Who was the first king of Rome? Romulus?
Michel
http://chronicle.com/article/Domestic-Violence-a/47940/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Myths or Facts in Feminist Scholarship?
Christina Hoff Sommers, in her essay "Persistent Myths in Feminist
Scholarship" (The Chronicle Review, online edition, June 29),
criticized Nancy K.D. Lemon, a lecturer in domestic-violence law at
the University of California at Berkeley's School of Law, for
publishing errors in the popular textbook she edits, Domestic Violence
Law, and for not taking seriously her continuing criticisms of the
book. "One reason that feminist scholarship contains hard-to-kill
falsehoods is that reasonable, evidence-backed criticism is regarded
as a personal attack," Sommers charged. Following is Lemon's response
to those criticisms and Sommers's rebuttal. Sommers is a resident
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Nancy K.D. Lemon: Christina Hoff Sommers accused me of being a
"scholarly merchant of hype" for material in my popular textbook,
Domestic Violence Law. In fact, she is the one whose assertions are
untrue and who is impervious to correction.
I have worked in the domestic-violence field as an attorney since
1981, and pioneered teaching domestic-violence law. When I started
teaching this course in 1988 at the University of California at
Berkeley's School of Law, it was the first such course anywhere. I
created a reader, which was in such demand by other law teachers that
I contacted a publisher, and the book Domestic Violence Law was first
published in 1996. The third edition by Thomson/West has just come
out, along with an updated teacher's manual.
Sommers first contacted me by e-mail on February 21, 2009, and told me
she had been traveling around the United States criticizing me and my
textbook. The timing of her e-mail message was fortuitous, as I was
working on the final edits of the most recent edition. I double-
checked the specific points she expressed concern about and read the
sources she cited in her e-mail message. In my response to her, I
stated that while I had found some minor inaccuracies in the piece
about the origin of the "rule of thumb" and had corrected those, I had
confirmed the sources of the other supposed inaccuracies she
challenged.
In spite of my response, she wrote in The Chronicle Review that she is
"open to correction," yet she ignored my response to her and continued
to complain of the same purported inaccuracies.
In regard to the rule of thumb, for example, she asserted that Romulus
of Rome, who is credited in my book with being involved with the first
antidomestic-violence legislation, could not have done this as he was
merely a legendary, fictional character, who along with his brother
Remus was suckled by a wolf.
In fact, Plutarch and Livy each state that Romulus was the first king
of Rome. He reigned from 753-717 BC, and created both the Roman
Legions and the Roman Senate. He is also credited with adding large
amounts of territory and people to the dominion of Rome, including the
Sabine women. The modern scholar Andrea Carandini has written about
the historic reign of Romulus, based in part on the 1988 discovery of
the Murus Romuli on the north slope of the Palatine Hill in Rome.
R. Emerson Dobash and Russell P. Dobash, pioneers and well-respected
leaders in the field of domestic-violence research, discuss Romulus in
their 1979 book, Violence Against Wives. They state that the marriage
laws passed in 753 BC, under Romulus of Rome, allowed men to beat
their wives, and that this rule continued into England and the United
States in the 1700s and 1800s. Dobash and Dobash refer to a "rod drawn
through the wedding ring" in describing the size of the stick husbands
were allowed to use for this purpose, the same guideline referred to
as the rule of thumb.
Professor Henry Ansgar Kelly has also researched the history of the
term "rule of thumb," along with the historic right of husbands to
chastise their wives. In his article, "Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw
of the Husband's Stick," in the September 1994 issue of the Journal of
Legal Education, he cites Matthew Bacon, an 18th-century jurist, who
published a legal treatise in the United States and England in 1736
containing the comment that husbands had a legal right to beat their
wives. Similarly, Kelly cites Sir Francis Buller, an English judge,
who said in 1778 that it was acceptable for husbands to beat their
wives with a stick the size of their own thumb, though Kelly notes
that others disagreed with Butler that this was permissible. Kelly
also says that while canon law did not condone husbands beating their
wives, the ordinary gloss to civil law did allow this. The history he
reviews finds early jurists and legal treatises on both sides of
condoning actual wife-beating. However, Kelly cites numerous early
sources showing the right of husbands to "moderately chastise" their
wives.
There are several 19th-century American cases in which judges referred
to the rule of thumb, if not by name, then by reference to sticks or
switches and their relationship to the sizes of the husbands' fingers
or thumbs. These cases include Bradley v. State (Mississippi, 1824),
State v. Rhodes (North Carolina, 1867), Fulgham v. State (Alabama,
1871), and State v. Oliver (North Carolina, 1874).
According to John K. Wilson in the fall 1994 issue of Democratic
Culture, Elizabeth Cady Stanton also stated in her 1854 address to the
New York legislature, "By the common law of England, the spirit of
which has been but too faithfully incorporated into our statute law, a
husband has a right to whip his wife with a rod not larger than his
thumb, to shut her up in a room, and administer whatever moderate
chastisement he may deem necessary to insure obedience to his wishes,
and for her healthful moral development!" (quoting Stanton et al.,
History of Woman Suffrage, 1881).
Sommers has also stated that my textbook includes an article by Joan
Zorza referencing a March of Dimes study on domestic violence that
never took place. Sommers states that she contacted the director of
science education for the March of Dimes, and he denied that there was
any such study. Rather than asking me for a citation, she announced in
her lectures that the study did not exist and that my book was full of
made-up truths. Even when I told her I had seen a copy of the study as
provided by Zorza, Sommers went on to make the same assertion in her
piece in The Chronicle.
Apparently the March of Dimes employee was unaware of the research
this agency financed. The study Zorza sent me, "Battering During
Pregnancy: Intervention Strategies," by Anne Stewart Helton and
Frances Gobble Snodgrass, appears in the September 1987 issue of the
journal Birth. The article states at the bottom of the first page:
"This work was supported by a March of Dimes grant for the prevention
of battering during pregnancy." The study states that battered women
had twice the number of miscarriages than did nonbattered women.
Zorza also sent me a scanned copy of "Domestic Violence, a Women's
Health Issue," a 1994 report of the N.Y. State Senate Democratic Task
Force on Women's Issues, chaired by Senator Suzi Oppenheimer. That
report included a reference to the March of Dimes Protocol of Care for
Battered Women, which noted that battered women are twice as likely to
miscarry, four times as likely to have low-birth-weight babies, and 40
times as likely to have infants who die within the first year,
compared with nonbattered women.
Sommers also challenged a statement by Zorza in my textbook regarding
the high incidence of battered women in emergency rooms. Sommers says
she received a message from a statistician at the Centers for Disease
Control who stated that the incidence of females in emergency
departments because of domestic violence was 0.01 percent in 2005 and
0.02 percent in 2003.
Apparently that statistician has not read the Centers for Disease
Control Web site, which stated, when I checked it on July 15, 2009:
"IPV," or intimate-partner violence, "is a major cause of violence-
related injuries. Intimate partners were identified as the
perpetrators in 36 percent of all emergency department visits by women
who suffered from one or more violent injuries."
Similarly, the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the U.S. Department of
Justice has reported that 37 percent of all women who sought care in
hospital emergency rooms for violence-related injuries were injured by
a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend (Michael R. Rand,
"Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments,"
1997).
We also find similarly high figures published in medical journals,
hardly bastions of radical feminism. D.C. Berios and D. Grady, in
their article "Domestic Violence: Risk Factors and Outcome," in the
August 1991 issue of Western Journal of Medicine, found that among 218
women presenting in a metropolitan emergency department with injuries
due to violence, 28 percent required hospital admission and 13 percent
required major medical treatment.
Doctors Evan Stark and Anne Flitcraft, prominent researchers in this
field, announced similar findings in their 1996 book Women at Risk:
Domestic Violence and Women's Health: "The initial conclusion of our
research was that more women sought medical treatment for injuries
resulting from domestic violence than for any other cause." ... Later
"studies continued to document substantially the same or higher
figures than we uncovered" (Sage Publications Page xvii).
The N.Y. State Senate report mentioned above cites the American
Medical Association's "Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines," which
note that battered women account for 19 percent to 30 percent of
injured women seen in emergency departments.
Similarly, the study cited above backed by the March of Dimes contains
the following statement: "The magnitude of the problem is shown in a
Yale University study in which 21 percent of the 2,676 women treated
in the emergency department were battered." (See "Wife Abuse in the
Medical Setting," by Stark and Flitcraft et al., in Domestic Violence
Monograph Series No. 7, 1981.)
Sommers seems to have a history of making inaccurate assertions.
Ironically, one of the articles she cited in her e-mail message to me
in support of her assertions regarding the origin of the rule of thumb
was the Kelly piece. In fact, rather than supporting Sommers, Kelly
disagrees with her, stating: "The explanation she gives from a Women's
Studies Network communication by a folklorist, Philip Hiscock, that
[the term "rule of thumb"] comes from woodworking ... is supported by
no evidence."
Kelly is not the only researcher or scholar to find Sommers's
scholarship in error. In Women at Risk, Stark and Flitcraft note that
their research findings regarding the high numbers of battered women
in emergency departments were challenged in 1994 by none other than
Christina Hoff Sommers, even though she is a philosopher, not a
medical researcher, and thus had no basis for disputing their
findings.
Sommers seems to have made a career out of attacking other academics
and researchers and disagreeing with their findings, citing the same
assertions repeatedly over at least the last 15 years, even in the
face of evidence contradicting her claims. It seems I have the honor
of being her most recent target.
