Onasander

I just watched a ten minute video on the kindle video store called "Global Treasures: Hadrians Wall". I nearly died laughing seeing the very horrible reconstruction of thee dirt and wood castle.... I'm not saying a earthen palisade defense is bad till you get a more permanent structure built.... but that is a asinine worthless structure. First off, the wooden wall on top of the mound do NOT TOUCH THE GROUND! This is a very bad design flaw.... at night time, people can low craw very slowly up to you, and shoot you as you walk to piss with a bow and arrow.... and you will be dead with your cock out, which of all ways to go is the least glamorous. Here in the Appalachian Mountains, we have a kind of thicket that grows very wide and tall in long lines, quarter of a mile at places, linger than you could hope to jump over.... and it's thorned.... very painful.... I could only tolerate such a design IF this was built into the gap.... no one is going to storm such a thicket and climb over.... but I see the land around it is just grass and farmland. I doubt such a plant grows in England, may be wrong though. Secondly.... if it is a temporary structure.... who in the hell is going to bother to plank this crap? It looks like they went to home depo, not just fell some trees. I don't think I've seen such a fancy fort before.... I'm very, very knowledgeable in the construction of American wooden forts, it takes time to plank.... time guys who are out on stone collecting detail DON'T HAVE. Slam some barely polished timber together, pack it with mud to harden, then go look for the stones needed for the real stone fort. It makes me wanna just shoot it with flaming arrows at night to piss the guards off.... might get lucky and burn the home depot build yourself a fort kit down. Only way I could accept this silliness is.... if the region seriously lacked forests.... which I doubt, or they chopped up ships and recycled them. I doubt there was a scarcity of wood.... soldiers like to burn crap and stand around, looking at the flames when it's cold.... not to mention cooking fuel. I wonder if they had to plaster this too.... The music on this video is so awesome.... focusing on the stone castles..... then at the high glorious parts of the song goes to the wooden sad joke of a castle. Honestly.... it's the most retarded castle I've seen. I've seen two castles here built into the side of a hill here... you can literally jump on the roof of either.... stil better than this mess. It makes me want to hurt the soldiers inside.

Yeah.... he wasn't a Nietzschean, but a German nationalist.... very fond of revolutionary doctrine, and Arminius... He seems to be just slightly earlier but of the same strain as the psuedo-historians I unfortunately keep dealing with (even one who calls himself Arminius).... I miss the days when all I had to deal with was angry Freudians and French Marxists, they've all but died out in philosophical discussions in North America in the last few years. When I started they were still in vogue, then just died off, now it's tilting again back to Cryto-Nazis hitting site after site. Very odd patterns.... I'll hold off on Mommsen then.... I'm very surprised the exact answer I was looking for was on this site already.

I haven't read Zosimus yet. I'm struggling to make sense of the three spanish choniclers.... I got a bad old PDF off of Scribd. He is mentioned alot in a roman demographics book I started a few days ago focusing on late antiquity. I'm liking the book alot. And by south sea I meant Black Sea.

I did the research on Corsica, I already knew of it's history since the French occupation. Looks like he did invade, but Corsica and Sardinia were easy naval targets. Byzantines could only hold one. Find it odd how quick the Romans were at setting up a Navy, in defeating Carthage, but as soon as the Goths burst out of the South Sea, the Roman Navy was useless. You fast foreward to Genoa and Venice, they learned to make excellent use of sea power. You move in, fortify a trade post, take the islands.... Romans, post Carthage, seemed to really suck at this, even though they had classical precedents from the Phonecians and Carthage. Mediterranean had plenty of sailors. Warmer climate.... I can't see what was stopping the romans in this early era from regaining at least wide trade influence and exploiting their imperial oversight. A merchant fleet carrying trinkets and barter foodstuffs could of bought a lot of far flung mercenaries....

I heard of the name occasionally, but up until about a year ago, it was way off into the periphery. I've over the last year, save within the last two months, have only heard it from some Nietzscheans.... A Irishman pretending to be a Stoic but was actually a rather lame Nietzschean, and from a sect of Nietzscheans on a philosophy site that are Crypto-Nazis German Nationalists, and they deal with a few other historians,and a millenialist 150 prophetic cycle.... So Nietzscheans really disgust me, and the era Mommsen wrote in was dead smack between Nietzsche and Hitler, so always avoided him. Just didn't want a bunch of spuked head or swastika totting historians playing mind games with my outlook, and stuck to primary texts. As of late, I've been poking around for primary texts not translated, and alot of the sources mention Mommsen. Did Mommsen collect a bunch of manuscripts into one work, or is it just a few small texts and a bunch of ify german nationalism? I've seen just how bad and ugly some of the historians of this era can be abused today (if abused is even the word), and don't want a bad formula creeping into my thinking. I'm guessing someone here read him. What's your take on him?

