Military Review

Historical parallels on a separate example

59



When studying stories sometimes you wonder how strongly the so-called “cyclicality”, that is, the frequency of certain moments, manifests itself. Sometimes it comes down to even small nuances that, it would seem, do not even fall under the action of the obvious laws of historical development ...

There are, say, two states. Let's call them "A" and "B".

Both states are imperial type, that is, their territory is somewhat wider than the historical range of representatives of the titular nation. Both states have significant territories.

States are separated by a huge reservoir.

State "A" is based, in fact, by migrants. Prior to the founding of the state, local tribes lived in this territory, with which the migrants first had to somehow come to an agreement, and then these same migrants got stronger and partially destroyed, and partially subjugated the original local population.

State "B" was founded by local residents. During some historical periods, these local residents expanded their territory both militarily and peacefully, entered into alliances with their neighbors, and incorporated representatives of the surrounding nations.

State "A" has many dependent and semi-dependent territories overseas.

State "B" has historically expanded to its borders, which is why overseas territories and colonies do not have.

The economic power of the state "A" is based on two factors: the robbery of numerous colonies and transnational trade. The state budget "A" is huge.

The economic power of the state "B" is based mainly on industrial production. The state budget "B" is inferior to the budget "A".

The authorities in the state "A" are oligarchs, in fact controlling both legislative and executive power. The governing bodies are formally elected, and informally consist of representatives of the same clans unchanged from the foundation of the state. The highest official is elected not by direct voting of the people, but by voting of senators.

The authorities in the state "B" are elected representatives, voting is carried out by the people as a whole. Oligarchy exists, but it is not openly entered into politics, preferring other methods of influence on political decision-making.

The military power of state "A" is based on the use of mercenaries. It has its own army, and this army is entirely professional; This army is considered elite. The main emphasis in the military doctrine of state "A" is on the rapid transfer of troops to any theater of military operations. State "A" leads, usually, many small wars, actively using its objectively the best and most numerous fleet in the world. In small wars, limited contingents of troops "A" and a significant number of mercenaries, often from local ones, participate; some units and formations of the standing army are also hired. European and North African mercenaries are especially appreciated. The commanders of the state "A" love to "buy" the commanders of the highest and middle levels of the enemy troops, reducing the enemy's combat potential. State “A” has at its disposal samples of equipment that are considered more advanced in relation to technique “B”, although real hostilities do not always confirm this.

The military power of state "B" is based on the use of a conscript army of its own citizens. Military service is considered an honorable duty, there is a criminal liability for evading conscription. There are also elite units that terrify the enemy by their mere mention. Mercenary is practically not used and is considered a shameful occupation. The military potential of the allies is widely used; Allies are always helped - from instructors to direct military intervention. The preferred theater is a land force due to some lagging behind "A" in the development of the Navy and the rich combat experience of the army in land battles. In addition, representatives of the "B" are proud of their military history, especially victories in major wars with invaders from Europe. It is believed that the morale of soldiers "B" is extremely high.

The basis of the social and political elite of the state "A" is an ethnic group of Semitic origin, although according to legend they are representatives of the ancient civilization who had escaped for political reasons.

The basis of the social and political elite of the state "B" is the same ethnic people as the population "B".

In the past, states “A” and “B” often had allied relations, their armies fought against common enemies. The trade relations between "A" and "B" in their turnover exceeded the trade of these countries with third counterparties.

Limited contingents of troops "A" and "B" are now in the Mediterranean country "C" torn apart by civil war, and formally they are allies ...

Have you guessed what countries are you talking about?

"A" - Carthage, "B" - Rome. Mediterranean country "C" - Sicily (Syracuse kingdom). The situation described at the beginning of the First Punic War.

Pah-pah-pah over the left shoulder, of course.