I have been teaching law students for 22 years and am the author of
one of the leading textbooks on domestic violence. It is important for
students to receive accurate information; good scholarship requires
nothing less.
Christina Hoff Sommers: Essentially everything in Professor Lemon's
response is wrong.
She confidently informs us that Romulus actually existed and ruled
Rome from 753-717 BC. That is preposterous. She cites Livy and
Plutarch as sources. These first-century writers did not claim to be
offering historically accurate accounts of events that took place some
700 years before their time, but openly professed to be summarizing
beliefs, myths, and legends that had come down through the ages. She
also cites the contemporary Roman archaeologist Andrea Carandini-a
maverick figure who discovered what he claims might have been a wall
of a palace that could have belonged to Romulus. As the July/August
2007 issue of Archaeology politely notes, his suggestion "represents a
sharp break with two millennia of scholarship."
Lemon's textbook teaches that King Romulus had a code of laws in which
wife beating was "accepted and condoned." That claim goes beyond
anything ever suggested by Livy, Plutarch, or Professor Carandini.
Where are her sources for these real-world enactments of a magistrate
whom nearly everyone regards as fictitious? She credits a 1979 book by
Rebecca and Russell Dobash, assuring us that they are "well-respected
leaders in the field of domestic-violence research." Which they may
well be-but if they had evidence that Romulus existed and information
about his code of laws, they would also be among the most renowned
classical historians of our time, which they are not. Why has this
honor eluded them? In their book on domestic violence, Dobash and
Dobash write, "Men who assault their wives are actually living up to
cultural prescriptions that are cherished in Western society." Perhaps
it is their political pronouncements that have rendered Lemon blind to
their scholarly limitations on matters historical.
According to Lemon's text, William Blackstone and other British common-
law jurists promulgated the "rule of thumb" law that gave a husband
the right to "beat his wife with a rod no thicker than his thumb."
False. Scholars have searched for this precedent in English law but
without success. Though a few 19th-century American southern judges
allude to it, no one has ever been able to find the actual law-neither
in Blackstone nor in any other source.
Lemon, in her response to my piece, cites the example of the 18th-
century British judge Francis Buller, who allegedly deployed the rule
of thumb in his courtroom. But UCLA scholar Henry Ansgar Kelly, who
has written the decisive exposé of the rule-of-thumb ruse, points out
that Buller did not refer to the law in any official ruling, but
mentioned it in an off-the-record remark. Buller was then mercilessly
pilloried in the London press and caricatured in cartoons as "Judge
Thumb." One Buller biographer denies that the judge ever made any such
remark, and no one can find any official record of his words or of any
case adjudicated by Buller that could have given rise to his comment.
But no matter, a legal legend was born. In Lemon's hands, the phantom
rule of thumb is presented as a fundamental precept in European and
American jurisprudence. Lemon has read Kelly's exposé. That the faux
law-complete with attributions to William Blackstone-is blandly
included in the latest edition of her textbook borders on academic
malfeasance.
Lemon stands by the claim in her book that "the March of Dimes found
that women battered during pregnancy have more than twice the rate of
miscarriages and give birth to more babies with more defects than
women who may suffer from any immunizable illness or disease." When I
read that passage to Richard P. Leavitt, director of science
information at the March of Dimes, he said, "That is a total error.
There is no such study." Now Lemon faults him for not being aware of a
study carried out by his own organization. How could its director of
science have been unaware of so important and dramatic a finding? Here
is how:
The March of Dimes never did any such study, nor did it commission any
such research. The source Lemon cites is a 1987 article in the nursing
journal Birth by two authors who were awarded a grant by the March of
Dimes to do a small study of battery during pregnancy and to summarize
strategies for prevention. In their introductory remarks describing
the scope of the problem, the authors refer to a 1981 monograph by
Evan Stark, Anne Flitcraft, et al., titled Domestic Violence. It makes
claims about the links between battery and miscarriages, and it was
not connected with the March of Dimes in any way. When students are
told in Lemon's book that "the March of Dimes found ...," they are led
to believe that this reputable organization carried out the major
study with the advertised finding. They do not assume that the finding
was by a third party, which was then referred to by someone who
received a grant from the March of Dimes to do a small study on a
different topic.
A few final words about Lemon's defense of the emergency-room factoid.
According to her textbook, "Between 20 and 35 percent of women seeking
medical care in emergency rooms in America are there because of
domestic violence." The number of women who annually seek emergency-
room care is approximately 40 million, so Lemon is saying that between
8 million and 14 million women are there because they suffered from
beatings by intimates. That is not even remotely true. The Centers for
Disease Control and Justice Department statistics she cites to
demonstrate her book's accuracy are not about the 40 million women who
visit emergency rooms, but rather about the approximately 550,000
women who come to emergency rooms "for violence-related injuries." Of
that group, approximately 35 percent were attacked by intimates. Far
less than 1 percent of the women seeking medical care in emergency
rooms are there because of domestic violence.
Lemon has just published the third edition of her celebrated, error-
ridden casebook. This time, as her response to my Review piece proudly
proclaims, she was well aware of my criticisms and brushed them aside
with disdain. Law students will now be treated to another round of
Elvis sightings parading as scholarship. As I said in my article, my
complaint with feminist research is not that authors make mistakes but
that the mistakes are impervious to reasoned criticism. They do not
get corrected, and the critic's motives are impugned. Nancy Lemon's
response to my article illustrates the problem perfectly.
Tiglath
The historicity of Romulus should not be taken for granted.
Ancient historians were at liberty to embellish for the benefit of
telling a good tale.
Matt Giwer
> read on...
> http://chronicle.com/article/Domestic-Violence-a/47940/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
> Myths or Facts in Feminist Scholarship?
It is no clear what the entire quote has to do with the question.
If some time in the future it is confirmed the first king was named Romulus
it will be very slowly accepted for it being too correct. If there is some
basis in fact for any of the other foundation myths it will be an even greater
surprise.
At present any statements on the subject should be qualified with the phrase,
according to tradition.
--
Lebanon became a democracy in 1943, five years before Jews started claiming
they had the first and only democracy in the Middle East.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4172
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Wed Aug 12 23:27:54 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> Michel wrote:
>> read on...
>> http://chronicle.com/article/Domestic-Violence-a/47940/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
>>
>> Myths or Facts in Feminist Scholarship?
>
> It is no clear what the entire quote has to do with the question.
>
> If some time in the future it is confirmed the first king was named
> Romulus it will be very slowly accepted for it being too correct. If
> there is some basis in fact for any of the other foundation myths it
> will be an even greater surprise.
>
> At present any statements on the subject should be qualified with
> the phrase, according to tradition.
>
--
Zionism is a political cult dedicated to murdering Palestinians
and stealing their property.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4165
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Wed Aug 12 23:34:55 EDT 2009
Agamemnon
"Michel" <yard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e47ae357-df83-4595...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
read on...
It's revisionist bullshit.
The first king of Rome was Rhomanessus the son of Roma the daughter of Atlas
Italus, who founded the city in about 1438 BC.
Christopher Ingham
to her and continued
> <snip>
> In regard to the rule of thumb, for example, she asserted that Romulus
> of Rome, who is credited in my book with being involved with the first
> antidomestic-violence legislation, could not have done this as he was
> merely a legendary, fictional character, who along with his brother
> Remus was suckled by a wolf.
>
> In fact, Plutarch and Livy each state that Romulus was the first king
> of Rome. He reigned from 753-717 BC, and created both the Roman
> Legions and the Roman Senate. He is also credited with adding large
> amounts of territory and people to the dominion of Rome, including the
> Sabine women. The modern scholar Andrea Carandini has written about
> the historic reign of Romulus, based in part on the 1988 discovery of
> the Murus Romuli on the north slope of the Palatine Hill in Rome.
>
> R. Emerson Dobash and Russell P. Dobash, pioneers and well-respected
> leaders in the field of domestic-violence research, discuss Romulus in
> their 1979 book, Violence Against Wives. They state that the marriage
There is no evidence for the existence of Romulus, who cannot be
considered more than a mytho-historic figure. The name itself is
simply an eponym meaning "Roman." The legend of Romulus and Remus can
be dated to the fourth century BCE, perhaps earlier. Livy in the late
republic and others artfully blended history, antiquarianism, and
legendary traditions in formulating the first historical narratives of
early Rome. One can argue that there must be historical kernels of
truth within the legends about the early city (the history of the
regal period is almost entirely legendary), and this is perhaps true,
but so far specific historical elements have not been definitively
adduced.
Andrea Carandini, Domenico Palombi, and Adam Ziolkowski are a few of a
small minority of topographers who hold the traditionalist view of
eary Roman history (i.e., the version in Livy et al.). While they have
each made important contributions to the understanding of ancient Rome
in archaeology and other areas of study, it is is difficult to
understand how they can maintain their almost naïve viewpoints about
Rome's early history.
Christopher Ingham
Agamemnon
"Christopher Ingham" <christop...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:462629d7-5b17-4da1...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 12, 9:40 pm, Michel <yard22...@yahoo.com> wrote:
to her and continued
> <snip>
> In regard to the rule of thumb, for example, she asserted that Romulus
> of Rome, who is credited in my book with being involved with the first
> antidomestic-violence legislation, could not have done this as he was
> merely a legendary, fictional character, who along with his brother
> Remus was suckled by a wolf.
