Onasander

http://rbedrosian.com/Msyr/msyrtoc.html He includes in his chronicles large parts devoted to Roman Emperors.

http://www.manavdharam.com/upanished2.php I've known of the mathematical and imperial importance of the city, but didn't know it was linked to Alexandria, and apparently the internet isn't aware either. Anyone?

I need to make a confession, outside the selfish pagan aristocrats in the west that revolted,, tripping up the Roman line of defence allowing every barbarian tribe through, as pro Christian as I am, its a secondary issue at best. The Romans had been declining under paganism, Christianty invigorated it, but it wasnt enough in the west, though it clearly worked in the east. A couple of nearly monotheistic sun worshipers or Mithra Cultists meeting underground mumbling crypto-stoic beliefs wont sink society. The late pagans were not nearly as superstitious as the silliness that came before. The big issues to me would of been similar to Vegetius' Vegetius' focus in the military mechanics of a healthy, expanding empire, as well as strategems for getting distangled from the hordes that kept showing up. Someone dressed like a raven underground slaughtering goats crying Mithra would be the lesser of my concerns.

Il check it out.... I used to hang out at the archery range in Golden Gate Park..... the mongolian bows take more time and experience, but the best shot with them was a female. There is also a guy who spends all his time there addicted to longbows. They shot at the same distances, same targets. Everything I saw could seriously F you up, and wouldnt go for a stroll down range taunting people just because I might have chainmail on. And the bow wasnt a alien technology, Romans had many who were into hunting. The Romans were hicks. Yes, they had civilization and technology, but their tablets ios was WAX v.1.0..... you look at the diversity of back wood trailer trash, slack jaw yokels today and you have your average, military recruitable Roman. Slingers, rock throwing, knive throwing, etc, this is the sort of stuff every legionaire would of played around with since a kid. If archers were kept in thsthesame camps, they would of intermingled and cross trained unofficially from time to time. I was never a 11C, a mortatist, but I comprehend roughly how to do the job, from handing out in the mortar pit. Everyone worked together, the infantry even carried shells for them. Dont get stuck on categories that keeps you inflexible. On one hand, there is a clear need for specialization and task specific, elite or general units. Dont think for a second a trained roman infantry soldier wouldnt be able to grasp the importance of other technologies, fighting styles, or tactics they would come across, and wouldnt screw around with it on the side as some good old boys having fun. I kept a slingshot on me whenever I took the humvee out in Iraq. Good against dogs and kids who like to throw rocks. Bad if your gunner is bored and wants to target traffic.

Well, not your baby molesting version. But have you ever lived on a small resort island before? Try it for a year, it changes your psychology. The pictures of his mansions on the cliff look like Maui. Your trying to over dignify and enforce a ultra roman outlook on a guy who was obviously not into it. He took the Roman world in his hand, and chucked it aside moving to a island. Its a behavior that exists to this day. Secondly, the uncritical attitude towards his child molestation is concerning. The high treasury= high taxes. Nero = High Taxes, Justinian = High Taxes. Whenever you tax people, the tongue is going to flow, and not in a endearing manner. Its a political smear. In your own post, you offer ample evidence for this that would cause any political science major raise their eyebrows. If your really going to stick to this child molestation charge, I ask simply, where are the remains? Infants who are rape often die from it, even with our medical advances today. They should be littered in the trash heaps on his properties, unless he was into the 19th british fetish of sucking babies.

He still holds a archetypal sway on me. Easy to relate to.

Two translations of the Suda are online, its a early form of wikipedia. There is also another text not available yet, if I recall it's titled something like 'The Violet Garden' or 'The Violet Garlands'.... I remember reading a extract PDF from years ago. There are a few Byzantine anthologies not translated now that I think of it, as well as a medieval quote book Ive been tormenting myself translating. Likely much more than I am aware of, I just see the greek-latin PDFs online, hard to say what isn't online. The Suda is a awesome tool.

Never read the guy, so maybe he is a genius. However, it is hardly restricted to indoeuropean cultures, nor protohistory. It's a generic feature of monarchy in general. Republics tend to maintain offices that roughly mimic it. Remember, we have two loafs of brain, and not very parts of the brain offer a sense of self. Many cognitive theories say just three regions for sense of self. So the natural number is three here, with all the clique behavior and intrigue and cross alliances, and thickheaded ways of thinking. Our sense of self, who we are, oftens determines how we think. Its hard under group think conditions to break this trend, and think differently. Hence why the martial and civil aspects of government are often antagonistic.

