Prak_Anima at [unixtime wrote:1189929144[/unixtime]]
The soul is a mystical uberforce because we don't know what it is, where it comes from or even if it exists. We are certain that it separates us from animals,
You realize that animals can:
-
Plan for the future based on previous experiences?
-Work with members of a
differnt species to achieve a goal
-Understand the concept of "zero" as an actual measurable value
-Make predictions and risk resources based on their knowledge of their thinking ability (Metacognition, that is, they can
think about their ability to
think well or poorly)
-Develop animistic worship practices (religion is a product of large brains,
-Generation of new concepts made by combining already known ones
-Having non-human-taught sound and signing languages
There are seriously
people that can't do some of those things.
Seriously, don't put humans on some sort of creationist/intelligent design pedestal.
We just got bloody lucky and by mistake we started scavenging meat while we were still pretty much herbivores.
but we can't prove it, and we have seen things that are inexplicable by science(little old lady lifts car off of son, adrenaline doesn't even begin to cover it,
Yeah it does, the human body runs at about less than 20% energy efficency, muscle-wise. If you widen all of your capilleries with adrenaline you can do ridiculous things.
Like stand and walk on a broken ankle.
Evil Kinevel did that after doing a canyon jump; he was walking around, then limping, then fell over and his medics realized that the adrenaline had been enough to keep him standing on muscle power not skeletal support.
small armies have held off forces 100,000 times their size long enough to save entire cultures, I doubt the spartans pulled out howlitzers and AK-47s and then hid it just before their army died...) and we need an explination. That's why the soul is important, because it explains what science can't and represents the vast potential of humankind when doing something "truely" "altruistic".
Except that in Sun Tzu's the Art of War he talks about that fact
over and over and over again.
How size means dick all.
How morale, training, positioning, terrain, equipment and technique are what wins battles and how bribes, spies, ignoring useless fortresses and patiently waging cold and hot battles wins wars.
Seriously, a single man could stand against one hundred even if given the most minimal of equipment if the terrain is perfect.
It should be noted that the battle at Thermopylae occured with 300 men with anywhere from a year to decades of combat experience supported by 700 'soldiers' from Thebes.
It should also be noted that there were also about 900 Spartan 'serfs' that died at the end of the fighting. I'd imagine that the 1,900 at Thermopylae didn't go down without a fight.
->So, they had training and experience
They fought in a narrow pass making their enemies numbers count for almost nothing. If they fought on a plain, they would have lost immediately.
->So, they had terrain on their side.
They fought people who were for the most part
slaves; while they themselves were fighting to save their homes.
->So, they had morale on their side.
They also were fighting on what is sometimes known as
death ground. They had to fight and win or
dieThe art of war on a regular basis encourages generals to on a semi-regular basis:
-Burn your troops so-far accumulated loot, then tell them there's tons more in an enemy camp/fortress
-Tell your troops to
break their only means of getting back safely; since it's victory or death, they will win
-
Never ever completely surround an enemy force or corner an enemy force; they will fight like lions to survive.
-Do ridiculous things that will make your army surrounded/cornered (like send all of your armies food/pack animals to clog up the "only path of escape") if they realize they can't escape, your troops will fight a lot harder
->So, they had
death ground working in their favour
They also had the best of the best of their nation's collective armies soldiers fighting the faceless masses of non-elitely equipped, non-elitely fed enemy troops.
Seriously, Spartan soldiers were the equivalent of
warhammer 40k space marines for the amount of armour that they wore and
fought in compared to the... non-armour that their enemies usually wore.
If you compare typical a Spartan man's armour:
Bronze Sheild
Bronze full head Helmet
Iron Greaves
Iron Bracers
Bronze breastplate
Segmented iron/bronze on leather straps kilt
Bronze boots
To a typical Persian Trooper's armour:
-maybe scale-mail, if they're an 'Immortal'
-maybe some skins or leather
-the rest wore layered cloth
You can see an obvious disparity of gear.
I'm not including the fact that the Spartans were Hoplites and thus used
iron-tipped (this was a big fvcking deal up until the age of Rome in Europe) long spears versus enemy clubs, axes and 'swords'; as well as having iron swords (that they had probably spent countless hours practising with or with heavier wooden swords).
Seriously, the reason the Spartans at Thermopylae lost was b/c they were out manouvered and went from having a
7.000 man army verus 200,000 to 300,000 to a force of about 1,900 men.
They could have very well
won that entire battle and then gone on to win the second Hello-Perso war if they were able to keep retreating and weren't sold out by former allies.