>
> In fact, Plutarch and Livy each state that Romulus was the first king
> of Rome. He reigned from 753-717 BC, and created both the Roman
> Legions and the Roman Senate. He is also credited with adding large
> amounts of territory and people to the dominion of Rome, including the
> Sabine women. The modern scholar Andrea Carandini has written about
> the historic reign of Romulus, based in part on the 1988 discovery of
> the Murus Romuli on the north slope of the Palatine Hill in Rome.
>
> R. Emerson Dobash and Russell P. Dobash, pioneers and well-respected
> leaders in the field of domestic-violence research, discuss Romulus in
> their 1979 book, Violence Against Wives. They state that the marriage
> laws passed in 753 BC, under Romulus of Rome <snip>
<<<There is no evidence for the existence of Romulus, who cannot be>>>
WRONG!
All ancient Greek and Roman historians agree that he existed. There is more
evidence for Romulus than there is for Herodotus and Thucydides
<<<considered more than a mytho-historic figure. The name itself is
simply an eponym meaning "Roman." The legend of Romulus and Remus can
be dated to the fourth century BCE, perhaps earlier. Livy in the late
republic and others artfully blended history, antiquarianism, and
legendary traditions in formulating the first historical narratives of>>>
Complete and utter unsubstantiated revisionist BULLSHIT!
<<<early Rome. One can argue that there must be historical kernels of
truth within the legends about the early city (the history of the
regal period is almost entirely legendary), and this is perhaps true,
but so far specific historical elements have not been definitively
adduced.
Andrea Carandini, Domenico Palombi, and Adam Ziolkowski are a few of a
small minority of topographers who hold the traditionalist view of
eary Roman history (i.e., the version in Livy et al.). While they have>>>
That are part of the MAJORITY which accepts the historical consensus that
Romulus and Remus existed. There is NOT ONE SHRED of any historical evidence
which doubts their existence therefore no basis for arguing against it. The
claim that they did not exist is modern REVISIONIST DOGMA!
<<<each made important contributions to the understanding of ancient Rome
in archaeology and other areas of study, it is is difficult to
understand how they can maintain their almost na�ve viewpoints about
Rome's early history.>>>
Surreyman
> "Christopher Ingham" <christophering...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> Rome's early history.>>>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your thinking is odd.
No evidence against, therefore it is?
How about vice-versa?
Surreyman
Tiglath
>
> <<<There is no evidence for the existence of Romulus, who cannot be>>>
>
> WRONG!
>
> All ancient Greek and Roman historians agree that he existed. There is more
> evidence for Romulus than there is for Herodotus and Thucydides
>
A person who writes such bunk has no place in an ancient history
newsgroup or thread.
We HAVE BOOKS written by Herodotus and Thucydides.
Can you point out to any written works by Romulus?
The poster doesn't seem to know that with the notable exception of
Thucydides, ancient historians lacked the rigor that's habitual in
modern historians. They seldom revealed their sources and when they
did they did so inconsistently and less than thoroughly. They often
presented hearsay as facts just because they made a better narrative.
That's why corroboration is of the essence in ancient sources, not
simply corroboration with other authors, who often copied from each
other or used the same source, but corroboration by other types of
evidence like archeological or epigraphical, and even then...
The poster has yet to learn that history is an intellectual exercise,
and that intellectual integrity demands that questions be decided
according to the evidence, and if not possible that they be left
undecided.
Apparently the fact that Romulus was cared for as infant by a she-wolf
is not enough indication for the poster than this character is
shrouded in superstition and myth. What does he need?
There are only hypotheses about the Foundation of Rome and Romulus,
and very little certainty. There is no evidence that the residents
in the area in the eighth century had become conscious of themselves
as a community at the initiative of a leader, at a stage of advanced
civic, political, and social organization.
One theory is that the legend of the foundation and Romulus came after
the fact, by the successor of earlier inhabitants, trying to make
sense of the numerous remains present in the Palatine and its
environs.
Agamemnon
"Surreyman" <alandavi...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:8c315bda-362f-47e8...@a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> Rome's early history.>>>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
<<<Your thinking is odd.
No evidence against, therefore it is?
How about vice-versa?>>>
You thinking is odd. THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TO EVEN
REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT ROMULUS AND REMUS DID NOT EXIST. The mere suggestion
that Romulus and Remus did not exist has NO BASIS WHATSOEVER in historical
fact and is PURE FANTASY. There is NO RATIONAL REASON based on history to
even consider the thought the Romulus and Remus did not exist. Its the
equivalent of saying that Winston Churchill, Lord Nelson, Napoleon Bonaparte
or William Shakespeare didn't exist.
Agamemnon
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:b2ac3173-729d-48f6...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 14, 12:36 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> <<<There is no evidence for the existence of Romulus, who cannot be>>>
>
> WRONG!
>
> All ancient Greek and Roman historians agree that he existed. There is
> more
> evidence for Romulus than there is for Herodotus and Thucydides
>
<<<A person who writes such bunk has no place in an ancient history
newsgroup or thread.>>>
Yes, Christopher Ingham has no place in an ancient history newsgroup to post
suck bunk. Every genuine historian accepts Romulus and Remus existed.
<<<We HAVE BOOKS written by Herodotus and Thucydides.
<<<Can you point out to any written works by Romulus?>>>
Romulus built Rome. Romulus made the laws of Rome. Read Livy. Next you'll be
telling me that Pheidias didn't exist despite the fact that he created the
Parthenon sculptures and other works of art.
<<<The poster doesn't seem to know that with the notable exception of
Thucydides, ancient historians lacked the rigor that's habitual in
modern historians.>>>
That is a systematic and unsubstantiated LIE!
<<<They seldom revealed their sources and when they>>>
Rubbish. You clearly have never read the work of any ancient historians
yourself.
<<<did they did so inconsistently and less than thoroughly. They often>>>
WRONG!
<<<presented hearsay as facts just because they made a better narrative.>>>
They did nothing of the kind and your argument totally cancels itself out.
If it was heresy then accurate historical accounts exist to prove it,
therefore your statement is false. All ancient historical accounts are
considered to be accurate and anything that contradicts them is not
considered historical therefore no heresy. If there is nothing that
contradict a historical account then that account is considered to represent
the consensus and is therefore beyond question.
<<<That's why corroboration is of the essence in ancient sources, not
simply corroboration with other authors, who often copied from each
other or used the same source, but corroboration by other types of
evidence like archeological or epigraphical, and even then...>>>
What are you doing right now? COPYING UNSUBSTANTIATED REVISIONIST BULLSHIT!
NOT ONE ancient historian doubted the existence of Romulus and Remus. ALL
ancient historical sources from all writers, primary, secondary and so on
said the same thing. Romulus and Remus existed. Their existence was never
questioned. Since it was never questioned in antiquity there is NO
HISTORICAL BASIS WHATSOEVER the challenge this historical FACT! Any attempt
to do so is PURE FANTASY!
<<<The poster has yet to learn that history is an intellectual exercise,
and that intellectual integrity demands that questions be decided
according to the evidence, and if not possible that they be left
undecided.>>>
Yes, correct, that is what you yourself have to learn. Now that you have
identified it, learn it.
<<<Apparently the fact that Romulus was cared for as infant by a she-wolf
is not enough indication for the poster than this character is
shrouded in superstition and myth. What does he need?>>>
You are an IDIOT and a FOOL! Where does any ancient historian claim that
Romulus was cared for as infant by a she-wolf? There do not. Livy makes it
perfectly clear that Romulus was found by a farmer and his wife, who he
names, and cared for by them. Only an IMBECILE who had no idea of ancient
history and had not read any historical sources for themselves would make
the idiotic and foolish claims you are making.
<<<There are only hypotheses about the Foundation of Rome and Romulus,>>>
WRONG! There are no hypotheses. There are historical FACTS. The last
founders of Rome were Romulus and Remus. That is a FACT!
<<<and very little certainty. There is no evidence that the residents
in the area in the eighth century had become conscious of themselves
as a community at the initiative of a leader, at a stage of advanced
civic, political, and social organization.>>>
ABSOLUTE RUBBISH! There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of this. All ancient
historians make it perfectly clear by the fact that they not only recoded
the history of Rome's foundation by Romulus and Remus but of the kings that
followed them, the kings that preceded them and Rome's original foundation
about 700 years earlier by Rhomanessus the son of Roma.
<<<One theory is that the legend of the foundation and Romulus came after
the fact, by the successor of earlier inhabitants, trying to make
sense of the numerous remains present in the Palatine and its
environs.>>>
COMPLETE AND UTTER POPPYCOCK!
Just like all the REVISIONIST LIARS you conveniently leave out all the
historical facts either side of the historical event you attempt to change.
Where did all the kings before Romulus and Remus and after Romulus and Remus
come from? Where did they all go? You can't explain that at all. Just like
all LIES the revisionist LIES has to get bigger and bigger and bigger in
order to try to sustain itself, making it obvious to everyone that it is a
LIE!
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:b2ac3173-729d-48f6...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 14, 12:36 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <<<There is no evidence for the existence of Romulus, who cannot be>>>
>
> > WRONG!
>
> > All ancient Greek and Roman historians agree that he existed. There is
> > more
> > evidence for Romulus than there is for Herodotus and Thucydides
>
> <<<A person who writes such bunk has no place in an ancient history
> newsgroup or thread.>>>
>
> Yes, Christopher Ingham has no place in an ancient history newsgroup to post
> suck bunk.
