ASCLEPIADES

Salve, Amici Publius Annius Florus didn't agree; here comes EPITOMAE de Tito Livio Bellorum Omnium Annorum DCC, Liber II, cap XXX: "Germaniam quoque utinam vincere tanti non putasset! Magis turpiter amissa est quam gloriose adquisita. Sed quatenus sciebat patrem suum C. Caesarem bis transvectum ponte Rhenum quaesisse bellum, in illius honorem concupierant facere provinciam; et factum erat, si barbari tam vitia nostra quam imperia ferre potuisset." "I wish he (Augustus) had not thought it of so much importance to conquer Germany. The dishonour with which it was lost was greater than the glory with which it was gained. But because he knew that Caesar, his father, had twice made bridges over the Rhine to prosecute the war against the country, he was desirous, in honour of him, to make it a province, and it would have been made so effectually, if the barbarians could have endured our vices as well as our government."

Maybe we can add more to this list? How about 'The Romans threw christians to the lions in the Colloseum' or 'The Romans left Britain in 410' Even if of a quite different nature, a persistent and pernicious urban myth among us has been the fallacy that "You can't prove a negative". At the risk of overstating the obvious, just check Popper.

It's arguable if christianity is incompatible with eugenics per se; for one, that wasn't the case for the Spanish Inquisition. Your pedigree was checked for no less than five generations in the search of muslim and/or hebrew ascendence when you were employed by the state.

Thanks for that great link; a brief but juicy contribution. Guessing how hard are your supposedly hard facts it's always a critical question. Moses Finley has some nice reflections on the same topic in The Ancient Economy (1973).

Exactly the whole point; Gods's existance and most religious dogmas are not falsifiable; they are a matter of Faith, not Science. We are again trying to compare apples with oranges.

Fine poem indeed; thanks for that link. Thanks God the topic is not still at Tartarus; it is provocative basically because it is confusing. Horatius got it right; Religion and Science are not comparable with each other. We are discoursing here on apples and oranges, as science is (by any definition) verifiable knowledge and religion (by any definition too) implies faith, ie, non-verifiable knowledge. When you call Evolution a "theory", you don't use this term as synonymous of "hypothesis" (ie, a mere conjecture, assumption or guess), but rather as "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena" (American Heritage dictionary). Scientifically, Evolution has been and is quite "provable", which is not the same as saying it is an established and permanent "law". In fact, there are not truly scientific "laws" (that was a positivist conception). At least since Popper, we know that Science is, by its very nature, dynamic and unstable; scientific truth is not what you "prove", but rather what you can't disprove after an extremely thorough research (scientific method). You're constantly finding better and better explanations for any fact. If you

A beautiful full moon eclipse; actually, the best one I have ever been able to watch.

Gratiam habeo, Lady N. BTW, it seems it was an extraordinary procedure, both for the Republican ot the Imperial Ages.

An interesting kind of auto-mutilation. Can you quote your sources, please? Thanks in advance.

Salve, M . Of course, you're rigth Your turn .

It was fortunate for them that PP was not Sulla's secretary. Great job indeed, PP; congratulations. After so many lists, it's extremely hard to find mistakes at your work.

Lucius Caesar

Indeed, it was considered a great name among lovers.

Gaius Caesar.

M. Brutus.

Salve, GM. Corduba.

Salve, Amici. My condolences on your loss, big C.

Salve, GM . You're right indeed . Your turn .

Maktar! Salve, GM Of course you're right . Your turn .

Salve, Amici. Sorry to dissapoint you, but as Mesoamericans had neither sugar nor milk, their Xocolatl was a quite bitter beaverage, a mixture of crushed cocoa beans with water, chili, achiote and maize, extremely unpleasant for the Conqueror's taste (and presumably also for us). It was almost entirely reserved for religious and therapeutic purposes, as it was considerably expensive (after all, they were literally ingesting their currency, the equivalent of a paper-money's milkshake for our time). Even if Mesoamericans had honey (their only sweetener) there is no evidence they ever used it on the Xocolatl.

Salve, amici. BTW, maybe we should try to resuscitate that thread (and the Guess-the-city also ).

Salve, Amici. Additionally, she was almost the mother-in-law of the future emperor Claudius: (C. Suetonius T., De Vita XII Caesarum, Divus Claudius, Cp. XXVI, sec. I): "He (Claudius) was betrothed twice at an early age: to Aemilia Lepida, great-granddaughter of Augustus, ... He put away the former before their marriage, because her parents had offended Augustus;"

The emphasis is mine.

Your dessire is my command. Circa DCLXXII AUC (82 bc).