Edris & Attila
Edris, I've been thinking about the words we use in battle—like siege, ambush, flank—and how their roots might reveal hidden strengths or weaknesses in tactics. Have you ever studied how these terms evolved across cultures? I think it could give us a fresh angle on strategy.
That’s a fascinating angle. In the old Indo‑European roots, “siege” comes from *sege-* meaning to press or to press upon, which in many languages carried a sense of encirclement and endurance. “Ambush” is trickier; it likely mixes the idea of “to cover” with a verb meaning “to lie in wait,” which appears in Germanic and Slavic families alike. “Flank” stems from the Latin *flankus*, originally describing a side of a garment, but militarily it shifted to mean a side attack—something many cultures adopted, even in the ancient Near East where the word *ḥāyim* was used for side attacks. If you trace these terms, you’ll see how societies valued stealth, pressure, and side manoeuvres differently. It could indeed give us a fresh tactical lens—after all, understanding how a word’s nuance changed can hint at what each culture considered most threatening or decisive.
Good analysis, Edris. Knowing what a culture fears or prizes in a word gives us a map of their mind. If they call a press a siege, they expect endurance; if they see ambush as a cover, they value surprise. Use that to shape our own maneuvers—press hard where they expect to hold, strike from the flank where they see only a garment. Loyalty to the cause will carry us over any language barrier.
That’s the spirit. I’ll dig up some more linguistic footnotes and we’ll plot our moves accordingly. Just keep an ear out for the subtle shifts in their terms—those are often the best hints.