NationStates Jolt Archive

I keep trying to post a thread about something and typing four words and then thinking, "Why am I bothering? It will go nowhere and I will probably be insulted to boot." and then closing the thread maker and doing nothing.
I would assume this is normal behavior at some point in a person's posting life. I used to have such energy, such hopes and dreams and then. . .well. . .it suddenly seemed so damn circular.

I can't even muster the energy to post gibberish that could be locked with a witty admonishment by a friendly mod. *sigh*

I keep trying to post a thread about something and typing four words and then thinking, "Why am I bothering? It will go nowhere and I will probably be insulted to boot." and then closing the thread maker and doing nothing.
I would assume this is normal behavior at some point in a person's posting life. I used to have such energy, such hopes and dreams and then. . .well. . .it suddenly seemed so damn circular.

I can't even muster the energy to post gibberish that could be locked with a witty admonishment by a friendly mod. *sigh*'Friendly mod'? That's a contradiction in terms. ;)

What you're referring to is called 'depression'. It occurs mainly to teenagers (people with 1,000-2,000 posts) and older posters (with 5,000+ posts). It's a normal occurrence and until it passes, just don't start any more threads. Other people will start enough to keep the rest of us going.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

usually about once a day if I'm really on fire. My biggest ever thread nearly died because of that.


But then I tend to have a low opinion of most stuff that I write, usually classifying it as worthless or spam-lite even if it does go onto provoking good discussion.

I keep trying to post a thread about something and typing four words and then thinking, "Why am I bothering? It will go nowhere and I will probably be insulted to boot." and then closing the thread maker and doing nothing.
I would assume this is normal behavior at some point in a person's posting life. I used to have such energy, such hopes and dreams and then. . .well. . .it suddenly seemed so damn circular.

I can't even muster the energy to post gibberish that could be locked with a witty admonishment by a friendly mod. *sigh*
I do that every now and then. I write a post and then realise that I don't have anything important or interesting to say and just close it. Very rarely start a thread in the first place.

'Friendly mod'? That's a contradiction in terms. ;)

What you're referring to is called 'depression'. It occurs mainly to teenagers (people with 1,000-2,000 posts) and older posters (with 5,000+ posts). It's a normal occurrence and until it passes, just don't start any more threads. Other people will start enough to keep the rest of us going.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

It never hurts to leave some cheese and crackers for the mods, ya know, bit o' honey keeps'em on your side. Also, so many new posters so suddenly is a bit of a disruption. It is like mosquitos in summer. I just get to know most people and bam, 50 new names I have no idea who they are.

I keep trying to post a thread about something and typing four words and then thinking, "Why am I bothering? It will go nowhere and I will probably be insulted to boot." and then closing the thread maker and doing nothing.
I would assume this is normal behavior at some point in a person's posting life. I used to have such energy, such hopes and dreams and then. . .well. . .it suddenly seemed so damn circular.

I can't even muster the energy to post gibberish that could be locked with a witty admonishment by a friendly mod. *sigh*

I've definitely had that happen, although not with threads. I almost never post threads though, to be fair. Sometimes some issue provokes you, but you have a strong suspicion no one else cares.. that's the number one cause of "abandoned post" for me. :(

I do that every now and then. I write a post and then realise that I don't have anything important or interesting to say and just close it. Very rarely start a thread in the first place.

I usually shutdown the thread because I realize I figure I will lose will any debate I started anyway. Oh well.

I do that every now and then. I write a post and then realise that I don't have anything important or interesting to say and just close it. Very rarely start a thread in the first place.I don't either (nevertheless, if you look on General you'll find another). At least, I haven't since my last one was locked by the mods. For what? Borderline flaming. That was really a pointless thread anyway.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

What's with this win / lose thing that people have?

Sometimes I end up agreeing with people, and sometimes I don't. I don't see it as winning or losing.

Some people here, even though they have really different opinions, are good sources of different opinions.

It's good to read them even if I don't agree with them.

I think unless you're really interested in the subject you're posting on it happens to everyone eventually. I've started writing a post many times but then closed it because i thought "it'll never convince anyone, just get me insulted a bit" or "my ideas arent that good anyway". I think i post a lot less than i used to now.

What's with this win / lose thing that people have?

Sometimes I end up agreeing with people, and sometimes I don't. I don't see it as winning or losing.

Some people here, even though they have really different opinions, are good sources of different opinions.

It's good to read them even if I don't agree with them.


