I’m mostly staying out of this conversation now…as it’s really nothing more than this “Q” guy posting nonsense, but I couldn’t resist this…
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;60852]When I told you dancing was not banned in India, you said to me, “I don’t trust you”[/QUOTE]
LOL. “Q” thinks dancing is banned in India? Has the guy never heard of BOLLYWOOD? For goodness’ sake!
[QUOTE=Quetzalcoatl;60849]Hi vimoh,
actually I wanted to reply to your reincarnation and karma-reply, but now go with this. Maybe I’ll drop the religious stuff overall, my time is sorta limited and the politics are more interesting to me.
I would go with that, yes, any horde a civilisation. I’m, though, not so sure what a horde now is. Germanic people of Indias prime I would consider civilisations for example. However, I don’t think there are hordes involved here, unless you want to call any conquerer of India a horde.
No, it means that Athens was not superior to Sparta.
Not really. To put things in perspective you have to understand that my innocent questions are simply a reaction to the performance of Surya Asura and Nietzsche. Neither me, nor any other member of this board ever came forth and spoke of the superiority of one, and the inferiority of another culture or civilisation. I think this whole concept is plain and simply bullshit, even if it’s the case. You know, even if one civilisation is ahead of another, it’s bullshit to point that out over and over again. But: These guys do exactly that, latest example:
New age spirituality: Stupid Yoga
Makes a decent person :roll:. Also you might have noted that whatever I say I get the spam from these guys. They want to shut me up, you know. They’ve done it dozens of times before with other people. But as I said: I’m stubborn and don’t drop it. That, again, blows the whole thing out of proportion too. However. :lol:
The “discussion” about occupation and conquest works like this:
Culture A had the good life in a great part of the world, lots of food, great climate, fish are jumping and the living is easy. The people have enough time to care about technology, philosophy, and so forth. Culture B is not so fortunate, has not so much food, faces a long and hard winter every year, has to work a lot harder to survive, has less time to care about sanitation-systems and philosophy.
But culture B grows physically strong and learns very well how to fight and then pays culture A a visit, and sacks it. Takes the land with the lot of food and the great climate and now lives the easy life.
Now which culture is superior? The one that invented a flush toilet and has a ton of fancy scriptures on philosophy, or the one that subdued these intellectuals? If you want to evaluate which culture is superior, you can’t just isolate an area that you think is neat. Sure are philosophy and arts more likable than crushing skulls. But what do these virtues mean to a crushed skull?
Get the point? It’s really simple. That India had the greater philosophy and all, man I had admitted it ages ago. Pointing out what I just mentioned would receive a “that’s indeed a good point” from a decent guy. From freaks like Nietzsche and Surya Deva one receives hysterical insults and that’s where we standing right now in this forum.
And additionally, as I admitted, I am not mentionably knowledgable in India’s history + it’s probably depicted wrong by Surya Asura, who was my basic source of information about it. I guess he was just whining in his depictions to present India as the eternal victim. I had done some minor research before and indeed it looked like India was a very peaceful culture with barely a war going on. All I had found before recent researches were a few very brief incidents with only a very few casualties.
Depends on the topic, for anything natural science for example, it’s a great source.
Well, I’ll go to our local Nazi library and grab a couple of books on the issue and then cross-read them, I still fail to be mentionably interested in history and I guess whatever the outcome of such research might be, I won’t ever submit to any of the hilarious superiority-claims this forum is spammed with, so don’t bother to expect that. 
But after asking these regular and obvious questions and all the fuzz it created, I grew to actually desire to understand how a huge country like India could be enslaved by tiny nations like Britain and Portugal (+ I need to get rid of all these false information that have been planted into my mind). Particularly Britain has been at war with a lot of European nations and never made it to conquer one and hold it occupied for centuries. How was it possible for Britain to hold down a huge country with a strong warrior culture?[/QUOTE]
Q:
Whatever you want to discuss, I am right here and not going anywhere. If you don’t want to get into reincarnation and karma, that’s fine by me as well.
Some questions:
You say Sparta being militarily superior to Athens does not mean that Athens was inferior to Sparta. But you also say that it means that Athens was not superior to Sparta. Are you saying they were equals? A bit confused here.
My definition of a horde is a group that conquers for the sake of conquest. An aggressive group that dominates, subjugates, and destroys. The British raj was not a horde, but the Islamic attackers before them were certainly hordes. They attacked India for the money. Later on the Mughals came and stayed. I call them oppressors, but not hordes. Of course, their work had become easier because of the hordes that had come before them.
By “civilisation”, I mean a group that has a considerable part of its energies dedicated to the pursuit of humanity’s higher goals – arts, scientific advancement, literature etc. This is what makes Greece a civilisation but not the Mongols. If a human group creativity finds expression through aggression alone then it is not “civilised” according to me.
Of course, this is also a matter of degrees. Creativity goes in various directions and it’s not easy to box it within walls with labels and descriptions. But on the whole, the definitions do give you a general idea of things.
These are fairly common definitions by the way – not something I am pulling out of thin air.
And even in spite of these definitions, there are people who would think that the Huns were a “fitter” human population than the Chinese because they managed to sack Chinese settlements a number of times. It depends on the person’s perspective on the matter.