But nothing like?
Author:
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 19 February 2016 05: 45
    +4
    Well reminds. And why is a striped flag over the United States and not white?
    1. Ermak
      Ermak 19 February 2016 06: 05
      15
      An interesting analogy! article +
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 19 February 2016 11: 06
        -1
        Quote: Ermak
        An interesting analogy! article +

        What is interesting in these two points, do they correspond to the declared ones?
        1)
        The authorities in the state "B" are elected representatives, voting is carried out by the people as a whole. Oligarchy exists, but it is not openly entered into politics, preferring other methods of influence on political decision-making.
        Do you seriously believe in fair elections with us? Who cares how oligarchs rule - openly or as a gray cardinal? In the USA, they, like ours, govern through their people in the government, and in our country as well.
        2)
        The basis of the social and political elite of the state "B" is the same ethnic people as the population "B".
        But really the same oligarchs of Semitic origin rule.
    2. vovanpain
      vovanpain 19 February 2016 06: 07
      18
      "A" - Carthage, "B" - Rome. Mediterranean country "C" - Sicily (Syracuse kingdom). The situation described at the beginning of the First Punic War.

      In the end, Carthage fell (A) under the blows of Rome (B). Do you say history repeats.?
      1. andj61
        andj61 19 February 2016 09: 49
        +4
        Quote: vovanpain
        In the end, Carthage fell (A) under the blows of Rome (B). Do you say history repeats.?

        Only before, the ingenious commander of Carthage (A) Hannibal invaded Rome (B), having previously defeated the army of country B in the border battle (Cannes) and ruined country B for a long time, however, forced to evacuate from there, since country A did not provide him with reinforcements. And Hannibal was gaining his army not at all in Carthage (A), but in the colony of Carthage of Spain (I).
        So God forbid us from the exact correspondence of that story ...
        1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
          Uncle VasyaSayapin 19 February 2016 12: 22
          +1
          And in general, Rome fell. And the second Rome fell.
          We must not be called the third Rome.
          But in general, the comparison is quite adequate.
        2. Awaz
          Awaz 19 February 2016 21: 40
          +1
          Unfortunately, Russia has always been long and hard to grind the enemy on its territory and only then herachit to its capital. It is sad that he is trying to do this as efficiently as possible precisely and without destruction and genocide of the peaceful people. We see all Russians for that and do not like that we do not cut out their wives for children and the elderly and do not burn in stoves.
        3. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 20 February 2016 08: 48
          0
          . brilliant commander

          I would not say, I would not call him good. All his victories are based on the miscalculations of even more illiterate commanders, i.e. he was stupidly fated that not very competent people in military affairs fought against him. And when the time came to defend Carthage, he screwed up letting go of the eliphantry with zero result.
      2. nemez
        nemez 19 February 2016 14: 35
        0
        he fell but then was reborn in Spain.
    3. Cetegg
      Cetegg 19 February 2016 06: 07
      12
      Rome fought with Carthage three times. God forbid, but the second war between the Russian Federation and the United States will be fought with stones and sticks!
      1. nemez
        nemez 19 February 2016 14: 36
        0
        if it will still be conducted, which I doubt. Rather, between Russian and American cockroaches)
    4. Lanista
      19 February 2016 08: 02
      0
      Well reminds. And why is a striped flag over the United States and not white?

      I think if you wait a little, they will hang out and white.
    5. Aleksander
      Aleksander 19 February 2016 09: 57
      +5
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Well reminds


      It does not remind in any way. Rome was never a peaceful state, subjugating neighbors by force and romanizing their population. He had the most powerful army, and it was she — the decisive factor in the conquest of the colonies — which were the basis of the power of the ancient Roman state, not industrial production. Rome had a lot of colonies (the word itself colonia latin origin) of the most diverse types: Coloniae civium Romanorum, Coloniae civium maritimae, Coloniae militares, Coloniae Latinorum, etc.
      1. Ermak
        Ermak 19 February 2016 11: 19
        +3
        Quote: Aleksander
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Well reminds


        It does not remind in any way. Rome was never a peaceful state, subjugating neighbors by force and romanizing their population. He had the most powerful army, and it was she — the decisive factor in the conquest of the colonies — which were the basis of the power of the ancient Roman state, not industrial production. Rome had a lot of colonies (the word itself colonia latin origin) of the most diverse types: Coloniae civium Romanorum, Coloniae civium maritimae, Coloniae militares, Coloniae Latinorum, etc.