I agree completely, there're a lot of people I disagree with, and this forum itself has made me soften my views (though not entirely), on things like gun control, etc.

But I can still admit that I'm shallow enough to want to "win" every debate I'm in by convincing everyone else that I'm right and they're wrong. Mainly because that'd be an event for me. Not enough people want to talk about the 2nd punic war.... :D

It never hurts to leave some cheese and crackers for the mods, ya know, bit o' honey keeps'em on your side. Also, so many new posters so suddenly is a bit of a disruption. It is like mosquitos in summer. I just get to know most people and bam, 50 new names I have no idea who they are.Me neither. I get to know everyone -- and then TIN disappears, I can't find too many threads by 'good' posters like Ariddia and Sinuhue (ok, the latter got forumbanned, so for a good reason, but you know what I mean). In fact, I didn't know who you were until this thread.

And despite having spammed, flamed, flamebaited, and threatened mod action, I never got off with more than a gentle admonishment from the mods. Probably because they were enchanted by my witty sense of humor, extreme intelligence, generosity, and overall modesty. ;) Actually, it was because I kept them happy by reporting threads that needed to be moved/locked.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

What's with this win / lose thing that people have?

Sometimes I end up agreeing with people, and sometimes I don't. I don't see it as winning or losing.

Some people here, even though they have really different opinions, are good sources of different opinions.

It's good to read them even if I don't agree with them.

Very true. Still, I agree about poster's block. Sometimes I just can't find anything worth saying. Other times I really shouldn't say what I do, and I end up regretting it.

Such is life. Even the simple act of shutting up and listening without adding anything can be good for us. Respectful silence and all.

Very true. Still, I agree about poster's block. Sometimes I just can't find anything worth saying. Other times I really shouldn't say what I do, and I end up regretting it.

Such is life. Even the simple act of shutting up and listening without adding anything can be good for us. Respectful silence and all.
*Nods in quiet agreement.*

What's with this win / lose thing that people have?

Sometimes I end up agreeing with people, and sometimes I don't. I don't see it as winning or losing.

Some people here, even though they have really different opinions, are good sources of different opinions.

It's good to read them even if I don't agree with them.

Well, I am not really interested in winning an argument, in fact I don't want the argument in the first place. I guess that would be a better way of stating my opinion on making threads. Things I would like to talk about but it will turn into an argument and I ain't interested in it.

I agree completely, there're a lot of people I disagree with, and this forum itself has made me soften my views (though not entirely), on things like gun control, etc.

But I can still admit that I'm shallow enough to want to "win" every debate I'm in by convincing everyone else that I'm right and they're wrong. Mainly because that'd be an event for me. Not enough people want to talk about the 2nd punic war.... :D
I suppose you didn't see that recent show on the Military Channel, called Clash of the Generals, where they take two modern generals and pit their historical favorite generals against each other in a computer simulation.

There was an examination of Hannibal and his strategy and tactics in the Second Punic War on one episode.

One general liked him, and the other called Hannibal "a one-trick pony".

There, maybe we can start arguing.

I keep trying to post a thread about something and typing four words and then thinking, "Why am I bothering? It will go nowhere and I will probably be insulted to boot." and then closing the thread maker and doing nothing.
I would assume this is normal behavior at some point in a person's posting life. I used to have such energy, such hopes and dreams and then. . .well. . .it suddenly seemed so damn circular.

I can't even muster the energy to post gibberish that could be locked with a witty admonishment by a friendly mod. *sigh*
bah same here, had posters block for a long time now too :(
it even applies not just to threads but to individual posts as well... the whole "why bother, it won't really add anything and i'll just get flamed" syndrome is contageous :headbang:

Me neither. I get to know everyone -- and then TIN disappears, I can't find too many threads by 'good' posters like Ariddia and Sinuhue (ok, the latter got forumbanned, so for a good reason, but you know what I mean). In fact, I didn't know who you were until this thread.

And despite having spammed, flamed, flamebaited, and threatened mod action, I never got off with more than a gentle admonishment from the mods. Probably because they were enchanted by my witty sense of humor, extreme intelligence, generosity, and overall modesty. ;) Actually, it was because I kept them happy by reporting threads that needed to be moved/locked.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

You know, I sometimes feel like a ghost on the forum. I don't get involved in debates so much so I guess I am not noted for being outspoken. It is weird, that double feeling of wanting to be know and remembered and then knowing that is an arrogant way to think.
And then the question of to smilie or not smilie.

