Originally Posted by Aries Walker
I call BS on this statement. The greatest, longest-lasting, and widest-spread nations in history, as well as those most responsible for the greatest leaps in art, science, and philosophy - Egypt, Rome, Dynastic China, Charlemagne's HRE, the Ottoman Empire, Imperial England, the modern US, etc. - have always been almost exclusively those with strong central powers. Consequently, there is no evidence to say that decentralized governments - say, Vikings, Crusaders, the post-Charlemagne HRE, Interregnum England, right on up to modern-day Mexico - have made any less 'trouble' throughout history.
Rome invaded and conquered many countries and peoples. They couldn't do that without strong central powers. That's the kind of trouble I'm talking about. The Ottomans conquered many people and put them under their yoke too. They were also pretty nasty. Egypt was totalitarian and even conquered others for a time with t heir own empires.
You need to look at even more of those ancient empires that conquered others like Xerxes of Persia, for just one. Then there's the Colonial empires which wound up creating WWI with each other, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the Soviet Union. That much power makes them overconfident and they start wars, then they eventually decline. ALL of them.
Get the picture now?
Bill Belichick learned to film signals of opponents from the former Chiefs, and Charger's coach Schottenheimer. Others like Edwards, Johnson and Cowher did too. They learned from the CHEATS and CHEATERS who still couldn't win.