        Do not forget, Russia is the third Rome, as the heir to Byzantium. In addition, the times were still different and mores. We do not delete the past simply because once the convicts used to break their nostrils. But now the employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service are being punished if suddenly there is not enough convict butter. Or in order to protect our borders of Russia, we also fought wars. And at that time there were a lot of wild tribes, and wars between neighbors were a common thing, not you like you. The degree of aggressiveness depends on time and environment. That’s the whole story. But so far we are taking advantage of the many achievements of Rome. For example, the basis of modern law is Roman, or for example, the Roman numerals used so far. And Roman concrete, roads, underfloor heating, the invention of screw and gear, and much more. Rome had the greatest impact on the development of the world and left an unprecedented mark on history and we still use a lot. But could not a production country leave so many things behind itself? Therefore Rome is a production country from the point of view of that time.
        Well, the methods of survival at that time were very civilized.
      2. Weyland
        Weyland 20 February 2016 00: 09
        0
        Quote: Aleksander
        Doesn't remind


        You set out later Roman history. On the eve of the 1st Punic War, Rome was still not so cool!
  2. Finches
    Finches 19 February 2016 05: 46
    17
    "World history is the sum of all that could have been avoided."
    - Bertrand Russell - what an amazing, Anglo-Saxon philosopher! laughing

    And there’s another expression I don’t remember whose History is forced to repeat itself because no one is listening!
    1. madjik
      madjik 19 February 2016 09: 05
      0
      "history teaches that nothing teaches nothing" such a paradox ...
  3. venaya
    venaya 19 February 2016 05: 48
    -2
    Let me remind you: Carthage was in Africa, respectively, had an African culture. Rome - although it is located on the Iberian Peninsula, but it is already Eurasia - hence the enormous difference in the foundations of culture.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 19 February 2016 05: 53
      +7
      Quote: venaya
      Let me remind you: Carthage was in Africa, respectively, had an African culture. Rome - although it is located on the Iberian Peninsula, but it is already Eurasia - hence the enormous difference in the foundations of culture.

      I remind you: Carthage and Rome are located on the Mediterranean coast - Mediterranean culture.
      laughing
      1. venaya
        venaya 19 February 2016 06: 15
        0
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Carthage and Rome are located on the Mediterranean coast - Mediterranean culture.

        America, Africa, Eurasia are located on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean - and what, they have the culture of the Atlanteans?
        Quote: Cetegg
        in Carthage there was not an African, but a Punic (Phoenician) culture, in ancient Rome the Hellenistic prevailed

        Where did the Phoenicians come from? Is it from Africa?
        The presence of an Hellenistic culture in Rome is very controversial, the culture of the Etruscans is still considered the basis of modern European culture. In Russia, the brain was rinsed with an Hellenistic culture, which does not find confirmation. In Eurasia itself, the Vedic culture (Vedas = knowledge) has always been the basis of culture, in contrast to the African - Vudic culture (Voodoo variants, the basis is zombies, read it).
        1. Cetegg
          Cetegg 19 February 2016 06: 42
          +4
          Quote: venaya
          Where did the Phoenicians come from? Is it from Africa?
          No not from africa wink in Africa, their colonies were located, which later transformed into the Carthage Republic.
          Quote: venaya
          The existence of an Hellenistic culture in Rome is highly controversial. In Russia, brains rinsed with an Hellenistic culture, which does not find confirmation

          Well, yes, this is why the ancient Romans borrowed their gods from the Greeks, renaming them in their own way, architecture, etc. etc. PS It seems that the existence of the Hellenistic culture in ancient Rome is disputed only by you)
          1. venaya
            venaya 19 February 2016 07: 47
            +1
            Quote: Cetegg
            the ancient Romans borrowed from the Greeks their gods, renaming them in their own way, architecture, etc. etc.

