ASCLEPIADES

Salve, K. Those drops are presumably by far the most expensive water sample ever; Sextus Julius Frontinus would have been duly impressed. Finding H2O was one of the main goals of the Phoenix mission; this critical finding comes little more than two earth months after landing at "Green Valley" over the Vastitas Borealis close to the Heimdal crater (more or less the equivalent to the SW coast of Greenland in Earth) ie, well within the Martian North Polar Circle at their early summer (like our early July). This area was specifically selected for its expected relatively high water content; and the timing to profit from the continuous sunlight (midnight sun phenomenon) for at least another 4 or 5 weeks. The twin rovers Spirit and Opportunity (landed respectively in the craters Gustav and Eagle at opposite sides on the Martian equatorial zone since early 2004) haven't been able to find water so far.

All that said, let's emphasize some inherent risks of the finding Roman parallels game: Here come some extracts from AE Lewine "Ancient Rome in Modern Italy: Mussolini

It seems you're quite familiar with Roman History. Anyway, the Roman Republic was a geopolitical empire (an imperialist power ruling over other countries) since at least the fall of Veies in CCCLVIII AUC / 396 BC. The Roman Senate and people satisfactorily ruled such Empire for more than three centuries. Then, why would "only" a dictatorship have been able to "control" it?

Salve, F. At least regarding East Greenland and any other Northern latitude, that asseveration is more an actual description of facts than a mere suggestion.

That's an easy and fallacious parallel, because it applies to most of the humans during most of History. Even today, it's no easy to find any head of state not backed by an army and/or a fortune. BTW, the US log-cabin presidents (Andrew Jackson, James K Polk, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln and James A Garfield) were not a fable.

Rome began as a monarchy. The idea of democracy in both Republics was extremely different. US is an empire in the geopolitical sense, never as a variety of Monarchy, ie as the Roman Emperors. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was a proud patrician and a persistent opponent of the egalitarian laws for the plebeians, presumably a landlord. He was an example of modesty and civic virtue, not of poverty. Do you like self-made men? Better think in Maximinius Thrax.

Salve, Segestan. Here comes Polybius of Megalopolis, Historiae, Liber VI, cp. III, sec. V-VII: "Most of those whose object it has been to instruct us methodically concerning such matters, distinguish three kinds of constitutions, which they call kingship, aristocracy, and democracy. Now we should, I think, be quite justified in asking them to enlighten us as to whether they represent these three to be the sole varieties or rather to be the best; for in either case my opinion is that they are wrong. For it is evident that we must regard as the best constitution a combination of all these three varieties, since we have had proof of this not only theoretically but by actual experience". and ibid, cp. XI, sec. Xi-XII: "The three kinds of government that I spoke of above all shared in the control of the Roman state. And such fairness and propriety in all respects was shown in the use of these three elements for drawing up the constitution and in its subsequent administration that it was impossible even for a native to pronounce with certainty whether the whole system was aristocratic, democratic, or monarchical. This was indeed only natural. For if one fixed one's eyes on the power of the consuls, the constitution seemed completely monarchical and royal; if on that of the senate it seemed again to be aristocratic; and when one looked at the power of the masses, it seemed clearly to be a democracy".

I think modern scholar consensus would be that Roman Republic was far more representative and democratic that it has been commonly considered at the early XX century. The extreme position would be that Rome was a de facto democracy, at least from Polybius to Cicero. We're talking about Fergus Millar, Morstein-Marx and of course our MPC within UNRV. Of course, that depends mostly on what's your operative definition for "democracy". Most Hellenic oligarchies (the most prevalent form of government among their hundreds of Poleis most of the time) would be also considered democratic by using the same standard, even Sparta. Rome was never democratic by Athenian standard. In fact, if you read carefully the Liber VI of the Polybian Histories and its derived Ciceronian "Scipio's dream" (De Re Publica), you will find the Roman constitution is depicted there as neither democratic nor aristocratic nor monarchical, but as a fourth way that would have gotten the best of the other three systems without their shortcomings. That's the main way both authors explained their perceived Roman jingoistic superiority.

What really amazes me is that such a colony, established by a culture based on regular looting, lasted for so many centuries; hardly a failure in my book.

That's inaccurate, as Ingsoc told you. And that's exactly what Mussolini pretended to do with 1930's Italy; a way of explaining himself as a new Caesar.

