You reply in good faith and for good intentions but you are somewhat mistaken,

First, Romans did NOT field regiments of archers. However, following Gaius Marius' reforms, in legions a cohort (8-10 centuries of 60 men) could have archers attached. These were generally placed as an archery shield in front of the front maniples and retracted when enemies approached. More usual, however, was simply the legionaries throwing their pilum javelin before equipping their gladius short sword.

Secondly, Romans did NOT field any cavalry units. Cavalry fight from horseback, and cohesive military cavalry usage requires stirrups. Romans DID use mounted infantry though, and this could also perhaps harass enemy skirmish flankers. Stirrups wasn't invented until approximately the 7th or 8th Century. Thus, cavalry does not mean "mounted soldier". Also, the Roman social hierarchy included a "knight" class. This is not to be interpreted anachronistically as of a kind with the medieval knights, it simply means a social status above Plebeian but beneath the Patrician strata eligible for election to Senate.

This is really the same debate that's been going on since the Greeks, only now in a much more uninformed way. It reminds me of CNN's 1986 Crossfire show where the lyrics of a rock song was accused of promoting incest and Frank Zappa was invited as a representative musician. Zappa is not defending the Prince's "Incest is a good thing" statement in the lyrics in question, but he is defending the right of the artist to say it.

Some telling and relevant in context quotes from the exchange are:

Robert Novak: "Mr Zappa, let me see if I can get your position straight. Are you saying there is no filth, no pornography, no obscenity, that should not be permitted to be sold and distributed freely in this country in the form of music videos and rock videos? ... Is there no filth, no obscenity you consider qualified to be suppressed?"

John Lofton (of the Washington Times): "I agree with you that the first line of responsibility is the family [Zappa has not mentioned neither "responsibility" of "family"] to stop the kind of garbage we're talking about here today; but good grief, can't we call upon our government to help us in this fight, Frank? Are you an Anarchist, is it the government's role to do nothing in this? ... Incest in America didn't use to be this kind of problem, it has come about in the last 20 years or so [implicating "pop music"] ... You should get out more! ... Would you look in the camera and tell them that the trash you sing and write was when the Founding Fathers had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment?! ... to defend songs that glorify Satanism, and incest, and suicide?!"

Zappa: "Absolutely!"

Chorus: "You're an idiot, then!"

Tom Braden: "What would you suggest, Mr Lofton, as a means of censorship? ... What government censor is going to decide for you?"

Lefton, to Zappa: "What is the government's role, Mr Zappa?" ... ("national defence") ... "Well, I consider this national defence, pal! Our families are under attack from people like you"

Zappa: "The biggest threat today is not communism, it is moving America toward a fascist theocracy, and everything that's happened during the Reagan administration is steering us down that pipe."

Panel laughs, "oh really, Mr Zappa" etc etc

It is really an extremely interesting (not to say entertaining!) episode, and I recommend it if you haven't laready seen it. The full video is available here:

http://www.spike.com/video/zappa-on-crossfire/2658805

Agree with the above poster. The article is a classic example of tendentious writing. It wouldn't stand even the most basic requirements for an entry level university essay.

It is written arrogantly and from an pro-industry perspective. Point by point, it consistently takes sides but continuously claims it is not doing so. There is no underlying theory or methodology other than "examine every aspect of game piracy". :rolleyes:

1) The article starts with the author claiming neutrality and utter non-bias
2) The article seems to have been laid out beforehand, written as intended and fleshed out with quotes and references where found as supporting his theses
3) Sources are quotes selectively to further his preconceived conclusions
4) Alternative interpretations are ignored or dismissed
5) There is no source criticism
6) Frequent hand waving and usage of weasel words 7) Interjected unsubstantiated strong conclusions, as "The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: DRM does not cause piracy, piracy results in DRM."

Also, you gotta love an author who writes a long article, POS as it is, proves a "printable" link, which takes you to a page which says "if you want to print it, print each page, schmuck".