Onasander

Im surprised how little I am getting googling his name, but he seems important. So did he lead the plebians in their seccession from the patricians? I see references to him being on the mountain during the strike..... but he also is electing tribunes, and as many tribunes as he wants, and also saw a suggestion he had the power to behead people? Like..... why doesnt this gut have a wiki page? It seems he was rather powerful. My browser keeps collapsing on my phone, but what I do manage to find on him when I do is pretty impressive. I got this from Machiavelli: It likewise creates great disgust in a State when the Citizens are terrified every day with fresh prosecutions ; as it happened at Rome after the expiration of the Decemvirate, for not only all the Decemviri, but so many other Citizens were accused and condemned at difserenttimes, that the Nobility were in the utmost consternation, and began to apprehend there would be no end of these severities, till their whole order was extinguished ; and this manner of proceeding would cer. tainly have excited great troubles and inconveniencies, if they had not been foreseen and prevented by Marcus Duellius one of the Tribunes, who published an edict, prohibiting every one either to cite or accuse any Roman Citizen during the space of a year; by * See Chap. vi. cf the Prince, and the Notes upon it. which act of moderation, the Nobility were delivered from all further disquietude and apprehension. From hence it appears, how dangerous it is either for a Prince or a Commonwealth to keep their subjects in continual fear and alarm by daily executions. Indeed nothing can be more prejudicial to their interest*: for when men begin to dread these evils, they will naturally endeavour to secure themselves at all events, and become bolder and more determined to attempt a change of government. Upon such occasions therefore, it is the best way either to punish no body at all, or to finish the executions at once, and afterwards to give the people no occasion to fear any thing further; that so they may live securely and quietly http://books.google.com/books?id=F4YaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=marcus+duellius&source=bl&ots=-bdrLW9F8-&sig=hXBqrh2Sa2e8ibWdoV9scCvmQyM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V23CUofaL6zfsAS7r4CwDQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBg

I cant accept this Synderesis, as many battles were fought on the natural boundry of water. Its a little hypocritical (lacking sincerity in the rivergods best interest to support you) if your about to wage war on the banks of the river, causing it to turn red, people screaming and crying in it, body parts floating in it, etc...... these prayers you speak of caldrail are categories of circumstance to ward off task specific concerns such as a river crossing, when enough time for a ritual exists to take place. Christians broke this process to the amount of time needed to sigh, roll ones eyes upwards, and do the sign of the cross. So its a reasoned process, associated with learned experience..... crossing rivers can be bad for ones health. I agree, from experience. However..... this isnt fear of the unknown. A river may be unpredictable and lethal, but is still knowable and experienced, especially if you live along it. And for specific dieties in rivers..... obviously then the river is known. Its a known entity. Take the prechristian ideal of The Lady in the Lake. It aint Lake Superior. These are rather small, well known lakes. The myth and ritual surrounding these beliefs and practices evolved over time..... it wasnt static. Can one have a fear of the unknown? Yes. Is it a rather simple , rudimentary belief? Yes, it can be. But it can also be highly reasoned, via complex syllogism. Its a mistake to explain the state of culture and civilization over such a massive swath of land and time as monocultural and instinctive..... tribes can vary within a generation intellectually and schismatically merely from the wit and insight of a clever witchdoctor..... its hard to say what was said in any era. We only have a few fragments to go off of. The best methods Ive seen for calculating how myths mutate over time are questionable at best. We have tail end recollections from roman and Christian eras. I myself had experience a fear of the unknown. I was having to hike out California on foot to get back east , over the rocky mountains before winter hit. It was september.... I had some hawaiian clothes on me. I could hike north, up the central valley into Oregon, and travel east through the badlands. The desert wasnt as bad. I could cut through the center of california to lake Tahoe, into nevada across the desert, through mormon territory, into the thickest part of the mountains, pop out on the great plains and keep moving. Or I could go south to Las Vegas, pushing through deserts with no water for 70+ miles between stops, till I hit the gulf coast. Every step foreward, I was worried. I wasnt all that sure about any direction. I had a few bucks on me. It was hot in the day, cold at night. I knew the rainy season was about to hit, but the creeks were all dried up. Mountains and plains came and went. I struggled the whole time in the beginning which way to go. Route 160 though grand island..... the sacramento river valley, was me fretting. It wasnt till I bought a map..... the last in stock (people dont want them anymore) that I decided. Even then, I stressed over backroads and water, distances between points. Even then, the map was mostly imaginaryx meant for highway motorists, not the needs of someone on foot. I still have the map, but stopped looking at it after placerville..... its into was unreliable, and I just used my gut instinct and asking people. The background to the greek Hermes as a god of travelers, of the sly and quick, living off the cuff, and of roadside markers makes alot of sense. Travelers traveled EVERYWHERE in the ancient world. Its scary..... but people had their reasons, and being scared doesnt stop some stupid idiots like me.