            What are you about ??? The bandits Greeks, whom the Egyptians did not let on their doorstep, trading with them through the Phoenicians, defeated Troy, Aeneas fled from there to the Apennines with his gods, where there was already a developed Venedian culture with its own developed writing system. The basis of the business of the Greeks has always been a very profitable sea robbery and robbery of everything and everything, it seems that this is still not taught at universities, someone does not allow it. As for the architecture - so take an interest where this name "Etruscan Arch" came from. The Greeks did not create anything themselves, everything was stolen, completely pulled.
            1. Oldwiser
              Oldwiser 19 February 2016 08: 16
              0
              According to the new chronology of Nosovsky and Fomenko, there was neither Ancient Greece, nor Ancient Rome, nor Carthage, nor the empire of Alexander the Great. All this "ancient" history - phantom - is a refracted reflection of the Russian-Horde and Byzantine-Ottoman history of the 13-16 centuries.
            2. Oldwiser
              Oldwiser 19 February 2016 08: 16
              0
              According to the new chronology of Nosovsky and Fomenko, there was neither Ancient Greece, nor Ancient Rome, nor Carthage, nor the empire of Alexander the Great. All this "ancient" history - phantom - is a refracted reflection of the Russian-Horde and Byzantine-Ottoman history of the 13-16 centuries.
        2. Wheel
          Wheel 19 February 2016 07: 05
          +6
          Quote: venaya
          Where did the Phoenicians come from? Is it from Africa?

          Since when did the Phoenicians become Africans?
          Phenicia was located essentially in the territory of modern Lebanon.
          1. venaya
            venaya 19 February 2016 07: 22
            0
            Quote: Wheel
            Phenicia was located essentially in the territory of modern Lebanon.

            And the Phoenician colony of Carthage was located on the territory of modern Tunisia. So what? All of Latin America is located in South and Central America, the language there is now used by the Romance group, of Latin origin, and the religion of Abrahamic Christianity, also originated in Rome. After all, I’m writing not about where the center of the Phoenician culture was once and at some time, but about where it came from. And he left the areas of northern Africa, presumably from the places where the Sahara desert and even the upper Nile are now located, much has been written about this.
            1. Cetegg
              Cetegg 19 February 2016 07: 29
              0
              Now a lot has been written about how the ancient Ukrainians dug up the Black Sea and poured the Caucasus Range) My history teacher from the university would throw a textbook at you for such knowledge!) And I would be right!) About ancient Rome so for sure!))
              1. venaya
                venaya 19 February 2016 10: 21
                -1
                Quote: Cetegg
                My university history teacher would throw a textbook at you for such knowledge!

                Can you imagine what place I would put to him this apparently textbook of the financier Soros, and how many local forum users would help me with this? And there are reasonable explanations for this, these textbooks often originate from the textbook of Academician Pokrovsky (read at your leisure) and his associate Academician Grushevsky, a composer and creator of the Ukrainian language. I think that says it all.
                1. Cetegg
                  Cetegg 19 February 2016 15: 07
                  -2
                  What does Soros have to do with it ?!) Do you still remember Obama and Poroshenko!) “Never argue with idiots. You’ll go down to their level, where they will crush you with their experience. ” - I probably follow the advice of Mark Twain!)
                  1. Villon
                    Villon 20 February 2016 10: 42
                    0
                    Quote: Cetegg
                    What does Soros have to do with it ?!) Do you still remember Obama and Poroshenko!) “Never argue with idiots. You’ll go down to their level, where they will crush you with their experience. ” - I probably follow the advice of Mark Twain!)

                    "Experience" you press, dear. Your "experience" is your textbook. You not only press them, but also rush. So in the mirror presented to you by deep Mark Twain, you did not see your own reflection.
              2. Villon
                Villon 20 February 2016 10: 32
                0
                Quote: Cetegg
                Now much has been written about how the ancient Ukrainians dug up the Black Sea and poured the Caucasus Range)

                And what does this have to do with it? Dear Cetegg, what is your logic?

                Quote: Cetegg
                My university history teacher would throw a textbook at you for such knowledge!

                And by this very action, he would show that he has no arguments.

                Quote: Cetegg
                and Would be right!

                Since you reasoned like this, you, apparently, have no arguments either. Well, no argument, well, it does. There you can be more calm and worthy to lead. In order to have the right to truth, one must work, and not rush into textbooks. At least think.
        3. Weyland
          Weyland 20 February 2016 00: 15
          0
          Quote: venaya
          Where did the Phoenicians come from? Is it from Africa? The presence of an Hellenistic culture in Rome is very controversial, the culture of the Etruscans is still considered the basis of modern European culture.