I cant see any video. Depends on strategic configuration on the macro-level of the formations of the two sides, tempo, moral, and objectives, and raw capacity to assert and resist. Terrain, weather, and how relative either side is in terms of isolation and support. If the skill level of the archers are high, you simply.put, do not want to be on the receiving in. Same for the pilus. Archers are better at sustained, targeted bombardment. It can thin the flanks or rear, run havoc on communications, and wound horses. My ideal use would be in prepared positions for ambush and scout. Launching spears are best with a height advantage, or just before you close for combat. In theory, weigh down your shield or penetrate your armor. Maybe. Damn good tool to thwart calvary with as a generic spear. I dont see why archers couldnt carry both, but I would prefer archers to carry stakes for defence, and a selection of arrows. The infantry if anything should carry extra pilus and even a few extra arrows to deposit on the sides and rear of formations so archers have a continuous supply. I can't begin to tell you how nice it would be for the front line troops to have archer support nearby, preferably the guy behind you. The guy behind you tossing his bow to the next gut behind him, take a shot if a opening happens, trade the bow back, step up to the front and fight, etc. I simply put would want maximum force streamlined along my frontline, putting the skills of several on one opponent. Remember, archers=more shots. Throwing spears are large and heavy.

Steam cannon = battery placement = archeology. Where are the batteries? What fueled the steam? How long was the learning curve for the gunners, or was the gun fixed in terms of aim? How often did they blow up instead of shooting? I find it hard to believe cannons didn't blow up, unless he used some new construction technique. Did this author read Bellifortis?

Fifth legion? Valentianian gnostics meet here? Here be treasure? Look, I can carve Vs into stuff? Place of battle field victory? Distance Marker?

The early english juries had to not just listen to the case, but do the sloothing themselves individually. I can see convergent evolution as a starting point, but the English courts evolved out of royal authority, as the jury were nobles stuck with the job, didnt evolve from roman institutions as far as I know. I dont think the English were bijural mixing common and civil law together, just common law. They were bijural mixing salic and english, canon or old testament..... but from my understanding European civil law (roman law) got its start with the rediscovery of Justinian's codes. Im sure alot remained intact in southern france, and equally sure the british remained oblivious to this for the most part till much later when the common law system was in full swing.

I do. I gotta track down some tax/census records from this era. A historian in the future could make the same positive claims about Obama ending corruption and increasing income only by fixing loopholes, and in actuality decreased taxes and created posperity for all, and was hated for other reasons..... thats what Obama tells us, but things are very very different. Im putting my money on the tax hike. I very much doubt he was screwing babies when the other actions he took was cool and reflective. He, like Obama and Pierce Brosan (old james bond), and myself = beachbum. I know the type quite well. He was sitting on the dock of the bay, watching the tide....

The tripartite division closely resembles to monarchical divisions between the royal house, and the civil and martial wings of the royal court. Guessing it was a theocratic categoric emphasis of rites that divided state functions, at least from the viewpoint of some priest trying to make sense of the component arms of the state. If this was formed in the republic, it would of had to be very early when monarchial leanings hadnt been intentionally weeded out yet. It smells Royal,and too primitive to be a ceasars idea in the form you presented. Most monarchies have this division ironed out. Byzantines figured it out.

