in their infant stage...
Until the Medes/Persians moved west ward (Lydia, Phoenicia, Egypt, Babylon) their primary conquests consisted of mountain goat ****ers.
Lulz. Are you being serious? The Persians committed considerable resources to subduing Athens (their issue was with Athens). The two successively largest invasions in history to that point, in fact. Destroying your capital, entire fleet, and ransacking your holdings for 100+ years seems like a significant 'nuisance'.Quote:
Yes, the Persians did send expeditions to try to subdue them, but it was never more than a border-nuisance.
Well, internal troubles are bound to happen when your eastern provinces revolt bi-annually and your western border is open to attack on the whim of some fringe peoples lulQuote:
It was a combination of internal troubles and unification under Macedon rulership that led to the hellenistic conquest
Wikipedia says a low estimate of 17 million, I admittedly have never read any scholarly sources dealing with the Persian Empire's population, but since they controlled 3 of the most fertile zones in the Near East/Eastern Med I doubt they didn't have a very large population.Quote:
Size isn't all, population is what matters. Yes the achaemenid Empire was big, but its population wasn't.
When was this, because the Greeks were already applying this technique to the construction of their temples and public works to monitor worksmanship and manage payroll. But good on the Chinese for implementing another layer of bureaucracy to the conscription process. Anything to inch out a little more quality.Quote:
Your second point however is erroneous. The Chinese already were way ahead of anything the Middle East or the West could offer in the fields of administration and standardization. The Chinese already invented a form of pre-modern Fordism, whereby weapons and tools were mass produced. Each tool carried the signs that allowed the user to retrace it to the exact place it was fabricated, and when.
Persians shoulda smartened up and cut the Bactrians, would have saved them trouble and maybe saved their Empire.Quote:
The technology of the time simply did not allow the Empire to stretch out even further, as keeping it together in its current state was hard enough. The Empire was plagued by internal struggles and rebellions. It is therefore no wonder that Alexander's "Empire" fell apart right after his death.
Alexander's Empire disintegrated for purely political reasons. To say otherwise is purely speculative. There can also be no comparison drawn between Alexander's Empire and the Seleucid when discussing the Asian territories, because of fundamental differences in Alexander and Seleucus' management and vision (in case you go there).
To say the Greeks were no threat to the Persians when the Greeks repeatedly and unequivocally #rekt them and finally conquered and subjugated them is laughable.
And the point I made originally was that, for it's time, say 650 BC until 371 BC, Sparta was the single most formidable land power in the known world. You've yet to successfully refute this.
While I generally agree with you, there's a few things that make this just generally tough to refute, but not necessarily trueQuote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
1. You haven't really given a definition of what "most formidable land army" actually entitles or how to measure a land army's greatness. Battles won? Size of the empire? Longevity?
2. Sparta's most direct competition (Athens) had a completely different type of army, so any victories over them or defeats suffered doesn't equate to having a more formidable land army.
3. Victories/defeats themselves aren't necessarily a display of who has a more formidable army. The United States most had a less formidable army than Great Britain, but we still won. There are tons of historical examples of the "underdogs" beating the mighty empires. The issues are usually outside stuff like economies, terrain knowledge, ect, which even further mucks up any "Who has the baddest army in the world" talks
4. Could the Spartans have beaten the Chinese? Or the Gaul? Or Egypt? Any argument for or against is pure conjecture so nothing is really "proof"
The context is 650 BC to 371 BC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Sparta was the most feared city in Greece, nobody wanted to fight them. Athens wasn't a competitor until their balls dropped at Marathon, and they were still second fiddle to Sparta until Pausanias' betrayal and the pan-hellenic rejection of Sparta. That gave way to the Delian League aka the Athenian Maritime Empire, which Sparta defeated.
I've covered the Greco-Persian history. Most victories were not Spartan, but given that Sparta was still considered the preeminent land power in Greece until 371 BC, and did participate in several successful campaigns against Persia, they win there. We're not discussing the greatest Empires or the longest running, just military might.
Egypt used light infantry similar to Persia's, so yes, a Spartan army would have likely defeated an Egyptian army.
If the Romans could defeat the Gauls it's likely that any Greek force would have as well in a pitched battle. This is speculative, yes, I'm not even sure the Greek colonies in Iberia and France had to contend with Gauls or if they fought other barbarians.
Bart is our China expert I guess. I know nothing of Chinese history outside of the history of the development of their script and how contentious that is for the chinks.
u wut m8Quote:
2. Sparta's most direct competition (Athens) had a completely different type of army, so any victories over them or defeats suffered doesn't equate to having a more formidable land army.
Why does it matter? If they fought on land and won, that is proof of a more formidable land army. Keep in mind that easily half of all Greek citiesin Greece proper, most of the Aegean, and pretty much all of the Black Sea/Thracian/Macedonian colonies were under Athenian control. So Spartans engagements would have not only been against Athenian hoplites, depending on who was revolting against Athens at the time and where the fighting occurred.
My point was that if I cite a conflict where Athens beats Sparta, you need only say "Yea, but their navy won that for them" because that was usually the case. Their navy did a lot of work for their ground forces. It matters because it really takes the wind of any arguments sails. The way you're phrasing it just sort of auto-wins for you without you necessarily having the right idea. You might as well word it as "Sparta had the best collection of Spartans"...well yea lol. Warfare isn't just land armies so your argument really isn't encompassing of what I think you're trying to argue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
Only thing the Athenian Navy won them was the ability to spread the plague to more of their strong holds tho, in all honestly.
I disagree on Spartans being the most formidable in history, but during their time...sure.
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one