I spent my breaks at work looking into it. Honestly, it makes sense, a kind of Camp David like compound.... rotate a unit out of garrison for guard detail.... you have enough rooms to rotate people in and out in terms of diplomacy. Makes you wonder why not, say.... Capri.... worked for Tiberius. Yes, you would have a few nice villas, but the island is prone to blockade (been watching videos of Capri, including one on the Romanophile Swedish Doctor) and I don't think you could long hold a defensive force out on the island in sufficient number to keep repelling a landing party without near total mastery of the sea.... which the Romans were at that point questionable at best in terms of a regular patrolling naval capacity that far west. Likewise, little farmland on Capri, can't billet a expeditionary army easily.... You can do this from Syracuse though. It just occured to me I know nothing about Sardinia and Corsica during this period.

Thanks for that insight. Any clue as to a location within that obvious city? Like a modern street address, palacial remains....

I was asked to respond. So.... Singapore has a draft army.... like Israel. Your approaching this with emotion, so your rhetorical needs therefore need to balance out. Balance because emotional states are Monoamine based, and cascade in turn to other states. Emotions have a half life. This kind of statement is designed for a knee jerk reaction. If a person isn't already of that proper state of mind, you'll get the wrong desired reaction, as in me, who just blinks and recalls better phrased and sparced arguments. Because Monoamine Neurochemicals cascade, you gotta steer your audience to a proper position PRIOR to starting your dialectic breakdown. Don't expect us to do it for you. So you begin with a presentaion.... this presentation elicits our attention.... you win a aspect of our reasoning over to you.... then you introduce the contradiction in our thought.... and start pounding at it, against that prior approval to the earlier logic. Make us skeptical and awkward. Give it a few weeks, try again.

I'm trying to track down where Emperor Constans II lived in Sicily.... Syracuse of course, but where? He is a very interesting case, from my understanding, he is the last Roman Emperor to step foot in Rome until the late middle ages, and his rule was preceded by Senatorial Rule three years prior to him coming to age, which was the only time the roman senate ruled as head of state since at least Emperor Augustus. I can't find much about him though, even though his reign throws alot of commonplace assumptions about Rome upside down.

Didn't Augustus, your main example, endlessly dick around with that very office? I think one of those times he held it for only one day before tiring of it, and abdicating. Other times he just didn't care. Hence why it had no demarcation, was extensively devalued from his reign on. How seriously do you think the English would take the office of prime minister is a general and his son unlawfully seized power after a civil war where half the parliment dissapeared, they redesigned the MPs for the rest at their whim, and the son declared himself prime minister at times.... as well as the Arch Bishop of Cantenbury, and the Prince of Wales.... and would at times choose spontaneously to NOT be Prime Minister, and at other times to be it.... all at his whimsy.... How seriously do you think the people would take the office after a while? It becomes largely meaningless, a vestigial remain of a earlier system that when compared to earlier office holders, like Churchill, or Thatcher, hold no seeming equivalent when Scary Spice is mockingly appointed to it. That was Rome post Augustus. Hell, it started under Caesar.... the pompus jackass had the nerve to build himself a temple, with a gold statue of himself in it.... with slapstick comedy acts were people would try to crown him king and he would throw the crown on the ground, saying your crappy argument almost word for word.... then the crown would pop up on his golden statue in his temple.... Yeah, that sounds so very much like a republic. That was a joke, cause it doesn't. It sounds like a theocratic dynastic monarchy, NOT A REPUBLIC! In a Republic, people don't tolerate that crap. Rome was not a republic under the emperors, by default. It's a ingerent contradiction, cause you can't be one and the other at the same time. It's a inherent contradiction. Your not going to be able to rewrite even how your own British Commonwealth views this country by country. The emperors held power because they were militant tyrants. Not because the Senate. They held it inspite of it, and the senate endlessly flattered them in a effort to save their own asses. It is why multiple conservative authors from this era lash out so viciously against flatters and sycophants. It's where the rot was. Without grasping the above, your hopelessly lost in understanding Tiberius' first meeting with the Senate after Augustus death. He was a third generation tyrant... clearly a monarch at this point, dicking around with the coy reservations of his predecessors. Things clearly were more out in the open at this point, and Tiberius largely dismissed them and proceeded to Capri. That was the end result... a emperor found he could largely do without the senate, but the senate couldn't do without a emperor.... the armies loyalty went to strongmen alone..... atleast until the Byzantine era, when Dynastic Succession mattered more than a despot.