          Phoenicians hail from present Lebanon. Etruscans - from the western edge of present-day Turkey laughing Here italics - yes, Europeans
        4. The comment was deleted.
      2. inkass_98
        inkass_98 19 February 2016 07: 18
        +5
        I'll tell you more than that: Carthage was founded by immigrants from Phenicia, in fact - an expanded and strengthened colony, hence the Semitic roots at the "top". Moreover, this does not mean anything at all, since the same Semitic roots among the ancient Egyptians (not to be confused with modern ones) and among modern Arabs laughing - in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Semites prevailed.
        1. venaya
          venaya 19 February 2016 08: 01
          +1
          I'll tell you more than that: And I will add that all the Semitic peoples come from the Arabian desert, and the autochthonous peoples that inhabit present Libya, that Egypt is of northern origin. In Libya - the Felistimans / Pelazgs, in Egypt, the autochthonous Egyptians Copts still live, by the way Christians. There are disputes about the Semitic origin of the Phoenicians themselves, they suggest either Ethiopians or people from the Sahara (for example, the Bushmen), I myself believe that both of them are simple, perhaps the Semites from Arabia also appeared later.
    2. Cetegg
      Cetegg 19 February 2016 05: 56
      +4
      Best regards hi , but in Carthage there was not African, but Punic (Phoenician) culture, in ancient Rome the Hellenistic prevailed.
    3. PValery53
      PValery53 19 February 2016 06: 03
      +1
      Apennines are not Pyrenees for you (or vice versa) lol
    4. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 19 February 2016 11: 09
      0
      Quote: venaya
      Carthage was in Africa, respectively, had an African culture.

      Ancient Egypt had nothing to do with African culture in its current form. Like Carthage and the State of Vandals. Although they were all in Africa. hi
  4. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 19 February 2016 05: 51
    +4
    Let's be honest! State "A" is organized by a crook, and it remains so rogue! Although they mostly pray before every meal!
    1. PValery53
      PValery53 19 February 2016 09: 52
      0
      In the state "A" gathered not only crooks, but also swindlers and rogues.
  5. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 19 February 2016 05: 58
    0
    Conclusion: history does not teach anything, therefore it repeats itself.
  6. S_Baykala
    S_Baykala 19 February 2016 06: 03
    +5
    Well, Carthage must be destroyed, with this I agree.
  7. lwxx
    lwxx 19 February 2016 06: 04
    0
    Carthage must be destroyed! (C) laughing
  8. Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 19 February 2016 06: 05
    +2
    Pah-pah-pah over the left shoulder, of course.
    I would not want a complete repetition of the situation with the long Punic wars, even though State "B" became the winner.
  9. SAM 5
    SAM 5 19 February 2016 06: 12
    +1
    The author did not mention the Asian state "D". And it would be worth it.
  10. EvgNik
    EvgNik 19 February 2016 06: 14
    +4
    Analogues can always be found, if desired. Someone thought about the state "A" - states, someone else. For example, the first thing I do about Britain. And after Cato the Elder I will repeat: "Carthage must be destroyed."
  11. B.T.V.
    B.T.V. 19 February 2016 06: 14
    -1
    They say that spitting over the left shoulder is not only indecent, but you are spitting on your guardian angel.
    1. Telemon
      Telemon 19 February 2016 07: 20
      +6
      Quote: B.T.W.
      They say that spitting over the left shoulder is not only indecent, but you are spitting on your guardian angel.

      If it’s on the right, but on the left, drive demons ... recourse So roughly. hi
    2. Weyland
      Weyland 20 February 2016 16: 25
      0
      Quote: B.T.W.
      They say that spitting over the left shoulder is not only indecent, but you are spitting on your guardian angel.


      fool Guardian angel is behind right shoulder! And behind the left - an agent of a competing organization! Through the left, in order to spit, it is his spit it out! laughing
    3. The comment was deleted.
  12. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 19 February 2016 07: 14
    +4
    The analogy is not complete. Something I doubt that modern Carthaginians will exhibit something similar to the behavior of historical Carthaginians in the Third Punic War. Hair and if they will trim, it is only on the pubis. laughing

    And they do not have their own Hannibals; if only Hannibals Lecturers. laughing

    PS And here is the evidence that the Carthaginians "reveling in pederasty" there is. laughing
    Up to the point that:

