What are the advantages & weaknesses of Japanese against Roman warfare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Dexter, aren't you contradicting yourself here? All I got out of your post is "if you know and study warfare, you know the answer and if you don't, then I'm not going to tell you." Seriously, I'd love to hear you state your conclusion and the reasons for it. :bow:

---

Yes it is contradictory as many thing s in life, perhaps I should have written if you are referring solely to military tactics. It seems I must apologize again, for not being able to properly express myself.

All I said was, do the research yourself and don't take as a fact someone interpretation of some events, things and so on as the word of God: "That is the truth and the only truth".
Westerners do tend to judge things prematurely, and misinterpret things quite often. Something that is a common day event for you can be considered offensive, rude by the other. But again, do the research yourself, and don't take my word on it.


Equipment - do some research, without prejudice, have an opened mind, and do bear in mind that those weapons where used in different times. Some where specifically designed for a certain role.

Armor: can a lorica lorica hamata stop a bullet ? Here's a little pointer for those of you whom don't have the time to investigate, the Japanese armor was not standardized as the roman one, in fact it was made for that person, often being also a symbol of wealth and social status. Just by looking at his armor you know it was an important person you are facing, + added bonus: it stops bullets.

The Japanese did not hide there "leaders", they wanted him to stand out, boosting the morale of the men, and yes to even taunt the enemy. You can certainly read more on a subject, and of course with more carefully chosen words then what I have written.

The weapons: ashigaru weapons where mostly standardized, but do remember that the Japanese smiths where not mass producing weak quality weapons, a man was proud of his work, and he did not want a low quality product to be associated with him. Please read more about how they folded, worked the metal.

The roman army was all about standardization, all should have the same equipment, it was not the individual men that mattered but the unit.

As stated by others the time difference is also an important issue. Things change, that witch does not change is facing extinction - again this may have no meaning for some of you, the fault is mine not yours -.

Perhaps one other factor might be the cultural difference, and despite of some statement the samurai would rather die then retreat, I must "enlighten" you, that bushido clearly states to throw away ones life without meaning is a dishonorable, shameful act. If by retreating you do more good, then by all means retreat. Otherwise the sengoku period would have lasted one day.
Rigidly interpreting the code of the samurai, the losers should have all cut there bellies, and be done with it. I'm certain that did not happen.
Before I go on, the morale code, conduct, demeanor etc - bushido - was not written in stone, it was expected of a man - individual - to fallow the "way of the warrior". For me that has a certain meaning, I can't possibly know what it mean for you, now can I ?

"if you know and study warfare, you know the answer and if you don't, then I'm not going to tell you" - yes, true, but not because I think I'm better then you, I think I'm not wise enough to tell you, as I have written I still have much to learn. Instead I encourage you to find your own answer and not rely on someone else's, as the "way" of discovery is a reward in itself - yet again I do realize this may not be true for all whom embark on this "way" -.

One last thing before I say farewell, do remember that Rome Total War and Shogun 2 are just someone interpretation of that era, not wanting to attack them of course, they made a game they intended to make money with. Do I need to go on ?

If anyone got "hurt" by my ill chosen words, I do apologize, it was not my intent, and feel free to ignore all I have written, as they are the words of someone less important then you.

Regards
Dex

P.S: I may have misspelled, missused some words. Sorry.

Not to be abrasive, but it seems quite a bit of people tend to make their idea about military history by extrapolating Hollywood movies and animes more than by taking an historian look. The fact that, due to very unique historical, geographical and cultural situation, the old japanese martial arts were partly preserved until today unlike in most of the world, tends to make people forget that samurais weren't the only one who actually developped complex and very evolved mélée skills, and that its not because Roman or Medieval martial skills have disappeared that they weren't just as good at the time.

Thinking the samurai as being some kind of god of warfare while everyone else in the world is just some kind of peasant with a sword is just grossly ridiculous. Medieval Knight were actually probably occidental clones of samurai, being like them a warrior caste of people bred for war from their very birth, fighting primarily on mount and looking down on "common" soldiers. They even shared the "fight as an individual rather than a unit" mentality. Despite the common mental picture of them being just big brutes hacking mindlessly until the foe was dead, knight had martial skills just as efficient and adequate as samurai's. It's just that their heritage became obsolete much earlier than samurai's ones, and has since passed from memory, while Japanese martial arts were far better preserved.
Spartans were just as much "bred for war" as samurais, so I doubt they were inferior in any way either.
Similarly, the reverence for katana as some kind of near-magical weapon able to cut through anything like butter, is just as much exagerated - as good a sword as it was, it's still a tool made of metal, and not some kind of lightsaber.

