No comment...

Unnecessary much?

@RVDondaPC

I understand your point of view and it's valid, I was just trying to use that as a measurement between empires. In past eras, armies we're comprised almost exclusevily of soldiers that's true, but, beginning with the Persian empire, they also had a massive logistical support as well, because for every soldier they needed to have at least two or three civilians, slaves or actual non-combatant soldiers to carry out food, supplies, blacksmith tools, tents, hunting tools, and even more, so you see how that would add up in the end. An army of 2 million combatants would have had at least 5+ non-combatants.

Today's technology can't also be used as a comparison, given the tools we now have at our disposition far outweigh what ancient empires had at their disposal.

My entire point was that most people throw around that the US is history's most powerful superpower without doing a proper research on history and putting things in the context of the era that they belonged, in that aspect, you may ask any proper History researcher and the answer you'll get will be between the British empire, Mongol empire, Macedonian empire and Persian empire. Even the romans weren't as powerful, contextually, as these ones

I've been gone for a few days but I just wanted to say this. A lot of people keep saying that if the United States put its total effort behind a war that no country would stand the slightest chance. Have we so easily forgotten Vietnam? Anyone that thinks the US didn't put their full military might behind that war clearly does not understand history.
The US is built on a relatively fragile economic system as has been seen recently, to think that countries like Russia and China could not severely damage our economy and challenge our military is wishful thinking.