I suppose you didn't see that recent show on the Military Channel, called Clash of the Generals, where they take two modern generals and pit their historical favorite generals against each other in a computer simulation.

There was an examination of Hannibal and his strategy and tactics in the Second Punic War on one episode.

One general liked him, and the other called Hannibal "a one-trick pony".

There, maybe we can start arguing.


A ONE TRICK PONY???!


Whaaaaaa? I assume he refers to the crushing of the Roman forces at Cannae.

If by a one trick pony you mean a mastery of being able to off-foot the romans, play to his strengths whilst turning his foes strengths against them, the ability to be where he just SHOULDN'T be, and generally almost reverse the entire Carthaginian situation, then that's a good trick to have. I mean really, it's like calling Sun-tzu, or Scipio Africanus a one trick pony.

Hannibal never put a foot wrong, except when he chose to fight at Zama, instead of refusing to give way for combat until he was in the position to win. At Zama, he had very little chance of it, to be honest.

A ONE TRICK PONY???!


Whaaaaaa? I assume he refers to the crushing of the Roman forces at Cannae.

If by a one trick pony you mean a mastery of being able to off-foot the romans, play to his strengths whilst turning his foes strengths against them, the ability to be where he just SHOULDN'T be, and generally almost reverse the entire Carthaginian situation, then that's a good trick to have. I mean really, it's like calling Sun-tzu, or Scipio Africanus a one trick pony.

Hannibal never put a foot wrong, except when he chose to fight at Zama, instead of refusing to give way for combat until he was in the position to win. At Zama, he had very little chance of it, to be honest.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! You are trying to hijack my thread! :mad:
Wait a minute. . . this is an interesting topic, continue please. :)

A ONE TRICK PONY???!


Whaaaaaa? I assume he refers to the crushing of the Roman forces at Cannae.

If by a one trick pony you mean a mastery of being able to off-foot the romans, play to his strengths whilst turning his foes strengths against them, the ability to be where he just SHOULDN'T be, and generally almost reverse the entire Carthaginian situation, then that's a good trick to have. I mean really, it's like calling Sun-tzu, or Scipio Africanus a one trick pony.

Hannibal never put a foot wrong, except when he chose to fight at Zama, instead of refusing to give way for combat until he was in the position to win. At Zama, he had very little chance of it, to be honest.

They kept harping on how Hannibal, in each battle on the peninsula, used the terrain to mask his troops as much as possible to achieve surprise. I'm not sure if that's true (not as familiar with Hannibal as I'd like), but it reminded me of Wellington in the Peninsular Campaign - he liked to put his men in natural terrain cuts and mask their presence until the enemy was within firing range (he also had men crouch behind ridges until the enemy neared the top of the hill, when his men would stand and fire).

As ancient generals go, I rather like Quintus Sertorius, but then I'm biased.

Now, Hannibal invaded from the north and was doing fine until he moved to the south of Italy. Napolean invaded from the north? I am pretty sure and he did pretty well also. But people that have invaded Italy from the south have not succeeded, right? Even the Allies in WWII never took all of Italy after invading from the south.
Can you think of an example of a group that invaded from the south and succeeded?

Hannibal was able to move wherever he wanted to on the peninsula - he just couldn't hold every place he took - not enough troops.

When Rome attacked Carthage, Hannibal had to return to defend it.

If you can't hold it you should utterly destroy it. Maybe he should have simply laid waste to everything he found and then sailed home early. Or did he do that and it didn't have an effect. My Punic wars historical knowlege is very very weak.

If you can't hold it you should utterly destroy it. Maybe he should have simply laid waste to everything he found and then sailed home early. Or did he do that and it didn't have an effect. My Punic wars historical knowlege is very very weak.

Back in the day, it took a lot of soldiers to actually lay waste. Slaughter and pillage also takes time, and can reduce the discipline of your troops.

You know, I sometimes feel like a ghost on the forum. I don't get involved in debates so much so I guess I am not noted for being outspoken. It is weird, that double feeling of wanting to be know and remembered and then knowing that is an arrogant way to think.
And then the question of to smilie or not smilie.To smilie is better. It adds clarity to an expressed emotion. :rolleyes: ;) :D


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Back in the day, it took a lot of soldiers to actually lay waste. Slaughter and pillage also takes time, and can reduce the discipline of your troops.

But the booty! The loot!!! Carrying sacks of Roman gold, having your way with their cattle, what more could a Carthagenian want?

But the booty! The loot!!! Carrying sacks of Roman gold, having your way with their cattle, what more could a Carthagenian want?

