[QUOTE="Axrendale"]But needs a quick brush-up. Caesar gets a lot of schtick for fighting opponents many classify as inferior to Alexander. Wrong. Contrary to the opular image of them as brutes relying on little more than all-out charges to rout their enemies, the Gauls were, in many ways, anything but barbarians. They had metallurgy just as good as that of Rome, organized governments with elected officials, well-built towns and fortresses (many of which bordered on "impregnable" and were so until Caesar came along, quite often), organized religion - in short not the typical image we have of them. They were no slouches when it came to military either. By the time Caesar arrived in Gaul they had mastered the Greek Phalanx, and their own formation that they dubbed the "shield wall". Their soldiers were no slackers either. So Caesar was facing dedicated and disciplined warriors capable of organzied formations, with massive advanatges in numbers. There was a reason why, up until Caesar, no Roman force had ever managed to beat a Gallic or Germanic force without resorting to trickery of some type. Indeed, in many cases trickery was all that saved Caesar from destruction. By contrast, the Persians and Indians Alexander faced had no conept of strategy or tactics whatsoever - I think it would actually be more accurate to say that the Gauls, Germans, and Britains were far more difficult opponents than what Alexander faced (with the possible exception of the Indians, and their elephants). It is hard to really pin down what Caesar's style as a general on the battlefield was because, it is unclear if he really had one. Almost every battle he fought saw him using new tactics, different tricks, improved styles, etc. The main thing his battles have in common is that they rely chiefly on using infantry, with cavalry performing some key role that only cavalry could perform. Engineering often featured prominently. The main thing most of the battles have in common would be Caesar's legendary ability to immediatly discern any weaknesses in his opponents formations, and exploit them to the fullest possible advantage. If he couldn't do that, he would simply outsmart his enemies, or plain out outmanouver them - his troop management skills were prodigous. Perhaps the greatest example of Caesar's style of victory can be found in the Battle of Pharsalus, which took place on an open plain in Macedonia/Greece. On one side was Caesar, with 22,000 men, some 1800 cavalry. Caesar at this point was relying a lot more on defected enemy legions and new recruits - he no longer had an army of veterans - the soldiers were evenly matched, although the one advantage Caesar could accord himself was disciplined and experienced minor officers. Opposing was his rival general, Pompey the Great, up until this point considered Rome's greatest general, with some 50,000 men and 8000 cavalry. Pompey's plan was actually pretty much a rendition of Alexander's favorite strategy: use the hammer of his cavalry to smash Caesar against the anvil of his infantry. It was a good plan, and should have worked, but for Caesar's ability to spot it's single weakness: it depended on the Pompeian Cavalry breaking through his right flank. He set a trap for them with his cavalry and some 3000 infantry, who he directed in a brilliant manouver with using their javelins as pikes, which they wielded in a unqiue manner - jabbing at their opponents' faces, to completely rout the enemy cavalry. While this had been happening, 2 of Caesar's 3 lines of infantry had been duking it out with the Pompeian army - the third line had been ordered to wait in reserve. Once the enemy cavalry were routed, Caesar ordered them around to attack the enemy left flank, which soon buckled under the unexpected assult. He then sent his reserve line in to break the enemy center. Between the attack on the flank and the fesh troops in the center, Pompey's armies broke. Caesar's final brilliant move of the day was to follow up by ordering an immediate assult on Pompey's camp, playing on the shattered morale of the enemy and the jubilation of his own men. The enemy camp fell withing hours, and Pompey, the "Roman Alexander" was reduced to fleeing the field on horseback, his general's uniform abandoned. Facing an enemy outnumbering him by more than 2-1, with more than 4 times the cavalry, Caesar had lost just 200 men against 15,000 of the enemy. By that point the Pompeians knew they were beat. One of the Senators in Pompey's cam remarked to Cicero (famous Roman Orator): "We have 8 Eagles left" (meaning 8 legions). "We still outnumber Caesar. We could keep fighting". Ever the wit, Cicero mocked him: "8 Eagles left. That would be just wonderful, if we were fighting sparrows that is". Are you a history major or are you just a hobbyist? What a great post. I don't see many posts with such effort here.
Wooden pencils are horrible. Nothing is as bad as starting out with nice, small, easy to read words when the pencil is sharp and by the end of the page you are writing huge fat letters because the pencil is so dull. Everything is consistent with a mechanical pencil and you can fill it up with enough lead to last for months. The inconvenience of a broken piece of lead is nothing compared to the inconvenience of having to sharpen a wooden pencil.
I suspect wooden pencils will always be around because artists have a legitimate use for them and people like to get a sense of sophistication from using something "natural." There are always people who will want to show off how "classic" they are. Its the same reason some people still roll their own cigarettes and shave with straight razors.
[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"] Are you obsessed with disabled people?Hells_rebelion
I'm autistic.
Well so? My uncles slow and I love him to pieces, it has nothing to do with Homosexuality.
So whats the difference in your argument? Homosexuals arn't the way they're supposed to be. Disabled arn't the way they're supposed to be. So according to you disabled are wrong and deserve nothing.
No one in here was saying disabled was being wrong, but disabled people can still pork women. We weren't made to have gay intercourse or marry the same sex. Another thing, being married is a religious ceremony joining two souls done by a certified preacher/so on and so if the Bible strictly prohibits gay marriage then they shouldn't be able to get married. Also if they love eachother so much marriage or not it wont change that. /thread
Do you know how to read? If it was purely religious, the government should not have granted certain priveleges to married couples to begin with. Now that it is a governmental as well as a religious institution, the government is obligated to extend those rights to anyone who wants them.
Churches still have a choice on whether or not they want to perform the ceremony and the ones that are not operated by braindead hicks will perform gay marriages while those which are operated by reincarnated quakers from colonial pennsylvania will not.
So people who don't believe in gay marriage is a brain dead hick? Now who's the one being irrational?
[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"] Are you obsessed with disabled people?Hells_rebelion
I'm autistic.
Well so? My uncles slow and I love him to pieces, it has nothing to do with Homosexuality.
So whats the difference in your argument? Homosexuals arn't the way they're supposed to be. Disabled arn't the way they're supposed to be. So according to you disabled are wrong and deserve nothing.
No one in here was saying disabled was being wrong, but disabled people can still pork women. We weren't made to have gay intercourse or marry the same sex. Another thing, being married is a religious ceremony joining two souls done by a certified preacher/so on and so if the Bible strictly prohibits gay marriage then they shouldn't be able to get married. Also if they love eachother so much marriage or not it wont change that. /thread
Do you know how to read? If it was purely religious, the government should not have granted certain priveleges to married couples to begin with. Now that it is a governmental as well as a religious institution, the government is obligated to extend those rights to anyone who wants them.
Churches still have a choice on whether or not they want to perform the ceremony and the ones that are not operated by braindead hicks will perform gay marriages while those which are operated by reincarnated quakers from colonial pennsylvania will not.
Homosexuality is a sin. That's all there is to it. Believe it or not. I'd like to continue debating, but I cannot keep awake much longer. I'll try to continue this tomorrow if you're up to it ;).
Sam_Fisher_932
No, to have a debate you have to actually try to refute the other persons argument instead of repeat the same thing over and over using different words.
Log in to comment