Umm.... a thirteen foot high wall? ISIS has the height advantage, and can easily sink mortars into and sniper bullets around this fort.... Not to mention the inevitably attractive bounty of foreign tourists visiting less for the archaeology and more for the close proximity to ISIS. Don't go unless you intent to have your head chopped off with a knife.

http://m.timesofindia.com/world/south-asia/Malaysian-state-mulls-guillotine-as-punishment-for-thieves/articleshow/45172068.cms Rest assured, the guillotine is being resurrected for use only on the muslim majority, and not on members of other faiths, who will continue to receive very light prison sentences. This move is inspired by the desire to INCREASE the Muslim vote (as Muslims look favorably upon brutal discriminatory practices that seek to maim them and them alone), and as a way to get around the constraints of the medical Hippocratic Oath, which requires doctors, including Muslim doctors, to do no harm to their patients. So.... yeah.

yes, I am saying the Senate "awarded" the Caesars joke roles. The positions did give status, and therefore wouldn't recommend intentionally disrespecting a consul to his face.... there was after all a farce to play to.... but it was a joke none the less. It's like the Vatican's Bishoprics of dead dioceses in North Africa, people hold the position of those diocese, but the diocese itself is merely titular, not in existence. If they showed up to their diocese and started to hold mass, they would die. Similar farce, Japanese Emperors under a dynastic Shogun. Or the Han Emperor during the Three Kingdom Era. Russia NOT invading Ukraine and only caring for it's well being. Farce, a Joke.... whatever, both represented in a good thesaurus. The general consensus seems to be however.... once a Consul "Flatter in Chief".... one did gain access to the Proconsular Offices.... a governor. I haven't done a systematic check to see if this is correct, but it's as I have repeatedly read it to be.... and it seems to be so without controversy. I probably will now. I hate agreeing to other people's theories without being able to source the origin of the theorem. I don't know if it qualitatively improves history in and of itself, but I do get a feeling of satisfaction in knowing who started what chain of assumption.

I like.... umm, I lived for over a year behind 2 1/2 kilometers of walls in Iraq. I saw the absurdly large network around Camp Victory/Stryker/Liberty.... to this day I can't comprehend from a aerial view it's overall design.... but fully grasp it was a armed city. I lived in a era of fortified armed cities where walls actually mean something.... has a profound psychological effect. I can't, nor I think you would get a Israeli or Iraqi or heck, even a Kuwaiti to sign off on the no defense idea. It just.... it's so very wrong from the bottom of my gut. If you build a wall, it's for either defense, or to keep people out. A big stone wall manned is.... defense. For something, say to keep out intruders.... you would use something like the north african spanish possessions, like Ceuta or the US Mexican Border.... non defensive walls, largely unmanned, just a fence. You build a wall like this (Hadrians), it's for defense.... but it's clearly half assed. You gotta live behind a wall to grasp the importance of a wall I suppose. Other examples, economic walls in China, around wealthy cities. Segregation compound in South Africa.... non defensive walls. The walls in Sub Sahara Africa are mixed.... highly effective concentration camp style walls. The Persian walls on the Caucausus was the best in the ancient world.... it pushed the Huns west... was pure defense. Hadrians Wall looks like it was meant to be defensive. Just.... it's a joke at the same time.