As such, you can bet that Roman legionnaries from the post-Marius era, who were professionnal, trained soldiers with a service that lasted for twenty years, weren't some kind of green mob ready to break at the first sign of trouble. They may not have had the "bushido" spirit, but they had draconian discipline and flawless organization. They probably were quite below samurai in personnal fighting, but that's because their training was not specialized in it, and on the other hand they certainly had a MUCH better level of fighting as a unit.

In the grand scheme of things, I'll bet on a professionnal army with good discipline and tactics, over a bunch of individual fighters, regardless of their individual skills. As said before, there is never a guaranted victory in war, and every single army lost several battle to opponents that were supposedly inferior in any way but, overall, history tends to reward leadership, technology and organization more than movie picture of badassery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akka

In the grand scheme of things, I'll bet on a professionnal army with good discipline and tactics, over a bunch of individual fighters, regardless of their individual skills. As said before, there is never a guaranted victory in war, and every single army lost several battle to opponents that were supposedly inferior in any way but, overall, history tends to reward leadership, technology and organization more than movie picture of badassery.

---

I agree with this. There is no doubt that, warrior to warrior, the Japanese were superior. But in terms of military strategy and tactics, I believe the Romans would come out on top in that fight. Japanese battle consisted of man-to-man, where Roman fighting and tactics consisted of army-to-army (if possible). Most of what the legion came across could not grasp this concept, and that is why they failed. Unless the Japanese were willing to adopt a different strategy (highly doubtful), they would have fell just like the rest. Some people probably look past this because they have a love of one culture and history over another, but the simple truth is there; the Romans were organized and trained to fight together - the Japanese were organized but trained to fight one on one. Knowing their disposition towards foreign ideas, it would not have been easy for them to adapt to such a different style of fighting. Just look at what happened during the Meiji Restoration; while the rest of the world was moving into the modern era, the Japanese up until that point were forcefully isolating themselves. It only changed when they were forced by the ruling classes to do away with the old ideas (which caused a civil war), and that is something that came with the empowerment of the peasant class - which is something the Romans had been doing a thousand years before them with citizenship.

On a side note; the Romans conquered much of their known world using the same tried-and-true tactics... the Japanese never made it past Korea. Granted they were much more isolated, but it just goes to show that if the Japanese were truly a powerhouse, they would have had much more luck getting out of Japan. They simply weren't unified, or cared, enough to do what needed to be done, which is something the Romans excelled at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madae

I agree with this. There is no doubt that, warrior to warrior, the Japanese were superior. But in terms of military strategy and tactics, I believe the Romans would come out on top in that fight. Japanese battle consisted of man-to-man, where Roman fighting and tactics consisted of army-to-army (if possible). Most of what the legion came across could not grasp this concept, and that is why they failed. Unless the Japanese were willing to adopt a different strategy (highly doubtful), they would have fell just like the rest. Some people probably look past this because they have a love of one culture and history over another, but the simple truth is there; the Romans were organized and trained to fight together - the Japanese were organized but trained to fight one on one. Knowing their disposition towards foreign ideas, it would not have been easy for them to adapt to such a different style of fighting. Just look at what happened during the Meiji Restoration; while the rest of the world was moving into the modern era, the Japanese up until that point were forcefully isolating themselves. It only changed when they were forced by the ruling classes to do away with the old ideas (which caused a civil war), and that is something that came with the empowerment of the peasant class - which is something the Romans had been doing a thousand years before them with citizenship.

---

Nope. The Romans ,despite being a professional force,did lack Generals. That was Rome had in its history,bad and good generals. The Chinese were far more advanced than the romans and they could have easily conqeured Rome. You are underestimating the Japanese,they did not lack in having good Generals.They wouldn't however ''fall'' to death. The Japanese would have rather died on the battlefield than give their life away.Look on the internet if you're not sure.

