sylla

That faith and research are fundamentally incompatible with each other is hardly news; however, even if Mgr. Ratzinger were no fan of Popper, his quoted statement on this timely finding is frankly detrimental and even offensive for any estimation of the true believers' intelligence level. Needless to say, Mr. Elburg's conclusion is self-evident; even if the actual corpse of Saul/Paul were before us, there's no way it can be authenticated, irrespectively of the performed biologic or chemical analysis; there's simply no standard to compare with. Even if for the sake of the argument a 100% accuracy for the radioisotope measure is admitted (which is patently not the case, given the potential effect of error, biases or even fraud), that would only determine the approximate dating for the analyzed bone samples; nothing more. Of the multiple fallacies involved, probably the most conspicuous is a false dilemma; - as a valid incompatible dating for this sample would absolutely discard that it came from Saul/Paul (True), - then a compatible dating (I or II century AD, as it was reported) would automatically prove such thesis (False); a false dilemma, because it ignores many other alternatives; ie. that the bone sample came from any other human being from those centuries. Additionally, the main source for the tradition referred by the Pope (Paul's beheading in Rome) would be the Acts of Paul, a collection of texts that are not only considered apocryphal by the Catholic Church itself, but which historic value is dubious at best. In any case, the doctrine of the Papal infallibility is not at risk, as it only applies when the statements are explicitly made Ex Cathedra. It seems no significant theological contribution will come out from the determination of the purportedly sacred nature of these relics; just business.

The speeches may be fictitious like almost all speeches written down by ancient historians. But it's not the expression of one man's political opinion here, but rather stating an almost universal truth. From the ancient Egyptians to the USA, all major powers -- and most minor ones -- have used monuments and architecture as a means to impress their own citizens, their allies and their enemies. In that order, I would say. If not for that most capital cities would look pretty boring. I think Cassius Dio has an educational rather than a political agenda here : to explain to an audience, less sophisticated than a 21

Herculaneum.

No photographs accompanied the article. Three pics of what seems to be that image can be seen HERE under the heading "To: BubbaGOP".

Just like the best soccer performance of the US ever.

Is this Italy (in the Classical sense)?

Coronation rites seem to have been a little complex issue; for the purposes of your game, H. Thurston article on Catholic Encyclopedia may be enough; however, if more precision is required, you should probably check out other sources, vg from the Orthodox Church. The titles of the last Roman Emperors at the XV century were the same as those from any other of their predecessors. However, western European chroniclers frequently tried to make a big deal from translation issues, because they tended to pretend the "Roman" (???) title was reserved for the Holy Germanic Emperor (the Hapsburg in your game); nowadays it would be like stating that Juan Carlos de Borbon of Spain is not a "King", but a "Rey". The regular titles were Basileus (Sovereign) Autokrator (Emperor) of the Romans. (The Western Emperors were called by them "Kings of the Franks"). After the death of Theodosius I, both the Western half under Honorius at Ravenna (not Rome) and the Eastern half under Arcadius at Constantinople were equally and

Leopold I would have considered it utterly absurd; the title makes no sense at all. The so-called "Byzantine Empire" was a late fabrication from the European Enlightenment historians; the city was universally called Constantinople (even by the Turks) and the Christian emperors who ruled there up to 1453 were always called Roman Emperors, a hardly surprising fact as that was what they indeed were. The Holy "Roman" Germanic Empire recognized the Tsar as an emperor at least since Maximilian I (XV century) and the Tsars considered themselves as heirs of Constantinople (the "third Rome" doctrine) at least since Ivan III and Vasili III (husband and son respectively of the daughter of Constantine XI, the last Roman Emperor). However, they never added such title to their style, presumably for avoiding unnecessary conflicts with the powerful Turks. As it was, the Tsar Pyotr (Peter) I, Great as he was, managed after many wars only to capture (intermittently) the port of Azov; the Turks were still too strong and the Swedish menace too great. Had the Tsar been able to capture all the Ottoman territories in Europe as described in the Game, the other European powers would have most likely considered it an inadmissible risk and would have united themselves to help the Turks (ie, like the Crimean War one and a half centuries later); the Spanish Succession War may very well never have taken place.

