ASCLEPIADES

Salve, guys & Ladies! The Kalendas of Sextilis (later August), DCCXXIV A.U.C. (30 BC), during his own fourth consulship (with L. Saenius) and the 187th Olympiad, Octavius (later Augustus) captures Alexandria. This event marks the official annexation of Ptolemaic Egypt to the Roman Republic; this year counts as the first year of Octavian's personal reign in Egypt. (and sole rule in Rome). I think even Octavius himself decreed this as a holiday, although I haven't been able to find a primary reference that confirms it. Then, this may very well be the almost official birthday of the Roman Empire 2037 years ago. Cheers and good luck!

Salve, guys & Ladies! This comes at the end of "Vita Nero" of Suetonius, one of the strongest detractors of this Emperor that there will ever be; "57 He met his death in the thirty-second year of his age, on the anniversary of the murder of Octavia, and such was the public rejoicing that the people put on liberty-caps and ran about all at city. Yet there were some who for a long time decorated his tomb with spring and summer flowers, and now produced his statues on the rostra in the fringed toga, and now his edicts, as if he were still alive and would shortly return and deal destruction to his enemies. Nay more, Vologaesus, king of the Parthians, when he sent envoys to the senate to renew his alliance, earnestly begged this too, that honour be paid to the memory of Nero. In fact, twenty years later, when I was a young man, a person of obscure origin appeared, who gave out that he was Nero, and the name was still in such favour with the Parthians that they supported him vigorously and surrendered him with great reluctance. " and this comes from Josephus, presumably the historian with great chronological proximity with Nero and a client of the Flavian Dynasty: (Antiquities of the Jews, book XX, Ch. 8, sec. 3) "But I omit any further discourse about these affairs; for there have been a great many who have composed the history of Nero; some of which have departed from the truth of facts out of favor, as having received benefits from him; while others, out of hatred to him, and the great ill-will which they bare him, have so impudently raved against him with their lies, that they justly deserve to be condemned. Nor do I wonder at such as have told lies of Nero, since they have not in their writings preserved the truth of history as to those facts that were earlier than his time, even when the actors could have no way incurred their hatred, since those writers lived a long time after them. " Who loved Nero? What do you think?

Salve, guys! And there is a previous thread with this specific topic that also reached negative conclusions, mainly from the primary sources quotations (Suetonius and Cassius Dio) from Primus Pilus: HERE IT IS. Cheers and good luck!

Salve, SG! Adrian Goldsworthy ("Caesar: Life of a Colossus") seems to DISAGREE:

Do you mean mad in the British or the American sense of the word? Salve, CO & GH! I think he/she means "psychiatric disease", as in "Psychosis" or "Crazy as a horse".

Let my try to clarify a little more. I am not aware of any conclusive evidence that the purported social effects of saturnism ("decline and fall") had occurred at the specific population (Romans), place and site (?), and not at unexposed (?) populations (vg, Germans) (= criterion 3); ... even less that such effects were observed in other exposed populations (= criterion 2), ...not to talk about a variable incidence with variable exposure (vg, US and UK in XIX & XX Centuries) (= criterion 5). Cheers and good luck!

Salve, guys! Please note that there is a large number of LTRDT that have been thriving since XIX Century. For a short list of some of the most notorious in recent times, you can go HERE. As far as I know, basically most if not all of them have the same or similar caveats as Dr. Nirigau's research. Cheers and good luck!

Salve, guys! Well, we cannot avoid the exposition matter forever, can we? So here we go. These are the widely accepted Austin Bradford-Hill detailed epidemiological criteria for assessing evidence of causation (1965): 1. Strength: The magnitude of the association. 2. Consistency: Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect. 3. Specificity: Causation is likely if a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.[1] 4. Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay). 5. Biological gradient: Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. 6. Plausibility: A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful. 7. Coherence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. 8. Experiment: Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence. 9. Analogy: The effect of similar factors may be considered. (Nowadays, points 6 to 9 are considered mainly accessory because of inherent limitations) From where I am, the main problems for LTRDT are with points # 2, 3 and 5. What do you think about all of this stuff? Cheers and good luck!

Salve, P! Fungus toxicity is entirely another matter, and it would probably merit its own thread. Anyway, I would think a lot of what we have said in this topic about LTRDT applies to a great extent to ergotism and other non-infectious diseases theories as well. Cheers and good luck!

Salve, guys and Ladies! Saturday is an exception; in the Romance languages (in your example, the Italian "Sabato"), its name doesn't come from Saturn, but for the well known Hebrew word "Sabbat", with a totally different meaning ( shābath = "to rest"). BTW, Sunday would probably not be an exception to the general rule, as the "Lord" of "Domenica" was commonly assumed to be a Solar Deity by Constantine times. Cheers and good luck!