Just look at what happened during the Meiji Restoration; while the rest of the world was moving into the modern era, the Japanese up until that point were forcefully isolating themselves. It only changed when they were forced by the ruling classes to do away with the old ideas (which caused a civil war)

The Meiji Restoration wiped out the Samurai. They were forced into changing the modern world.Amercia and other european nations did bomb japanese cities. And that forced them to change.Otherwise they could have found a good use for the samurai.And Japan has not had one civil war,it has had civil war for centurys.Centuries. Japanese fudelism society was way better than European feudalism. Why,a mere peasent became one of Japan's most powerful general. You don't see that in feudalism Europe.And in belief to that Europeans deveploed Marital arts is a lie. There was no such thing as that,and it never existed.Look at Rome and Persia,or Grecce or Carthage,where was the maritial arts then?

Japanese tactics were better.It all depended on the Damiyo's organiztion,I don't think the Japanese were that foolhardy to be as you say they are. if it were one to one,that would be when direct in the battlefield.It very much as I am saying,depended on him.The Damyio.

Devout, please direct your discussion at the topic, not at the person ("you"..."you"...."you"). By doing so, we can prevent a very interesting discussion from turning into a personal battle. Thanks.

lol, I think Gregoshi said it best. I don't have anything to say to you, Marshall. You're being far to confrontational with something that is purely speculation and open to personal opinion, which is exactly what everything you, and I, said - not fact; opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madae

I agree with this. There is no doubt that, warrior to warrior, the Japanese were superior. But in terms of military strategy and tactics, I believe the Romans would come out on top in that fight. Japanese battle consisted of man-to-man, where Roman fighting and tactics consisted of army-to-army (if possible). Most of what the legion came across could not grasp this concept, and that is why they failed. Unless the Japanese were willing to adopt a different strategy (highly doubtful), they would have fell just like the rest. Some people probably look past this because they have a love of one culture and history over another, but the simple truth is there; the Romans were organized and trained to fight together - the Japanese were organized but trained to fight one on one. Knowing their disposition towards foreign ideas, it would not have been easy for them to adapt to such a different style of fighting. Just look at what happened during the Meiji Restoration; while the rest of the world was moving into the modern era, the Japanese up until that point were forcefully isolating themselves. It only changed when they were forced by the ruling classes to do away with the old ideas (which caused a civil war), and that is something that came with the empowerment of the peasant class - which is something the Romans had been doing a thousand years before them with citizenship.

On a side note; the Romans conquered much of their known world using the same tried-and-true tactics... the Japanese never made it past Korea. Granted they were much more isolated, but it just goes to show that if the Japanese were truly a powerhouse, they would have had much more luck getting out of Japan. They simply weren't unified, or cared, enough to do what needed to be done, which is something the Romans excelled at.

---

During Sengoku period Japanese warfare was nothing sort of man to man. If you would like to find a closest resemblance it would be pike and shot warfare of contemporary Europe of the time. After the Mongol invasions of 13th century Japanese warfare abandoned the poetic duels between samurais stating their names and calling out opponents of similar status. It was long gone at 16th sentury. The most absurd thing is that some of you really think that an army 13 centuries of evolution in equipment and tactics behind could win a more modern one. I will not go repeating myself, but still again, again and again stereotypes of japanese warfare of the 16th and 17th centuries pop up.

Wow, there are some seriously thin-skinned people here. It was an opinion, and a good one at that with plenty of solid points. Why are you getting so defensive and acting like I don't respect the Japanese because I made a simple choice? How about this; you guys invent a time machine, go back in time, and find out what would really happen instead of attacking my idea and claiming yours is right over mine. News flash; this is all conjecture. Yours is. Mine is. Everything is. Get over it, please?

And for the record, I really don't care if you want to argue my points, or if you think I'm wrong and want to tell me, but you could at least do it without sounding so bitter about it. It just makes you look childish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Devout, please direct your discussion at the topic, not at the person ("you"..."you"...."you"). By doing so, we can prevent a very interesting discussion from turning into a personal battle. Thanks.