I don't dismiss him, quite the opposite, I dismiss his commentators. He's one of the few psychologists from the ancient world that holds ALOT of untapped potential. I think thoughts by experience and reference, not always with a name. He is a good guy to mine for vocabulary when the ideas line up. I just get very bored and disappointed when reading his commentators. It's not a matter of my thinking I can do better, I'm now so turned off by the idea I doubt I ever will. Cicero is his audience, and his audience's attention is oriented by the tenure farmers trying to get a full professorship. That would be the crowd I would have to lay alongside of. Outside of Cicero's minor infatuation with genocide, he's a good guy. Didymus..... I think this might be his century to dominate philosophically. Ever since his commentary on Aristotle, I've been thinking about him. It was just before the second world war we started considering such ideas scientifically again. The UN is still young, cities are being built on a variety of models, warfare is varying, odd powerhouses are just now starting to form, while the 20th century upstarts are maturing with the general decline of democracy. It's a good time to look to the ancient equivalent of our era. This is it. This is the era.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solluba Wow...... I kept thinking of the Fremen from Dune. They were the deep desert tribe the Bedouins of all people hiredfor desert tracking.

Not from my findings, just two books of Arius Didymus Ethics, a PDF on Didymus' in Stobeaus, and then nilche..... Which is very annoying to me. Yet he is rich in biographical attention over many thinkers...... Heck, I just found out there is another collections compiled in the 14th century from this era that havent even been translated into modern greek...... its horrifying how little attention is paid to roman era philosophers. Most everything written on the history of philosophy during the early empire focuses on Philo of Alexandria or Cicero, but it only gets deep Philo... no one tackles Cicero's mnemonics..... I used to head up to the fifth floor of the San Francisco library, tried to read every philosophy journal they had up there..... If there is copious work out, they hide it pretty damn well. God forbid if a non academic comes into contact with it I suppose.

No..... no...... There is alot more...... There are a series of cataracts in the Nile that kept the Ottomans, and for the longest time even the British out. Wasnt until the Mahdi War that the region was conquered.... by building rail lines. In many ways, the Mahdi War was the first modern war...... dedicated MOUT tactics, use of mortars, ideology and xenophobia driving theological fanatacism, bureaucracies rising to the awkward challenge of a mastermind opponent, the first modern combat boot, etc. Im still looking up on google images of the sites listed on my last link. This is the region that divided Axum from Egypt. Its little consequence therefor is of hugh consequence. What exactly does it take to stop a empire from expansion? A few waterfalls, and desolate swamplands that stretch on forever. Now this is no longer a issue, will east africa remain fragmented and tribal, or will a regional entity begin empire building in the future? Its mostly muslims now there, and mecca sits close to the western shore. Not a shiite friendly population, who sit east of Saudi Arabia. This could in time drag the battle lines from Iraq and Syria down into the heart of arabia itself in a few generations. So yeah, its important, and I want to know more about why post-saudi Arabia might soon be full of radioactive glass.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-Roman_relations They mention it only briefly on this wiki page about Ireland. I found nothing on the net, Sudan is too busy blowing itself up. So..... anyone know about this? http://books.google.com/books?id=kQhSfYhSMA4C&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=nero+sudan&source=bl&ots=t1U6THkeNj&sig=kk8gJfN5PAPYpV2MMVpTSZXLQzw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K8q7UuyBLIK0sATW8ICoCA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwCDgK

I like your novel thinking Caldrail..... in enlarging the parameters of a seemingly limited causality, and proposing new variables into the mix. You would make a good philosopher..... Only issue is, though I can set parameters around this new idea of solar winds, the math itself is one of modern Fluid Dynamics mixed in with Boscovich...... no one reads Boscovich anymore, I can count myself in a very, very small population of people, likely less than 200 people currently alive who have even tried to read and understand his Natural Philosophy..... He is indispensable for calculating any potential carbon interaction in the upper magnetosphere and our top most level of our athmosphere..... his math deals with non-relativistic statistical volumn of force under conditions of collision and inertia, and doesnt carry the problem in modern fluid dynamics of trying to intergrate two different forms of math that fall apart at different rates. Boschovitch also doesnt carry the Einstein curse of guessing wave or particle. He was the last physicists of the old school ..... his ideas are therefore the most advanced, best suited and most adaptable..... I laugh at the idea of our modern models of math calculating such a erratic exchange across the upper athmospher. With Boschovitch, adapting him is possible, but my teeth grind at the complications and hardships. Secondly, tying climate change to this would involve figuring out earth's historic climate models, but also the suns, and synchronizing them. The sun is tricky...... the magnetosphere, IF (and it is indeed a if) it is strong enough to block most radiation, yet weak, or allowing, enough go deposit carbon in the uppermost atmosphere, we would need a way to measure this..... chemically and radioactively in soil/ rock strata, and in the absurd hope of ancient yet virgin, pristine samples in the upper atmosphere piled on one another stretching far back. Best of luck on the latter..... the balance of strong and weak nuclear forces 10,000 feet up differs from here on the surface...... airplane exhaust sits up there for years with little movement, but most pollution down here falls in minutes to five years. However, besides the logistics of getting it, the exchange rate of old and new must be high, stratification tricky and messy, and we contaminate that level of the athmosphere ourselves (space stations) In order to synchronize earth climatic models to the suns is a big task. Lets figure out if light is a particle, wave, monad, corpiscle, or other first..... cause I think that is essential before nailing these other issues of Sun to Earth climate exchange models. I dont see your idea being taken seriously any time soon, but it is less from stupidity on your end than the terrifying complexity, the pas snep, it involves.

I happen to have both a greek philosophy book and a unrelated iranian gnostic book out in front of me..... each one presents a twist that contextual reading doesnt quite bring out. Protoktistos is a entity, while Protooikeion is a the first icon or prototype? I have a greek speaker here, she cant quite get it.

I cant find much on him on the net, and it appears only one book has been written on him. Has anyone come across fragments of his? He knew all the right people..... Didymus, Octavian, Cicero..... I like how he is noted to of challenged Aristotle's concept of aether as complete made up bull.... kinda like calling out global warming today. Its behinning to occur to me next to nothing has been produced on Octavians/Augustus' political philosophy background.....

Ancient calvary was weak against infantry in melee. Worst thing that a pure calvary unit could face was a mixed infantry/calvary unit..... Romans did this often. No.... as big of a supporter as I am of Du Picq.... no. Morale can win a battle, but it has its faults, in that it is a behavior hard to condition, yet easy to exploit once the cyto-architecture of the brain is known..... its much easier to trigger a cascade to panic, fear, paranoia, distress, or confusion than clear purpose and high morale. Its because of all the options of psychology, high morale is a behavior that is the most fickle...... in a Bishop Berkley sense..... it runs all off of pleasurable stimuli. All pain gets recycled at best as masochism or even sadism...... at worst, well, your post high lights it. The stimuli excites neuro chemicals. Its the high morale..... but this can fluxtuate and decrease over time. Individuals respond on a personality basis (personality typology is usually based on neural chemical balances in each individual..... in my case testosterone and seritonin)..... you get the balance off slightly at a crucial point in the formation, it can have ripple effects. Very fast ones. The Chinese classics used fear of death to their advantage..... some going so far as to put their troops in a impossible to win situation with no way out..... if there was a a way out, they would block off the way of retreat so the men would be forced to fight to the death. How much morale do you think kamikaze pilots had? Best of luck getting me to shave the morning of my last flight. Everything done around kamikaze pilots was highly programmable and ritualistic..... all in the hopes that some would carry through in the task. Even then, commanders took pragmatic assurances...... chaining them to the cock pit and giving just enough fuel one way.. All in the hope they would figure if they had to die, might as well die taking out the enemy anyway. Me, Id probably take off, flip around immediately and ram my propellers up the HQ building that thought my suicide run up in the first place.If I gotta die, Im taking out the sickos who drafted me and assigned me to die without the possibility of surviving. Thd flight and fight response..... its a polarity in the mind, is reversable, can be both rationally and irrationally experienced. The advantage is always to chaos. Now I ask you.... what if neither side gives in? Notice not all battles ended in a rout. We discover this flight or flight polarity isnt the chief aspect of the psychology of warfare under such circumstance. The question I propose to you is, given the left and right division of the brain..... and the preference in ancient times to hit the left unshielded side of the enemy formation (their right)...... were they reacting to a conscious, reasoned awareness that they are unprotected there, or are they unconsciously orienting to stimuli to their right (left brain) and are processing the data in the left hemisphere faster, triggering a feedback loop to terror faster than the more cool headed right hemisphere can? People dont think about these things. Neither commanders nor historians. Its why we still have a future hannibal to face down in the future to teach us these lessons. We always assumed formations fell to a rationalized hysteria when flanked..... I say our cultural conditioning to favor the right arm MADE a culture of morale and routs crucial in the ancient world. Had we been taught to hold our weapons and shields in opposite arms, armies would of held longer. It effects us to this day..... rifles are still held with a right arm preference. Battle formations are more balanced in general, to ensure a coherent unit cant be flanked, but they do get broken up all the time, and crazy stuff happens. Your best chance of surviving a ancient battle is strategem.... pure and simple. If the enemy is advancing, poison the water and give ground. F them.