[QUOTE=Quetzalcoatl;60849]Well, I’ll go to our local Nazi library and grab a couple of books on the issue and then cross-read them, I still fail to be mentionably interested in history and I guess [B]whatever the outcome of such research might be, I won’t ever submit to any of the hilarious superiority-claims this forum is spammed with[/B], so don’t bother to expect that. But after asking these regular and obvious questions and all the fuzz it created, I grew to actually desire to understand how a huge country like India could be enslaved by tiny nations like Britain and Portugal (+ I need to get rid of all these false information that have been planted into my mind). Particularly Britain has been at war with a lot of European nations and never made it to conquer one and hold it occupied for centuries. How was it possible for Britain to hold down a huge country with a strong warrior culture?[/QUOTE]
That kind of defeats the purpose of the debate, doesn’t it?
We are debating the cultural plus-minus angle. I say you should read up and arm yourself with facts. You say okay, but you will not change your mind no matter what the facts are. Don’t make this an ego issue. History must be studied with objectivity and without bias.
[QUOTE=vimoh;60868]You say Sparta being militarily superior to Athens does not mean that Athens was inferior to Sparta. But you also say that it means that Athens was not superior to Sparta. Are you saying they were equals? A bit confused here.[/QUOTE]
For the record, Sparta and Athens went to war on multiple occasions, with Sparta winning the majority of the time, most notably in the Peloponnesian War. The Spartans were the masters of land battle, while the Athenians were the undisputed masters of the sea…leading to many (27) years of back-and-forth fighting, and Sparta having to create a navy.
Interestingly enough, the Spartan army was devastated at the Battle of Leuctra, by a much smaller army led by the relatively minor city-state of Thebes. Why? Were the Thebans that much of a “bad-ass” military force? On the contrary, apart from their elite Sacred Band, consisting of 150 male homosexual couples (No, I’m not kidding…Google it…), the army consisted mostly of citizen-soldiers that were nowhere NEAR the level of the Spartan elite. So what happened?
One guy.
Yep. The Theban general, Epaminondas, came up with a plan. Since the Spartan elite always fought on the far right-wing of the 12-man deep formation, with the allies and mercenaries making up the center and left-wing…Epaminondas massed a 50-man deep block of his best troops, fronted by the Sacred Band, and put them on the left-wing, directly opposite the Spartan elite. The allies and mercenaries he kept back in what has now been called the “Echelon Formation.”
The Sacred Band charged into the Spartan formation, and then were pushed forwards by the 50-man deep push from behind. The Spartan elites, including their King…were almost annihilated. Seeing this, the Spartan allies and mercenaries ran away from the fight. The weaker forces of the Theban allies in the Echelon never even had to fight. It was essentially the end of Spartan military dominance. [I](If this is confusing for you, go look at the Wikipedia article for “Battle of Leuctra,” which has some graphics. I still can’t post links.)[/I]
So yeah, one smart general can help an outnumbered, ragtag group of gay lovers and untrained militia defeat some of the greatest warriors in the history of Humanity.
Again, History is not a video game.
Hey you “BryonMorrigon”-guy! :lol:
I’m mostly staying out of this conversation now…as it’s really nothing more than this “Q” guy posting nonsense, but I couldn’t resist this…
Nah, 99.9999% of what I say is perfectly reasonable. I too make mistakes every now and then, for various reasons, but I wouldn’t know of a case where I did not correct my false opinion.
[quote]Originally Posted by Surya Asura
When I told you dancing was not banned in India, you said to me, “I don’t trust you”
LOL. “Q” thinks dancing is banned in India? Has the guy never heard of BOLLYWOOD? For goodness’ sake! [/quote]Huh? Sure I know Hollywood (you spelled that wrong). It’s where Rambo and King Kong live. 
You’re a bitches bitch, Bryon-guy. A bitches handpuppet. Before I met one I thought I’d be annoyed, but now I find myself amused.
High five, Surya Asura, are you proud of yourself now? :lol:
Hey you “BryonMorrigon”-guy! :lol:
[QUOTE=BryonMorrigan;60871]For the record, Sparta and Athens went to war on multiple occasions, with Sparta winning the majority of the time, most notably in the Peloponnesian War. The Spartans were the masters of land battle, while the Athenians were the undisputed masters of the sea…leading to many (27) years of back-and-forth fighting, and Sparta having to create a navy.
Interestingly enough, the Spartan army was devastated at the Battle of Leuctra, by a much smaller army led by the relatively minor city-state of Thebes. Why? Were the Thebans that much of a “bad-ass” military force? On the contrary, apart from their elite Sacred Band, consisting of 150 male homosexual couples (No, I’m not kidding…Google it…), the army consisted mostly of citizen-soldiers that were nowhere NEAR the level of the Spartan elite. So what happened?
One guy.
Yep. The Theban general, Epaminondas, came up with a plan. Since the Spartan elite always fought on the far right-wing of the 12-man deep formation, with the allies and mercenaries making up the center and left-wing…Epaminondas massed a 50-man deep block of his best troops, fronted by the Sacred Band, and put them on the left-wing, directly opposite the Spartan elite. The allies and mercenaries he kept back in what has now been called the “Echelon Formation.”