Salve, P! Sorry, my last post was made before reading your last post due to my poor cybernetic abilities. Anyway, have I read It, I think I would have said more or less the same. This is a very interesting article. Dr. Nirigau is clearly a medical expert, not a historian. Once again, his article doesn't define the kind of Roman decline and/or fall he is trying to explain; essentially, he doesn't answer any of the questions that had been so problematic to us. Skin absorption, I suppose. Once again, methinks the main problem for the "Lead-Toxicity-Roman-Decline-Theories" (LTRDT for short) is not so much the exposition as the mechanisms. I think that would be a good argument AGAINST the LTRDT. Even if saturnism was common, that is simply not enough to claim the LTRDT. Cheers and good luck!

Salve, guys! Well, here we go. I think lead exposition was significant during at least some periods in Ancient Rome and saturnism was probably common, even if definite archaeological evidence has been hard to find. Anyway, it appears that this exposition would have been far less than it had been in others well-known (declining???) societies; for example, UK and US at the last half of the XIX Century and the first half of XX. Now, let's assume; for the sake of the argument, that we can verify a significantly higher prevalence of saturnism in the Roman ruler class (the most prosperous members of society, I suppose) specifically in the declining spots during the declining period or periods (previously identified by us, of course); obviously, chief enemies of this ruler class (vg, Germans, Persians) should had been basically unaffected. (Clearly a pretty huge assumption) Which of saturnism symptoms do you believe would had been the main contributors for such a decline? Intellectual impairment? Please remember it is mostly mild when it appears and frank dementia is exceptional if ever it happens at all. But, once more, for the sake of the argument

Salve, P) Are you kidding? Welcome to your "ramble"! That's certainly possible. I would love to see the archeological research that supports this social stratification of lead toxicity. Lead storage is up to 90% or more in bones and practically lifelong. I think this post is getting long enough and I'll have to continue in the next one. Pleeeaze: DON'T STOP "RAMBLING""!

Salve, CO! HERE IS A GOOD LINK. I hope it may be useful.

Salve, guys! And here is an aerial view. Cheers and good luck!

Salve, guys! Here is an extract of the expedient of the World Heritage List (UNESCO) about this place: Gamzigrad-Romuliana, Palace of Galerius - Eastern Serbia - N43 53 57.5 E22 11 10 - ref: 1253 Selection criteria: III. to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; IV. to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; Brief Description The Late Roman fortified palace compound and memorial complex of Gamzigrad-Romuliana, Palace of Galerius, in the east of Serbia, was commissioned by Emperor Caius Valerius Galerius Maximianus, in the late 3rd and early 4th century. It was known as Felix Romuliana, named after the Emperor's mother. The site consists of fortifications, the palace in the north-western part of the complex, basilicas, temples, hot baths, memorial complex, and a tetrapylon. The site offers a unique testimony of the Roman building tradition marked by the ideology of the period of the Second Tetrachy. The group of buildings is also unique in its intertwining of ceremonial and memorial functions. The relation between two spatial ensembles in this site is stressed by the tetrapylon which is placed on the crossroads between the worldly fortification and palace on the one side and the other-worldly mausoleums and consecration monuments on the other. The nominated property consists of the following:

Gratiam habeo, S! Are you kidding? Welcome the rambling! That was an X-traordinary X-planation of a cardinal but not very well known episode of the Second Punic War and related events. I suppose PWII is in some way similar to WWII; you never stop learning new stuff about them. Of course, it was a little too long (maybe there should have been 3 or 4 X-traordinary X-planations). This is the kind of sin that some of us can easily forgive.

Salve, G! My point exactly. Good luck!

Since XIIII isn't 18, I wonder: did Romans count market days only? Apologies for the digression. Salve, guys! Kalendas, Nones and Ides were the only named days of each month. Kalendas is always the 1st day. Roman computation of other days was prospective (numbered to the next named date) and inclusive (the count includes the dated day). This last characteristic is probably the origin of the confusion between 18 and 19. Sextilis is the name of the month("the 6th"). As the calendar was named before the Decemvir reform, his month count began in our March; then, his Sextilis is our August. (The 11th and 12th months are November and December for the same reason). "XIII Kal. Sextiles" is then 14 days before August 1 (inclusive), or July 19 (if you don't include the day, you wrongly get 18). BTW, July 19 of 64 was Thursday by our system. Cheers and good luck

Salve, guys & Ladies! With 198 neverending minutes (Director's cut), this would be the second longest film I have ever watched. I really love it. I believe it is a turning point in film history... But believe me, it's tooooooo looong. Cheers and good luck!

Salve, guys & Ladies! For the record, since Maladict began this thread, during 19 weeks we have posted pictures of 53 Roman and/or Greek sites at the four corners of the Empire, in Italy and no less than 24 provinces, two thirds of them in the Western side. Not a bad score. Cheers and good luck!

Salve, L! Glad you liked it. Oh, rest assured! It was no Christ. Anyway, maybe you shall prefer this one (among hundreds of examples): Eclogue VIII Cheers and good luck!

Com'on, pal!!! You don't really expect me to post the same stuff again and again, do you? You can read the answer to that in the post #5 of this same page on this same thread. I hope it may be useful. Cheers and good luck!

Salve, L! Publius Vergilius Maro didn