I thought we were going to rape the horses, and ride off on their women?

To smilie is better. It adds clarity to an expressed emotion. :rolleyes: ;) :D


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

But I need a new smilie. There should be a shoulder shrug or a sigh. Get rid of the gun thingies, they seem universally disliked anyway.

I thought we were going to rape the horses, and ride off on their women?

Oh, you can have both my friend. A rose by any other name tastes just as sweet.
Whoops, this thread is now degenerating. Could see a mod soon. Better reel it in.

But I need a new smilie. There should be a shoulder shrug or a sigh. Get rid of the gun thingies, they seem universally disliked anyway.Let's petition Jolt!

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Let's petition Jolt!

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

In all seriousness, how?

They kept harping on how Hannibal, in each battle on the peninsula, used the terrain to mask his troops as much as possible to achieve surprise. I'm not sure if that's true (not as familiar with Hannibal as I'd like), but it reminded me of Wellington in the Peninsular Campaign - he liked to put his men in natural terrain cuts and mask their presence until the enemy was within firing range (he also had men crouch behind ridges until the enemy neared the top of the hill, when his men would stand and fire).

As ancient generals go, I rather like Quintus Sertorius, but then I'm biased.


Ah.... feigning weakness when he had strength.

Well that's elementary art of war, but I'll endeavour to prove why it's only slightly accurate.

First of all, the only battle where that was a principle part of his tactics was the battle of Trebia, where he goaded Roman troops over a ford in order to attack his principal army, made up of Spanish, Gauls, and Africans (libyans and Numidians), compared to the homogenous Roman and latin allies. Romes advantage, as you are no doubt aware, lies in their heavy infantry, Carthages, their cavalry (some may argue elephants, but they were not as effective as one would think.) Now Hannibal did hide a substantial portion of his cavalry in hilly areas at either flanks, but he HAD to make the Romans engage, and turn their typically agressive nature againstthem. that is, he set the trap, and waited for the Romans who typically disdained scouting, their equites being commanded by the nobility who wanted glory, not recce missions, to blunder headlong into it. Had the Romans a good idea of the field of battle, they would have found his cavalry, and the trap would have failed.

Hannibal sent his skirmishers forward, and caused the Romans to ford the gap. Forming his battle lines, they had the usual skirmishing, and they closed ranks. From there on, the cavalry which had gone un-noticed allowed Hannibal to smash apart the roman rear (for want of a better phrase) until it ran. So far, so good, but it was not entirely down to his simply hiding cavalry, but ensuring he made the Romans do exactly as he wanted them to, when he wanted them to. he chose the battle, and he won.


Secondly, the battle of the lake Trasimene. Now in this, we have Hannibal off-footing his enemy. In the battle of Lake Trasimene, Hannibal had his men get up extra early, and camp in the forest nearby the romans. What happened was, the Romans were advancing on his camp, and he was not prepared to fight a pitched battle. He marched his army, hidden, through the forest, as the Romans came towards his camp. Now apparently either the Roman van, or rearguard seen a portion of his army, prematurely springing the trap. The difference was, Hannibals now experienced army was formed up, and the roman army was not. Hannibal had successfully off-footed his enemy by not conforming to the typical "field battle" of the Romans. Charging into the long, thin roman battle line, he isolated individual maniples of the Roman army, and crushed them piece by piece. However, here we see the strength of the Roman infantry again, as we do in Cannae, and indeed Trebia. Individual centurions rallied their maniple, organising the defense. Regardless of the fact that they were surrounded, the maniples fell back on each other, and in some cases, smashed right through the carthaginian surrounding, and ran. Roman soldiers, however, ran into the lake itself, where the Carthaginian cavalry, spotting the Roman heads bobbing like apples, cut them off at leisure.

Thirdly, Cannae. I have already given an in-depth overview of Cannae in another thread, and I shall not do the same here. it took altogether far too long. I shall give a thinned down one that is altogether more relevant.

In Cannae, like in no other battle, Hannibal shown how significantly he can turn an enemies greatest strength to its ultimate defeat. As I have said, Romes homogenous legions were the superior heavy infantry, managing to smash Hannibals battle lines, even if the battle was ultimately lost due to either consular (A Roman senator, general, and highly important politician) death(s) or plain field defeat. Usually both combined in Hannibals victory.

