300

Have you guys seen this movie? If so, you'll know what I'm talking about (at least the ladies will!)

Sometimes, I fantasize that I'm making love to King Leonidis (gerard butler) when my aries and I are...you know...doin' stuff! Is this wrong? Actually, I know it's not. I think it's healthy and normal. When I fantasize about that strong, regal, sexy, aggressive, kind hearted, spartan king...it really increases my libido and desires. It's funny, when my aries and I went to see the movie (I begged him to take me after I had seen it the first time with some friends), I kept referring to him as my king. He is my king and totally fits the role! It was kinda cool:-) Leo's want royalty as their other half, as much as we consider ourselves royalty, right?!?!

Who have you fantasized about while you were...you know...doin' stuff w/ your partner?

Thatz abnormal. But anywayz even by Ur previous posts it becomes amply clear that U r indulging in some form of deceit at least. I know it will sound harsh, but thatz the way I see it.

"who is this directed towards?"

Not towards U Arian.

I see...so you were directing that comment to me. I don't think it's abnormal at all...you may never do it, but I'm pretty sure at least one of the women you've been with has fantasized about other men while she was w/ you. It's a pretty healthy habit, in my opinion, and I always come back to my Aries in the moment.

If what I do is deceitful (and based on WHAT previous posts that you've read from me?) than so is the Pornography he watches to get off when I'm not in the mood. Which, btw, I don't find that to be deceitful at all. If he can't get pleasure from me, i'd rather him get off by watching someone else instead of physically being w/ someone else...you know...cheating! I know what how big that sexual appetite can be for you Aries:-)

"The greatest of Alexander's battles in India was against Porus, one of the most powerful Indian leaders, at the river Hydaspes in July 326 B.C.E. Alexander's army crossed the heavily defended river in dramatic fashion during a violent thunderstorm to meet Porus' forces. The Indians were defeated in a fierce battle, even though they fought with elephants, which the Macedonians had never before seen. Alexander captured Porus and, like the other local rulers he had defeated, allowed him to continue to govern his territory. Alexander even subdued an independent province and granted it to Porus as a gift."


"Alexander's next goal was to reach the Ganges River, which was actually 250 miles away, because he thought that it flowed into the outer Ocean. His troops, however, had heard tales of the powerful Indian tribes that lived on the Ganges and remembered the difficulty of the battle with Porus, so they refused to go any farther east."

"Alexander was extremely disappointed, but he accepted their decision and persuaded them to travel south down the rivers Hydaspes and Indus so that they might reach the Ocean on the southern edge of the world. The army rode down the rivers on the rivers on rafts and stopped to attack and subdue villages along the way. "

"One of the villages in which the army stopped belonged to the Malli, who were said to be one of the most warlike of the Indian tribes. Alexander was wounded several times in this attack, most seriously when an arrow pierced his breastplate and his ribcage. The Macedonian officers rescued him in a narrow escape from the village. "

The Kingdom Alexander's army so feared was "Magadha" ruled by the Nanda dynasty at that time -

" At the time of Dhana Nanda, the Nandas had an army consisting of 80,000 cavalry, 200,000 infantry, 8,000 armed chariots, and 6,000 war elephants.It was said at that time that when this army was on the march the thumping sound and the tumultous vibrations could be heard from as far as 10 miles."

Had Alexander the Great decided to continue his campaign in India, his entity would have been completely wiped off fron the face of earth.

"Based on what? He faced a large army? So what"

Trusted U to come up with that. I guess Alexender's commanders were equally concious of the might of Magadha empire and aware of their own limitations and hence refused to advance further on what could have been their final campaign. Superiority in numbers generally breeds complacence and has been the bane for many a large armies;and the disadvantaged tend to respond via innovative military tactics and strategies and this is not limited to certain "geography" or "species" as is evident from recent US debacle in Iraq,Afghanistan and Israel's reverses against Hezobollah. Letz not talk Vietnam here coz it has lost the novelty.

" Do you think Alexander and the greeks gave a damn about the supposed might of the Magadha Empire when they fought the equally impressive Persian Empire?"

As recorded, they in fact were scared of the supposed might of Magadha. Proof of that came later on when Alexander left India -

"Alexander's invasion prompted Indians to develop a centralised state. Chandragupta ( King of Magadha ) declared war and defeated Selucus Nicator, the Macedonian ruler of the Northwestern territories captured by Alexander the Great.

Along with the the astute advice of Chanakya, Chandragupta also seized Punjab, Kabul, Khandahar, Gandhara and Persia from Seluces. Seluces' daughter was married to Chandragupta. "

"For the most part the west has been pretty damn successful and has only lost because it lost its fierce determination to win"

And they lost it for what reasons, Sir ? American soldiers are so pampered that they cant survive without chocolates. Of course western armies have registered wins riding on superior technology/firepower and not primarily coz of the "prowess" Uve been harping on. Indeed British Army is one which is more professional, seasoned and deservedly decorated, I must reckon. And about the loss of appetite for war n victory - faced with stiff resistance the occupation forces have buckled time n again. ( Now U see the similarity between whatz happening in modern day conflicts and the battles of the yore, of course with roles reversed ).

"Because we aren't waging a total war of annihilation"

Dear friend, the issue under consideration was about gureilla groups bringing huge armies to their knees under certain circumstances and itz not about God-gifted valor which U intend to be a proponent of. As for the determination to rip enemy's guts out, itz still happening with a difference - now the ambushed western army personnel in their humvees are being roasted alive. This process is never-ending.

"Has the story of Thermompylae have taught you nothing about those ancient peoples?"

How many such examples can U cite ?....War is not rhetoric and that battle was won coz of mupltiple factors, all of which we cant even aspire to comprehend. Had "courage" been the only deciding factor, then we would have had more than thousand such glorious epic samples. We have an example of Battle of Saragarhi , where 25 sikh soldiers killed around 10,000 pathans while defending a fortress.

Similarly India lost close to 3000 officers n men in the battle of Kargil ( fought in snow clad mountains at 15000 feet ) against Pakistan. Why ?

Coz initially the ego-maniac generals were sleeping when Pak regulars were intruding and later on they wanted a victory at any cost even at the expense of the lives of young men who were fighting an uphill battle ( literally ) without cover against an enemy sitting on a mountain top and able pick n shoot with deadly accuracy.

"Recorded by whom? When? proof?"

Skepticism should be more scientific and less reactive. Records -

"East of Porus' kingdom, near the Ganges River, was the powerful empire of Magadha ruled by the Nanda dynasty. Fearing the prospects of facing another powerful Indian army and exhausted by years of campaigning, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis River (modern Beas), refusing to march further east::"As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants." - Plutarch, Vita Alexandri, 62 Plutarch, Vita Alexandri, 62


Call it courage , determination, will , instinct - the moot point is that all of these concepts are not "patent" to only a few culture or tribe or geography. Most of the martial races around the world would have reacted in the same fashion when cornered and outnumbered.

"but a culture has its own values and morals"

Ever tried looking into the root-cause ? ...Itz situational first than genetic. Of course over a period of time the whole thing gets embedded but eventually decay sets in and paves way for fundamental metomorphosis.

"Courage, determination, integrity and all these values I've seen them in varying degrees in the cultures "

I see...So Italians still rule the world ?

"So what is my point? Cultures have advantages and disadvantages and some cultures can cope with adversity better than others."

Itz getting milder so itz better - though it would still be needing modifications. At best, "any" culture remains powerful till the time it strictly adheres to the core values and history is replete with examples of even the most potent falling to the caprice of "Time".