>
> Every genuine historian accepts Romulus and Remus existed.
>
Untruths just flow out of your "pen" with the utmost facility, don't
they?
Here are a couple of genuine historians -- out of many -- that are
genuine counterexamples to your bold and gratuitous claims.
> <<<We HAVE BOOKS written by Herodotus and Thucydides.
>
> <<<Can you point out to any written works by Romulus?>>>
>
The poster can't answer my question. Noted. So much for "There is
more evidence for Romulus than there is for Herodotus and
Thucydides"
> Romulus built Rome. Romulus made the laws of Rome. Read Livy.
I have. Apparently you have not.
The poster should read, for the first time it seems, the very
affordable edition of Livy's first five books, from the foundation of
Rome to the Gallic invasion, published by Penguin Classics. AND READ
THE INTRODUCTION.
It was written by Robert Maxwell Ogilvie, Professor of Classical
studies at the University of St. Andrew, the oldest university in
Scotland. Only a lunatic would deny he is a "genuine historian." And
at that one who doesn't not agree with the indefensible bunk the
poster is trying to defend.
In said introduction, Prof. Ogilvie dedicates an entire section to the
evidence for Livy's claims about early Rome.
Here are a few excerpts.
"What sort of evidence did Livy have for the early history of Rome?
It comes as something of a shock to discover that the first Roman to
write about Rome's history, Q. Fabius Pictor, lived as late as 200
B.C. [...] Pictor was followed by a succession of historians who
covered the same ground, adding new information or offering new
interpretations. Livy refers to some of them [...]; they were not
interested in historical research as such but were concerned to use
history as a means of reflecting the issues and controversies of their
own times."
So much for Livy's sources...
How about Livy's historical reliability for this particular period or
Roman history?
Ogilvie goes on:
"If, however, we examine in detail this traditional version as it is
retold by Livy, you quickly discover that it is not a true record of
the past. Many of the stories are not Roman but Greek stories re-
clothed in Roman dress. [...] The twins Romulus and Remus, sons of a
god, exposed by the river, suckled by a wolf and discovered by a
shepherd, are an adaptation of an old Near Eastern myth, found in
Greece in the legend of Neleus and Pelias, sons of the god Poseidon
exposed to the river Enipeus and suckled by a bitch and a mare."
What follows is a list of Roman legends as they compare to other
legends down to how the heroic stand of 300 Fabii at Cremera in 471
B.C. "echoes down to the smallest particular the fate of the Spartans
at Thermopylae."
Ogilvy adds:
"The Romans seem to have had to mythology of their own. They did not
have the resources of oral epic or choral lyric by which the Greeks
preserved and handed down the memories and myths of their pre-
history. Nor were there substantial written records before the
fourth century. At the beginning of the sixth book Livy writes that
the majority of earlier records were destroyed in the fire which
devastated much of Rome during the Gallic occupation of 386 B.C..
This fire can be traced archaeologically and evidently destroyed many
of the main buildings, such as the Royal Palace in the Forum, were
such records might have been kept. When, therefore, the Romans came
to reconstruct their own history in the centuries before Pictor, they
had to borrow heavily from Greek literature and legend."
If the poster had read Livy at all he should be familiar with these
passages. He is obviously not, meaning that he is not only telling us
bunk about Remulus, but also lying about his reading habits. That is,
he is trying to pass for what he is not. There is nothing more off-
putting than fake erudition. Such posters dilute and devalue the
ancient history fora they frequent and bring nothing but clinical
levels of embarrassment on themselves.
When are you going to start reading Livy?
> All ancient historical accounts are
> considered to be accurate
Total raving madness...
Posters like this one is why I stopped posting in soc.history.ancient
-- they turned it into a disgrace.
>
> <<<Apparently the fact that Romulus was cared for as infant by a she-wolf
> is not enough indication for the poster than this character is
> shrouded in superstition and myth. What does he need?>>>
>
> You are an IDIOT and a FOOL! Where does any ancient historian claim that
> Romulus was cared for as infant by a she-wolf?
Maybe someone you know...
Right here, ignoramus:
Livy Book 1 Ch. I–VIII-i-iv
"The tradition goes on to say that after the floating cradle in which
the boys had been exposed had been left by the retreating water on dry
land, a thirsty she-wolf from the surrounding hills, attracted by the
crying of the children, came to them, gave them her teats to suck and
was so gentle towards them that the king’s flock-master found her
licking the boys with her tongue."
http://products.ilrn-support.com/wawc1c01c/content/wciv1/readings/livy_bk1.html
You missed the Introduction to Livy's Book I, and it seems you missed
Book I too.
Who is an idiot and a fool now?
Unfortunately, this poster is like a Bunk Vampire, you knock him down
with ironclad evidence of his ignorance, idiocy, foolishness, and
inanity, and he just gets up and spews more bunk. You stab him with
the steely knife but you just can't kill the beast.
So he goes on living to pollute history newsgroups with his raw sewage
for an eternity.
None of it means at all that his betters don't enjoy driving
historical stakes into his heart, it does not.
>There do not. Livy makes it perfectly clear that Romulus was found by a farmer and his wife, who he
> names, and cared for by them.
Incorrect. The twins were found by a shepherd, not a farmer. Learn
the difference.
This poster is on a roll. He is determined to proof that he has not
read Livy.
Livy calls him "the king’s flock-master" and his name is Faustulus.
ONLY HE found the twins, that is quite clear. He then takes them home
were his wife looks after them. Even Livy imparts his narrative with
little air of certainty, citing contrary accounts from his sources.
Which makes the poster's certainty of Romulus' historicity, totally
home-baked.
I am looking forward to his next "please-let-me-set-my-hair-on-fire"
post about what he THINKS he knows about Livy's History of Rome.
> Only an IMBECILE who had no idea of ancient
> history and had not read any historical sources for themselves would make
> the idiotic and foolish claims you are making.
>
I was going to write something like that about you but your own words
are most apt... if the shoe fits...
> <<<There are only hypotheses about the Foundation of Rome and Romulus,>>>
>
> WRONG! There are no hypotheses. There are historical FACTS. The last
> founders of Rome were Romulus and Remus. That is a FACT!
>
You've got nothing to lose at this point; when your credibility
reaches zero anything goes. The poster obviously knows it.
I doubt you've heard of H.H. Scullard, though most students of ancient
history have. He was Emeritus Professor of Ancient History at King's
College, University of London. In his book A History of the Roman
World 753 to 146 BC, Fourth Edition, among much more, he has this to
say about the legend of Romulus and Remus:
"Variations of the chief legends proliferated: between twenty five
and thirty distinct versions can be derived from Greek writers all
differing from the later official Roman account as given, for
instance, by the annalist Fabius Pictor."
So what the poster calls a "FACT" seems to have more than thirty
version from ancient authors.
Some FACT.
> <<<and very little certainty. There is no evidence that the residents
> in the area in the eighth century had become conscious of themselves
> as a community at the initiative of a leader, at a stage of advanced
> civic, political, and social organization.>>>
>
> ABSOLUTE RUBBISH! There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of this.
I am dealing with an intellectual suicider... This is NoGall on
steroids on ancient history.
>
> Just like all the REVISIONIST LIARS you conveniently leave out all the
> historical facts either side of the historical event you attempt to change.
If I remember correctly you are the chap who NEVER is able to back up
his whacky historical claims with proper references. So I won't be
expecting any. But that in itself speaks louder than anything I
could say.
> Where did all the kings before Romulus and Remus and after Romulus and Remus
> come from? Where did they all go? You can't explain that at all. Just like
> all LIES the revisionist LIES has to get bigger and bigger and bigger in
> order to try to sustain itself, making it obvious to everyone that it is a
> LIE!
Take a Valium and a nap and read some Livy, and then get back to us,
moron.
Sophus
>
> You thinking is odd.
You thinking is even odder because it so rarely happens.
>THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TO
> EVEN REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT ROMULUS AND REMUS DID NOT EXIST. The mere
> suggestion that Romulus and Remus did not exist has NO BASIS WHATSOEVER
> in historical fact and is PURE FANTASY. There is NO RATIONAL REASON
> based on history to even consider the thought the Romulus and Remus did
> not exist. Its the equivalent of saying that Winston Churchill, Lord
> Nelson, Napoleon Bonaparte or William Shakespeare didn't exist.
It's more like the equivalent of saying that Santa Claus and the Sugar
Plum Fairy didn't exist.
Oh, you think they are real historical figures too? Well, that doesn't
surprise me. Aren't there any good psychiatrists near your chip shop?
sp
Poetic Justice
>Romulus built Rome.
What exactly did he build?
Any archaeological evidence?
('Wall of Romulus' is 7C)
Whatever the Iron Age Tribal leader's name was who was living on the
Palatine Hill in 753BC it couldn't have been too impressive.
Because this 1st Roman King of yours would have been living in 'wattle
and daub' walled hut with a thatched reed roof.
"Model of the hut village on the Palatine, Rome, 8th - 7th centuries BC,
based on excavation results".
www.utexas.edu/courses/romanciv/romancivimages2/rhutvillage.jpg
~Walter
J Antero
==
I have. Apparently you have not.
The poster should read, for the first time it seems, the very
affordable edition of Livy's first five books, from the foundation of
Rome to the Gallic invasion, published by Penguin Classics. AND READ
THE INTRODUCTION.