The Sacred Band charged into the Spartan formation, and then were pushed forwards by the 50-man deep push from behind. The Spartan elites, including their King…were almost annihilated. Seeing this, the Spartan allies and mercenaries ran away from the fight. The weaker forces of the Theban allies in the Echelon never even had to fight. It was essentially the end of Spartan military dominance. [I](If this is confusing for you, go look at the Wikipedia article for “Battle of Leuctra,” which has some graphics. I still can’t post links.)[/I]
So yeah, one smart general can help an outnumbered, ragtag group of gay lovers and untrained militia defeat some of the greatest warriors in the history of Humanity.
Again, History is not a video game.[/QUOTE]On the other hand, being an intellectual requires more than having read a couple of books. One has to be capable of using one’s brainz. Observe:
Your “1 guy”-theory is nonsense. And I don’t just say that, I also explain it, so that those who don’t notice it themselves, will understand it too and don’t just have to submit to agenda or sympathy or whatever.
If it would’ve been 1 guy to win the war, it would have to have been that one guy to do all the planning, all the fighting, he would have to have designed, forged and constructed his weapon and armory, and so forth. Which is hilarious. The 1 guy who came up with the great strategy had an army to command, which consisted of skilful soldiers, who were trained by other skilful soldiers. The soldiers also had to be motivated and partriotic to fight and do their best. The soldiers needed armory and weapons, they needed foodsupply, clothing and so forth, not only during a battle, but as well during the time of their training. Additionally would your 1 guy with the great strategy not have been able to come up with that himself, he needed training himself, education and so forth. So this victory that you credit 1 person with, really is the victory of the whole culture.
This is also the case if the war would’ve been lost without that guy, which, just btw, is uncertain. Using an analogy: If a house is built by many people and there is a supporting beam, that breaks, and one guy is there and keeps it in place until others come to fix it, yes, the house would’ve crumbled without this guy. Yet: Did he build it by himself? Nopy.
While I’m at it, I can also explain why you pull off such nonsense: You’re having an agenda. You wish to prove that even a “inferior” culture can overcome a superior one. This you try to prove with this unrelated historical incidence. Do you want to compare the outcome of one battle with India being occupied by foreigners for I-don’t-even-know-how-many centuries? So even if your theory of “1 guy decides a war between 2 complete cultures” was solid and valid, it would not make plausible what I’ve been asking. I even clearly excluded the single incident, cuz such might even exist. I clearly quoted what needs explanation: Large strong advanced ultra-superior nation overthrown by a barbaric horde, with dozens of millions of citizens slaughtered and the whole nation enslaved for decades and centuries.
Again. Reading books is not enough. You gotta apply, not renarrate.
Hi vimoh,
[quote]Well, I’ll go to our local Nazi library and grab a couple of books on the issue and then cross-read them, I still fail to be mentionably interested in history and I guess whatever the outcome of such research might be, I won’t ever submit to any of the hilarious superiority-claims this forum is spammed with, so don’t bother to expect that.
But after asking these regular and obvious questions and all the fuzz it created, I grew to actually desire to understand how a huge country like India could be enslaved by tiny nations like Britain and Portugal (+ I need to get rid of all these false information that have been planted into my mind). Particularly Britain has been at war with a lot of European nations and never made it to conquer one and hold it occupied for centuries. How was it possible for Britain to hold down a huge country with a strong warrior culture?
That kind of defeats the purpose of the debate, doesn’t it?
We are debating the cultural plus-minus angle. I say you should read up and arm yourself with facts. You say okay, but you will not change your mind no matter what the facts are. Don’t make this an ego issue. History must be studied with objectivity and without bias. [/quote]it’s actually a lot simpler. There are people who claim that India is oh-so-superior. I don’t believe in such claims at all, that’s why it’s doubtful I shall ever submit to them. However, dealing with such claim, I ask how the superior culture could be not only overrun by barbarians, but also be enslaved for centuries by them. I’m interested in the theory the claim-holders have on that. And asking my question, claim-holders except you freak out as if I personally had raped their mothers and sisters. To shut me up, yaknow, which mostly works, but not with me and only a few others.
And a book I’m gonna get because I find all the info I obtained over the web to be unreliable. So I hope to get some more reliable info to be able to debate a lil more efficient with claim-holders. Though, young Nietzsche has noted it already, it is to be expected that any information that ain’t fitting the claim-holders agenda, will be dismissed as “eurocentric” and so forth.
Your other post:
You say Sparta being militarily superior to Athens does not mean that Athens was inferior to Sparta. But you also say that it means that Athens was not superior to Sparta. Are you saying they were equals? A bit confused here.
It’s only confusing if you believe in superiority at all. I don’t. You seem to think Sparta was inferior to Athens, if you explain why, I might be able to un-confuse you about my viewpoint.
My definition of a horde is a group that conquers for the sake of conquest. An aggressive group that dominates, subjugates, and destroys. The British raj was not a horde, but the Islamic attackers before them were certainly hordes. They attacked India for the money. Later on the Mughals came and stayed. I call them oppressors, but not hordes. Of course, their work had become easier because of the hordes that had come before them.
By “civilisation”, I mean a group that has a considerable part of its energies dedicated to the pursuit of humanity’s higher goals – arts, scientific advancement, literature etc. This is what makes Greece a civilisation but not the Mongols. If a human group creativity finds expression through aggression alone then it is not “civilised” according to me.
