Your loss.
Themiclesia wrote:He died a happy man, having suffered an injury to his thigh during the battle.Oh, so he was a sociopath. Great.
Thanks for clearing that up, I couldn't have asked for better proof of my being right.
Intelligence is timeless.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Your third choice, evidently, being pointless, unending bloodshed, slaughter, and grief for the sake of fairness and some sort of incomprehensible religious need.
Great.
That's a great choice.
Again, not the point.
You evidently don't feel the need to stay on topic, either.
They won't! But that doesn't matter, for the battle will be won by the side that didn't play fair, meaning an end to the war. Everyone goes home sooner!Themiclesia wrote:Every one of the fewer ones that have survived.
If you overwhelm the enemy quickly (IE unfairly), fewer people die on the whole. The war is shorter. The battles are fewer.
Let me tell you something: there's a reason why wars these days last for weeks or months - at worst a few years - rather than centuries (Hundred Years War ring a bell?).
It's because people actually care about resolving the issue at hand, rather than pussyfooting around each other and getting people killed unnecessarily and pointlessly.Themiclesia wrote:I'm not bound to, but I try my best. You don't have to subscribe to the Duke of Sung's beliefs.
Yeah, I don't tend to subscribe to stupid bullshit.Themiclesia wrote: My conjecture was that the battle would have produced more casualties on Chu's side without reducing casualties on Sung's side (simply because the Chu army was poised to win by any standard).
That's a nice guess.Themiclesia wrote:My opinion stands at that the duke had lost a battle but won a moral victory.
Which counts for exactly jack shit when the chips are down and a whole ton of people are dead.



)


