The oldest civilization were not found in the middle east. . . the were found in Europe.
that depends on what you count as civilisation-i prefer the strict definition that limits civilization to settled people, and with this in mind, the forst civilizations were found in the middle east, in the preceramic neolithic period(about 8k b.c). however, when i mentioned the term in my last post, i was thinking about an actual state, encompassing more than a few tribes, united under single place of rule, able to sustain large settlements, like in the middle east. in europe many cultures were able to large'ish settlements, but they seemd to be lacking a single unified rulership, instead always remiaing as divided tribes or tribal groups(its entirely possible that there were such groups, but no trace was left of it, so we can't be certain)
human sacrifing
well, actually human sacrifice was a rather widespread thing at the time iirc, so i wouldn't blame it on propaganda entirely.
the 1 million dead Gauls is not a reliable figure. The only evidence for it comes from Caesar's "Gallic Wars" a propaganda piece he wrote to boost his political standing "Look how many of the Gallic enemy I have killed"

Rome was notorious for drumming up the numbers of defeated foes to make their victories seem even greater. Remember Roman armies were led by Consuls and Legates, the equivalent of Tony Blair or George Bush going out into battle and reporting back "I have killed 100,000 enemies in battle!"
Well, like at the battle of Alesia the Gauls sent, according to Caesar, 250,000 men to rescue Vercingetorix. Estimates today say it was approximately 100,000.

Seriously, we're talking about armies that literally covered the landscapes during the Anchient times, but 1,000,000 men total? That's a bit far-fetched even for a claim.
Richgo22 said:
1 million dead reads: 1 000 000 dead.

The most of them would be civilians, as in most wars . . .

but you are taking Caesar's word for it with no corrobarative evidence when we know from other sources that he inflated the numbers of enemies in other battles and wars!
Hiromoon said:
Do we even know if that's an actual number from the book, or are we going by what Richgo's said?

I've not read "Gallic Wars" but I have read the quote in my ancient history studies. Every historian takes it with a large pinch of sodium chloride
Hiromoon said:
I'd argue that neither the Germans nor the British are badly equipped, and while the Germans are lacking in actual combat experience right now, they're no worse off than the average Western World soldier. Why? It's do to NATO joint excersises that include war games and training across all NATO countries (plus a few non-aligned countries too... I'm looking at you, Finland).

Not badly equipped but not as well equipped as they should be.

As for wargames- they cant help you when it comes to the real thing all that much. They help but an actual combat veteran is far better.
I think the perception has long been that the US soldier gets the best kit due to their huge defence budget, where the British soldiers made do with what could be afforded.

However the war in Iraq seems to have shown up just how tired those cliches might be, certainly many US army units appeared to be ill equipped themselves. The notion of the yanks having lots of toys may just be a cliche
Well, we yanks were just having issues with putting out body armor and HMMWV without armor...not that the HMMWV was supposed to be fulfilling that role....
I think the US has a massively higher defense budget but the reason they never seemed to run out before was because the small group fighting could use everyone elses kit. Now everyone is fighting they cant nick the kit.

British soldiers are criminally badly equipped, but what does one expect from a Government like ours.