Of course, this is also a matter of degrees. Creativity goes in various directions and it’s not easy to box it within walls with labels and descriptions. But on the whole, the definitions do give you a general idea of things.
These are fairly common definitions by the way – not something I am pulling out of thin air.
And even in spite of these definitions, there are people who would think that the Huns were a “fitter” human population than the Chinese because they managed to sack Chinese settlements a number of times. It depends on the person’s perspective on the matter.
I’m talking about a group of people with common behaviour, language, customs, goals, beliefs, etc. Mostly the members of such a group are as well genetically closer related to each other than to members of another group.
If it suits your system better, I will agree on using any term you want to label such a group with.
On your definition:
By “civilisation”, I mean a group that has a considerable part of its energies dedicated to the pursuit of humanity’s higher goals – arts, scientific advancement, literature etc.
To assume that one group of people would and another would not aim at “higher goals” is nonsense in my opinion. In any group some aim, some not. Also do I believe that every group of people does basically aim for the high goals. But of course when a group of people barely can feed itself, it has not time to do philosophy and art and whatnot. Maybe customs kick in, what once was necessary to prevent the group from dying out, for example attacking another group, waging war, looting rich groups, etc., might lead to a “hordic” way of life that is hard to change, for example because all the group knows to do is living that way. And so forth.
Claiming these aim, these don’t: If thought through and not explained like allknowing, endlessly wise Q does, is racism. Cuz why would a group not aim at hight goals while another does? I think aiming at high goals is some sort of instinct of all people. Everybody finds themselves asking the big questions, any civilisation (group, culture, whatever) has their theories on these, let me check the mongols, who you dare to deny aiming at higher goals - right now I know nothing about their mythology or philosophy. It it was an inferior … horde/groupd of people/whatever, they should not have such theories. No art either. I look now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols#Religion
The original religion of the Mongols from the time of the Donghu was Tengriism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengriism
Not so much info, I admit. Here I googled art:
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&biw=1360&bih=562&q=mongolic+art&gbv=2
Here you find more information, if you care, for example on spirituality.
Mongols: They aim for higher goals. It’s a civilisation according to you. Or why not?
Gotta go now.
[QUOTE=Quetzalcoatl;60883]blah blah blah…[/QUOTE]
Yeah, its an idiot.
Just look at this creature, arguing with people with three times the intellect and knowledge as it.
[QUOTE=Quetzalcoatl;60882]
Huh? Sure I know Hollywood (you spelled that wrong). It’s where Rambo and King Kong live.
You’re a bitches bitch, Bryon-guy. A bitches handpuppet. Before I met one I thought I’d be annoyed, but now I find myself amused. [/QUOTE]
Lol, its so damn ignorant. It doesn’t even know what Bollywood is and yet it maintains dancing is banned in India.
Yep, told you, it’s an obvious troll.
Arguing Hinduism and Indian culture with Hindus and Indians when he doesn’t know anything about it, and yet insists he is a greater Hindu and says stupid things like, “dancing is banned in India”
Arguing world history with somebody who is a doing a Phd in history, when he himself says he doesn’t know any history outside of his own, yet is making fun of and undermining the knowledge of somebody many times his superior.
Arguing philosophy with somebody who has a degree in philosophy and himself doesn’t know anything about philosophy, the philosophical method or the traditions of philosophy.
It is so obvious this is a troll. Nobody should waste their time on this unfortunate creature.
:lol:
Clowns.
[QUOTE=Quetzalcoatl;60883]Your “1 guy”-theory is nonsense. And I don’t just say that, I also explain it, so that those who don’t notice it themselves, will understand it too and don’t just have to submit to agenda or sympathy or whatever.
If it would’ve been 1 guy to win the war, it would have to have been that one guy to do all the planning, all the fighting, he would have to have designed, forged and constructed his weapon and armory, and so forth. Which is hilarious. The 1 guy who came up with the great strategy had an army to command, which consisted of skilful soldiers, who were trained by other skilful soldiers. The soldiers also had to be motivated and partriotic to fight and do their best. The soldiers needed armory and weapons, they needed foodsupply, clothing and so forth, not only during a battle, but as well during the time of their training. Additionally would your 1 guy with the great strategy not have been able to come up with that himself, he needed training himself, education and so forth. So this victory that you credit 1 person with, really is the victory of the whole culture.[/QUOTE]
You are addressing a point that Bryon did not make. He never said the one guy did anything “alone”. And it shouldn’t even be an inference unless you are, for some reason, manipulating his words to create a straw-man argument that you can easily pull down because it is frivolous.
The way you have addressed my points, makes it clear that you are already taking the discussion in a direction of your choice. So I will refrain from replying now. But I sincerely request you to go and read up some before you challenge established facts being proposed by a known historian with little more than an agenda.
Your way of working through a debate is anything but intellectual. You manipulate arguments, refuse to take facts as they come, and even refuse to accept facts as such in case they do prove to be accurate.
Whether India is “superior” or not can only be established by a perusal of historical accounts and facts. You admit that you have not done so, but you also insist that you will never admit it EVEN IF it is true. Not the way debates happen.
It’s only confusing if you believe in superiority at all. I don’t. You seem to think Sparta was inferior to Athens, if you explain why, I might be able to un-confuse you about my viewpoint.
Doesn’t answer my question. Are you saying they were equals? And if you are going to reply saying that you don’t believe in superiority, then would you also claim that a hero isn’t superior to a murderer? Do explain.