I tried learning latin via books, Virgil even sent me a few books in Iraq.... which I am in grateful for and in debt. I found the only way for me is to brute force translate something very important that has never been translated before so I cant cheat. My goal is to get into a rhythm of translating, a few a year. Hopefully, Ill make enough on it trickling in (Im guessing a very low trickle) that I can backpack outside of the US...... there are alot of libraries out there.... alot of thinkers. Alot of problems to examine. A few dollars a day could keep me alive. Short term.... build this stupid ultra-violet camera, get a van for it, get darpa or the state police interested in it. Split from it once it catches on. I dont have a concept of time as a metric anymore. Years don't make much sense to me. Duration. I sorta exist. Thinking next year suggests there are others after it..... I dont quite fit the tempo everyone goes by in embracing such abstract things. This isnt me trying to act smart or cool..... just admitting to a deficient I have..... time is a daunting challenge. I dont know if I am times greatest challenge, or the archetype of its reflective dwelling.

At the beginning of book two of Nithard's History (carolingian era) it says after the Emperors death, Lothair sent emissaries from italy all over Francia, telling him to join up with him ASAP, threatening everyone with death if the didnt....... then he proceeded to rush till he hit the Alps, and then proceeded through slowly on account of the wind. This is June 840..... June. On the road from Anchorage, Alaska, to Delta Junction up north, there is a stretch of road that looks exactly like the Battle of Hoth rather late in the spring..... late May, early June. Im assuming it is similar in parts of the alps. Issue for me is...... of all the avalanche risk and arctic and mountain manuals and books Ive read over th e yars, I cant recall a caution over the wind. Only thing I can recall the whole time in was paying attention to wind direction before jumping from a aircraft. The Franks were not jumping from aircraft. The Franks in Italy were as climatized as any roman army.... being a Italian army themselves. I myself have hiked from san bruno, california up through lake tahoe.... wind was only a issue at night when trying to sleep, and this was in the fall. I went slower from combination of exhaustion and low oxygen levels depleting my recovery.... not the wind. However, I have gotten myself trapped in murderous wind tunnels between mountains and valleys where the wind cuts through you, making it feel like your about to die. Avalanches suck, but they tend not to occur in the summer. Therefor..... Why was the wind such a big issue? Did the Romans have this problem too? Its the first I ever heard of the wind causing a army to pussyfoot its march. Or are there elements Im not seeing? Did dust and grit from not up keeping the roman passes cover the roads? Did it get blown in their faces and eyes? Did the Franks just really dislike kite flying weather? I ask this less for the Franks and more for understanding the Roman options for transversing the alps.

I just read this in the fragments of hierocles: For that which is advantageous to the country is common to each of the parts of it; since the whole without the parts is nothing. [1] And vice versa, that which is advantageous to the citizen extends also to the city, if it is assumed as beneficial to the citizen. For that which is useful to a dancer, so far as he is a dancer, will also be advantageous to the whole choir. Depositing, therefore, all this reasoning in the discursive power of the soul, we shall receive much light from it in particulars, so that we (p82) shall never omit to perform what is due from us to our country. Yep, one big gay musical. They had dancers attached to the choirs even.