I can't speak for History Channel, but from where I am you're doing a nice job and I have learned a lot; you have all: knowledge, humor, curiosity, patience, responsibility, respect; you actually use original sources; what else can we ask for? And for the record, if anybody ask, please tell them I am no scholar and I have never pretended to be one. I think our problem is that you insist on seeing a complex social issue exclusively from the legal standpoint; social acts like homicide and genocide had existed arguably as long as man is man, and certainly long before any law was written or any court had condemned any perpetrator. The convention of 1948 developed the law; the social problem of genocide has been there for a long time. When a Neanderthal killed another Neanderthal, that was homicide. When a Neolithic society deliberately exterminated another society, that was genocide. Thanks for that specific reference, FV: The Convention of the United Nations on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (New York, 9 December 1948) explicitly defined Genocide as: "any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". As you can see, the same as the Webster-7th, this definition is not restricted to racial issues or to any specific timeframe, and the term is not political by itself; however, its context most usually is (as previously stated) simply because it is only natural that any country considers its friends as innocent and its enemies as guilty of such actions. For better or for worse, we're dealing here with History, ie. the remote past. The parties' political opinion is hardly a concern for us, because for some time they all have already been ... well, History. Under both Webster-7th and UN definitions (and any other I'm aware of) there were myriad examples of genocide (or "mass extermination" if you like the rose by another name) all along Classical History, and they were hardly restricted to the Romans; the annihilation of Sybaris by Crotona, of Thebes by Macedon, of Nineveh by the Medes and Babylonians are only some of the most conspicuous examples. Please verify it for yourself; the previous statement has not "politicized" history any more than it already was; my description of such objective facts didn't imply that I am for or against any of the involved opponents. An analogy: Caesar was killed by Brutus and the other Liberatores; that was an homicide (ie, it was not a "natural" death) and stating such objective fact doesn't imply we are for or against any of both sides. On the other hand, we have already explained why not all battles are genocide (if that was really ever required) in my previous post. Regarding our main topic, the most closely related Mass Extermination would be the fall of Capua, the second city of Italy which, even if remaining loyal to Rome after Trebbia and Thrasimene, defected to Hannibal after Cannae; it's hard to blame them for underestimating the Roman reserves. In any case, five years later (211 BC) the Fabian strategy has succeeded, the Punic army was unable to protect Capua any longer and it had to pay the price; all the Capuan senators and hundreds of other prominent citizens were beheaded by the consul Fulvius; all the survivors were sold as slaves (Livy 26, 15-16).

Any clue on how do we know this Scythian guy is a king?

You know, if we are constantly talking on the same uncomfortable issues again and again, maybe they are not so uncomfortable after all; if this trend goes on, we may require even another thread.

MPC most eloquent statement seems to still have been true to some extent even up to the Flavian period, at least at a municipal level; this nice political graffiti is from Pompeii.

I'm actually more interested in the analysis of the conspicuous but frequently overlooked naval warfare of Punic War II; however, I may be the only one.

Or like calling the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" Roman at all.

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam.

Are there any adress or details on where can we visit such interesting Tasmanian fields? (For research purposes, of course) No wonder Looney Tunes' Taz is always spinning...