It was written by Robert Maxwell Ogilvie, Professor of Classical
studies at the University of St. Andrew, the oldest university in
Scotland. Only a lunatic would deny he is a "genuine historian." And
at that one who doesn't not agree with the indefensible bunk the
poster is trying to defend.
==
Besides, everybody knows it was founded by refugees from the Trojan war,
hundreds of years earlier....
Agamemnon
"Poetic Justice" <paradi...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19936-4A8...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
> Agamemnon wrote;
>
>>Romulus built Rome.
>
> What exactly did he build?
> Any archaeological evidence?
> ('Wall of Romulus' is 7C)
>
> Whatever the Iron Age Tribal leader's name was who was living on the
> Palatine Hill in 753BC it couldn't have been too impressive.
> Because this 1st Roman King of yours would have been living in 'wattle
> and daub' walled hut with a thatched reed roof.
First? There were kings before Romulus.
Clearly you don't have a clue about the history of Rome.
>
> "Model of the hut village on the Palatine, Rome, 8th - 7th centuries BC,
> based on excavation results".
> www.utexas.edu/courses/romanciv/romancivimages2/rhutvillage.jpg
> ~Walter
Codswallop.
Read Herodotus. These are exactly the kind buildings that Herodotus
describes that then kings in the region including Illyria and Macedonia
lived in at this exact time in history.
Agamemnon
On Aug 15, 11:17 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:b2ac3173-729d-48f6...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 14, 12:36 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <<<There is no evidence for the existence of Romulus, who cannot be>>>
>
> > WRONG!
>
> > All ancient Greek and Roman historians agree that he existed. There is
> > more
> > evidence for Romulus than there is for Herodotus and Thucydides
>
> <<<A person who writes such bunk has no place in an ancient history
> newsgroup or thread.>>>
>
> Yes, Christopher Ingham has no place in an ancient history newsgroup to
> post
> suck bunk.
>
> Every genuine historian accepts Romulus and Remus existed.
>
> <<<We HAVE BOOKS written by Herodotus and Thucydides.
>
> <<<Can you point out to any written works by Romulus?>>>
>
<<<The poster can't answer my question. Noted. So much for "There is
more evidence for Romulus than there is for Herodotus and
Thucydides">>>
I have answered your idiotic questions. Clearly you cannot read.
> Romulus built Rome. Romulus made the laws of Rome. Read Livy.
<<<I have. Apparently you have not.>>>
You haven't. You are a revisionist liar.
<<<The poster should read, for the first time it seems, the very
affordable edition of Livy's first five books, from the foundation of
Rome to the Gallic invasion, published by Penguin Classics. AND READ
THE INTRODUCTION.
It was written by Robert Maxwell Ogilvie, Professor of Classical
studies at the University of St. Andrew, the oldest university in
Scotland. Only a lunatic would deny he is a "genuine historian." And
at that one who doesn't not agree with the indefensible bunk the
poster is trying to defend.
In said introduction, Prof. Ogilvie dedicates an entire section to the
evidence for Livy's claims about early Rome.>>>
Prof. Ogilvie IS NOT Livy. As I said, you have not read Livy at all.
<<<Here are a few excerpts.>>>
They are nothing to do with Livy and nothing more than totally
unsubstantiated REVISIONIST FANTASY!
<<<"What sort of evidence did Livy have for the early history of Rome?
It comes as something of a shock to discover that the first Roman to
write about Rome's history, Q. Fabius Pictor, lived as late as 200
B.C. [...] Pictor was followed by a succession of historians who
covered the same ground, adding new information or offering new
interpretations. Livy refers to some of them [...]; they were not
interested in historical research as such but were concerned to use
history as a means of reflecting the issues and controversies of their
own times.">>>
COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT!
Diodorus of Halicarnussus states the following.
"I shall come to the Roman historians. The Romans, to be sure, have not so
much as one single historian or chronicler who is ancient; however, each of
their historians has taken something out of ancient accounts that are
preserved on sacred tablets."
2 Some of these say that Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were the
sons of Aeneas, others say that they were the sons of a daughter of Aeneas,
without going on to determine who was their father; that they were delivered
as hostages by Aeneas to Latinus, the king of the Aborigines, when the
treaty was made between the inhabitants and the new-comers, and that
Latinus, after giving them a kindly welcome, not only did them might good
offices, but, upon dying without male issue, left them his successors to
some part of his kingdom. 3 Others say that after the death of Aeneas
Ascanius, having succeeded to the entire sovereignty of the Latins, divided
both the country and the forces of the Latins into three parts, two of which
he gave to his brothers, Romulus and Remus. He himself, they say, built Alba
and some other towns; Remus built cities which he named Capuas, after Capys,
his great-grandfather, Anchisa, after his grandfather Anchises, Aeneia
(which was afterwards called Janiculum), after his father, and Rome, after
himself.192 This last city was for some time deserted, but upon the arrival
of another colony, which the Albans sent out under the leadership of Romulus
and Remus, it received again its ancient name. So that, according to this
account, there were two settlements of Rome, one a little after the Trojan
war, and the other fifteen generations after the first.193
"And if anyone desires to look into the remoter past, even a third Rome will
be found, more ancient than these, one that was founded before Aeneas and
the Trojans came into Italy. This is related by no ordinary or modern
historian, but by Antiochus of Syracuse, whom I have mentioned before.194 He
says that when Morges reigned in Italy (which at that time comprehended all
the seacoast from Tarentum to Posidonia),195 a man came to him who had been
banished from Rome. His words are these: "When Italus was growing old,
Morges reigned. In his reign there came a man who had been banished from
Rome; his name was Seicelus." 5 According to the Syracusan historian,
therefore, an ancient Rome is found even earlier than the Trojan war."
"That the canons of Eratosthenes are sound I have shown in another
treatise,202 where I have also shown how the Roman chronology is to be
synchronized with that of the Greeks. 3 For I did not think it sufficient,
like Polybius of Megalopolis,203 to say merely that I believe Rome was built
in the second year of the seventh Olympiad,204 nor to let my belief rest
without further examination upon the single tablet preserved by the high
priests, the only one of its kind, but I determined to set forth the reasons
that had appealed to me, so that all might examine them who so desired. 4 In
that treatise, therefore, the detailed exposition is given; but in the
course of the present work also the most essential of the conclusions there
reached will be mentioned. The matter stands thus: It is generally agreed
that the invasion of the Gauls,205 during which the city of Rome was taken,
happened during the archonship of Pyrgion at Athens, in the first year of
the ninety-eighth Olympiad.206 Now if the time before the taking of the city
is reckoned back to Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus,
the first consuls at Rome after the overthrow of the kings, it comprehends
one hundred and twenty years. 5 This is proved in many other ways, but
particularly by the records of the censors, which receives in succession
from the father and takes great care to transmit to posterity, like family
rites; and there are many illustrious men of censorian families who preserve
these records. In them I find that in the second year before the taking of
the city there was a census of the Roman people, to which, as to the rest of
them, there is affixed the date, as follows: "In the consulship of Lucius
Valerius Potitus and Titus Manlius Capitolinus, in the one hundred and
nineteenth year after the expulsion of the kings." 6 So that the Gallic
invasion, which we find to have occurred in the second year after the
census, happened when the hundred and twenty years were completed. If, now,
this interval of time is found to consist of thirty Olympiads, it must be
allowed that the first consuls to be chosen entered upon their magistracy in
the first year of the sixty-eighth Olympiad, the same year that Isagoras was
archon at Athens.207
75 And, again, if from the expulsion of the kings the time is reckoned back
to Romulus, the first ruler of the city, it amounts to two hundred and
forty-four years. This is known from the order in which the kings succeeded
one another and the number of years each of them ruled. For Romulus, the
founder of Rome, reigned thirty-seven years, it is said, and after his death
the city was a year without a king. 2 Then Numa Pompilius, who was chosen by
the people, reigned forty-three years; after Numa, Tullus Hostilius
thirty-two; and his successor, Ancus Marcius, twenty-four; after Marcius,
Lucius Tarquinius, called Priscus, thirty-eight; Servius Tullius, who
succeeded him, forty-four. And the slayer of Servius, Lucius Tarquinius, the
tyrannical prince who, from his contempt of justice, was called Superbus,
extended his reign to the twenty-fifth year. 3 As the reigns, therefore, of
the kings amount to two hundred and forty-four years or sixty-one Olympiads,
it follows necessarily that Romulus, the first ruler of the city, began his
reign in the first year of the seventh Olympiad, when Charops at Athens was
in the first year of his ten-year term as archon.208 For the count of the
years requires this; and that each king reigned the number of years is shown
in that treatise of mine to which I have referred.
4 This, therefore, is the account given by those who lived before me and
adopted by me concerning the time of the settlement of the city which now
rules supreme."
<<<<So much for Livy's sources...>>>
You don't have a clue about Livy's sources.
<<<How about Livy's historical reliability for this particular period or
Roman history?>>>
100% reliably.
All Roman historians said the same thing.
Diodorus of Halicarnassus.
"But concerning the babes born of Ilia, Quintus Fabius, called Pictor, whom
Lucius Cincius, Porcius Cato, Calpurnius Piso and most of the other
historians have followed, writes thus: By the order of Amulius some of his
servants took the babes in an ark and carried them to the river, ...."
Livy is part of the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS!
<<<Ogilvie goes on:>>>
Ogilvie doesn't have a clue about any Roman historian its history let alone
Livy.