---

I am not doing anything to you.And it was directed at the topic.I have edited my post anyway.Aslo to Made. Your post didn't contain anything with solid points that I could agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madae

Wow, there are some seriously thin-skinned people here. It was an opinion, and a good one at that with plenty of solid points. Why are you getting so defensive and acting like I don't respect the Japanese because I made a simple choice? How about this; you guys invent a time machine, go back in time, and find out what would really happen instead of attacking my idea and claiming yours is right over mine. News flash; this is all conjecture. Yours is. Mine is. Everything is. Get over it, please?

And for the record, I really don't care if you want to argue my points, or if you think I'm wrong and want to tell me, but you could at least do it without sounding so bitter about it. It just makes you look childish.

---

Nope. The Romans ,despite being a professional force,did lack Generals. That was what Rome lacked in its history,Generals.The success of the Roman army depended on having a good general to lead them.While the Japanese put their damyio in the front,ready to boost morale. The Chinese were far more advanced than the romans and they could have easily conqeured Rome,they had a professional army as well,But it could have been a major series events of a battle. I think,somewhat you are underestimating the Japanese,they did not lack in having good Generals,because I think,lets say Japanese invasion of Korea.Toyotomi Hideyoshi is extremly lucky that the samurai he has in his army have been figthing for almost a decade.What does that provide him? Veterans. Hardenerd infantry.They wouldn't however ''fall'' to death. The Japanese would have rather died on the battlefield than give their life away.Look on the internet if you're not sure.

Just look at what happened during the Meiji Restoration; while the rest of the world was moving into the modern era, the Japanese up until that point were forcefully isolating themselves. It only changed when they were forced by the ruling classes to do away with the old ideas (which caused a civil war)

The Meiji Restoration wiped out the Samurai. They were forced into change towards what the modern world was demanding them too.Amercia and other european nations did bomb japanese cities,when I mean bomb they only fired a few shots on the cities,but it bought a massive change in Japan.I think they should have used the samurai as a unit in their armies,if you had bulletproof samurai,that would do,samurai fusliers? Using them would have been a great idea,but no one wanted them back in. And that forced them to change.Otherwise they could have found a good use for the samurai.And Japan has not had one civil war,it has had civil war for centurys.Centuries. Japanese fudelism society was a thousand times way better than European feudalism.You didn't have monks trying to convert people or you didn't have relegious wars in that time,for Japan ,really.It's like it was Japan itself was a big battlefield,and it has fought and fought for centuries(Quite good for the Japanese,as they inherited their ancestors genes and DNA) Why,a mere peasent became one of Japan's most powerful general,And that was toyotomi Hideyoshi,you would never see that in feudalism Europe.And in belief to that Europeans deveploed Marital arts is a lie. There was no such thing as that,and it never existed.Look at Rome and Persia,or Grecce or Carthage,where was the maritial arts then?I want see some proof that they did invent maritial arts. But the Japanese army did grow powerful,as shown in the last samurai.

Japanese tactics were better.It all depended on the Damiyo's organiztion,I don't think the Japanese were that foolhardy to be as you say they are. if it were one to one,that would be when direct in the battlefield.It very much as I am saying,depended on him.The Damyio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madae

Wow, there are some seriously thin-skinned people here. It was an opinion, and a good one at that with plenty of solid points. Why are you getting so defensive and acting like I don't respect the Japanese because I made a simple choice? How about this; you guys invent a time machine, go back in time, and find out what would really happen instead of attacking my idea and claiming yours is right over mine. News flash; this is all conjecture. Yours is. Mine is. Everything is. Get over it, please?

And for the record, I really don't care if you want to argue my points, or if you think I'm wrong and want to tell me, but you could at least do it without sounding so bitter about it. It just makes you look childish.

---

Dont get me wrong.It is nothing personal towards you. Just your statement concerning the nature of Japanese warfare of the period is false one.There are no emotions attached into that.If it sounds like that i apologise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

The most absurd thing is that some of you really think that an army 13 centuries of evolution in equipment and tactics behind could win a more modern one.

---

The most absurd thing is that you hold this reasoning of "it's 13 centuries later, so there is 13 centuries of technological advances".
It's not because something happens centuries after something else, that technology is in any way necessarily better - technology doesn't happens everywhere at the same time, or we would not have had things like English riflemen fighting spear-wielding Zulus.
It's especially egregious considering it was already pointed out to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akka

The most absurd thing is that you hold this reasoning of "it's 13 centuries later, so there is 13 centuries of technological advances".
It's not because something happens centuries after something else, that technology is in any way necessarily better - technology doesn't happens everywhere at the same time, or we would not have had things like English riflemen fighting spear-wielding Zulus.
It's especially egregious considering it was already pointed out to you.