As for Bryon, I can personally vouch for his status as an MA in history and the fact that he is working on his PhD. That’s considerably more than a “couple of books”. You may say you find a historian’s knowledge amusing, but it doesn’t do anything to negate the worth of his study. In any case, what I am supposed to go by? His knowledge, which he has painstakingly acquired by years of study, or your opinion, which you haven’t even bothered to corroborate with some basic reading?
Please do get an education and come back when you are capable of having a civilised and intelligent debate. Otherwise all this is worth nothing.
Please do get an education and come back when you are capable of having a civilised and intelligent debate. Otherwise all this is worth nothing.
That won’t happen in this lifetime. He is an Asura. His spiritual, intellectual and emotional development is not that far from an animal. It will take yet many lifetimes for him to even come to our level 
I am being serious. I can tell how developed somebody is and somehow who is so dishonourable in debate, refuses to acknowledge facts, speaks with such vulgarity and spends so much of their time and energy defending barbarians, racists and Nazis, is most definitely at the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder.
Being human is about being honest and objective, civil, having love for wisdom and truth, speaking politely(which I think Vimoh does a better job of than me) and having a pure heart and mind. And I have seen this realised more closely by the Hindu members posting here. You guys are setting a very good example and in the light of contrast, all objective readers can see the superiority of your intellect and character.
Q is setting a horrendous example for Western people here. I am surpised not a single Western person has said anything against Q yet, purely for the horrible example he is setting for the West. When your competition is stinking excrement, sure you are going to look like sweet scented roses.
Hi vimoh,
you think this is impressive? I don’t. Makes me :roll:.
[quote]Originally Posted by Quetzalcoatl
Your “1 guy”-theory is nonsense. And I don’t just say that, I also explain it, so that those who don’t notice it themselves, will understand it too and don’t just have to submit to agenda or sympathy or whatever.If it would’ve been 1 guy to win the war, it would have to have been that one guy to do all the planning, all the fighting, he would have to have designed, forged and constructed his weapon and armory, and so forth. Which is hilarious. The 1 guy who came up with the great strategy had an army to command, which consisted of skilful soldiers, who were trained by other skilful soldiers. The soldiers also had to be motivated and partriotic to fight and do their best. The soldiers needed armory and weapons, they needed foodsupply, clothing and so forth, not only during a battle, but as well during the time of their training. Additionally would your 1 guy with the great strategy not have been able to come up with that himself, he needed training himself, education and so forth. So this victory that you credit 1 person with, really is the victory of the whole culture.
You are addressing a point that Bryon did not make. He never said the one guy did anything “alone”. And it shouldn’t even be an inference unless you are, for some reason, manipulating his words to create a straw-man argument that you can easily pull down because it is frivolous.[/quote]Are you Bryon’s spokesman? He wrote:
Interestingly enough, the Spartan army was devastated at the Battle of Leuctra, by a much smaller army led by the relatively minor city-state of Thebes. Why? Were the Thebans that much of a “bad-ass” military force? On the contrary, apart from their elite Sacred Band, consisting of 150 male homosexual couples (No, I’m not kidding…Google it…), the army consisted mostly of citizen-soldiers that were nowhere NEAR the level of the Spartan elite. So what happened?
One guy.
Yep. The Theban general, Epaminondas, came up with a plan.
And his conclusion was:
So yeah, one smart general can help an outnumbered, ragtag group of gay lovers and untrained militia defeat some of the greatest warriors in the history of Humanity.
I was wrong? Your boss did not want to say that it was one guy who won the battle, instead of it being the achievement of the culture he comes from? Fine. But still
:roll:
Concerning this:
But I sincerely request you to go and read up some before you challenge established facts being proposed by a known historian with little more than an agenda.
and this:
As for Bryon, I can personally vouch for his status as an MA in history and the fact that he is working on his PhD. That’s considerably more than a “couple of books”. You may say you find a historian’s knowledge amusing, but it doesn’t do anything to negate the worth of his study.
Sorry, I fail to be impressed by alleged or actual degrees and education some random guys on the internet have or might have or are trying to have. I am impressed by what people say only - one day you should try it too.
But since you’re trying to impress me with some degrees, I had a look at this battle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuctra
Strength
Epaminondas/Boeotian League (Thebes)
6,000?7,000 hoplites
1,500 cavalryvs.
Cleombrotus/Sparta
10,000?11,000 hoplites
1,000 cavalry
Also it says:
Several ancient writers give figures for one or both of the armies but unfortunately they are contradictory and in some cases unbelievable.[7] Modern Scholars estimates have varied from 6,000 to 9,000 for the Boeotian force.[8] For the Spartan side most modern scholars favor Plutarch’s figure of 10,000 in infantry and 1,000 cavalry.[8]
A ration of 1 : 1.4 or even just 1 : 1.2. Not soooo outnumbered, eh?!
And then it says:
The decisive issue was then fought out between the Theban and Spartan infantry.