"If, however, we examine in detail this traditional version as it is
retold by Livy, you quickly discover that it is not a true record of
the past. Many of the stories are not Roman but Greek stories re-
clothed in Roman dress. [...] The twins Romulus and Remus, sons of a
god, exposed by the river, suckled by a wolf and discovered by a
shepherd, are an adaptation of an old Near Eastern myth, found in
Greece in the legend of Neleus and Pelias, sons of the god Poseidon
exposed to the river Enipeus and suckled by a bitch and a mare.">>>
BULLSHIT!
Neleus and Pelias lived nearly 500 years before Romulus and Remus. Their
stories are completely different and they didn't found Rome.
What follows is a list of Roman legends as they compare to other
legends down to how the heroic stand of 300 Fabii at Cremera in 471
B.C. "echoes down to the smallest particular the fate of the Spartans
at Thermopylae."
<<<Ogilvy adds:
"The Romans seem to have had to mythology of their own. They did not>>>
So he's saying it is completely different from that of the Greeks and thus
contradicts himself. Therefore he has no credibility. He's not a historian
but a REVISIONIST FANTASIST!
<<<have the resources of oral epic or choral lyric by which the Greeks
preserved and handed down the memories and myths of their pre-
history. Nor were there substantial written records before the
fourth century. At the beginning of the sixth book Livy writes that>>>
More BULLSHIT!
<<<the majority of earlier records were destroyed in the fire which>>>
So another contradiction.
He in fact says there were substantial earlier records than the fourth
century but most of them were destroyed.
<<<devastated much of Rome during the Gallic occupation of 386 B.C..
This fire can be traced archaeologically and evidently destroyed many
of the main buildings, such as the Royal Palace in the Forum, were
such records might have been kept. When, therefore, the Romans came
to reconstruct their own history in the centuries before Pictor, they
had to borrow heavily from Greek literature and legend.">>>
COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT!
Their oldest records were held in the temples on stone tablets and that was
who Roman historians used as their primary sources.
<<<If the poster had read Livy at all he should be familiar with these>>>
Yes, if you had read Livy or any of the other historians of Rome which you
clearly haven't, you would know that you are talking BULLSHIT!
When are you going to start reading Livy?
> All ancient historical accounts are
> considered to be accurate
<<<Total raving madness...>>>
You are totally raving mad. Yes.
>
> <<<Apparently the fact that Romulus was cared for as infant by a she-wolf
> is not enough indication for the poster than this character is
> shrouded in superstition and myth. What does he need?>>>
>
> You are an IDIOT and a FOOL! Where does any ancient historian claim that
> Romulus was cared for as infant by a she-wolf?
Maybe someone you know...
Right here, ignoramus:
Livy Book 1 Ch. I�VIII-i-iv
"The tradition goes on to say that after the floating cradle in which
the boys had been exposed had been left by the retreating water on dry
land, a thirsty she-wolf from the surrounding hills, attracted by the
crying of the children, came to them, gave them her teats to suck and
was so gentle towards them that the king�s flock-master found her
licking the boys with her tongue."
So Livy has not made the claim you allege. He is telling the traditional
account not making a claim. He then goes on to say...
>There do not. Livy makes it perfectly clear that Romulus was found by a
>farmer and his wife, who he
> names, and cared for by them.
<<<Incorrect. The twins were found by a shepherd, not a farmer. Learn
the difference.>>>
IDIOT! A shepherd is a livestock farmer.
<<<Livy calls him "the king�s flock-master" and his name is Faustulus.
ONLY HE found the twins, that is quite clear. He then takes them home
were his wife looks after them. Even Livy imparts his narrative with
little air of certainty, citing contrary accounts from his sources.
Which makes the poster's certainty of Romulus' historicity, totally
home-baked.>>>
BULLSHIT! Livy cites NO contrary accounts to the FACT the Romulus and Remus
were found by this flock-master. The contrary accounts are to the account
that they were raised to adulthood by a she wolf. What you are doing is a
typical revisionist dissembling tactic.
> Only an IMBECILE who had no idea of ancient
> history and had not read any historical sources for themselves would make
> the idiotic and foolish claims you are making.
>
> <<<There are only hypotheses about the Foundation of Rome and Romulus,>>>
>
> WRONG! There are no hypotheses. There are historical FACTS. The last
> founders of Rome were Romulus and Remus. That is a FACT!
>
<<<You've got nothing to lose at this point; when your credibility
reaches zero anything goes. The poster obviously knows it.
I doubt you've heard of H.H. Scullard, though most students of ancient
history have. He was Emeritus Professor of Ancient History at King's
College, University of London. In his book A History of the Roman
World 753 to 146 BC, Fourth Edition, among much more, he has this to
say about the legend of Romulus and Remus:
"Variations of the chief legends proliferated: between twenty five
and thirty distinct versions can be derived from Greek writers all
differing from the later official Roman account as given, for
instance, by the annalist Fabius Pictor."
So what the poster calls a "FACT" seems to have more than thirty
version from ancient authors.
Some FACT.>>>
More UNSUBSTANTIATED BULLSHIT and dissembling tactics!
All twenty five and thirty distinct versions said exactly the same thing.
Romulus and Remus founded Rome, and this is not challenged by any of them.
> <<<and very little certainty. There is no evidence that the residents
> in the area in the eighth century had become conscious of themselves
> as a community at the initiative of a leader, at a stage of advanced
> civic, political, and social organization.>>>
>
> ABSOLUTE RUBBISH! There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of this.
<<<I am dealing with an intellectual suicider... This is NoGall on
steroids on ancient history.>>>
You've lost the argument.
>
> Just like all the REVISIONIST LIARS you conveniently leave out all the
> historical facts either side of the historical event you attempt to
> change.
> Where did all the kings before Romulus and Remus and after Romulus and
> Remus
> come from? Where did they all go? You can't explain that at all. Just like
> all LIES the revisionist LIES has to get bigger and bigger and bigger in
> order to try to sustain itself, making it obvious to everyone that it is a
> LIE!
<<<Take a Valium and a nap and read some Livy, and then get back to us,
moron.>>>
DERANGED IDIOT! You don't have a clue what Livy or any other Roman historian
says. Take your own advice and read them.
The earliest history of the Rome and of Italy can by found in Dionysus of
Halicarnassus.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus/
Poetic Justice
>Romulus built Rome.
>Poetic Justice wrote;
>What exactly did he build?
>Any archaeological evidence?
>('Wall of Romulus' is 7C)
>Whatever the Iron Age Tribal leader's
>name was who was living on the Palatine
>Hill in 753BC it couldn't have been too
>impressive. Because this 1st Roman King
>of yours would have been living in 'wattle
>and daub' walled hut with a thatched reed
>roof.
Agamemnon wrote;
>First? There were kings before Romulus.
No, there was a community/tribe of ragtag illiterate shepherds living
in twig & mud huts with reed roofs.
If you want to call their tribal leaders Kings be my guest but giving
these shepherd leaders 6 centuries of mythical and/or royal lineage is
totally insane.
The only proof of your Kingdom are some postholes and hut water
drainage channels cut into the bedrock, a few burials and some artefacts
on the Palatine Hill.
>Clearly you don't have a clue about the
>history of Rome.
I guess not, for me reality and sanity tend to get in my way.
>"Model of the hut village on the Palatine,
>Rome, 8th - 7th centuries BC, based on
>excavation results".
>www.utexas.edu/courses/romanciv/roma
>civimages2/rhutvillage.jpg ~Walter
>Codswallop.
>Read Herodotus. These are exactly the
>kind buildings that Herodotus describes
>that then kings in the region including
>Illyria and Macedonia lived in at this exact
>time in history.
Did the kings of Illyria and Macedonia build anything else besides
'huts'?
Which brings me back to my original question about your claim that
"Romulus built Rome".
So "What exactly did he build"?
Or for that matter what was built by the 600yrs of Kings that preceded
him?
Any *archaeological* evidence that they existed at all?
600yrs in one location, the archaeologists must be tripping over all
the evidence!
~Walter
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>>>>> There is more evidence for Romulus than there is for
>>>>> Herodotus and Thucydides
>>>> We HAVE BOOKS written by Herodotus and Thucydides.
>>>> Can you point out to any written works by Romulus?
>> The poster can't answer my question. Noted.
>> So much for "There is more evidence for Romulus
>> than there is for Herodotus and Thucydides"
> I have answered your idiotic questions. Clearly you cannot read.
Where did you answered? Show me.
Where did you answer the question:
"Can you point out to any written works by Romulus?"
Which books written by Romulus have you pointed to?
Either you are a bloody foreigner who can't understand English, or you
are a worse moron that it has transpired so far.
Where? Show me.
>
> <<<"What sort of evidence did Livy have for the early history of Rome?
> It comes as something of a shock to discover that the first Roman to
> write about Rome's history, Q. Fabius Pictor, lived as late as 200
> B.C. [...] Pictor was followed by a succession of historians who
> covered the same ground, adding new information or offering new
> interpretations. Livy refers to some of them [...]; they were not
> interested in historical research as such but were concerned to use
> history as a means of reflecting the issues and controversies of their
> own times.">>>
>
> COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT!
>
The choice between Professor Ogilvie or this shouting maniac could not
be clearer for sane readers.
> Diodorus of Halicarnussus states the following.
That should be Dionysius of Halicarnassus, ignoramus.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus died in 7 A.D. That is more than SEVEN
centuries after the times he wrote about. Is that your idea of a
primary source?
That is like you trying to write authoritatively about the Seventh
Crusade.
