tpo 30

Both article and lecturer are discussing about Greeks defending themselves by a mirror as a weapon against Romans. the article tried to demonstrate that it is nothing but a mythical story. but the lecturer is fully disagree and tries to justify his point of view with reasoning.
The articles mentioned that, the Greeks did not have sufficient technology to invent such a high-tech devise. because it is way too difficult to design that kind of huge mirror with a lot of elaborations in size and and curvature. On the other hand, the lecturer is not agreed and believes that Greeks had access to enough copper and also had knowledge to create dozens of copper plates wich can aggregatly act like a huge mirror.
Secondly, in the article it is said that it is impossible because this process is really slow and impractical to waste so much time burning Roman's ships this way. but the lecturer comes up with the idea that Roman ships is consist of wooden parts wich can be burned in about 10 minutes, but there was also a material named pitch wich catches fire really fast in seconds.
At last, the article thinks that using this kind of strategy is unnecessary because they already have flaming arrows to burn and destroy their opponents ships. But the lecturer disagrees, and says using flaming arrows might be efficient but it is predictable. but burning them with mirror using light beams is much more effective because no one expects it and all they can see is just a mirror and reflection.