Six hour reply, covering the Etuscans, Revolt against Tarquin, The foundational Myth of the Roman Republic via The Rape of Lucretia, how Rome had.no.divorces in the Early republic, the various sexual strategies the.roman elite sought until.Sparticus's slave revolt, a comparison of Athenian Monagamy and the 4 kinds of women a rich land owner could have relations with (wife, masseuse, slave, servant), how it effected citizenship rights and inheritance, the adoption of Christian writers, such as St. Augustine on this topic, taking it from older republican era sources, and a explanation of why the vatican resurrected in the 1100s the Roman marriage laws to stop incest in the nobility, which the german law didn't, going into moral, theological, biological (x/y chromostom inheritance), and legal/social side effects, statistics and fears in modern US, Pslestinian, European, Swedish, Russian, Indian, and Bangladesh marriage practices related to the LGBT community, the caste system that evolved, and statistics for mental trauma and abuse suffered by societies that embraces chauvenistic or socialist laws favoring one sex more than another, crime rates, and demographic collapses in countries like Russia, or explosions like in china, and a comparison for roman/christian sexual monogamy vs confucian filial concepts, both going down the drain, with a cap of major sexology and feminist opinions on this subject..... And it is all deleted when I hit send, and this white page pops up saying I must be lost, click here..... I even spelt checked it, I never do that...... In a nutshell, everyone's premise is wrong. Christianity never supplanted the Roman system, the Christians adopted the roman practice of long term monogamy as a alternative to Christ's advocation with celibacy. With the Franks under Charlamane.(he had several wives), some Ethiopian Orthodox, and the occasional Arab Polygamist convert as the only ancient circumstances of Christianity breaking the roman rule, I can safely say neither the.Romans or greeks condoned Polygamy, and condoned homosexuality to varying degrees depending on the era. All that crap on the Satyricon and trannies in san framcisco gone too...... That was a long ass post. Well groomed too, gone. Damn it. I sleep now.

I should also point out, though encouraged, its not necessary to give up all your possessions and go hobo, I've done so twice, but had 4 years training as a Arctic Infantry Paratrooper. Many, including Diogenes and myself currently, live indoors. The barrel story is believed to only of happened for a while in Diogenes life, and he never completely gave up all his possessions. I assure you, had he traveled north of pontus into Ukraine instead of west to Athens, Diogenes would of had a large cold weather kit. A Anarchist I unfortunately know spent this past winter in Wisconsin..... he started it off it a cheap pop tent on concrete next to the railroad tracks in the woods, ended it under blankets in a abandoned cabin, he now has a house and old lincoln contenential and is studying on a nine year plan in college to repair factory robots, so he will always have a job once all the factories are automated. That gives me a 8 year deadline to design a video mounted wheeled arm that can allow super cheap repair workers in Botswana fix the device for much less. F that damn racist socialists, Ill see to it he doesnt get to work again, even if it requires me to sink the global work force into oblivion in the process.

