I will adress the "cheap shot" momentarily. I personally have little concern over that one.

No, what offends me is the notion that anyone could think that the fact that Azula "lost" in the end in any detracts even slightly from her sheer utter awsomeness.

*begins getting into historical mode*

Napoleon Bonaparte is considered by many to be one of the greatest military strategists and rulers of all time. He was a man who could have ruled the world. In the end however, he fell, defeated irrevocably at the battle of Waterloo. Who was responsible for Napoleons final defeat? It certainly wasn't his allies. It was himself - Napoleon made the gastly mistake of trying to fight the most important battle of his life while racked by a horrible sickness that forced him to sleep through much of the battle. Mind numbed, he made tactical errors, and was soon overrun.

So Napoleon failed. The Emperor of France was stripped of his titles and powers, an enemy of his was placed on the throne, and he was imprisoned on a small, gloomy island where he spent the rest of his days tormented by sicknesses and nightmares.

And yet Napoleon had also succeeded. To this day he is acknowledged as a far-sighted genius - his tactics are still studied in military schools. The Duke of Wellington, his erstwhile conqueror, is acknowledged for bringing Napoleon down, but that is it. Wellington was able to catch Bonaparte off guard, and defeat him, but there is no way that he could ever have pulled off the feats of genius Napoleon did before his fall.

Let's delve back deeper in history, to the time of Ancient Rome, and examine the case of Gaius Julius Caesar. One of the most brilliant political geniuses of all time, Caesar eventually lost out - he failed to mainatin control of his own Senate, and was brutally stabbed to death by his closest allies. The empire that he had built for himself was shattered. Does the fact that they caught Caesar out render his opponents his political superiors? Of course not. Caesar is the one who is revered as a political genius, his oppononents as the people who did a very botchy job of taking him out.

I could go on and on with this list:

- Hannibal Barca

- Vercingetrix

- Spartacus

- Pericles

- Cicero

- Mithridates

- Pompey

- Cleopatra

- Shaka

- Pizarro

- Barbarosa

and many others.

All of these names - the names of veritabal giants of history from all around the world, have one thing in common: each was incredibly skilled at one thing or another, each was a leader who had the opportunity to dominate their worlds and eras, each vastly out-stripped all those around them. And each was eventually brought down by those less skilled than them - caught off guard, forced to fight in a manner unacustomed too, or most humiliatingly of all, a single mistake that left them vulnerable.

Each of them, "failed". By Microwave's definition, each should therefore be discarded as inferior to their lesser, yet victorious opponents.

History disagrees. The people who conquered the great men and women mentioned above were good, but they could never have done the things that those great people did - feats unmatched that earned them recognition throughout the ages.

There is a curious tale regarding the name at the top of that list - Hannibal Barca.

Hannibal was very much the Napoleon Bonaparte of the ancient world. A strategic genius, he is known to this day as "the father of military strategy". Under his command, a Carthaginian army was almost able to conquer the Roman empire. The battles that Hannibal won fighting against Rome made him a legend - he was always able to defeat vastly bigger, stronger armies with better soldiers through clever planning. The way that Hannibal was defeated therefore, was most embarrassing - in his first battle where for once he outnumbered his opponents, he was beaten by a young Roman general name d Scipio Africanus, who had developed a single tactic that tore apart Hannibal's forces.

Hannibal lost everything - he was stripped of all that he had once had. Rome was saved, and many would have expected that Scipio would be welcomed as a hero. What happened insttead was very surprising. Statues began appearing all over Rome. Statues of Hannibal. The feared and often brutal conqueror who had once threatened to burn Rome to the ground was honored by the Romans as one of the greatest generals of all time. The Romans respected talent greatly, and even though they had feared Hannibal, and despite the fact that he had "failed" and been beaten by an unfamiliar tactic, they recognized him as the greater person, and treated him as such. Scipio, who had beaten Hannibal but could never have done half the things Hannibal did, was eventually exiled.

Some years after the battle of Zama (where hannibal had been defeated), by a strange coincidence Scipio and Hannibal bumped into eachother on the street one day (they were both visiting the same foriegn country at the time). They settled down to buy eachother drinks, and chat about old times (trying to kill eachother). Scipio was at this point resentful of all the attention Hannibal was recieving compared to him, and resolved to try and put his one-time opponent in his place. Scipio asked Hannibal a question - who, in Hannibal's opinion, was the greatest general of all time. Hannibal thought about it for a moment and then replied; "Alexander the Great", for Alexander had conquered much territory. Scipio thought for a moment, and then reluctantly conceded that he too would concede first place to Alexander. So he asked which general Hannibal thought was the second best. Hannibal replied "Pyrrhus of Epirus", for in Hannibal's opinion, boldness was essential for being a general, and none had been more bold than Pyrrhus. Exasperated, for he wanted Hannibal to say that Scipio was on the list, Scipio asked who in Hannibal's opinion was third. Hannibal replied: "Third I would place myself, for I am among the greatest strategists of all time". At this Scipio cracked at last, angrily shouting; "And where would you place yourself, oh defeated Hannibal, if I had not beaten you at Zama!". Hannibal replied: "I would place myself first, had I remained undefeated by you".

By saying this, Hannibal actually honored Scipio, for he was saying that Scipio had beaten someone even better than Alexander the Great. But Scipio could not be higher than Hannibal on the list, because even though he had beaten Hannibal, he could never have done the things that Hannibal had done.

Whew. That was quite a post, if I do say so myself

And there is more to come...

I will adress the "cheap shot" momentarily. I personally have little concern over that one.

No, what offends me is the notion that anyone could think that the fact that Azula "lost" in the end in any detracts even slightly from her sheer utter awsomeness.

*begins getting into historical mode*

Napoleon Bonaparte is considered by many to be one of the greatest military strategists and rulers of all time. He was a man who could have ruled the world. In the end however, he fell, defeated irrevocably at the battle of Waterloo. Who was responsible for Napoleons final defeat? It certainly wasn't his allies. It was himself - Napoleon made the gastly mistake of trying to fight the most important battle of his life while racked by a horrible sickness that forced him to sleep through much of the battle. Mind numbed, he made tactical errors, and was soon overrun.

So Napoleon failed. The Emperor of France was stripped of his titles and powers, an enemy of his was placed on the throne, and he was imprisoned on a small, gloomy island where he spent the rest of his days tormented by sicknesses and nightmares.

And yet Napoleon had also succeeded. To this day he is acknowledged as a far-sighted genius - his tactics are still studied in military schools. The Duke of Wellington, his erstwhile conqueror, is acknowledged for bringing Napoleon down, but that is it. Wellington was able to catch Bonaparte off guard, and defeat him, but there is no way that he could ever have pulled off the feats of genius Napoleon did before his fall.

Let's delve back deeper in history, to the time of Ancient Rome, and examine the case of Gaius Julius Caesar. One of the most brilliant political geniuses of all time, Caesar eventually lost out - he failed to mainatin control of his own Senate, and was brutally stabbed to death by his closest allies. The empire that he had built for himself was shattered. Does the fact that they caught Caesar out render his opponents his political superiors? Of course not. Caesar is the one who is revered as a political genius, his oppononents as the people who did a very botchy job of taking him out.

I could go on and on with this list:

- Hannibal Barca

- Vercingetrix

- Spartacus

- Pericles

- Cicero

- Mithridates

- Pompey

- Cleopatra

- Shaka

- Pizarro

- Barbarosa

and many others.

All of these names - the names of veritabal giants of history from all around the world, have one thing in common: each was incredibly skilled at one thing or another, each was a leader who had the opportunity to dominate their worlds and eras, each vastly out-stripped all those around them. And each was eventually brought down by those less skilled than them - caught off guard, forced to fight in a manner unacustomed too, or most humiliatingly of all, a single mistake that left them vulnerable.

Each of them, "failed". By Microwave's definition, each should therefore be discarded as inferior to their lesser, yet victorious opponents.

History disagrees. The people who conquered the great men and women mentioned above were good, but they could never have done the things that those great people did - feats unmatched that earned them recognition throughout the ages.

There is a curious tale regarding the name at the top of that list - Hannibal Barca.

Hannibal was very much the Napoleon Bonaparte of the ancient world. A strategic genius, he is known to this day as "the father of military strategy". Under his command, a Carthaginian army was almost able to conquer the Roman empire. The battles that Hannibal won fighting against Rome made him a legend - he was always able to defeat vastly bigger, stronger armies with better soldiers through clever planning. The way that Hannibal was defeated therefore, was most embarrassing - in his first battle where for once he outnumbered his opponents, he was beaten by a young Roman general name d Scipio Africanus, who had developed a single tactic that tore apart Hannibal's forces.

Hannibal lost everything - he was stripped of all that he had once had. Rome was saved, and many would have expected that Scipio would be welcomed as a hero. What happened insttead was very surprising. Statues began appearing all over Rome. Statues of Hannibal. The feared and often brutal conqueror who had once threatened to burn Rome to the ground was honored by the Romans as one of the greatest generals of all time. The Romans respected talent greatly, and even though they had feared Hannibal, and despite the fact that he had "failed" and been beaten by an unfamiliar tactic, they recognized him as the greater person, and treated him as such. Scipio, who had beaten Hannibal but could never have done half the things Hannibal did, was eventually exiled.

Some years after the battle of Zama (where hannibal had been defeated), by a strange coincidence Scipio and Hannibal bumped into eachother on the street one day (they were both visiting the same foriegn country at the time). They settled down to buy eachother drinks, and chat about old times (trying to kill eachother). Scipio was at this point resentful of all the attention Hannibal was recieving compared to him, and resolved to try and put his one-time opponent in his place. Scipio asked Hannibal a question - who, in Hannibal's opinion, was the greatest general of all time. Hannibal thought about it for a moment and then replied; "Alexander the Great", for Alexander had conquered much territory. Scipio thought for a moment, and then reluctantly conceded that he too would concede first place to Alexander. So he asked which general Hannibal thought was the second best. Hannibal replied "Pyrrhus of Epirus", for in Hannibal's opinion, boldness was essential for being a general, and none had been more bold than Pyrrhus. Exasperated, for he wanted Hannibal to say that Scipio was on the list, Scipio asked who in Hannibal's opinion was third. Hannibal replied: "Third I would place myself, for I am among the greatest strategists of all time". At this Scipio cracked at last, angrily shouting; "And where would you place yourself, oh defeated Hannibal, if I had not beaten you at Zama!". Hannibal replied: "I would place myself first, had I remained undefeated by you".

By saying this, Hannibal actually honored Scipio, for he was saying that Scipio had beaten someone even better than Alexander the Great. But Scipio could not be higher than Hannibal on the list, because even though he had beaten Hannibal, he could never have done the things that Hannibal had done.

Whew. That was quite a post, if I do say so myself

And there is more to come...