I guess I should also stress Caldrail is correct in saying broadly.... it's not easy to nail down in any era after the Republic Era ended via a universal rule that can be stated without contradiction.... Besides using and making cities, and amalgamating ever larger cities from smaller ones, they (governors) did do a lot to create a basis for a economy up until the end of the Severus Dynasty. This means roads, digging canals, and I logically presume customs offices.... Just.... the only skill set you needed to be a governor was to be Consul first, and from Augustus on, the office was a joke.... you needed to be able to have a lot of money to dump on circuses and games in the name of the emperor. Kinda the same skill set for American Ambassadors to Denmark.... no explanation related experience whatsoever in working in the state department, you just dump a whole lotta money on a candidate. The end result it predictable enough.... in a few cases, you will be really surprised and impressed by a governor, but usually you'll get a self aggrandizing turd who read a treatise or two on Statecraft, exploits the living daylights out of that position financially, and governs just good enough not to be recalled. Romans did evolve a pretty decent dispatch network to keep in contact with their provinces. Most major markets worth anything was near enough to the sea or a river to the sea.... it wasn't too challenging of a task in my opinion.... as long as the taxes kept coming, the local Romans kept happy, and courts functioning.... and people and army not revolting.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daanschr/_Historical_maps/_Caligula http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daanschr/_Historical_maps/_Tiberius http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daanschr/_Historical_maps/_Augustus You can reverse engineer it from this. Its not the easiest thing for me to outright say, as you have to give context.... Rome had Rome itseld, Italic lands, alliances that we would of called Vassal states in the middle ages, and nearly autonomous free cities sprinkled all over. I honestly don't know how the proconsuls handled highly privledged cities in the midst of otherwise exploitable provinces over say..... a subject kingdom one had to simultaneously threatened. Im speaking of course of real politics, a de facto sense of province. The De Jure sense will always differ.... a example, the US and Canada has overlapping claims, Argentina and the UK, China and.... everyone who borders China.... It's ultimately your call, and the number expounded by a particular character will indicate his personality and outlook in regards to ideology and the facts. This is the reality immediately after Caligula's death: http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131006094941/althistory/images/c/c9/The_Anarchy_Factions_Map.png Notice the concept of provincial boundries mean diddly squat in terms of actual loyalties and control? We make the mistake sometimes of seeing the clear stability of modern state and provincial lines as equating to Rome, because the Romans had similar divisions. They are political entities to the degree of the powers inherent in the people sent to govern, and this flipflopped alot given the nautre of justice of Rome.... outside of this, they are just places on a map, and every emperor fudged around with this. The creation and expansion of the city is where the real divisions of the ancient states of the world laid, especially for the Alexandrian States and Roman Empire.

Thank you for that Clayton, just started reading this: http://www.academia.edu/2270062/Mancipium_rusticum_sive_urbanum_the_slave_chapter_of_Diocletians_edict_on_maximum_prices_in_By_the_sweat_of_your_brow_Roman_slavery_in_its_socio-economic_setting_ed._U._Roth_BICS_Suppl._109_London_2010_pp._1-20 I'm on the second page, but it claims Justinian had the only other ruling. I know the Romans kept slaves till the 9th century at least, as Michael Psellos had one. My original question was war booty slaves.... but this is good too.

If we are to accept the middle link, that the wall was built as a defensive measure, this runs into many questions I raised in my Hadrians Wall Brain Storming thread. It doesn't necessarily negate either Caldrails response that it was all just busy body work, in regards to me noting it was a backwards and ridiculous wall.... but it raises serious questions as to the nature of Hadrians rushed reform when he brought the sixth legion and ordered the wall built.... because the end result appears to of been a rather silly busybody blackhole of a project that focused less on actual defense in building a excellent defensive wall with top notch troops, and more of.... a exercise in the world's grandest plastering and plaster repair by low quality troops. Honestly, I can't rule out a highly illogical snafu here... that Hadrian failed in designing the project right or getting his point across, but accepting the theory of Caldrails middle link (which seems reasonable in and of itself) and our previous results of our collective brainstorming..... none of this makes sense. At all. The mystery here, the real mystery.... if we accept the Ninth Legion lost in British Battle Hypothesis is.... how could the Romans, especially Hadrian, of so brilliantly noted the need for a defensive wall, and yet so horrifically F this up in actual execution? Inferior wall, more fashionable than defensive, low quality troops... not the crack troops we would expect... silly, humiliating work details involving useless repairs.... Just what were the Romans thinking.

Do all the Romans have bad English accents?

