Hacker News Reader

Comment by TomOfTTB | Hacker News Reader

Well first the story about Alexander the Great is incomplete. When Alexander the Great faced the Persians they had the most formidable Navy in the world. So when his men wanted to retreat to get reinforcements Alexander the Great realized they wouldn't make it by sea. THAT is why he ordered the boats be burned. Because his men were so afraid he thought they'd use the boats to make a run for it even without his permission.

That is also why I think the author's logic falls short here. It may be brave to say "victory or death" but it is also kind of stupid. Especially if there's a chance you could be defeated but escape to fight another day.

Conflict is about strategy whether it be in business or war. Winning means using every resource you have available to you in the most efficient way possible. So I don't see the logic in destroying resources as motivational tools.

View on HN

Even though most of the times its good to have resources to your disposal, but few other times it does make sense to burn your boat.

From my personal experience - I was running a services company which was very profitable and doing good. I tried building 2 different products in parallel but got no where. As there always was money coming in and I was moving far deep into a comfort zone to motivate me. Finally I decide to shut down services business to focus on latest product. Even though its still early, I have at least been able to get product in front few hundred users.

I think thats why having too long runway (excessive funding) has its own downside.

Try reading Schelling's Strategy of Conflict to see examples of limiting yourself to win. Or if you don't have time, you can read this (which I was directly reminded of) quick synopsis: http://lesswrong.com/lw/14a/thomas_schellings_strategy_of_co...

How do you know that about Alexander? Googling finds me no source.

How do you know that about Alexander? Googling finds me no source.

I want to archive this comment as evidence that in the year 2011 Google and Wikipedia still were not as good as books and libraries.

Come again? First, Google and Wikipedia are better than no source at all, which is what we have so far. Second, my googling includes Google Book Search, which is far more efficient for this type of random query than anything I ever did in libraries. Third, it sounds like you're assuming the story about Alexander is true, where "true" here can be taken to mean "comes from the traditional stories about Alexander". I'm suggesting that it doesn't. For one thing, Plutarch's life of Alexander doesn't mention the story. Plutarch would be the last person to leave out a good one like that.

I'm happy to be wrong, but showing that requires a source. As far as I can tell, the story was originally about Tariq ibn Ziyad (see my other comment in this thread) and subsequently hopped to Caesar, Alexander, and Cortes, probably because they were better known.

On second thought, you are right. I was thinking of Alexander having to build boats in India.

On the other hand, Google book search has never worked for me. But I do think Google is waaaay better then nothing. Howewver, I am not certain that Wikipedia, as it stands, is actually a net gain.

Okay, please cite the dead tree written by a credible historian. Near as I can tell, there are tons of claims about famous conquerors who burned their ships (Caesar, Alexander, Cortez), but the only reputable source I know about is the Iliad. Which was a very lovely piece of fiction, but nevertheless fiction.

Who burns their own ships in the Iliad?

I believe it was the Trojans who burned the Greeks' ships in the Iliad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com