Using electrolysis, you can separate oxygen from water. Lead is found in the ground, raw. You can work lead at very low temperatures, Ive used it welding before. I think most high school chemistry teachers could pull this off rather easily. Its just stupid, retarded laziness and a disregard for archeology and history that allows this. The Romans were not more advanced than us. Just a culture of laziness and stupidity, and trust of authority allows for this. Im contacting my senator to put a stop to this. This is disturbing. We are doing the wrong thing here... given these are artifacts, Im pretty sure we have rules governing their importation, and the excuse given for destroying them assumes everyone hearing it is too mentally deficient to figure out its a lie. We already have everything we need to make similar lead using simple , garage techniques.

My theory of sexuality is derived in big part from the satyricon, I know about the dinner. What varieties of wheat? I know the sub species vary across present day europe.

Ive seen some of her smaller tracts on sale in stores before, but didnt buy them,give my preference for primary sources first. Im reading 'Emotions and Choice From Boethius to Descartes', and she gets a few pages devoted to her. I have no inherent reason to scoff or reach out, seems competent... may buy this book in fact, but when I googled her, I discovered she was a professor from Harvard's Philosophy department. This is a very big problem, given Rawls came from it, and hugely discredit Harvard by his infantile, idiot theories, especially his unusable Veil of Ignorance. Anyone seeing Dr. Who's 50th Anniversary special would recognize it, from the scene where everyone was given amnesia to better negotiate..... Basically, short of wacking everyone upside the head with a hammer in the UN, the 'theory' has zero applicability. I baby holding a diaper full of poo in a negotiation standoff has a higher chance for success than someone applying Rawls. Ive seen Rawls debated to death, and he always get laughed at and shot down. He dominated Harvard for a very long time..... so I have as a result a very, very low opinion of Harvard Philosophy. She focuses on Ancient Philosophy of the western world. Im guessing a few here have read something by her. Is she another joke, or does she actually show evidence of knowing something? Is she more a historian of philosophy, or a philosopher first? Does she do legitimate work, or is she just Tenure Farming books out, and going to silly little conferences with other academics to eat huge salads in distant hotel lobbies, giving speaches on phrases and other minutia from texts no one cares about? It seems most books are written by this latter type of misfit. Im tiring of wasting money on the worthless works of Tenure Farmers, they take everything from a work except its vibrancy and life under consideration. They dont seek a intimate, working knowledge or experience, but a act of crude vivissectioovivissectionof a corpse soon to be tossed aside from concerns. Even this, however, is preferable to the extreme stupidity of Rawls. Hence my concerns. Where does she sit on this spectrum? Is she one of Rawls stooges, or a disinterested Tenure Farmer, or does she strike at the crux of the matters before her, illuminating their vibrancy, seeking their limits and contradictions, and showing a metric to what lies beyond? Given Harvard's reputation, I think stooge. However, I might be wrong. Just dont want to blow money on her works just to discover my instinct was indeed right tobegin with. If you read her works, where do you think she sits?

Most people with a interest in history know the name here, Im a philosooher before a historian, but I havent neglected engadging in historical discussions with enthusiasts..... we tend to know our founding fathers here. Then again, there are some who think here pure dribble. Ive seen Europeans intellectually fail too, but I think the general world tendency is expatriots tend to be smarter, while the dummies stay back home. I think those with a passing understanding of history know La Fayette and Tocquerville, as they are taught in school here early. Tocquerville America is given to students in middle school here. I brought the old reqiem snd the french revolution as well as On Pauperism with me to Iraq (latter is largely unknown admittedly, gave it to our battalion XO who was interested, figured making him smarter instead of me was a higher priority). All I see from France is the trinity of Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx. They dont even look to their own roots, nor the best of their men. I cant help but get the impression French Civilization is based on the concept of the superiority of the other..... and that other is seemingly always identified in the worst, most self defeating voices of the calls of the other. I like reading Voltaire, I knew French guys who quote him by heart in San Francisco..... but it was like we were talking about two different people. I spoke of a flower blossoming, while they spoke of the wither. Really strange, given they were veterans of the French Draft, and lived in America. We were not too dissimilar in background.

Another recent british site, the daily mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html Those are some pretty impressive pictures of the icecaps GROWING. It also admits the global warming theory appears greatly flawed. I still have my cold weather training manual Virgil, Ill send it to you, we can snowshoe off to a laboratory where you can teach me science.