However, seeing the strength of Romes legions in their ability to simply wear down and destroy his own infantry, Hannibal organised his cavalry, and his formations to make this their undoing. Organising his men in a "hollow" pyramid, with the Africans ranked deeply at each flank (like a battle line at a ninety degree angle to the field of battle, or a marching column), and the Spanish and Gauls taking the tip (the Gauls took the uppermost tip), the Romans formed up as standard (three lines of infantry, the Hastati, Principes and Triarii, line one, 2, and 3, respectively).

The battle lines closed, the Romans engaging the Gauls first, and so applying more pressure to it. The Gauls themselves, calmy fell back step by step, the Romans begining to engage the sloped "walls" of Hannibals formation, but slowly condensing themselves inadvertently until they maniples closed and became difficult to tell apart. Slowly the African columns were upon their flanks as the Romans pushed the pyramid back on itself. It is said that once the Roman front line had reached a certain point, the Africans calmy faced inwards, and advanced on the Roman flank. From here on, the Romans were truly pushed to a mass of men. As Napoleon and Wellington observed, the only thing such a mass of men can do is push forward. As this happened, the got themselves flanked more and more and more, the Gallic front line refusing to yield en masse. As it happened, the Carthaginian cavalry equally outwitted the Romans, by first concentrating their heavier cavalry on one flank to ensure the destruction of the Roman cavalry there, keeping their skirmishing cavalry occupying the other. The heavy cavalry slowly outflanked the other Roman wing, which ran, seeing itself being outnumbered and unable of victory. With this done, the Carthaginian cavalry sealed the Roman encirclement, leading charge after charge in the.... exposed rear (I'm sorry!)

However, AGAIN showing Roman heavy infantry prowess, the Romans did have one or two breakouts against the worn down Gallic and Spanish front line, though it was quickly sealed up.


And that's why I feel Hannibal is not a one trick pony.

That was very interesting. Thanks. I have read very little of the Punics.

If you can't hold it you should utterly destroy it. Maybe he should have simply laid waste to everything he found and then sailed home early. Or did he do that and it didn't have an effect. My Punic wars historical knowlege is very very weak.


Actually, he was trying the other tack. Showing that he didn't hate them. He tried to win the other cities through desertion and treachery, a tactic that got him Capua *spitting distance from Rome* and Tarentum, a valuable port town. The difference is, as he had to split his army, he could not be everywhere, and the large Gallic and Spanish contingent respect the leader above all else. Without him, they were not as effective, and Hannibal was worn down by the fact that his other lieutenants were neither as capable, nor respected as he was. Roman homogeny and the fact that commanders tended to change once per year, reduced that fact and allowed greater strategic flexibility in their own peninsular.


Let's put it this way. Pre-Cannae, there were six legions. Post Cannae and the rapid recruitment (even slaves and criminals were accepted) there were 25. Hannibal was cut off at every pass and channeled. Hannibal never put a foot wrong in his defense, however a lack of reinforcements meant that even despite winning every battle, attrition had its way in the end.

I keep trying to post a thread about something and typing four words and then thinking, "Why am I bothering? It will go nowhere and I will probably be insulted to boot."


I do the same. I used to want to enlighten the people. But the people are ungratefull neanderthalls. I just dont care anymore.

That was very interesting. Thanks. I have read very little of the Punics.
No problem. They're, as I'd hope is obvious, my favourite subject.

I do the same. I used to want to enlighten the people. But the people are ungratefull neanderthalls. I just dont care anymore.

The last thing I ever want to do is enlighten someone. I prefer to let everybody stay right where they are, where I can keep a close eye on them.

No problem. They're, as I'd hope is obvious, my favourite subject.

My military history is getting so rusty I am embarassed most of the time by my innability to recall. I was a Civil War (US, a Unionist myself, lousy rebs) buff and I used to be able to run right through just about every general and battle and little pieces of trivia. Now, creak creak creak. Arg, I have a lot of reading to do when I get back to the US and books are easily available again.

.

'Friendly mod'? That's a contradiction in terms. ;)

What you're referring to is called 'depression'. It occurs mainly to teenagers (people with 1,000-2,000 posts) and older posters (with 5,000+ posts). It's a normal occurrence and until it passes, just don't start any more threads. Other people will start enough to keep the rest of us going.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
Wahoo I am an old fogey !

bah same here, had posters block for a long time now too :(
it even applies not just to threads but to individual posts as well... the whole "why bother, it won't really add anything and i'll just get flamed" syndrome is contageous :headbang:

I'm pretty much the same, but for different reasons. I have a lot of trouble wording my posts, so I just give up on a lot of them.