Hilarious.
>
> "I shall come to the Roman historians. The Romans, to be sure, have not so
> much as one single historian or chronicler who is ancient; however, each of
> their historians has taken something out of ancient accounts that are
> preserved on sacred tablets."
>
Thank you for making my point. So Dionysius relied on Roman
historians who relied on more than thirty five different versions of
the "facts" from Greek accounts.
> "2 Some of these say"
That's not how a factual narrative usually starts, does it?
The poster's own evidence is perfect to negate his own stupid claims
that Rumulus' story is fact.
>
> Livy is part of the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS!
>
> <<<Ogilvie goes on:>>>
>
> Ogilvie doesn't have a clue about any Roman historian its history let alone
> Livy.
>
I guess that's why he was asked to write a now famous introduction of
the translation of Livy's books. They should have asked you,
instead.
>
> <<<How about Livy's historical reliability for this particular period or
> Roman history?>>>
>
> 100% reliably.
Any person who claims 100% reliability of ANY historical source,
singles himself out as clown who prefers to be treated as the moron he
is. I am happy to oblige.
>
> Diodorus of Halicarnassus.
>
> "But concerning the babes born of Ilia, Quintus Fabius, called Pictor, whom
> Lucius Cincius, Porcius Cato, Calpurnius Piso and most of the other
> historians have followed, writes thus: By the order of Amulius some of his
> servants took the babes in an ark and carried them to the river, ...."
>
> Livy is part of the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS!
If all followed the same source, Q. Fabius Pictor, it's hardly a
consensus of independent accounts, is it?
Readers must have noted by now that when the poster thinks, due to his
faulty comprehension, that my reference has a contradiction, he uses
such reference as rebuttal. But when the counter evident point in the
reference makes it intact into his comprehension he rejects it out of
hand.
Just another data point on the bizarre wiring of this guy's brain.
>
> <<<the majority of earlier records were destroyed in the fire which>>>
>
> So another contradiction.
>
> He in fact says there were substantial earlier records than the fourth
> century but most of them were destroyed.
>
Can't you read? Ogilvy says: "NOR were there substantial written
records before the fourth century"
> <<<devastated much of Rome during the Gallic occupation of 386 B.C..
> This fire can be traced archaeologically and evidently destroyed many
> of the main buildings, such as the Royal Palace in the Forum, were
> such records might have been kept. When, therefore, the Romans came
> to reconstruct their own history in the centuries before Pictor, they
> had to borrow heavily from Greek literature and legend.">>>
>
> COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT!
>
How can this be bullshit? Ogilvy is just re-telling what LIVY tells
in Book VI
Here is another stake through your heart, Bunk Vampire.
The poster tells us:
1. "Every genuine historian accepts Romulus and Remus existed."
2. "Livy is part of the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS! [that Remulus and Remus
existed]"
Now, Livy himself tells us in the very beginning of Book VI:
"The history of the Romans from the foundation of the City to its
capture, first under kings,
then under consuls, dictators, decemvirs, and consular tribunes, the
record of foreign wars
and domestic dissensions, has been set forth in the five preceding
books. The subject matter
is enveloped in obscurity; partly from its great antiquity, like
remote objects which are hardly
discernible through the vastness of the distance; partly owing to the
fact that written records,
which form the only trustworthy memorials of events, were in those
times few and scanty
Can you see Livy telling you that: "The subject matter is enveloped in
obscurity"?
It is quite different from your claim that it's all 100% clear and
certain. Right?
Who is right you or Livy?
As to the abundance of pertinent records, Livy tells you that written
records: "[W]ere in those times few and scanty."
Can you see that?
Livy adds:
"[A]nd even what did exist in the pontifical commentaries and public
and private archives nearly all perished in the conflagration of the
City."
Now is Livy also a REVISIONIST FANTASIST?
> Their oldest records were held in the temples on stone tablets and that was
> who Roman historians used as their primary sources.
>
Livy doesn't think so:
"[N]early all [written records] perished in the conflagration of the
City"
When are you going to start reading Livy?
>
> > Where does any ancient historian claim that
> > Romulus was cared for as infant by a she-wolf?
>
> Maybe someone you know...
>
> Right here, ignoramus:
>
> Livy Book 1 Ch. I–VIII-i-iv
>
> "The tradition goes on to say that after the floating cradle in which
> the boys had been exposed had been left by the retreating water on dry
> land, a thirsty she-wolf from the surrounding hills, attracted by the
> crying of the children, came to them, gave them her teats to suck and
> was so gentle towards them that the king’s flock-master found her
> licking the boys with her tongue."
>
> So Livy has not made the claim you allege. He is telling the traditional
> account not making a claim. He then goes on to say...
>
He is clearly claiming that the traditional account is that the twins
were suckled by a wolf.
I show the poster Livy's OWN WORDS, and he tries to disputed them.
It's like arguing with the Atlantic Ocean. Hilarious.
> >There do not. Livy makes it perfectly clear that Romulus was found by a
> >farmer and his wife, who he
> > names, and cared for by them.
>
> <<<Incorrect. The twins were found by a shepherd, not a farmer. Learn
> the difference.>>>
>
> IDIOT! A shepherd is a livestock farmer.
Learn some English. Shepherd and farmer are not synonymous. Even if
(BIG if) all shepherds were some kind of farmers, not all farmers are
shepherds. Furthermore Livy calls Faustulus a shepherd (flock-master)
not a farmer. Learn the difference, pea brain.
>
> <<<Livy calls him "the king’s flock-master" and his name is Faustulus.
> ONLY HE found the twins, that is quite clear. He then takes them home
> were his wife looks after them. Even Livy imparts his narrative with
> little air of certainty, citing contrary accounts from his sources.
> Which makes the poster's certainty of Romulus' historicity, totally
> home-baked.>>>
>
> BULLSHIT! Livy cites NO contrary accounts to the FACT the Romulus and Remus
> were found by this flock-master.
But YOU do. You claim they were found by a farmer AND HIS WIFE, which
is false.
>
> I doubt you've heard of H.H. Scullard, though most students of ancient
> history have. He was Emeritus Professor of Ancient History at King's
> College, University of London. In his book A History of the Roman
> World 753 to 146 BC, Fourth Edition, among much more, he has this to
> say about the legend of Romulus and Remus:
>
> "Variations of the chief legends proliferated: between twenty five
> and thirty distinct versions can be derived from Greek writers all
> differing from the later official Roman account as given, for
> instance, by the annalist Fabius Pictor."
>
> So what the poster calls a "FACT" seems to have more than thirty
> version from ancient authors.
>
> Some FACT.>>>
>
> More UNSUBSTANTIATED BULLSHIT and dissembling tactics!
On the contrary, giving an authoritative reference is SUBSTANTIATING
the argument. Learn the difference, pin head.
>
> All twenty five and thirty distinct versions said exactly the same thing.
> Romulus and Remus founded Rome, and this is not challenged by any of them.
>
> > <<<and very little certainty. There is no evidence that the residents
> > in the area in the eighth century had become conscious of themselves
> > as a community at the initiative of a leader, at a stage of advanced
> > civic, political, and social organization.>>>
>
> > ABSOLUTE RUBBISH! There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of this.
>
> <<<I am dealing with an intellectual suicider... This is NoGall on
> steroids on ancient history.>>>
>
> You've lost the argument.
>
You are not competent to decide; it's better if we leave it to
others. Let's see what others say, shall we?
Agamemnon
On Aug 16, 8:12 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>>>>> There is more evidence for Romulus than there is for
>>>>> Herodotus and Thucydides
>>>> We HAVE BOOKS written by Herodotus and Thucydides.
>>>> Can you point out to any written works by Romulus?
>> The poster can't answer my question. Noted.
>> So much for "There is more evidence for Romulus
>> than there is for Herodotus and Thucydides"
> I have answered your idiotic questions. Clearly you cannot read.
<<<Where did you answered? Show me.>>>
Read my previous reply.
>
> <<<"What sort of evidence did Livy have for the early history of Rome?
> It comes as something of a shock to discover that the first Roman to
> write about Rome's history, Q. Fabius Pictor, lived as late as 200
> B.C. [...] Pictor was followed by a succession of historians who
> covered the same ground, adding new information or offering new
> interpretations. Livy refers to some of them [...]; they were not
> interested in historical research as such but were concerned to use
> history as a means of reflecting the issues and controversies of their
> own times.">>>
>
> COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT!
>
<<<The choice between Professor Ogilvie or this shouting maniac could not
be clearer for sane readers.>>>
The choice is between an ignorant revisionist dissembling liar and the work
of ancient historians.
> Diodorus of Halicarnussus states the following.
<<<Dionysius of Halicarnassus died in 7 A.D. That is more than SEVEN
centuries after the times he wrote about. Is that your idea of a>>>
TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!
He was a historian and who used primary sources, not a chronographer. Learn
the difference you ignorant fool.
<<<primary source?
That is like you trying to write authoritatively about the Seventh
Crusade.>>>
Primary records of the seventh crusade still exist you ignorant imbecile.
Dionysus job was therefore relatively simple.
<<<Hilarious.>>>
Yes, hilarious how much you don't know about history.
>
> "I shall come to the Roman historians. The Romans, to be sure, have not so
> much as one single historian or chronicler who is ancient; however, each
> of
> their historians has taken something out of ancient accounts that are
> preserved on sacred tablets."
