how weird

those aren't sources

fuck face

Why do you keep arguing with DOg? He doesnt have sense

as expected, retards do band together

no mention primary sources

Just to see if he will even try to post an actual source to back up his horseshit or f he’s gonna keep letting off a bunch of prick waving hot air. I guess I got the answer I’m looking for @Mr. X

huh

it's basic knowledge

books have biased

primary sources too, but you can see through the bs

@Deleted User fair enough

you just have to sometimes look at both sides

to get the whole picture

i think

what a loser

more long paragraphs

lmao

i gtg

it's late

OK, look, I’m actually being so generous as to look past the fact you are genuinely denying de Bello gallico by Julius Caesar and meditations by Marcus Aurelius and saying that’s pop history and I’m willing to say, SURE. The books are shit. Now what do you have to offer? Show me the sources you’re pulling your information from. On the bias in “pop history” and about the Roman cavalry being a central part of the build of Roman offensive maneuvers.

right

nighty night cuck

yknow when I’m pinned down and asked to provide sources.....

.....*yawn* I just dunno i get real tired? How about you guys? Feeling sleepy? @Deleted User

@Deleted User only de Bello gallico is valid

idiot

lmao

Meditations is a book (can you even call it a book) on self thought

not fucking war

dummy

de Bello gallico also proves my point

>histories by Herodotus is pop history
>the civil war by Julius caesar is pop history
>meditations by Marcus Aurelius is pop history
>they are also not valid insights on ancient cavalry practices of Romans and their contemporaries

by fucking mentioning roman use of Calvary to defeat superior enemies

just stop dude

Go to bed lmao

where did i say that?

you presented me with a bunch of pop history books

You said only de Bello gallico is the only valid one

I posted more than that

then you told me you read meditations, which has almost nothing do with war