Pyrrhus of Epirus

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising 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.

Again you fail to refute my argument. All the men I mentioned had at least lost a battle some a war. Yet they were all great some geniuses.

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?

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma 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.

I'm doubting both of those things of him, and as far as those ancient historians, like wiki said, they were a little dodgy, and yet these modern historians you are talking about are basing their work on theirs?

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Delenda est Roma 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. I'm doubting both of those things of him, and as far as those ancient historians, like wiki said, they were a little dodgy, and yet these modern historians you are talking about are basing their work on theirs?

They base them on all the available sources. Do you have any evidence otherwise?

Originally posted by 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.

Why do you say that, Delenda est Roma, is that a proven fact?

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by 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. Why do you say that, Delenda est Roma, is that a proven fact?

Yes it in fact is. If there wasn't a mortality rate we would eventually be swamped and many more would die. Your off topic again. You have yet to prove Pyrrhus wasn't a brilliant tactician or brave.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Yes it in fact is. If there wasn't a mortality rate we would eventually be swamped and many more would die. Your off topic again. You have yet to prove Pyrrhus wasn't a brilliant tactician or brave.

I'm not off topic. What I said was in respect of the events regarding the way life was seen, and so I asked you your opinion.

Edited by TheAlaniDragonRising - 19-Aug-2012 at 19:58

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Yes it in fact is. If there wasn't a mortality rate we would eventually be swamped and many more would die. Your off topic again. You have yet to prove Pyrrhus wasn't a brilliant tactician or brave. I'm not off topic, and it's "you're" not "your".

Yes you are in fact off topic. Don't even start with grammar. I've seen numerous posts by you so disjointed it wasn't funny. Only when someone has no argument do they stoop to nitpicking and insults. You have yet to prove Pyrrhus not to be a brave or brilliant tactically man.

EDIT

Edited by Delenda est Roma - 19-Aug-2012 at 21:04

Awe and this was so much fun to watch.

In point though this was a history argument and your trying to turn it into a morality argument. We have a very good philosophy topic just for this reason. Also Alani(don't know your real name) Delanda(don't know your real name) has a point about the choice of historians. You can't insult someones choice of historians and then post a wikipedia topic.

Semper Fidelis