Originally by: PooooBear

---

Edited by: PooooBear on 16/09/2008 17:05:34

Originally by: Doddy

---

Edited by: Doddy on 16/09/2008 16:05:26
A phyric victory isn't to do with either irreplaceable nor very heavy losses. It simply means a victory isn't worth the cost of acheiving it. What this means in terms of losses is entirely down to circumstance. A victory with irreplaceple or heavy losses is not phyrric if it acheives its goal.

It comes from Pyrhus the great who beat the romans again and again but as he lost most of his army and the romans wouldn't give up he had to go home. If the Romans had given up it wouldn't have mattered how many losses he had.

---

You know how much I appreciate a discussion about antiquities but alas, I have to disagree with you.

When you say "If the Romans had given up it wouldn't have mattered how many losses he had", therein lies the dilemma. Because a Pyrrhic victory, as it became known afterwards, is a victory that definitively costs you the outcome of the war, to the point which is considered the same if not worse than a loss.

According to the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, a Pyrrhic victory is "A victory that is accompanied by enormous losses and leaves the winners in as desperate shape as if they had lost."

Had he defeated the Romans, and then proceeded to win the war, a Pyrrhic victory would have just meant a costly victory, or it wouldn't have been famous enough to have an idiom after itself.

However, the matter at hand is that BD claims that Razor achieved a Pyrrhic victory. They didn't. They just... won.

---

Originally by: CHIKA QRE

---

It took the coallition much less time to push bob into delve and take parts of it, killing all bob pets in process then what gbc has achieved so far in MAX.

---