It's like with my old unit the 1_501st.... it made the 101st Airborne famous during world war two, was the first parachute infantry unit in the U.S. Army.... but after Bergdahl, I have some doubts as to the long term survivability of the unit when downsizing starts cutting into the bone. It's likely to become a flag in the Pentagon, with some random MOS pushing paperwork for generals, keeping it "Alive". In every other sense, it will be dead. From my understanding, the British just merge units, and the new units retain the heraldry and lineages of the old ones. I was tracking a unit that massacred a bunch of people here during the revolutionary war, and saw another unit of guys marching after returning from Afghanistan claiming to be descended from them. I was scratching my head at that one, but grasped the concept easily enough.... they have seemingly half the old British army absorbed into them. I have also personally experienced in my old unit, the 501st, a silly game of taking our battalion.... keeping it's designation the same (roughly) and slapping it into different divisions for no real tangible reason.... Apparently just for the pentagons OCD needs. When I arrived, it was the 172nd... with a sword and ice capped mountains, then one day we were frantically told we were slapping this silly little round patch on with a teady bear, cause we changed, then they told us yet again it was the 25th Infantry Division, and they had the nerve to give arctic soldiers a Tropic of Lighting Patch.... a tropical leaf, while freezing my ads off in Alaska! Then I did some digging around, and found we were secretly the Sixth Infantry Division all along... the Star of David was plastered in old buildings, which was their symbol, "The Jumping Jews". Apparently they informed the old Sixth Infantry Divisions Airborne battalion they were now the 1-501st one day, then latter on had the incredibly unclever idea of later scrapping the Sixth Infantry Division.... meanwhile all the bases stayed put.... we're still manned, and guys did exactly the same stuff. There is inherently a lot of silly variability possible in how you handle the designation of units. British do it differently than the U.S., and sure other countries as well. It's not indicative the Ninth Legion died in battle just because they fell off the records.... it's the easiest thing in the world to reshuffle them into new designations.... while keeping the men all otherwise put. The Sixth Infantry Division didn't get wiped out during a cold war confrontation for example, yet did "disappear". Perhaps they were wiped out by Saddam's forces in the first gulf war? A historian 2000 years from now may come to just such a exciting yet very wrong conclusion.

This is brainstorming, not a fully formed idea yet, so take a skeptical pic at it.... it's arisen from me being skeptical of the legend building largely unwarranted around the ninth, since only the 19th century. The Theory 9th legion was.... simply disbanded and absorbed into the other units due to a sudden manpower shortage. Ta-da. Hence why the Romans mysteriously never bothered to talk about it, it wasn't from some apocalyptic battle to the death that the Romans just couldn't admit too.... they seemed rather willing to admit to past defeats, but because the truth was too boring and lame to ever muster a historians fingers to lift a quill about. The idea that they would drag a legion from one nether region ALL they way to Armenia is outrageous. You would, Judea if by sea.... maybe feasible.... but the logic sucks, if your in a crunch for manpower, to reachout to such a far flung post for reserves. You take from posts closer, and have them call people further out to pull in a bit more to cover the security gap. Statistics and Logistics go hand in hand, yes.... extra troops might of existed really, really, really far away.... but the cost of transport was absurd. Problems this face: 1) What would cause the demographics collapse that seems coincidentally timed.... ninth legion disappearing and then picts picking a fight? We assume these are casually linked, but may be a corollary of something else. 1A) Plague killed off the Romans enough to warrant dismantling the ninth, and reabsorbing them into other units. Problem with this.... Plague would of hit the picts too, and countries ravished with plagues tend to be rather pacifists than belligerent. 2) Famine.... unlike death by plague, famine can work on a army, causing desertion and starvation, as well as send hungry refugees south.... for food, or for coin currency to buy food from tribes across the water. This theory would leave evidence.... coin catches would pop up in Ireland, or Denmark... and not necessarily in Scotland. Likewise, farming would contract.... land be worked less, especially less feral areas, roman food stuffs would appear in the archaeological record suddenly in higher bulk for a brief time. 2) Central Treasury couldn't balance the books.... a financial military famine. The Romans were engaged in wars. Legions likely did send some men... perhaps not units, just volunteers. Many men were near enough to retirement, and Rome just couldn't justify sending so much gold to Britain when it was needed elsewhere, so instead of breaking broke, it bent and stayed solvent. Soldiers got a easy out, quick transfers, got their land.... and the military economy turned east. The irony of this might suggest the picts fought less for food than because they stopped getting bribes, or loss economic incentives like before from Roman trade. This famine in currency lead to desperation on the pict side, as well as perceived weakness in fixed Roman positions. A easy political fix for any chieftain would simply be to simply blame the Romans and attack them. So what kills this theory potentially? 1) Archaeology contradicting it. 2) Ninth Legion.... logically, would have to be the least infamous and honored legion in Britain... if your looking to merge units, and retain the identity of just one, you don't keep the less inspiring one around. If the Ninth was more honored, then it throws a monkeywrench into this idea.