To a certain extent, that's true, although non-Orthodox Christians were never fully taken out of the empire until the Arab conquests of Syria and Egypt. Also, the Orthodox persecutions of the non-Orthodox were not the same type of persecutions that the pagan Romans used against the Christians. While they somewhat varied over time, Christians who were caught be the authorities were usually given the choice of recanting or death. Certainly not all Christians were chomping at the bit to die, but there was a great appeal in martyrdom, and thus the pagans' simplistic efforts failed miserably. Some Orthodox Christians even moved Persia after Consantine legalized their religion in order to be martyred, since the Persians then saw the religion as possible Roman infiltration. The Christian persecutions of other Christians was somewhat different. While there was violence and death as you mentioned, there was not so much the outright slaughter of earlier days. Pagans and non-Christians had many of their rights taken away, were banned from serving in the army and higher levels of government, and sometimes exiled from the empire. But there wasn't the straight forward "Throw them to the lions!" mentality which had characterized earlier persecutions, and other religions were suppressed mainly through bureaucratic strangulation, loss of political rights, and social ostracization from mainstream Roman society, something that in the long run was far more effective than just pure violence. And as I said before, even that didn't fully work, as theological divisions caused major problems for the empire up through Heraclius' reign. In his personal life, yes he was. I never said that he made it part of his official duties. No, I'm not kididng. Yes, he was full-fledged bully who used the power of the state to persecute religious minorities. But I've read nowhere that his objection to the massacre was simply because the inhabitants were Christian, but just that it was a terrible thing to do. Ambrose was a bad guy in a numebr of ways, but he did not advocate senseless slaughter. The massacre was not a religious affair, it was a matter of the emperor acting arbitrarily for no good reason in a manner contrary to Christian values, and Ambrose did not believe that a person who committed such an act should get communion just because they were the emperor. Christianity's negative impact on Roman culture was not necessarily natural or inevitable. Except for those isolated riots that I mentioned earlier, the real problems only occurred when emperors openly started promoting Christianity, spending massive amounts of public money on churches, giving bishops political power, and making orthodoxy a matter of national unity and patriotism. None of this is in the Bible, and while Christians had been proselytizing for centuries, it was in both theory and practice, a pacifistic religion that, while it was against a number of Roman cultural practices that were deemed "sinful," nearly all Christians were loyals Roman who lived out their lives like everyone else. Then a western Caesar suddenly sees a cross in the sky, paints it on the shields of his men, wins a battle, and then Christianity suddenyl becomes a tool to achieve the politcal unity that had been so damaged by the third century crisis. Of course that plan never started really working until the late seventh century, when the Monophysites were all under Muslim rule. But Constantine's senseless manhandling of a religion that was never meant to be heavily poltical. This misuse of the religion perpetually opened the door to bigots like Ambrose getting into power, less-than-devout Roman nobles manipulating their way into the clergy in order to gain immunity from public service, and ultimately, unbending orthodox emperors who ravaged much of classical culture because of personal beliefe and an idea in "uniting" the empire. The Christians before Constantine shouldn't be blamed for this and didn't deserve to be persecuted. The blame should fall on Constantine and his successors who warped Christianity for their own ends, and made it just as militaristic and class-concious as the rest of Roman society. Were their Christian bigots before Constantine who would have gladly smashed up pagan temples and burned classical documents? Of course there were. But if Christianity had just been left alone, with no support or persecution from the government, the Orthodox coup that occurred might never have happened. If anything, the persecution of Diocletian and earlier emperors just solidified Christians' faith, unity, and sense of purpose, at least for a time. If the emperors had not bothered with Christianity, it might have developed into a handful of separate, theologically diverse segments that couldn't have gotten any traction over the others, at least through official channels. As it was, the emperors handed the Christians martyrs which they could look up to and a common adversary, and then made it just another instrument of the state, just like the army, which ruined some of the core aspects of the religion, and caused it to fall into the hands of unscrupulous, undevout politicans, and power-hungry fanatics. Can you name your primary sources on all that?

I would love to check your primary sources; name them.

I never said that they weren't. No, those were Theodosius, Ambrose & Co. Christians were far better persecuting other Christians than Diocletianus. Actually, you described Theodosius as an "stoic". Do you mean Saint Ambrose of Milan? The Arrian, Manichean, Jewish and Pagan persecutor? You must be kidding. My purpose is not to qualify the ancients as "bad" or "good", even less by comparing the extent of their deeds. That would be like comparing Hitler with Stalin (BTW, each one of them tried to use the other to excuse and attenuate their own massacres). This thread's issue is on Diocletianus and his fellows; were they right on fearing the potential consequences of the Christian propagation over the Empire? You have made a thorough exposition of the negative impact of Christianity over the Roman society, culture and way of life. We agree.