As far as I can tell, fraud is a felony (in some states depending on the charge). Depending on the specifics, other offenses may be added. In any case, the obvious moral of Mr. Stanish's article is that it would be really dumb to buy any "archaeological piece" via eBay. Charles Stanish of UCLA's Cotsen Institute of Archaeology covers his mouth in laughter as he spots an obviously fake artifact online. What these consumers want , as any other consumer, is obviously the genuinel issue; what evidence would you require to consider a purported archaeological piece as authenticated? Would actual physical evidence of looting help? A scholar's opinion? Whatever your answer might be, it's rather obvious that archaeological looting is rampant worldwide; maybe the free entrepeneur looters are simply not aware of the basic free market mechanics. Regarding the Classical area, ROMAN LOOTING IN THE BALKANS has been a critical problem for years, as it has been repeatedly posted here in UNRV. Maybe we should give the free market some credit; buyers might be not so naive after all. From the first link in this post: "Usher Lieberman, an EBay spokesman, says that if fake antiquities were as rampant as Stanish claims, buyers would complain and EBay would police the problem as it does when corporations alert it that knockoffs of their brands are being sold as authentic. "We take very seriously any claims that items sold on the site aren't genuine. . . . This isn't something we're hearing a lot about."... New York City archaeologist Oscar White Muscarella, author of "The Lie Became Great," a book on forgeries from the ancient Near East, is an acerbic foe of the antiquities trade, but he doesn't buy Stanish's thesis that the existence of more and better fakes means less looting. "The guy who has money and a lust for antiquities is going to buy them," Muscarella says. "What's going to decrease plundering is not forgeries, it's only if governments take more action.".... Jerome M. Eisenberg, an antiquities dealer since 1954, says his Royal Athena Galleries in New York is not hurting, with annual sales in the tens of millions of dollars, including an Internet trade that has "increased exponentially" over the past few years. Stanish is right about what's happening on EBay, says Eisenberg, who also enjoys watching "just for fun" to see how people are getting fleeced. "But anybody with a decent amount of intelligence isn't going to buy on EBay unless they know who they're dealing with."

Since you ask and with all due respect, if this term is not found within such dictionaries, maybe they were not so good to begin with; for example, the Webster's New World (3rd Ed) simply defines Supremacist as "the person who believes on or promotes the supremacy of a particular group"; supremacy is "the quality or state of being supreme", and supreme is "highest in rank, power, authority, quality, achievement, performance; Dominant; Utmost, Final, Ultimate". Wikipaedia is a bit more extensive: "Supremacism is the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, species, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not". Sorry, but I didn't fabricate such definitions, and it's hard to find any better example than Polybius agenda. I cannot delete valid terms just because I am not comfortable with them, like "genocide", a more than apt description for the fate of the Achaean capital Corinth while the Achaean traitor Polybius was actively collaborating with the enemy. BTW, supremacism was quite common among ancient cultures. As for a patriot, you're entirely right. Polybius was a Greek, actually an Achaean from Megalopolis. He was never a Roman, so he never had the tria nomina; the right transcription of his name is Polybios. Like many other former hostages, he became a full lavish collaborator of the conquerors of his homeland; ie. a Quisling, no more, no less. Polybius himself stated in the Histories epilogue (39,8) Accordingly, having achieved this I returned home from Rome. I had, as it were, been enabled to capitalize the results of my previous political action, a favour which my devotion to Rome well merited. His agenda was undisputedly supremacist (Roman supremacism, of course); in any case, Polybius was a supremacist by proxy, the same as Vidkum Quisling. I quoted some examples of his Book VI on post # 25 of the ongoing thread on Cannae, but in any case it is undisputable that the main goal of such books was the justification of the Universal conquest by Rome; that's as supremacist as it can get, period. As for a Historian, Polybius most evidently was, and certainly one of the best ever. In fact, he got closer to the modern scientific methodology than most other classical historians; his conception on causation and the rules of evidence were far advanced for his own age. However, his Histories were essentially pro-Roman (more specifically pro-Scipione) propaganda disguised as research; disguised, because his main conclusions were well defined in advance; only his Roman patrons deserved to rule the world, the Roman constitution was the best ever possible, and so on. If anything, his superb methodology only made his reponsability as a collaborator even greater, because he was rather well aware that he was deliberately distorting the truth.

Thanks for your links, V (both); I must agree with the other UNRV members; LCK is a wonderful comic, he is sooo right in this clip, and his additional material available at youtube is excellent too.

Tim Howard rules...

I see; one felony (forgery) is promoted at the expense of another (looting) as long as the consumers remain unable to distinguish the real issues from the forgeries; after that, basic economics will promote looting again.I stand corrected; thanks.