Science is hard right now in London, suffering -20 C weather. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/20/uk-snow-transport-chaos-heathrow The global warming scientists are going to have to snowshoe to work. I wish Heraclitus or Diogenes were still alive to hear the debate. Science is observation based, first and foremost, and I cant see global warming due to snow blindness. Two things.... England achieved the coldest month on record in a century, and I guarantee you, they will find a implausable way to blame it somehow on global warming, making this the warmest winter ever.... People, snap out of it. Your being played.

I hear your arguments, still unequivocally squad. Squad ain't a rank. What you described is absolutely a squad. It's one of those duh things if you ever been in a squad. The restrictions you placed upon it doesn't keep it from being Basques either. Squads are put together for esprite de corps, they share equipment, the command policy in many units are you can only have friends from your squad (preferably your team) and your "battle buddy/buddies", the guy you hang out with after work comes from it. In many kinds of infantry units, like Arctic Light Infantry, supplies are distributed via a Ahkio basis VERY similar to what you described for the eight men. I agree, it gets very annoying to see the ranks higher up all loopy. However, it's a point of stupidity to carry it too far to a extreme..... it's a squad. I am not claiming it is capable of independent battle operations from 7-8..... that would be retarded. They didn't fight that way. I said in my very first post, not everything is parallel. But a squad is a squad. This is a squad. If I must slap a hugh essay at the end of a translation of a Roman military manual explaining in brutal detail why a squad is a squad, I will. It's very silly to argue against this..... only exposes ignorance of having ever been near any military whatsoever. Bring this up with some British soldiers, preferably infantry. They will explain it to you, and will walk you through it. If I traveled back in time, and gave ahkio and ten man tents to Romans in winter alps..... what entities within those units would receiver them? Come on now..... say the name...... who would be sleeping in these ten man tents? What Latin term? Second..... best of luck with this anarchist commune approach of a community of equals. I don't even know how to orient the feedback loops for establishing guard rotations and latrine duty in such a scenario, much less more complex operations of camp and in the field. You gotta breathing this one.... even the Anarchists of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in Spain used a rank structure in order to get stuff done..... all Anarchist Volunteers. Did puff the magic Dragon organize the camp, troop movements and battle arrangements? Notice I'm not declaring a rank structure parallel to the US Marine Corps (I don't know it myself) but I clearly, obviously know the default of a Roman legion demands a pecking order to get ANYTHING done. Furthermore, thanks to my namesake, I know there was a conceptual difference between ranks. I never was a guy who gave much a hoot for ranks or metals or shiny boots in the first place. You confuse me with a flag saluting stereotype if you think that..... it's just cotton flapping in the air to me. I'm more interested in the crux of operations and their results as per a living organism.

It's very stupid to have to rely on Roman era artifacts for this..... it's pure asinine laziness on the scientists part to melt lead in containment..... How is this different from pilfering roman buildings for building materials during the middle ages? Or claiming the only realistic way to put in a sewer was to dig through a ancient temple? Or the toilet paper was out, and the only thing we could wipe on is a ancient manuscript. There is no such thing as black matter.... they are destroying real, tangible artifacts on a pipe dream. We get nothing tangible from this except disrespect for the past.

Anyone and everyone was a enemy of Revolutionary France.... half the reason the US didn't ally with it. I'm talking about TODAY. France survived two world wars, and even the cold war despite its constant efforts to self destruct. Are the French aware today, or larger Europe at large, to what they owe him? A big part of why we ever even bothered to go over in the world wars was a sense of debt to him.

To the atmosphere, so be it...... we can still mine raw lead and treat it in a confined environment..... I know quite well how steel and tin is made, I don't see what the technological hurdle is here. Zero excuse. Quit destroying artifacts for this crap. Lead isn't hard to make, if the Romans can make it, we can make it in a purified atmosphere tent, it's not a hard metal to work over.

This has been really annoying me for some time too.... I knew corn wasnt over there during this period, but half the books I read has the Romans chomping down on ears of corn and making popcorn ...... it was something I knew was wrong, but was to embarrassed to bring up, given everyone somehow already knew what 'corn' meant except me. My guess was some university elites started it as a gag, and the zombie students accepted it.... but Virgils explanation sounds better. Though the image I had of Nero flicking at a piece of corn stuck between his teeth for a evening was a comic idea I had from this.