Let's try MPC Check this thread about some of such classical influences on the Founding Fathers. I should add: trying to find random similarities between any country and Rome may become an extremely dangerous game. Just check on il Duce Benito Mussolini and herr Adolf Hiler. "History does not repeat itself. The historians repeat one another". Max Beerbohm (1872-1956). Anyway, you will find some additional reflections on Rome:US comparison HERE. And if you keep searching UNRV, you will eventually meet the Gurus.

And before anyone quotes this one as evidence of the unavoidable non-human related climate change, read it thoroughly: "(SIC) He (Kunt Solberg) also said that modern climate change, blamed mainly on human emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, was bringing erosion to archaeological sites on Greenland. Warmer summers mean fewer days with ice on the sea, increasing a battering of waves on the shore, while permafrost is also thawing".

Indeed. The key point has long been that the act of giving vinegar to Jesus was a slight, when in actuality a drink of vinegar wine would've been considered an act of kindness by most legionaries. Psalm 69: To the Chief Musician; [set to the tune of] "Lilies." [A Psalm] of David. 1 SAVE ME, O God, for the waters have come up to my neck ... 20-22: Insults and reproach have broken my heart; I am full of heaviness and I am distressingly sick. I looked for pity, but there was none, and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me also gall for my food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink Let their own table become a snare to them; and when they are secure in peace a trap to them. Matthew 27: 47-49 And some of the bystanders, when they heard it, said, This Man is calling for Elijah! And one of them immediately ran and took a sponge, soaked it with vinegar , and put it on a reed, and was about to give it to Him to drink. But the others said, Wait! Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him from death. Mark 15:36 And one man ran, and, filling a sponge with vinegar, put it on a staff made of a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, Hold off! Let us see whether Elijah come to take Him down. Luke 23:36 The soldiers also ridiculed and made sport of Him, coming up and offering Him vinegar. John 19:29 A vessel full of sour wine was placed there, so they put a sponge soaked in the sour wine on hyssop, and held it to [His] mouth.

...And please also check out Ms. Partridge (Reuters') article on "The world oldest family tree?". I found it amazing.

Salve, K et gratiam habeo for that link. You're right; the fundaments of John Tierney's lighter note are mostly excellent. Its main methodological problem is with their multiple quotations; they are not true references, as you can't actually check the sources. Even so, that leaves Tierney many steps ahead from most anti-GW posts on this thread. There are thousands of scientific reports each month; finding ten that you could question in the last year is extremely easy, especially if you include some jokes (the last two "cosmic" risks). Nevertheless, regarding this thread issue, he's as concerned as most of us; #2 is on optimizing fuel consumption; #3 and #5 are on the best way of lessening greenhouse emissions; even #8 didn't challenge GW notion, just one isolated unsourced prediction. As Mr Tierney is trying to make us feel absolved by adopting the desired attitude on the impossible combat against GW, I must conclude he is a prominent part of the global conspiracy's propaganda against the creatures' comfort, pretending to find some substitute of religion for the masses control.

Salve et gratiam habeo for such link, M.

The presence in the oldest consular Fasti of some family names like Iunius, Cassius and Minucius might strongly support such theory, as all such nomina were only attested in purely plebeian Gentes in all available ancient Roman sources. Just for the record, all Roman families which traced their ascendece from the Latin/Sabine Roman kings (ie, the first four) which I'm aware of were unimpeachably plebeians, with the possible exception of some members of the Romilia gens(?); maybe even also at least some members of the Tarquinia gens.

Because the supernatural touch never fails to excite?. Sighting A monster under water makes interesting? headlines? Real question would be why intelligent well informed people still believe in Nessie. It's analogous to using acupuncture for treating Cancer, I guess. I agree with Minerva's explanation (for both phenomena).

If classical history teachs us something, is that politics is everyone of us. Politicians are not aliens; they are us. If they became corrupt, is fundamentally for two reasons: 1. Naturally expected human greed. 2. Because we let them. Shit happens; that doesn't mean we shouldn't clean it.

Why would you be ashamed for declaring your own political ideas(either I agree with them or not)? That's just nuts.

Just the same as the non-GW agenda politicians are pandering for votes from the discomforted not-so-alarmed/concerned citizens, who doesn't want a better world either. Rings any bell?