▶ Your Answer :
As
far as the Greek burning mirror is concerned, the lecturer takes a stand that
opposed the thesis of the reading and presents three counterarguments.
Specifically, the lecturer does not sympathize with the reading’s view and
argues that the mirror was effective for Greek to defend and threaten the Roman
navy.
Firstly, the lecturer points out that several small
pieces of the mirror could directly ignite enemy’s ships. Therefore, the
ancient Greeks did not need exquisitely-shaped parabolic for the fire. This
directly contradicts the statement in the reading that they needed a mirror based
on high-tech and an elaborate shape of curvature.
Secondly, the lecturer goes on to say that by
using a patch on the mirror, it was much easier to set a fire, compared to just
woods. These kinds of woods took about 10 minutes to make a fire, while the
patch only took a few seconds. As a consequence, even the patch served as
useful function to fire moving ships. This information tarnishes the impact of
the reading that the mirror has to be spent a long time on firing. Thus, it was
not quite pragmatic.
Last
but not least, the lecturer concludes by saying that flaming arrows did not
exert more powerful damage over the Roman ship. This was attributed to the
reason that the burning mirror made Roman navy startled. Because the fire
gradually and unconsciously was made by the burning mirror, Roman navy could
not defend immediately. This challenges the reading that the mirror was not
developed weapon compared to flaming arrows they had used. |