of naval art as then known the Carthaginians were not merely two to one but ten to one.
That 'two will beat one, other things being equal' will ever remain an 'eternal principle'; but where the sea is concerned can any man ever say with certainty what makes 'two,' or 'other things equal'? If not, what workable eternal principle is left to us? That the x superior will beat the x inferior—x being the unknown quantity. The superior if he be superior will beat the inferior; but he cannot be sure of his superiority till the battle is lost and won.
In tactics as in strategy the same thing obtains—we cannot eliminate x any more than we can exactly define it.
All men will concede that the existence of an eternal principle would be extremely useful; indeed, many are so convinced of this that they stretch points to create eternal principles, for their own convenience and the comfort of feeling that there is some sure rock upon which they can plant their feet in the quagmire of uncertainty suggested by a contemplation of future naval warfare. To do so is, of course, very dangerous; to rely upon a rock that is no rock all, but merely a stone lying in the swamp, is a sure prelude to disaster. It were better to lay down as an eternal principle that all is luck and blind chance; but here, too, we may also be little less wrong, since there has never been a war the results of which can be so attributed.
Why was Athens beaten in the Peloponnesian war?