Yes, many Cynic Philosophers preached. Many didn't. I've compiled the largest list of Cynic Philosophers I've seen period, and began to organize the together at first as a Appendix to my own work on Cynicism called Ontological Oceans..... however it quickly became massive and I may publish it apart as The Cynic Encyclopedia, focusing on various Cynics ancient, medieval, and modern. I am also including known first person quotes of each thinker if their work survives. If I do ultimately separate the two, Ill charge more for the Encyclopedia given its a massive pain in the ass, and is of quality expectations you would expect of scholarship from a Ivy League university. Whats holding me up the most is many works I need have never been translated into English, and some also deal with Pyronnhist, Stoic, Platonic and Aristotelian thought, and my Latin sucks horribly. I shouldnt be translating these works, given my skill level, cant even pronounce the words, but I have a duty to Philosophy, and I can point out even if I do it poorly, Ill still be the first. Im hoping to save up enough cash to hire a latin speaking assistant to format the texts word for word to speed up the translation effort, I do it in little spurts of manic activity, followed by loathing, indifference, and high yet misplaced hopes. The Cynics were the masterminds of Ancient Philosophy and literature, if you ever read from a Anthology, or Satire..... you've been influenced by the Cynics.... they are both inventions of the school of Gadara Cynicism. Many point out most of Jesus' teachings show a strong and obvious inclination towards Cynicism, and he wasn't born that far away from Gadara, and the oldest Christian text, the Dadachi, shows a strong emphasis on the early Christian community on not just prophets, but when one wasn't available, homeless to preach in early Christianity. We are left with a situation where either Jesus, accepted as the Son of God, creator of the Cosmos and Man, becomes so enamored with Cynicism that he adopts it, or of Jesus, a man of flesh and bone, lacking divinity, yet becomming the most successful preacher and theologian in the history of man, with half the world's population following him in some note or fashion, asserting many ideas and principles central to Cynicism. Either way you cut it, it's deeply impressive. During the Roman era, most of the Fragments and Essays we have are biographical, Epistal, or Rhethorical, often downright confrontational and challenging of Imperial Vice, often to the Emperor's face in public. The last Roman of note to lead a open and obvious Cynic Lifestyle was St. Simeon The Holy Fool, who's feast day is still celebrated in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. He lived in Roman Syria in the 7th century. As to the belief that wealthy Romans wouldn't be attracted to Cynicism, this is incorrect. Cynicism from its beginnings attracted the upper classes, Alexander the Great a obvious admirer of Diogenes, Crates of Thebes giving up his wealth (not a Roman, but as a example replicated often during the Christian monastic era). Petronius' Satyricon, the first Novel, follows the naughty exploits of two homosexual art Students who commit every disturbed sexual vice known to the Romans, in a story arch of gradual pain, lost, and enlightenment..... it appears to have a similar moral enlightenment arch to it like 'Monkey King/Journey to the West', hence who this otherwise 'evil work' was quoted without issue by educated Christians, as well as the moral rectification of the sexual practices to something more conservatively Roman. That work's main audience was the Roman elite, including Nero. The split of the Cynic/Stoic schools was Zeno.... who in terms of public as well as Royal opinion was more of a Cynic than the local parasites claiming to be Cynics were. He practiced hard work and humility, and more importantly, left a physical location and bona fide discipleship that emphasised clear headed resolve over the cynic style in vogue of showmanship, direct confrontation, and begging. However, there is more in common between the two traditions than seperate, and much interchangeable. I have many Stoic acquaintances, ones who claim to be and that I accept. The bulk are frauds, quick to inflame and dispute. Its much easier to decide who is a stoic, and who is not, given how long the tradition was bona fide passed on and rooted around the hard to nail down Cynic school, which was based less on tradition than cognitive change imposed via a lifestyle. There is much less range of differation acceptable for a Stoic than a Cynic. A example being, outside of my Rhetorical Style, outwardly there is little to differentiate my behavior from a Stoic, but a fellow contemporary Cynic, the Hungarian Istvan Bortos, who eats his own shit and glass onstage, could never pass as a Stoic. However, though I may be critical of his behavior (which is what Cynics do, we judge people, even each other), I understand the psychology and tradition of what he is doing. We are both Cynics, but opposite spectrums of aspects of its historic and cognitive divide. The works translated into English, 'The Cynic Epistles', is one of the few Roman resources we have on Roman Cynics that was used and accepted by Roman era Cynics. And it's all mostly psuedo-biographical, which has turned ironically most historians distainfully away from it as a legitimate source for Cynicism. This is a horrible misconception of how Cynicism operates..... it never was a bona-fide tradition, nor a prejorative 'lifestyle and not a philosophy'. Cynicism, like Hendonism and Zen Buddism, was a doctrine less of Theory than a range of Cognitive Stated achived through a yoke of means. Reading and quoting Zen Buddism, no matter how good you are at it, doesn't make you a Zen Buddhist, sitting and stairing, trying to calm the mind does. It changes your perspective. The importance of The Cynic Epistles was that though it was likely a product of a academic controlled literary school, it modelled itself on observations of Roman Cynics who could be observed preaching on the street, who preached on topics from many different schools in a mismash. Cynics tend to be exceptionally well read, moreso than our academic counterparts, these are works the Roman Cynics would of stumbled across and emulated themselves. I myself owned a copy during my days in San Francisco and Hawaii. It was a good reference, and showed how far our minds could range even in Ancient times. One of my favorite thinkers, Archimedes, lead a very Cynic lifestyle and even death, but is remembered for his Mathematics alone. I myself have been so destitute and impoverished I would work on my Philosophy of Size in the sand below a seawall I often times slept hidden on top of. I would wake up, looking down to see the tide was in, the splash nearly hitting my eyes. Shit will piss you off, and the Barnes and Noble Nook I foolishly bought couldnt draw despite its touchscreen. After a falling tree crushed my worthless nook, I wasn't feeling at much of a loss to it, it let me email people, and read books, but had to be charged constantly. I always had sand, my mind, and countless ideas to work through. The Cynic tradition carried on, but in three forms. 1) In the Persian empire, into the middle ages of two different sects, one drunk, one sober hobo mystics still doing the naughty Cynic gag, while producing some awesome poetry. 2) The Desert Fathers soaked alot of people interested in Cynic lifestyles into Christian Monasticism. It ranged from single cell anchorite lifestles to various levels of social living, with common monikers like 'poeman' (the shepard). Many different monastic rules were developed in the west, only one for the eastern churches. They differ from similar groups like the Dervishes, who too have links to Cynicism. In Christianity, we also had varients, like St. Symeon the Fool who would randomly just trip you while you walk, as well as Simeon Stylites and similar saints who would live in insane conditions on top of pillars and tubs, sometimes in sight of one another cursing each other out arguing theological and philosophical disputes. 3) The Fool/Court Jester Cynics study social relations and impulse..... prior to Ibn Khaldun, if you wanted a sociologist, you would have to find a Cynic or a Court Jester. It's much less of a choice than you might think, but rather a side effect of the yoke of experienced lifestyle Cynics experience while learning not just to survive, but also restructure themselves to being able to endure, expand their thought, and remain on a positive trajectory mentally and physically. It's only here that the various random threads of Cynic behavior, such as independence, feined madness, aloof independance, snd emphasis on hardship of exercise, start tying into other aspects, such as sharpness of wit, lightening fast rebukes to philosophical and social assertions, and deep analytic concentration. These are functions under direct control or immediately related to feedback loops associated with the Supplementry Motor Area of the brain. As a INTJ, I had the wit to a extent prior to becomming a Cynic, but it really came out afterwords. It's a left hemispheric feedback loop associated with the SMA. Think the comedians Robin Williams or Jim Carrey (Jim was even homeless for a while). It's a sharp, penetrating, often twisted form of Comedy that takes the court politics, intrigue, and common opinion all into one, and it can be traced back to the tradition left be the Cynics. Now, note not every homeless person is a Cynic, infact, overwhelmingly most are not. Typically, most homeless are scared and scornful of their status, intime accepting or indifferent. Only the rarest of the rare choose to be homeless, and of them only a few are conscious of the Cynic tradition. Most Anarchists are not Cynics. A Cynic isn't inherently opposed to hierarchy, but they will analyses, test, and offer rebuttles against aspects of it. The number of Cynics I've met I can count on one hand. None in San Francisco (occupy wallstreet happened late into my stay there, ZERO in the San Francisco camp, and I checked several times. One guy was evolving in the general direction, but was spiteful still about his lot in life), one in Hawaii, and curiously a few I found by pure accident in Folsom, California, one of whom approached me stairing confused at a map in my hike across california heading to lake tahoe! I couldnt take him on, but gave him directions to San Francisco, safe places, how to find work and philosophy groups even. It was funny as hell, we were trying to give each other stuff, he even tried to give me his bike after I told him how many days walk it was to San Francisco down Route 160. So in my case, I do less preaching and converting than confronting, laboring, talking things through with people, and theorizing. I even rejected taking on a new fellow Cynic as a student. I have had one student, and he is a Vietnam Vet, and he has better accomplishments than me in several respects (he had the misfortune when living in montana as being arrested as the Unibomber because of how wild he looked and his political activism, they caught the real guy and released him, who said F it and moved to Santa Monica then Hawaii.) I also tried unsuccessfully to recruit a homeless vet who built a rambo bunker on a cliff in hawaii...... he had no intelligence, though remarkable endurance and fortitude. I also started a Philosophy Group in Hawaii, but never once pushed Cynicism. I always came well dressed, looked like your average middle class professor type.... its the style I learned for such meetings in san francisco so kept it as neutral given my role as moderator. I often would work security in really, really expensive establishments for high in clients, so knew how to clean up after a night spent exposed to the rain. Only place I force it is in Philosophy Groups. I dont see the point in converting the world and gaining followers. Cynicism comes and goes, is already deeply saturated in the western world, with equivelents in India and China, and even if it died out completely will reassert itself in time. Its not faith in Cynicism, merely noting history and the Human Condition. In social settings, Im more interested in seeing men becomming better thinkers or any kind of philosopher than forcing my outlook. Hell, is it even a good thing to try, we live in a tender body age, many would pointlessly die. I have mildly tutored non cynic philosophy, usually for free. Diogenes was known to take students who left the Cynic lifestyle and still supported their old teacher. Demonax had Lucian. Aristotle Alexander the Great. Jesus close friends with Lazurus, if not a disciple. Most of the talk against the Rich and Powerful was against the impulse desire complex of being lured into wealth, title, and position under someone, usually a persian emperor who didnt give a flying F about Cynicism in itself. It was seen as a perverted and anthetical to do that, but so long as the rich person/king wasn't a persian, they always seemed accepting of them, even pestered them to death. It was Zeno who broke the ice here. I doubt any Cynic could come up with a excuse for dodging a summons by Marcus Aurelius, a philosopher king and practitioner of a closely related philosophy.