    Having successfully completed these affairs, nourishing the courage and hatred of the Romans, Hamilcar, in search of a convenient excuse for war, achieved that he should be sent at the head of the army to Spain; there he took with him his son Hannibal of nine years. In addition, Hasdrubal was with him - a noble and handsome young man, about whom some said that Hamilkar loved him more sinfully than befitting.
    1. Oldwiser
      Oldwiser 19 February 2016 08: 22
      0
      Titus Livy? Or tacitus?
    2. Oldwiser
      Oldwiser 19 February 2016 08: 22
      0
      Titus Livy? Or tacitus?
      1. Gormenghast
        Gormenghast 19 February 2016 08: 26
        0
        Titus Livy? Or tacitus?


        Cornelius Nepot. smile
  13. Telemon
    Telemon 19 February 2016 07: 19
    0
    And as I would like, IMHO, that would not be cyclical, the law of History, but spiral. Unwinding. Closer and closer to the "golden ratio".
  14. Balagan
    Balagan 19 February 2016 07: 38
    +2
    Curious. Nothing new in their gadish kingdom)))
  15. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 19 February 2016 07: 42
    +2
    Ceterum censeo ... winked
  16. Stinger
    Stinger 19 February 2016 07: 49
    +1
    Interesting. Reminds. But A and B were sitting on a pipe. A fell, B disappeared. What is left on the pipe?
  17. Riv
    Riv 19 February 2016 08: 05
    +7
    It's funny But the historical analogy is far-fetched. If the Carthaginians had an atomic bomb, their city would have stood to this day. Hence the moral: power is in Newtons.
  18. Ramzes33
    Ramzes33 19 February 2016 10: 12
    0
    Is history repeating itself? I doubt, otherwise, a smooth transition to the Stone Age.
  19. cyberhanter
    cyberhanter 19 February 2016 13: 06
    0
    Doesn't remind :) If only because there are too many ambiguities about Carthage and Rome .. In Rome, the oligarchy did not go into state affairs? DO NOT make my hooves laugh. It does not remind exactly Carthage and Rome, especially since there was no country "Sicily", and Syracuse is just a large city and both armies were not on its territory at the same time during the civil war that was tearing it apart.
  20. Gorodovik
    Gorodovik 19 February 2016 13: 43
    -1
    The comparison is far-fetched. First Rome ruled the real that there are oligarchs. Senate The consuls are not ordinary citizens. And they didn’t recruit into the army. But only those who could afford weapons. Many ordinary citizens could not even serve in the army. I won’t even talk about the impact on politics.
    About how Rome joined the local. How many people they drove around the district7 And Tsar Pierre guess why he lit in Italy7 No, they have not joined many peacefully.
    You know, you can compare a lot of things this way. But in order to describe it is necessary to at least study the subject under discussion. And the school curriculum is not enough for that.
  21. Aleksandr89
    Aleksandr89 21 February 2016 00: 16
    0
    Quite an interesting comparison. Not everything is as simple as the author of the article writes. Although the general interpretation in a simplified form of those events is correct. Now there are a few drawbacks: the Mediterranean Sea is not such a significant obstacle as the Atlantic Ocean, for some reason everyone, without exception, tend to overestimate the military power of Carthage. Carthage, let alone Rome, was not a superpower in the 3rd century BC. .e. And in general, at that time, these were the margins of the Mediterranean culture, which in the eastern part, according to known sources, always prevailed, and finally, in direct combat. There were 3 wars: 1 - 264-241 BC, 2 - 218-201. BC, 3 - 149-146 BC The result of the first two wars with interruptions is the controversial victories of Rome, rather at the expense of diplomacy. Rome suffered multiple defeats even on land, not to mention the sea. But he won thanks to his resources, money and people. In the 3rd war, it took three years to take the city of Carthage itself, although all the conditions were created for a quick victory after the 2nd war, the separation of territories and the creation of semi-dependent kingdoms with the status of "friends of Rome" (Numidia, etc.)The Romans brilliantly used the proverb Divide and Conquer. So decide for yourself. But to select the facts you need without mentioning the rest is not good. It is also not good to underestimate your opponent - this leads to large losses.