---

Maybe then you would like to explain me how wrought iron is superior to steel? or cavalry without stirrups compared to cavalry with stirrups?Japanese and zulus were not really comparable level of technological advance compared to Europeans when they first met or were they?Please show me one example in which ways Romans were more advanced to 16th century Japanese in military technology and then we can continue from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Maybe then you would like to explain me how wrought iron is superior to steel?

---

Maybe you would like to explain how you jump from 'happening' later does not mean the technology has improved linearily with iron is better than steel ?

I pointed that your reasoning is bogus. You can either back it up (hint : you can't, your reasoning was faulty) or correct it (this you can, by pointing the ACTUAL points where 16th century Japan and Rome had differing technologies, but in this case try to be objective and not just list some japanese advantages, blow them out of proportion, and forget every advantages the Romans could have had), but using logical fallacies like the one above isn't going to cut it.

Quote:

---

Japanese and zulus were not really comparable level of technological advance compared to Europeans when they first met or were they?Please show me one example in which ways Romans were more advanced to 16th century Japanese in military technology and then we can continue from there.

---

Well, I could point that they were far superior builders, especially military builders - able to raise a fortified encampment from scratch in half an afternoon, and to make astounding siege fortifications on the spot with astounding engineering in incredibly short notice.
But anyway , Roman advantages never came from their technology, but from their organization. The technological advantages of 16th century Japan (save for gunpowder, but it's out of the picture for now) were rather marginal, and though it would give an edge on such or such point, I highly doubt it would deeply change the balance between the two forces.
Not only Romans were incredibly organized and disciplined, but they also had a lot of practice and adaptability. They fought LOTS of different neighbours, in the end came out on top, and had ample opportunity to fine-tune their methods and organization. Samurais, on the other hand, fought primarily between themselves, with just a bit of fighting in Korea (which they eventually evacuated) and with Mongols (which were defeated by weather rather than arms). Not to say they were bad, but one side clearly had more varied and tried-and-true experience than the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akka

Maybe you would like to explain how you jump from 'happening' later does not mean the technology has improved linearily with iron is better than steel ?

I pointed that your reasoning is bogus. You can either back it up (hint : you can't, your reasoning was faulty) or correct it (this you can, by pointing the ACTUAL points where 16th century Japan and Rome had differing technologies, but in this case try to be objective and not just list some japanese advantages, blow them out of proportion, and forget every advantages the Romans could have had), but using logical fallacies like the one above isn't going to cut it.

Well, I could point that they were far superior builders, especially military builders - able to raise a fortified encampment from scratch in half an afternoon, and to make astounding siege fortifications on the spot with astounding engineering in incredibly short notice.
But anyway , Roman advantages never came from their technology, but from their organization. The technological advantages of 16th century Japan (save for gunpowder, but it's out of the picture for now) were rather marginal, and though it would give an edge on such or such point, I highly doubt it would deeply change the balance between the two forces.
Not only Romans were incredibly organized and disciplined, but they also had a lot of practice and adaptability. They fought LOTS of different neighbours, in the end came out on top, and had ample opportunity to fine-tune their methods and organization. Samurais, on the other hand, fought primarily between themselves, with just a bit of fighting in Korea (which they eventually evacuated) and with Mongols (which were defeated by weather rather than arms). Not to say they were bad, but one side clearly had more varied and tried-and-true experience than the other.

---

You are nitpicking. I told you that your zulu comparison was invalid and your excuse does not work with developed societys.
I always thought that Western Roman Empire grumbled 476 and Eastern Roman or the shadow which was left of it 1453. This is news to me that Roman empire survived and instead topped all their foes.

About military buildings. Do you know which stone base was one of the remaining structures in Hiroshima after the A-bomb was dropped there?Maybe you would then like to enlighten the rest of us, how Japanese camped during military campaigns, how they handled their logistics.How big armies they could field? Which kind of command structure they had? I can tell you about the Romans as i have been very interested of them for a quite long time. To me your post seems like that you know the Roman side of things, but not much about what you are actually arguing against?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Dont get me wrong.It is nothing personal towards you. Just your statement concerning the nature of Japanese warfare of the period is false one.There are no emotions attached into that.If it sounds like that i apologise.