A depiction that some citizens overcame an uber-elite force, “would” be wrong. Furthermore:
In a major break with tradition, Epaminondas massed his cavalry and a fifty-deep column of Theban infantry on his left wing, and sent forward this body against the Spartan right. His shallower and weaker center and right wing columns were drawn up so that they were progressively further to the right and rear of the proceeding column, in the so-called Echelon formation. The footsoldiers engaged, and the Spartans’ twelve-deep formation on their right wing could not sustain the heavy impact of their opponents’ 50-deep column. Xenophon insists that Spartans initially were able to hold back the gigantic mass of the Thebans, however they were eventually overwhelmed.[11] The Spartan right was hurled back with a loss of about 1,000 men, of whom 400 were Spartan citizens, including the king Cleombrotus I.
Additionally there is this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_formation
Use of the formation dates back to ancient infantry and cavalry warfare when attempting to flank an enemy or to break one wing with overwhelming numbers. One of the earliest uses was at the Battle of Leuctra when the Thebans attacked the Spartan right with a column 48 men deep while their weaker center and right were refused.
Sounds like the Thebans were outnumbering the Spartans at this particular point of the formation, then killed a lot of Spartans, inlcuding the king, and made the rest of the Spartan army give it up and flee:
The Spartan right was hurled back with a loss of about 1,000 men, of whom 400 were Spartan citizens, including the king Cleombrotus I.
…
Seeing their right wing beaten, the rest of the Peloponnesians, who were essentially unwilling participants, retired and left the enemy in possession of the field.
Who are these Peloponnesians? Some group:
The fought with the Spartans, as it seems. And then they fled, cuz they had no motivation anyways, and since the king was dead, why not get the hell outta there.
That’s what happened, unless Wikipedia is wrong of course.
Oh. And just btw. The ultra-competent Bryon-guy seems to find the homosexual couples kinda mentionable or hilarious or unbelievable or whatever. I even had heard of this custom before, here’s an explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes
And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their beloved, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other’s side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger?
Conclusion: Speak for yourself, cuz now you’d have to explain all this if you wouldn’t want to look like a clown.
In any case, what I am supposed to go by? His knowledge, which he has painstakingly acquired by years of study, or your opinion, which you haven’t even bothered to corroborate with some basic reading?
If you ask me what you’re supposed to go by, I suggest your own intelligence and your own interpretation.
Be smart. It’s superior. :lol:
Furthermore:
The way you have addressed my points, makes it clear that you are already taking the discussion in a direction of your choice. So I will refrain from replying now.
If you want to discuss stuff the way you like it, why don’t you go back to your Hindu nationalists forum? There you can discuss with your comrads the why’s and how’s of India’s superiority and how you guys drive a McLaren F1-racecar while the others only have their Hyundai’s and so forth. Your little-boys’-“my-dad-is-stronger-than-your-dad”-talk dad’s find so hilarious.
Your way of working through a debate is anything but intellectual. You manipulate arguments, refuse to take facts as they come, and even refuse to accept facts as such in case they do prove to be accurate.
Bla bla bla. Empty words. What
You wouldn’t know. :roll: You’re shifting from ad rem to ad hominem, you leave the factual level of the discussion and focus on the personal. You say less than nothing.
Whether India is “superior” or not can only be established by a perusal of historical accounts and facts. You admit that you have not done so, but you also insist that you will never admit it EVEN IF it is true. Not the way debates happen.
See, this is manipulating. I say that I do not believe in the possibility of a culture being superior at all. I don’t believe a culture can be superior to another.
Then you say if I would see that India is indeed superior, see that it is “EVEN true”, I would still not admit it. So you say I would be lying then.
No dude, I’m not a liar.
[quote]It’s only confusing if you believe in superiority at all. I don’t. You seem to think Sparta was inferior to Athens, if you explain why, I might be able to un-confuse you about my viewpoint.
Doesn’t answer my question. Are you saying they were equals?[/quote]No, they are not equal, your comparison does not work at all. Are apples and peaches equal? No. Is the apple superior? Or the peach? There is no measuring of what you want to measure. You can measure which culture has more citizens or which has more books or which has more money or which has an advanced technology and so forth. A rabbit and a tiger. The tiger is bigger, stronger, has the better weapons, better hunting strategies, it is more beautiful, more playful, etc. etc. Now which animal is the superior creature? It can’t be answered.
And so forth.
From my perspective, from within my worldview, my standpoint, your oh-so-important question makes no sense whatsoever. It’s like asking “what’s bigger, blue or red?”
And if you are going to reply saying that you don’t believe in superiority, then would you also claim that a hero isn’t superior to a murderer? Do explain.
I would claim that, yes, and I already did, sorta. You know what the outcome was? I’d justify rape and just love genocide. :eek:
I would claim the hero is not superior, because it’s the circumstances that make both the hero and the murderer. So the circumstances are superior. From some perspective. Your comrads don’t get it either, if you’re kinda decent, don’t worry. If anyhting, maybe the actions can be evaluated, but not the person. Even that, though, is questionable, but if you asked me personally, I would basically think that saving lives is superior to killing. Still, though, circumstances have to be considered, killing killers is another story, for example. Or what if you had 3 innocent people who are about to involuntarily kill 100 children in an accident and you could stop them by killing them? What then? Who is evil, who is a hero? Or try this: Saving 10 lives is superior to saving 1 live, saving 100 superior to saving 10. 1000 superior to 100. Who now of these guys saving 1, 10, 100 and 1000 lives is the superiorest person of them all? The one saving 1000? Why? Maybe the guy who saved just 1 live had not even the chance to save 1000, so how is the one saving 1000 superior? The next guy never had the chance to save a life, how is he inferior to the guy who saved one life? You wouldn’t know.
