Samurai vs. Spartans vs. Vikings vs. Knights

The Romans didn't have...what? Are you seriously that...not smart? Have you seen Rome?

Sorry, that just seals it right there. From the moment I saw this thread created I knew it needed to die, and fast. But that just does it all in. Where the devil do you people come from? Seriously.

This grew to another page while I was typing. Either I'm typing slower or you guys got an early start. Either way, this needs to stop some nine pages ago. It hurts my brain.

I edited my last post with additional info so go back and read.

Chop, Romans considered Ireland and Scotland barren wastelands of grass. Not even timber. They wanted lands that they could mine for what they considered precious resources.

Rickwilly, reason why no one wants to include Romans is because it is a no contest

I voted Spartans because they come close to Romans
(plus I am Spartan by heritage)

Everything I said is based on historical college level lectures that I take on a regular basis.

it would be cool to see a simulated battle of these 4

I wouldn't give the Romans such an aura of invincibility. Yes they built the largest empire to date and kept it alive for nearly 600 years (WEST) and almost a millenia in the east (Byzantium), but if ability to conquer and quasi invincibility is the term, then what about the Arab conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries covering almost all Spain, north africa all the middle east save Anatolia, Persia, and the borders of India? In their wake they defeated the finest cavalry in the world at that time namely the Byzantine and Sassanian cavalry NO SWEAT (Byzantine and Sassanian cataphracts were the best cavalry in that age no contest). Their empire subdivided but with the exception of the Spanish Reconquista, all the Muslim conquered lands remained such. And if we want truly invincibility aura let's talk about the largest land empire ever built, not by Spartans, Vikings, knights or samurai, but by pony riding "heathens from hell" as the Mongols were named by their victims. Combining light and heavy cavalry, assimilating war technologies from their defeated foes (Chinese war engineers, employing heavier armored cavalry like the Persian Khwarizm and the Armenians to mention a few). Liegnitz, even with all what Ramm likes to argue and say was full of Teutonic knights who got slaughtered by the Mongols. But then we are also leaving out of picture the Mamluks of Egypt, who defeated the Mongols decisively at Ain Jalut, halting their Mid-East invasion, and forced the last remnants of the Crusaders out of Outremer, keeping themselves a force to reckon until the 19th century, when Napoleon vanquished them. So don't gimme this "ROMAN SUPERIUM SOLDATA QUANTICUM"

Then I suggest that you consider attending lectures elsewhere, especially in view of that last howler that you posted about the Romans considering Ireland and Scotland "barren wastelands of grass." Yielding "Not even timber."
I can't speak for Ireland but I do know that the Romans called scotland
"Caledonia" which means something like "wooded lands" this probably refers to the fact that much of ancient Scotland was covered by the vast Caledonian forest.
www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.visi.html

You hit the nail on the head there tsaf. ;D

In the case of the Romans Scottish adventures Tacitus seems to be the prime suspect in this instance; Mons Graupius,
the stirring speech attributed by him to Calgacus etc.

What's the point? Nothing's going to change, because you don't know as much about any of the civilizations as you obviously think you do.