---

You were putting words in my mouth by saying what I meant by "man to man" was "some dude calls out some dude and they have some typical Hollywood style battle because that's the way ninjas and samurais did it". And I know you did that because you hate being wrong and in an argument with people that don't agree with you (which you started). I'm sorry I insulted your love of the Japanese culture and your need to be right every time your infallible opinion gets challenged, but everything you said is theory riddled with mixed amounts of fact and fallacies, topped with a nice portion of fanboy and a preference of the Japanese over the Romans. It's really that simple, and this argument is not worth my time.

And sorry Marshall, I refuse to talk to you. I can feel my brain cells dying when I read anything you say.

For the record; what I meant by "man-to-man" was; armies clash, one guy picks out a target, kills or is killed, and then moves on to the next - rinse and repeat (and much like the Medieval era). Roman fighting was not about letting one man run off on his own and choose his targets. Get rid of everything you know about weapons and armor and just stick with this idea (it's true; Roman weapons and armor were very lackluster and cheap, mass produced exactly the same for every soldier, but they did not rely on it entirely like a Japanese warrior would). It was about cohesion, and bringing the unit to the fight, where one man defends the next and opportunities against the enemy are taken advantage of as a whole (shield out, stab, shield in), as well as; rotating lines to combat the fatigue of the man in front, and defensive formations (Testudo) for various occasions. About the only thing I can see that the Japanese have that historically caused problems for the Romans is horse archery (stirrups would undoubtedly aid in that), but everything else they have is easily comparable to the dozens of different peoples the Romans conquered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

You are nitpicking.

---

You got nerve to say this considering you have so far completely avoided every main ideas exposed, to just refocus on some little details, purposingly ignoring their meaning and then twisting them to make bad strawman. Your entire answers are built upon it, and you have the audacity to actually accuse OTHERS to do it ?

Seems you're just attempting to "win" and not really to have a discussion. That's just pointless and childish, so I don't see any reason to waste more time with you.

DOUBLE POST.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madae

You were putting words in my mouth by saying what I meant by "man to man" was "some dude calls out some dude and they have some typical Hollywood style battle because that's the way ninjas and samurais did it". And I know you did that because you hate being wrong and in an argument with people that don't agree with you (which you started). I'm sorry I insulted your love of the Japanese culture and your need to be right every time your infallible opinion gets challenged, but everything you said is theory riddled with mixed amounts of fact and fallacies, topped with a nice portion of fanboy and a preference of the Japanese over the Romans. It's really that simple, and this argument is not worth my time.

---

No need for personal attacks. Please do elaborate where i am wrong? What have i said that is not true? And what i that a talk about hollywood combat? There was no jab towards you. You are seeing things that arent.Before the Mongol Invasions the Japanese warfare was somewhat ritualistic, but with the lessons learned from it.Their warfare developed. Lesson learned that everybody are not fighting with your rules. Tell me what theories i have put to the table.All i have been talking in this thread is about how Japanese waged war, please show me where i have said something that is not supported by historians. I have been reading history as hobby for more then 15 years. I have nothing against Romans and like i said before in this thread.If we would pit a contemporary European army of similar size.I would bet my money on the Europeans.

The same goes to Akka. Point me out the hypothesis in what i have said? Also to you.I am not attacking you but your ideas. Defend them with facts and we can have a real conversation.

Are you really trying to act like a victim? But seriously, you care about this more than I do, which is funny considering it can't be proven either way and is, again, only conjecture - you really do want to win an argument that can't be won. It's not worth the effort to discuss/argue it with you. Your "15 years of history reading as a hobby" really doesn't mean jack in the greater scheme of things, since you know nothing about me or Akka. The mere fact that you brought it up as if it gives you more credibility does more to hurt your argument than help it.

This thread started out interesting - I learnt a lot. :bow:

But now the discussion is getting intemperate and generating more heat than light. Time for the topic to take a nap.

Anyone wishing to continue the debate can open a thread in the Monastery, which is a more appropriate forum.

But please try to be charitable and friendly in debate. ~:grouphug: