Let us not forget something just as impressive - taking down Iroh. Iroh was not hit in the back - he was facing Azula head on, and was more than ready to defend himself. But Azula still burned him down. Proving once and for all that power has nothing to do with winning fights, as far as I'm concerned.

Everyone in the show has awsome moments. Having awsome moments is simply not enough to qualify someone for "greatness" though, in the sense that we are arguing over. It's the definition of greatness that seperates people like Marcus Maecullus (whom nobody has heard of), and Julius Caesar, whom everyone has heard of.

Heh - I go through phases with these various figures of history comparable to Azula. It used to be Shi Huang Di, now it's Caesar, although I am starting to lean towards Napoleon Bonaparte a bit. When I'm not fascinated by history, I revert to my true self - dedicated Star Wars freak

But anyway, you're quite right - Ozai really didn't do too much. While he deserves credit for being the most powerful Firebender on the planet, and being incredibly ruthless and evil, when you get down to it he really didn't do all that much. His ultimate plan of evil - burning down the Earth Kingdom, was Azula's plan, not his. The one thing Ozai did come up with by himself was calling himself the Phoenix King.

That is precisely what makes it so impressive. Aang had fully gone into the Avatar State - he had more than enough power to take everyone in the room on head to head. So Azula snuck around behind him and blasted him in the back. So Azula taking down of Aang was a tactical maneuver, Ty Lee hitting Azula was an unexpected betrayal.

Iroh may have been distracted, but that in no way subtracts from Azula's take-down of him. He had no particular reason to be distracted - he was facing Azula head on and plainly knew that she was probably up to something. The moment he showed a sign of distraction though, she picked up on it and struck.

Iroh was quite distracted for a brief second and Azula used that to her advantage. Iroh noticed Toph and didn't realize she was part of Aang's group; in that short moment, Azula knew this would be her best opportunity to escape and went forward without hesitation. That just shows she's VERY perceptive not so much that she's better than Iroh in anyway. Anyone can get distracted like that and lose at what they're doing, it happens all the time.

Iroh can easily handle Azula anytime, that was proven in 201, he boots her off the ship!

Greatness begets fame. Case in point is the example I used here. Marcus Maecullus was a Roman General who achieved a great deal. He fought 39 battles across the Mediterranean, winning vast lands, and later went on to have a great political career. His greatest claim to fame is as the person behind the murder of Aristotle. In his day, he was feared and hated by enemies of the Roman Empire just as much as Ozai was hated and feared by enemies of the Fire Nation.

So what is the difference? Why is Caesar still famous today, and Maecullus forgotten?

The answer is that when all is said and done, Maecullus simply did not embody "greatness". He was an average tactician and general - all he really knew how to do was crush his opponents with sheer numbers, preferably while he was sitting a long way back from the front line, just giving the orders.

Then you have Caesar, a warrior at heart who loved nothing better than charging in at the head of his men to fight on the front line. He was a brilliant tactician who couldn't care less about having an advantage in numbers, sometimes heedlessly rushing in to attack enemy armies that outnumbered him 10 - 1 (needless to say, he still always won). His political career was far more dynamic than Maecullus's, obviously.

See the difference? It's all about skill and style, as well as what the accomplishments lead to.

I never said they were completely opposed. But I can think of many instances in which they are. What are the standards for fame? In my opinion, a person is famous when they are recognizable to a great number of people, even if said people have little 'interest' in them or their field, so to speak. Greatness, on the other hand, is my opinion of a person's individual merit. Not necessarily how he is viewed by history. Again, we have conflicting standards, but to me, the two are different.

What exactly do you mean by merit? If we are talking about skills, then I'd say this argument is pretty much over. If you mean merit in the sense of meritous, then that too can be a complicated argument.