LOL @ Bama

Everyone is scared to play them.

They are so desperate they'll even take a home-and-home.....unbelievable

doogsinparadise said:

Ask for $5mil and a neutral site. They might just go for it.

Neutral sites to the SEC are 200 miles or less from their home cities. Oregon played LSU at the completely neutral Cowboy Stadium.

oregonblitzkrieg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

AZDuck said:

Part of the issue is that Bama wants their home game first. You know they will cancel the return trip. I actually respect Pool Boy and any other AD who would demand that they travel on the front end.

I say fuck the respect and we take our asses to Tuscaloosa regardless of whether they go to Eugene or not. If you fight Rome you go to Rome, you don't demand that they travel to Specka Onna Mappia.

Terrible fucking analogy, as usual.

A powerful empire like Rome should be able to take the fight to the road.

You know, that's kinda how they got a fucking empire in the first place.


Please die in a fire.

Hannibal, Rome's greatest opponent, disagrees.

Another terrible analogy. Rome eventually defeated Hannibal rather easily, and then went on to rape Carthage and sow the fields with salt.

Rome's greatest opponent was its own crippling corruption

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

AZDuck said:

Part of the issue is that Bama wants their home game first. You know they will cancel the return trip. I actually respect Pool Boy and any other AD who would demand that they travel on the front end.

I say fuck the respect and we take our asses to Tuscaloosa regardless of whether they go to Eugene or not. If you fight Rome you go to Rome, you don't demand that they travel to Specka Onna Mappia.

Terrible fucking analogy, as usual.

A powerful empire like Rome should be able to take the fight to the road.

You know, that's kinda how they got a fucking empire in the first place.


Please die in a fire.

Hannibal, Rome's greatest opponent, disagrees.

Another terrible analogy. Rome eventually defeated Hannibal rather easily, and then went on to rape Carthage and sow the fields with salt.

Rome's greatest opponent was its own crippling corruption

If you think they defeated Hannibal 34-17 you need to hit the history books again brah. Try a herd of motherfucking elephants over the Alps. That guy wasn't a pussy.

AZDuck said:

Rome razed Carthage and sowed the land with salt. If that isn't winning rather easily, say, 34-17, I don't know what is.

Your eyes are as good as mine.

Winning rather easily, say 34-17 is Caesar setting foot over the Rubicon. You're only looking at the second half.

"Hannibal of Carthage was the most formidable and ingenious enemy that Rome ever faced. He was the driving force and mastermind behind the Second Punic War, which was a drawn out, disastrous, and nearly fatal struggle for Rome. Although at the time the war broke out, Rome was a very established power, and seemed to have the decided advantage, Hannibal's military genius, and propensity for brilliantly exploiting Rome's internal divisions and weaknesses nearly destroyed the city. Hannibal's brilliant military stratagems, as well as the missteps and defensive strategies of the Roman generals are still studied in military history today."

oregonblitzkrieg said:

AZDuck said:

Rome razed Carthage and sowed the land with salt. If that isn't winning rather easily, say, 34-17, I don't know what is.

Your eyes are as good as mine.

Winning rather easily, say 34-17 is Caesar setting foot over the Rubicon. You're only looking at the second half.

"Hannibal of Carthage was the most formidable and ingenious enemy that Rome ever faced. He was the driving force and mastermind behind the Second Punic War, which was a drawn out, disastrous, and nearly fatal struggle for Rome. Although at the time the war broke out, Rome was a very established power, and seemed to have the decided advantage, Hannibal's military genius, and propensity for brilliantly exploiting Rome's internal divisions and weaknesses nearly destroyed the city. Hannibal's brilliant military stratagems, as well as the missteps and defensive strategies of the Roman generals are still studied in military history today."

"The war was to a considerable extent initiated by Rome, but is marked by Hannibal's surprising overland journey and his costly crossing of the Alps, followed by his reinforcement by Gallic allies and crushing victories over Roman armies in the battle of the Trebia and the giant ambush at Trasimene. In the following year (216), Hannibal's army defeated the Romans again, this time in southern Italy at Cannae. In consequence of these defeats, many Roman allies went over to Carthage, prolonging the war in Italy for over a decade. Against Hannibal's skill on the battlefield, the Romans deployed the Fabian strategy. Roman forces were more capable in siegecraft than the Carthaginians and recaptured all of the major cities that had joined the enemy, as well as defeating a Carthaginian attempt to reinforce Hannibal at the battle of the Metaurus. In the meantime, in Iberia, which served as the main source of manpower for the Carthaginian army, a second Roman expedition under Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major took Carthago Nova by assault and ended Carthaginian rule over Iberia in the battle of Ilipa. The final showdown was the Battle of Zama in Africa between Scipio Africanus and Hannibal, resulting in the latter's defeat and the imposition of harsh peace conditions on Carthage, which ceased to be a major power and became a Roman client-state."







Sounds to me like Carthage got off to a pretty decent start, say 17-6?

Then Rome came back in the second half, scored 28 straight points, and fucking took over all of Cathage's empire.

Rather easily.

AtomicDawg said:

we want bama

Crisped

Roman Empire superiority guys uitb

Looks like the Romans just needed to wait until Scipio Africanus got his own guys in there.


(seriously everyone should watch HBO's Rome if they havent already. Great show)