I've read the reconstructions of the 12 tables, a big boring chunk of Justinians Code, and chunks of the Visigoth's Code based on Roman law, as well as works on Roman Catholic Canon law, the origins of the commonlaw system, the medieval imposition of the secular divide by the vatican on the princes, and the early evolution of german law in the medieval period..... I walk away not knowing much, but confusingly more than I should. I dont think the Romans had interest in common law. I know the divide between criminal and civil law began in the late republic, and admit my ignorance on what this meant in terms of suits, but from my understanding, outside of Xeer law in Ethiopia which is maintained by clan pressure, the commonlaw system, though with precedent since the 8th century, largely arrived from similar Islamic practices, moving from Libya to Sicily, learned by the Normans during their occupation of Sicily, and brought to Norman England. I may be wrong about it, as the scholarship for that assumption was from Qaddafi era Libya's old English News Service, and good chance whoever wrote that now is either dead or sleeps clutching a AK47 on their rooftop paranoid as hell, but it seemed well written and very plausable given the norman link and Islamic laws emphasis on behavioral precedents of Mohammed. I just dont see it in Roman Law..... but my understanding of Roman law is questionable, however deep aspects of it can be at times. Im fairly certain if I time traveled to Rome, I would break the law purely out of ignorance of it, and would be enslaved in a fortnight. Thats despite my time wasted reading about it.

