Tweet
The issue of "bravery" and "cowardice" has been brought up by a number of people of late and it's worth noting something interesting about this.
RP Team might claim that ND could have used their UU's and their GA to take on RP Team by themselves and it's a mark of "cowardice" that they were so afraid of Spain that they felt compelled to enlist the support of GoW... a fair fight was too scary for them, they needed overwhelming odds or they were too chickens--t to do it.
RP Team might make the same claim of Glory of War, who despite their name, has been too "cowardly" to invade anyone until they could gang up with someone else.
GoW could claim that RP Team has been supposedly "cowardly" in other areas, such as the Lux war or the Vox war.
ND could claim that RP Team's tactical actions this turn have been "cowardly".
RP Team could claim that when GoW's army ran away from the battle we prepared for them on Watch Mountain rather than charging the mountain with their stack of riders, that they were "cowardly".
GoW could claim that RP Team's consigning of Bilbao to defeat was "cowardly".
It is my argument that NONE of these actions are fairly described as "cowardly" because the adjectives brave and cowardly have no place in inter-state relations. In international relations, "Cowardly" is most often merely a derogetory term used by one's enemies to describe prudent actions in one's own interests. "Brave" is merely a term people use to justify their own foolish actions.
If ND had attacked RP Team alone, some might call it "brave", but it would have been foolish.
If GoW had attacked RP Team alone, some might call it "brave", but it would have been foolish.
Many things RP Team might have done in the past concerning Lux or other things might have been called "brave", but would have been foolish.
RP Team could certainly have simply allowed many of their cities to be captured freely by the enemy or attempted pointless tactics we know would fail utterly in the face of overwhelming ND odds. Some might have called this "brave", but it would have been foolish.
GoW could have attacked RP's Army sitting on top of Watch Mountain and some might have claimed this "brave", but it would have been foolish.
RP Team could have, when GoW's army ran away, chased after it this past turn rather than writing off the city GoW went after and some might have called the chase "brave", but it would have been foolish.
I'm sure more examples of this will undoubtedly crop up over the course of this war. The enemies might refer to each other as "cowards", but it should be recognized that this is a pretty lousy form of whining. For, as the Roman historian Livy shares with us concerning the Punic Wars and Rome's "cowardly" tactics:
"Never mind if they call your caution timidity, your wisdom sloth, your generalship weakness; it is better that a wise enemy should fear you than that foolish friends should praise" - Livy (Roman historian, 59 B.C.E. - 17 C.E.), quoting Fabius in The War with Hannibal
---------------
So cheers to our enemies and let us settle matters upon the field of battle.
RP Team might claim that ND could have used their UU's and their GA to take on RP Team by themselves and it's a mark of "cowardice" that they were so afraid of Spain that they felt compelled to enlist the support of GoW... a fair fight was too scary for them, they needed overwhelming odds or they were too chickens--t to do it.
RP Team might make the same claim of Glory of War, who despite their name, has been too "cowardly" to invade anyone until they could gang up with someone else.
GoW could claim that RP Team has been supposedly "cowardly" in other areas, such as the Lux war or the Vox war.
ND could claim that RP Team's tactical actions this turn have been "cowardly".
RP Team could claim that when GoW's army ran away from the battle we prepared for them on Watch Mountain rather than charging the mountain with their stack of riders, that they were "cowardly".
GoW could claim that RP Team's consigning of Bilbao to defeat was "cowardly".
It is my argument that NONE of these actions are fairly described as "cowardly" because the adjectives brave and cowardly have no place in inter-state relations. In international relations, "Cowardly" is most often merely a derogetory term used by one's enemies to describe prudent actions in one's own interests. "Brave" is merely a term people use to justify their own foolish actions.
If ND had attacked RP Team alone, some might call it "brave", but it would have been foolish.
If GoW had attacked RP Team alone, some might call it "brave", but it would have been foolish.
Many things RP Team might have done in the past concerning Lux or other things might have been called "brave", but would have been foolish.
RP Team could certainly have simply allowed many of their cities to be captured freely by the enemy or attempted pointless tactics we know would fail utterly in the face of overwhelming ND odds. Some might have called this "brave", but it would have been foolish.
GoW could have attacked RP's Army sitting on top of Watch Mountain and some might have claimed this "brave", but it would have been foolish.
RP Team could have, when GoW's army ran away, chased after it this past turn rather than writing off the city GoW went after and some might have called the chase "brave", but it would have been foolish.
I'm sure more examples of this will undoubtedly crop up over the course of this war. The enemies might refer to each other as "cowards", but it should be recognized that this is a pretty lousy form of whining. For, as the Roman historian Livy shares with us concerning the Punic Wars and Rome's "cowardly" tactics:
"Never mind if they call your caution timidity, your wisdom sloth, your generalship weakness; it is better that a wise enemy should fear you than that foolish friends should praise" - Livy (Roman historian, 59 B.C.E. - 17 C.E.), quoting Fabius in The War with Hannibal
---------------
So cheers to our enemies and let us settle matters upon the field of battle.
Comment