And what about the murderer: Why did he become a murderer? Maybe he had to kill someone to save his family from starving. Maybe he feels terribly guilty for it. While the one who saved a life was just lucky, was just there at the right time in the right place, flipped a switch. Who is the great hero now? I’d think the murderer who takes the guilt to save his family. What did the hero in this story do? Flip a switch: Wow! Or the murderer was just greedy and selfish: Why? How come? What lead to it? Where was he born, how did he grow up? How does his mind work?
And therefore, if I read a book (got one now, guess will take me at least 2 weeks to read) and it turns out that your depiction of stuff is now finally the correct one, that still does not mean that your claim of Indian superiority was right. I thought you thought it’d work like that, so I told you it’s not. I am simply interested in finding out how you think it can be, that a superior civilisation/culture/group is conquered and enslaved for centuries by an inferior one. If the allegedly superior culture was deceived: How could that be possible? If the attacker had the better weapons: How can that be? Why did the superior culture not create superior weapons too? If the inferior culture had a better strategy: How was that possible? And so forth.
I already have gained some interesting insights. For example does indeed the climate and the rivers of the Indus valley allow for an easy life, at least easier than in an area like Germany, where you have no large areas to cultivate crop, but instead a long and hard winter every year.
Also: Before the Muslims took over, India was not one country, but many kingdoms. Didn’t know that. So there wasn’t even that superior “India”, there were a couple of kingdoms and the Muslims conquered them one by one. Why did the kingdoms not unite and stand together against the Muslims? The German tribes for example did unite when the Hungarians threatened what today is Germany:
Just btw, 8,000 Germans versus 17,000 Hungarians, outnumbered 1 : 2. Also had I read that a guy called Babur won an important battle where he was outnumbered considerably by using a superior strategy and using superior weapons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_battle_of_Panipat
Babur:
12,000 Mughals & Afghans,[1]
5,000 allied Indian troops,[1]
24 field artilleryvs
Sultan Ibrahim Lodi
100,000 troops,[1]
300 war elephants[2]
Outnumbered 1 : 5. Lodi already was a muslim, though, but still: He had more troops, more wealth Babur still outsmarted him and had the better weapons. Do you call Lodi superior? He obviously wasn’t.
Please do get an education and come back when you are capable of having a civilised and intelligent debate. Otherwise all this is worth nothing.
Yeah sure. Hope I can one day stand up against you superior folks. Til then I guess I have to live with roflmao.
Hi vimoh,
you think this is impressive? I don’t. Makes me :roll:.
Are you Bryon’s spokesman? He wrote:
And his conclusion was:
I was wrong? Your boss did not want to say that it was one guy who won the battle, instead of it being the achievement of the culture he comes from? Fine. But still
Yes. You are wrong. You are always wrong. We are always right. You are mentally and intellectually inferior.
- what I said is right and
- this anecdote ain’t explaining how an “inferior” culture can overcome a “superior” and
- you, as Bryon’s spokesman, really need to explain the point of this whole anecdote
No. What you said is wrong because you’re always wrong.
No explanation needs to be made. The meaning is clear; at least for civilized and developed humans, not for barbaric little chimps running around murdering Jews.
Sorry, I fail to be impressed by alleged or actual degrees and education some random guys on the internet have or might have or are trying to have. I am impressed by what people say only - one day you should try it too.
I am not surprised human excrement like you choose to depend on hearsay.
But since you’re trying to impress me with some degrees, I had a look at this battle:
Also it says:
A ration of 1 : 1.4 or even just 1 : 1.2. Not soooo outnumbered, eh?!
And then it says:
A depiction that some citizens overcame an uber-elite force, “would” be wrong. Furthermore:
Additionally there is this article:
Sounds like the Thebans were outnumbering the Spartans at this particular point of the formation, then killed a lot of Spartans, inlcuding the king, and made the rest of the Spartan army give it up and flee:
Who are these Peloponnesians? Some group:
The fought with the Spartans, as it seems. And then they fled, cuz they had no motivation anyways, and since the king was dead, why not get the hell outta there.
That’s what happened, unless Wikipedia is wrong of course.
You are wrong because you are always wrong.
Be smart. It’s superior. :lol:
You are not smart. We are smarter. We are superior in every way possible.
If you want to discuss stuff the way you like it, why don’t you go back to your Hindu nationalists forum? There you can discuss with your comrads the why’s and how’s of India’s superiority and how you guys drive a McLaren F1-racecar while the others only have their Hyundai’s and so forth. Your little-boys’-“my-dad-is-stronger-than-your-dad”-talk dad’s find so hilarious.
If you want to show off your supremacist stupidity, why not join Stormfront? You would make a good addition to the populace there; you can contemplate, along with the white trash (like you) there, how to murder and rape Hindus, Muslims, and Jews.
- argument do I manipulate?
- fact do I refuse to accept?
- fact has been proven to be accurate?
This is the truth. Why? Because we are right and you are wrong.
You wouldn’t know. :roll: You’re shifting from ad rem to ad hominem, you leave the factual level of the discussion and focus on the personal. You say less than nothing.
You are wrong. We are always right.