Did the romans ever develop a all embracing figure to represent the entirety of the Roman state? Im not talking about deifying the Emperor, as the Emperor wasn't also the Senate. We dont worship Uncle Sam (save some radical leftest), its always been a cross between a parody and a satire, sometimes embraced by the government, othertimes used to mock it. I could see the Romans sarcastically worshiping such a diety everytime the government screwed up.

You need to seperate 'in the west' from Europe. Europe is the middle east since the lost their status as western under the Nazis. They never intellectually recovered, just jumping from one silly belief to another. 1) Most buddhist faiths are Atheistic, they can oftentimes be both, but some Buddhists are theists. 2) Parts of western and north central europe suffered a cognitive decline resulting from strict government control, a bewildering presentation of options that make any religion foolish and dogmatic, and from the 1860s-Present a strong emphasis on Hegels religious-state dialectics, adapts of which, by Marxs and Nietzsche were militantly antireligious, thinking society evolved on a basis of faith (the primitive) to rational (socialist atheism). During this period, they tried really, really hard to kill each other off, declaring God was dead, and everyone tried to collect as many venerial diseases as possible, screwing out of wedlock. To remedy this situation, europe built a series of ditches, and put all of its smartest, brightest, and most verile men inside, and anyone trying to climb out was shot for not spending the mandatory life sentence in the hole. Many figured out being in the trenches was better than getting out of them, and so just sat there. They were not dying quickly enough, so they aimed artillary at one another, straight down in the trenches. Many proved to be too clever, and so chemical weapons were added to the artillary to kill people hiding in dug out rooms so they built tanks to drive over the trenches, collapsing the rooms and machine gunning everyone. Everyone said 'Ha ha, you may kill me, but God is already dead', but the people in the noisey tanks couldnt hear the people in the gasmasks saying this, and it just sounded like muffle screams. Unfortunately, all the guys in the trenches impregnated women, and even though the men all died, their babies were born. Once they were born, they all said.'hey, let grow up and kill one another like our dads did'. Everyone.was taught God was Dead and to fuck over their neighbor. And they did. The worst crazy fucks aborted babies, and ethnicities not their own, and marched eberywhere in a effort to kill each other, but especially the Jews, who were pacifists that offered sound financial advice, because Marx and Hitler said so. They were also told by Nietzsche to kill everyone the Marxist liked, and support everyone the Marxist hated, but the Marxist and Nietzscheans were both the same, being hegelians, dressing the same, having similar flags, killing one another in similar ways, etc. America got tired of this shit, and dropped a nuke on a country not even in Europe to get the Europeans to shut up. The Europeans were very upset with Americans, in still loving God and talks about brotherhood and humanity. It was talk that got in the way of killing one another. To makes the Americans happy, the combined Nietzsche and Marxs ideas together, and said 'Not only is God Dead, But the Sun is pissed off and is melting us to death, and it's all Americas fault'. That is the origins of global warming, they worship it instead of God. The Europeans, not allowed to fight in Europe, gave weapons to Brown people everywhere, saying 'God is Dead' and encouraged them to kill one another for Marx-Nietzsche. Then when all the brown men died, they blamed America, and said africa was hot because of global warming, and America caused it. However, the africans knew the Europeans well enough, and told them to go screw themselves, and now they all believe in God. In Asia, the Europeans said the same, but the Asians informed the Europeans that buddha already killed God, and they already knew how to kill themselves better in wars. This impressed the Europeans, and people like the Dutch started transforming their windmills into Stupas, smoking pot, and neglecting their dykes. All the European empires collapsed, because the were quitters. They became so convinced they were all going to die they built a underground seed vault, and put seeds in it because America with its globalizing global warming would kill all the bees, and prevent photosynthesis. Some countries like sweden tried to fake belief in God because they were bored, so made a last supper where Jesus and the Apostles were all trannys. People who believed in God pointed out this was insane, so the swedes took the children of people who believed in God away, calling them human rights fanatics. In England, friendship was made illegal in schools, and Christians forbidden to adopt. In Germany, religious people are arrested. Everyone in Europe wants to die, but no one is allowed to have guns, so instead they stab one another, have race wars, and vote for bad economic policies, all in the belief God is Dead. In America, were all like, naw, screw that crazy stuff, and God gives us Hi Fives.

