Who had more power at their absolute peak

The pyramids are monuments, not infrastructures.

>1. Was Rome's empire at its peak larger than Egypt's at its peak
Peak Rome included peak Egypt, so duh.
>2. Did Rome have a more powerful military than Egypt?
Peak Egypt was a bronze age civilization, what do you think?

I assume he was saying it required a robust infrastructure to make the construction of the pyramids possible.

when did Rome have all of Egypt under its Empire

Egypt was ruled by Ptolemaics I thought...they were greek, but not the Romans

Don't forgot getting 80 ton slabs of granite up 200 feet without the wheel or pulleys.

Somehow.

Rome conquered a lot of the stuff that Alexander had.

The successor states that cropped up after Alexander died tended to be easy pickings.

I'm not saying it's not impressive, I just think the aqueduct system is more so. I'm pretty sure most of that was just raw slave muscle following a basic design.

But this is just talking about the pyramids. They aren't even the most impressive thing the Egyptians did imo. I'm pretty sure they basically invented column architecture.

Not that most of Roman construction wasn't the same.

The Romans being the same referring to slave labor. Always check your post before hitting the button, kids.

Do you still have Rome being more powerful than Egypt at its peak in terms of size, economy, military?

>Somehow.
You put enough men at work, and it isn't so hard at all. Some nips tried doing it and found that a score men was enough to move the slabs at a speed of 18 meters per minute.

Well yeah. That's just fact. Egypt was just a province to Rome.

>when did Rome have all of Egypt under its Empire
From 30BC to 641AD.

Ancient Rome.

Though, I personally prefer Ancient Egypt as a civilization. Shame it didn't continue really.

Really grasping at straws there, bud. He's not talking about the morality of using slaves or something, hes saying they used raw muscle instead of wheels and pullies.

I'm the guy who posted both of those, and was criticizing my own formatting there. The second paragraph was inserted after the rest of it and I forgot about the last sentence until I hit post.

Rome I mean this isn't really a debatable question

Gippo cunts

how is this a debate? Rome was way beyond Egypt....

When would you say was Egypt's peak?

Probably the New Kingdom under Rameses II's rule

water elevators and canals, soaked limestone is easier to cut with bronze age tech, Water elevators run on the air pressure principle.
youtube.com/watch?v=C1y8N0ePuF8
Get a tub filled with water, get a glass,put it under water, hold the base of it up with the mouth completely submerged and put something that floats in it under water, it will rise.

as someone said earler...Peak Rome including all of Egypt...

Rome is just to big and has much more advanced weapons than Egypt

Lol at the guys even thinking of trying to advocate in favor of egypt. Rome had a larger, more professional, disciplined and better-armed army; a wealthier income, and virtually no enemies to match its size, whereas egypt, even at its peak, still had trouble with equally strong rivals.
Also lol at the guy with the pyramids argument. Pathetic really. The romans were the finest engineers of ancient history, save for a couple of single greek memorable mentions, capable of driving water for hundreds of kilometers and, when needs be, UPHILL. What are a couple of stone mounds compared to that (or to the colisseum, for that reason).

just before sea people

The new kingdom, particularly the 18th dynasty, it was the period which saw Egypt at her greatest extent (stetching the levant upto southern turkey) and most militarily powerful, most wealthy and most artistic.

agreed.....there is no debate here really

Dumb question, dumb thread.
Romans.

agreed

Rome, obviously. That's like asking if the British Empire was more powerful than the Carolingians.

On the other hand, if you asked who was more powerful in comparison to their contemporary neighbors, or who was more influential in the known world of their time, you might have an interesting question (or at least one that's not completely obvious).

Rome at its peak around 100 AD had a rival in the Parthian Empire, while Egypt at its military peak around 1250 BC had to deal with the Hittites. Both were cultural superpowers, emulated by their contemporaries and creating the greatest works of art and architecture of their times.

When seen that way, they're a lot more comparable, but even then I'd say Rome wins out at least in military power. The Egyptians didn't expand very far outside their own borders, only spreading to Canaan and Kush, relatively weak and backward areas. The Romans on the other hand conquered entire civilizations like the Etruscans, Greeks and Carthaginians. They were a true conquest state, starting as an irrelevant city state and expanding to rule the whole classical world. Egypt on the other hand was inward oriented, only expanding to bordering regions in an attempt to ensure their own security and acquire some vital resources rather than conquer the world.

>when did Rome have all of Egypt under its Empire
>Egypt was ruled by Ptolemaics I thought...they were greek, but not the Romans

Veeky Forums in a nutshell folks.

Rome. There isn't even an argument for Egypt.

How many rulers did the ptolemies get before becoming roman butt boys?

Egypt was never powerful

>who was stronger, X or Y?
>for any two comparable X and Y that peaked at different points in history

Always the one that peaked later.