See, this is manipulating. I say that I do not believe in the possibility of a culture being superior at all. I don’t believe a culture can be superior to another.
Yes you do. You are a Westerner. All Westerners believe their civilization is superior. You are a bigot, a racist, and a potential mass-murderer like the rest of your kind.
Then you say if I would see that India is indeed superior, see that it is “EVEN true”, I would still not admit it. So you say I would be lying then.
Because you are demon-spawn. Demons have absolutely no virtue or morals, like you.
No dude, I’m not a liar.
Yes, you are.
No, they are not equal, your comparison does not work at all. Are apples and peaches equal? No. Is the apple superior? Or the peach? There is no measuring of what you want to measure. You can measure which culture has more citizens or which has more books or which has more money or which has an advanced technology and so forth. A rabbit and a tiger. The tiger is bigger, stronger, has the better weapons, better hunting strategies, it is more beautiful, more playful, etc. etc. Now which animal is the superior creature? It can’t be answered.
Yes it can.
Perspective, from within my worldview, my standpoint, your oh-so-important question makes no sense whatsoever. It’s like asking “what’s bigger, blue or red?” [/quote
Your perspective and standpoint are inherently inferior and incorrect. This is a fact.
[quote]I would claim that, yes, and I already did, sorta. You know what the outcome was? I’d justify rape and just love genocide. :eek:
Yes you do. You are a murderer and a rapist.
blah blah blah…
Pointless garbage.
Also: Before the Muslims took over, India was not one country, but many kingdoms. Didn’t know that. So there wasn’t even that superior “India”, there were a couple of kingdoms and the Muslims conquered them one by one. Why did the kingdoms not unite and stand together against the Muslims?
So what? It was unified before this time period. That particular empire collapsed, as do all empires. There’s nothing special about it.
Why were the Germans running around in their underwear? Why hadn’t they developed any sort of civilization by this time period? Why did the Germanic peoples love killing each other? Is it in their blood?
If you can’t even answer this question (but since you’re mentally deficient, its unreasonable to expect that much), then you have learned nothing from what you’re reading.
You’re terrible at history.
The German tribes for example did unite when the Hungarians threatened what today is Germany:
Just btw, 8,000 Germans versus 17,000 Hungarians, outnumbered 1 : 2. Also had I read that a guy called Babur won an important battle where he was outnumbered considerably by using a superior strategy and using superior weapons:
Outnumbered 1 : 5. Lodi already was a muslim, though, but still: He had more troops, more wealth Babur still outsmarted him and had the better weapons. Do you call Lodi superior? He obviously wasn’t.
No one cares about primitive barbarians murdering and raping each other.
History is full of examples where numerically inferior armies won against numerically superior foes, from China to America.
Lodi was not even Hindu. He doesn’t even represent India or Indians in any form or fashion. I’m actually happy that Lodi was murdered by Babur; it weakened the tyrannical Delhi Sultanate you see. The Muslims are very proficient at killing each other off, just like Westerners.
You are the worst history student I have ever seen in my life.
Yeah sure. Hope I can one day stand up against you superior folks. Til then I guess I have to live with roflmao.
But you will never be able to stand up to us. You are inherently inferior. Nothing will be able to help you reach our level. Our level is beyond anything sub-humans like you can comprehend.
Hey kid,
Yes. You are wrong. You are always wrong. We are always right. You are mentally and intellectually inferior to us/
No. What you said is wrong because you’re always wrong.
No explanation needs to be made. The meaning is clear; at least for civilized and developed humans, not for barbaric little chimps running around murdering Jews.
do you post on /b/ a lot…?
[QUOTE=Quetzalcoatl;61033]Hey kid,
do you post on /b/ a lot…?[/QUOTE]
Hey,
Did you post this?
[B]The belief of White superiority should not be up for discussion because it is fact.[/B] The White race has made an unparalleled amount of development from ancient times to modern times. [B]We have invented present and early systems of thought, technology, science, society, government, and so on. Without the White race the world, meaning Asia in particular, would have stayed completely stagnant in all of these fields.[/B]
Although Asians would have presented minor advancements, you and I both know that [B]without White generosity, their current state of development would be about two thousand years behind and without any significant progression.[/B] Why is this? Well, this is due to the fact that [B]Asians do not possess a broad scope of cognitive/mental ability in comparison to that of Whites.[/B] As a result, before [B]White intervention, they did not advance through technology, science, etc because of that inability.[/B] Haven’t you ever wondered why Japan is the most technologically advanced nation in Asia? Well, it’s because of America. All of the other Asian nations are far behind, and in correlation to this, those nations have not been exposed to Western culture as vividly.
As for the Africans, well, I didn’t include them in my previous statement because i[B]t’s fairly obvious that Africans are inferior to Whites in every sense of the meaning. They have invented nothing in their history and consequently have failed to progress past the Age of Stone – about six thousand or more years behind that of us White men.[/B] Therefore, the only contender to Whites for racial superiority is Asians, but it has been made clear that they are not as broadly evolved in all fields of survival and intelligence. As a result, Whites are superior.
Besides, its too much fun mocking you by making assertions of my superiority and touting stereotypical garbage, just like you do.
Nietzsche:
Where did Q say this exactly? Can you give a link to the specific post or thread?
This has turned into a flame war, no use in posting here.