Throwing javelins from behind a shield wall is still defensive if your hunkered down defensively. Hastings was the battle on the rainy day in France where French knights dismounted and assumed a defensive position on a hill surrounded by muddy fields, right? French knights had larger, stronger shields, better armor, better spears and swords, stronger morale and a high degree of training. They held the high ground, and didnt really have a place to retreat to. Its doubtful any infantry 'rush' under muddy conditions on a heavy infantry position is going to do squat for days. Thats pretty much what French knights when dismounted were, heavy infantry. You would have more success in unleashing a attack dog on a tank. And yes, a shield wall could be used offensively, they chinese proved this in many clever battles using infantry mazes that would shift around once the enemy army penetrated, finding the interior of the formation walled as well, disciplined, with no obvious way out once their entrance closed up. The tortoise formation could also storm positions, and support seige operations. A medieval italian work called De Rei Militari shows heavy archer shields used in both offense and defense, and shields were often used for artillery, ancient and modern. If the shield was large enough, it could be used as a ambulance for the sick and the dead, as a shelter from the rain, and a seat to rest your butt on in the march when resting. Also as a art platform for the bored. Many uses for a shield.

No, stupid and arrogant is right. He was warned not to send the navy in, as Greece lacked the ports. He allowed his whole army to get bottlenecked over one pass, and lost a big chunk of his navy. Being a good fighter doesnt make you a smart one. He tried to rush the greeks and reduce his supply strain/train by quickly getting in and overwhelming them. Xerxes didnt use spies in advance who would of explained the pass issue. Hence why he lost the war. The persian empire had smart ministers, but they alienated Xerxes in the beginning when they explained how stupid his plan was. Its like trying to explain something to Obama, he'll just say 'Yes, We Can' or 'Change we can believe in', ignoring you with spite and superiority, will get entangled in a mess, and drag everyone down with him in a blackhole of despair and destruction. Xerxes had overwhelming force, and still lost. That makes him a bona fide tard.

You have to to go to Glimmer and Logan County, West Virginia. I guess Ursus and I live near each other, I live on the PA West Virginia border (also the Ohio West Virginia Border too).

Like hell it will. My drama is via a bona fide Roman tradition inherited via The Cynic Epistles. I could of been dead.... and Im still getting put down. Give a corpse a break already.

I loved the original, hated the remake.