Alexander no doubt was a poor diplomat.... cause he conquered everyone. This retards your need for developing diplomatic skills dramatically.... in the same sense that vegetarian Hindus suck at cooking steaks. Am I the only one on this forum who actually read up on Alexander's use of Infantry? He is remembered by school children for just four battles, but most of his fighting was done via MOUT....Military Operations Urban Terrain.... and showed he could lay siege and take just about any stronghold he wanted. His father didn't give him that. His father didn't build his supply base, or plan his operations. His father wasn't actively recruiting and merging populations. His father didn't start large cities, nor was his father a patron of the arts and science in far flung lands. His father didn't drag a fleet of philosophers around. His father didn't start native recruitment drives to Hellenize natives to become the basis of a future recruitment pool outside of greece. His father didn't build the navy he had in India. His father did alot, Alexander was proud of his father's accomplishments. But Alexander was his own man too, to a great degree, he made his own fortune. I don't understand why it's suddenly in fashion to bash Alexander.... in terms of his inventiveness in using every kind of soldier, under wide varying conditions, every kind of terrain and opponent the classical world as the west knew it.... and he managed to hold this all together despite being a impulsive gay drink high off Dionysian sacrificial orgies and disturbingly ambitious generals. He was pretty damn astute. Hence his battle record before he even invaded the Persians was good. He was Aristotle's student.... it absolutely astounds me how anyone could say he was essentially riding someone elses coat tails.... being the student of Aristotle automatically qualifies you as having one of the best educations EVER.... PERIOD. Do not underestimate him, read up on him instead.

Absolutely not... Obviously, yes... given every other Roman fiction author has. I'll guess I'll do this yet again... Hard Copy off Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1632130440?pc_redir=1414194035&robot_redir=1 Off of Good Reads: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23272308-the-testimonium Amazon Kindle Version: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00MNG9W80?pc_redir=1414124617&robot_redir=1 With Amazon Kindle, youcan download a sample for free, and you don't need a kindle to use it, you can download a free kindle app for android or ipad/iphone, or download it on your computer. Barnes and Nobles Ebook for Nook, you can download a Nook App for free and get a free sample if your like me and left your nook on the side of a volcano in the middle of the pacific. http://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-testimonium-lewis-ben-smith/1120125736?ean=2940150334663 His Book's Facebook page: https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=269297746592211&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&_rdr Usually guys offer up a free ebook via some sort of contest... see past posts in this section or the UNRV.com homepage for past efforts. It appears to pay off, this site has decent google exposure. I'd talk to Viggen, as he is the site owner to get that advertised if your interested. Don't forget to do the rounds to the other sites. You'll find a community of fiction writers lurking here, always in the background.... I know, I watch them on their laptop webcam as they type away and ponder. Always watching....

I don't think it's true regarding Tiberius... made threads here about that, but it's not impossible, and in regards to the Life of Augustus which I recently scrutinized with newly translated text that parallels it.... he seems to of been rather factual.... facts are facts true or false, he merely collected and collegiate them. I would feel quite comfortable using Seutonius, the only shame comes from not critically analyzing him and cross referencing.... and remember the audience he expected to read this isn't the current one.... they had different needs and expectations than we do.

He hasn't been back since the site went down a while back... I wouldn't bother with a cross examination this late, for on his part, he is stuck in a Narcissistic rut right, and won't let any harm come to his idea, cause he IS the idea. At least last we spoke. He knows what he has to do.... been told by several people here as to how he could better develop, present, and critically debate his thesis... but everytime he was pressed on a point to try and develop it, he would try.... see how impossible of a task it was, and would drop the effort and push via enthusiasm and faith alone that this idea of his was correct. He is forever welcome to develop his ideas. I don't see much of a point in resurrecting a bad incident in his past though... it's been several months, let the guy heal and adapt, grow in wisdom and change his approach. It's a generally bad idea, but even bad ideas can raise interesting points, so we should encourage him to study up on historical techniques if were going to "talk to him" if he is indeed lurking out there. He may very well, against every expectation, stumble across something interesting and unexpected. But he shouldn't push his luck too far either. I can tolerate a few bad ideas in everyman, but not only bad ideas. He can diversify into other areas of Roman history less controversial to show he is a balanced thinker capable of more that just talking about the Flavians.