Pyrrhus of Epirus

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Say the person who posts from Wiki. You made a blanket statement. How wereh tey dodgy? Their were quite a few authors on these events not just the two. The fact their accounts mostly corroborate help. So again your attempts to degrade historians are foiled. You have to remember these are ancient historians not modern. Hey, you named two, I looked them up on wiki, and guess what? They are dodgy in some things they write. The modern historians, I guess they do their work based on these dodgy ancient historians?

So thats it you have no evidence to prove me wrong and so have to stoop to trolling? You haven't provided any evidence to back your claims so far.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Say the person who posts from Wiki. You made a blanket statement. How wereh tey dodgy? Their were quite a few authors on these events not just the two. The fact their accounts mostly corroborate help. So again your attempts to degrade historians are foiled. You have to remember these are ancient historians not modern.

Hey, you named two, I looked them up on wiki, and guess what? They are dodgy in some things they write. The modern historians, I guess they do their work based on these dodgy ancient historians?

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Delenda est Roma   They base them on all the available sources. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Those quotes from wiki definitely suggested those ancient historians could be dodgy at times, including the use of fabrication of a character's attributes. This doesn't sound like a good basis for a source who could be class as being totally reliable, does it Delenda est Roma?

Say the person who posts from Wiki. You made a blanket statement. How wereh tey dodgy? Their were quite a few authors on these events not just the two. The fact their accounts mostly corroborate help. So again your attempts to degrade historians are foiled. You have to remember these are ancient historians not modern.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma   They base them on all the available sources. Do you have any evidence otherwise?

Those quotes from wiki definitely suggested those ancient historians could be dodgy at times, including the use of fabrication of a character's attributes. This doesn't sound like a good basis for a source who could be class as being totally reliable, does it Delenda est Roma?  

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Delenda est Roma The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. He did what needed to do and did it well. So you believe in inequality over equality then Delenda est Roma?

I support the fact that some most die so the many can live.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. He did what needed to do and did it well.

So you believe in inequality over equality then Delenda est Roma?

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Delenda est Roma  He lived to fight again and so he did. He fought till the day he died. He was a warrior through and through. Your argument has no merit whatsoever. His stratagem was brilliant and worked. If he died his whole army was lost so he saved lives. You have no argument. He was tactically brilliant and brave. I provided my evidence you opinions. And yet he decided that the life of one of his own men was worthless. If he was so tactically brilliant then why would he have needed to hide in the first place, wouldn't a fabulous tactician not have found a better formation?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. He did what needed to do and did it well.

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Delenda est Roma What exactly is your point if you posess one at all? In regards to which part?

I stated Pyrrhus was tactically brilliant and brave. The ancients and most modern historians agree with me. Actually I've never heard otherwise.

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Braver the man who lives to fight another day than the one who dies in vain. So the other man dies for the so called leader's folly. This could very well mean that every coward in history has been wronged, for they are within a band of those mortals known as the brave. No I don't think so.

He lived to fight again and so he did. He fought till the day he died. He was a warrior through and through. Your argument has no merit whatsoever. His stratagem was brilliant and worked. If he died his whole army was lost so he saved lives. You have no argument. He was tactically brilliant and brave. I provided my evidence you opinions.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma  Tut tut. You do know the meaning of tactical correct? Tactics are for battles not campaigns which is what I stated. He was a wizard TACTICALLY. Napoleon a loser? I recommend you read a history book on him look at Austerlitz or Ulm. His Italian campaign or Austrian Campaigns. Hannibal presented us with Cannae, Gustavus Adolphus with Breteinfield and revolutionized warfare, Demetrius recognized seapower and won numerous canpaigns and battles. Lee also beat his numerically superior opponents. If you would like to call them losers back up your false accusations. Can you produce a single source to call any of these men less than a compotent general? Just one? If you read any of their achievements you would be ashamed and if you did an still spoke ignorantly this conversation is worthless.

Tactics are for battles and not for campaigns, how very novel. As for the others being losers, I noted what you yourself had said, you said they all lost.