TPO 30 integrated writing

The reading and the lecture are both talking about the possibility of using a burning mirror as a weapon by ancient Romans. Actually, the author of the reading believes that this was impossible for three specific reasons. However, the lecturer considers the reasons unconvincing and she thinks that Romans were able to use such a weapon.

First of all, the author demonstrates that Romans were not skilled enough to build a huge, parabolic, well-structured mirror from copper that can inflame boats from a great distance. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She believes that first, Romans didn't necessarily need to create a single huge mirror and they could have made the mirror from dozens of small ones. Additionally, ancient Roman mathematicians were familiar with parabola and their properties, so they could definitely invent such a great tool.

Secondly, the author contends that it needs a great deal of time to ignite a wooden ship using a burning mirror. He supports this idea by claiming that the enemy ships were never stuck near the Roman lands for about ten minutes, and hence, the mirror could not start the fire. On the other hand, the lecturer discusses that the ship was not only made from wood. Some parts of the ships were made out of pitch, which ignites in seconds. Therefore, the ship could start burning even while moving along the sea.

Finally, the author insists that while ancient Romans had the opportunity to use flaming arrows, they didn't really need to invent any other tools like burning mirrors to do the same thing. The lecturer, however, considers it a crucial thing because the flaming arrows were visible by the soldiers and they could defeat them. But, the burning mirror was just being seen as a huge mirror and they have not been pretended as a weapon.

In conclusion, the lecture and the reading both give some reasons to argue and support the idea of using burning mirrors as weapons. And the professor effectively challenges the claims made by the article.