>
<<<Thank you for making my point. So Dionysius relied on Roman
historians who relied on more than thirty five different versions of
the "facts" from Greek accounts.>>>
Learn to read and understand English you ignorant dissembling FOOL!
There were 35 written accounts of the exact same facts which said EXACTLY
THE SAME THING! If you ask a class of students to describe WW2 they are not
all going to talk about it in the same way but all their histories are going
to include the exact same facts.
> "2 Some of these say"
<<<That's not how a factual narrative usually starts, does it?
The poster's own evidence is perfect to negate his own stupid claims
that Rumulus' story is fact.>>>
LEARN TO READ AND UNDERSTAND ENGLISH YOU DISSEMBLING IMBECILE!
2 Some of these say that Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were the
sons of Aeneas, others say that they were the sons of a daughter of Aeneas,
without going on to determine who was their father; that they were delivered
as hostages by Aeneas to Latinus, the king of the Aborigines, when the
treaty was made between the inhabitants and the new-comers, and that
Latinus, after giving them a kindly welcome, not only did them might good
offices, but, upon dying without male issue, left them his successors to
some part of his kingdom. 3 Others say that after the death of Aeneas
Ascanius, having succeeded to the entire sovereignty of the Latins, divided
both the country and the forces of the Latins into three parts, two of which
he gave to his brothers, Romulus and Remus. He himself, they say, built Alba
and some other towns; Remus built cities which he named Capuas, after Capys,
his great-grandfather, Anchisa, after his grandfather Anchises, Aeneia
(which was afterwards called Janiculum), after his father, and Rome, after
himself.192 This last city was for some time deserted, but upon the arrival
of another colony, which the Albans sent out under the leadership of Romulus
and Remus, it received again its ancient name. So that, according to this
account, there were two settlements of Rome, one a little after the Trojan
war, and the other fifteen generations after the first.193
>
> Livy is part of the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS!
>
> <<<Ogilvie goes on:>>>
>
> Ogilvie doesn't have a clue about any Roman historian its history let
> alone
> Livy.
>
<<<I guess that's why he was asked to write a now famous introduction of>>>
Famous because it was all BULLSHIT!
the translation of Livy's books. They should have asked you,
instead.>>>
>
> <<<How about Livy's historical reliability for this particular period or
> Roman history?>>>
>
> 100% reliably.
<<<Any person who claims 100% reliability of ANY historical source,
singles himself out as clown who prefers to be treated as the moron he
is. I am happy to oblige.>>>
You know nothing of history you IMBECILE! That Elizabeth II is queen of
England is a 100% reliable historical fact.
>
> Diodorus of Halicarnassus.
>
> "But concerning the babes born of Ilia, Quintus Fabius, called Pictor,
> whom
> Lucius Cincius, Porcius Cato, Calpurnius Piso and most of the other
> historians have followed, writes thus: By the order of Amulius some of his
> servants took the babes in an ark and carried them to the river, ...."
>
> Livy is part of the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS!
<<<If all followed the same source, Q. Fabius Pictor, it's hardly a
consensus of independent accounts, is it?>>>
They didn't all copy Pictor you ignorant IMBECILE! There is NOT ONE SHRED of
evidence to even remotely suggest that. Dionysus makes it perfectly clear to
anyone who can read and understand English that the Roman historians,
including Pictor reported what was said in the historical tablet held by
their priests.
>
> <<<the majority of earlier records were destroyed in the fire which>>>
>
> So another contradiction.
>
> He in fact says there were substantial earlier records than the fourth
> century but most of them were destroyed.
>
<<<Can't you read? Ogilvy says: "NOR were there substantial written
records before the fourth century">>>
IMBECILE! The revisionist CHARLATAN goes on to CONTRADICT HIMSELF in the
next sentence and says that there were. If the majority of earlier records
were destroyed in the fire which devastated much of Rome then in order to
accounted for what survived such as the stories of Romulus and Remus and
that of Aeneas and the stone tablets then there must have been substantial
written records before the fourth century.
> <<<devastated much of Rome during the Gallic occupation of 386 B.C..
> This fire can be traced archaeologically and evidently destroyed many
> of the main buildings, such as the Royal Palace in the Forum, were
> such records might have been kept. When, therefore, the Romans came
> to reconstruct their own history in the centuries before Pictor, they
> had to borrow heavily from Greek literature and legend.">>>
>
> COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT!
>
<<<How can this be bullshit? Ogilvy is just re-telling what LIVY tells
in Book VI>>>
Ogilvy is DISSEMBLING what Livy tells in Book VI. The Romans recopied the
copies of the old Roman histories which the Greeks had already translated
into Greek and translated them back into Latin.
<<<Here is another stake through your heart, Bunk Vampire.
The poster tells us:
1. "Every genuine historian accepts Romulus and Remus existed."
2. "Livy is part of the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS! [that Remulus and Remus
existed]"
Now, Livy himself tells us in the very beginning of Book VI:
"The history of the Romans from the foundation of the City to its
capture, first under kings,
then under consuls, dictators, decemvirs, and consular tribunes, the
record of foreign wars
and domestic dissensions, has been set forth in the five preceding
books. The subject matter
is enveloped in obscurity; partly from its great antiquity, like
remote objects which are hardly
discernible through the vastness of the distance; partly owing to the
fact that written records,
which form the only trustworthy memorials of events, were in those
times few and scanty
Can you see Livy telling you that: "The subject matter is enveloped in
obscurity"?>>>
Do you know what obscurity means? Clearly you don't. It means that it is
little known of, not that it isn't reliably. Get an education you fool.
<<<It is quite different from your claim that it's all 100% clear and
certain. Right?>>>
WRONG! Its is expertly the same as it's all 100% clear and certain. Livy is
only reporting the historical facts which are historically certain because
they were written done.
<<<Who is right you or Livy?
As to the abundance of pertinent records, Livy tells you that written
records: "[W]ere in those times few and scanty.">>>
Of cause they were few. BECAUSE THERE WASN'T MUCH TO WRITTEN ABOUT THE PAST
SEEING AS ROME HAD ONLY JUST BEEN BUILT.
<<<Can you see that?
Livy adds:
"[A]nd even what did exist in the pontifical commentaries and public
and private archives nearly all perished in the conflagration of the
City.">>>
Now is Livy also a REVISIONIST FANTASIST?>>>
No you are.
For what is know to have survived to have survived the fire then there must
have been plenty of historical records written and copies made.
> Their oldest records were held in the temples on stone tablets and that
> was
> who Roman historians used as their primary sources.
>
<<<Livy doesn't think so:
"[N]early all [written records] perished in the conflagration of the
City">>>
Do you know what the word NEARLY means?
Clearly you do not.
When are you going to learn English you dissembling liar?
>
> > Where does any ancient historian claim that
> > Romulus was cared for as infant by a she-wolf?
>
> Maybe someone you know...
>
> Right here, ignoramus:
>
> Livy Book 1 Ch. I�VIII-i-iv
>
> "The tradition goes on to say that after the floating cradle in which
> the boys had been exposed had been left by the retreating water on dry
> land, a thirsty she-wolf from the surrounding hills, attracted by the
> crying of the children, came to them, gave them her teats to suck and
> was so gentle towards them that the king�s flock-master found her
> licking the boys with her tongue."
>
> So Livy has not made the claim you allege. He is telling the traditional
> account not making a claim. He then goes on to say...
>
<<<He is clearly claiming that the traditional account is that the twins
were suckled by a wolf.>>>
Which is not the same as claiming that they actually were. Learn to
comprehend the English language you ignorant dissembling fool.
> >There do not. Livy makes it perfectly clear that Romulus was found by a
> >farmer and his wife, who he
> > names, and cared for by them.
>
> <<<Incorrect. The twins were found by a shepherd, not a farmer. Learn
> the difference.>>>
>
> IDIOT! A shepherd is a livestock farmer.
<<<Learn some English. Shepherd and farmer are not synonymous. Even if>>>
I didn't say they were you FOOL!
<<<(BIG if) all shepherds were some kind of farmers, not all farmers are
shepherds. >>>
What does that have to do with anything?
<<< Furthermore Livy calls Faustulus a shepherd (flock-master)
not a farmer. Learn the difference, pea brain.>>>
IMBECILE!
A shepherd is a livestock farmer. A flock master is even higher than a
shepherd. He is clearly a livestock farmer, farming sheep who has people
working for him.
>
> <<<Livy calls him "the king�s flock-master" and his name is Faustulus.
> ONLY HE found the twins, that is quite clear. He then takes them home
> were his wife looks after them. Even Livy imparts his narrative with
> little air of certainty, citing contrary accounts from his sources.
> Which makes the poster's certainty of Romulus' historicity, totally
> home-baked.>>>
>
> BULLSHIT! Livy cites NO contrary accounts to the FACT the Romulus and
> Remus
> were found by this flock-master.
<<<But YOU do. You claim they were found by a farmer AND HIS WIFE, which
is false.>>>
WRONG!
>
> I doubt you've heard of H.H. Scullard, though most students of ancient
> history have. He was Emeritus Professor of Ancient History at King's
> College, University of London. In his book A History of the Roman
> World 753 to 146 BC, Fourth Edition, among much more, he has this to
> say about the legend of Romulus and Remus:
>
> "Variations of the chief legends proliferated: between twenty five
> and thirty distinct versions can be derived from Greek writers all
> differing from the later official Roman account as given, for
> instance, by the annalist Fabius Pictor."
>
> So what the poster calls a "FACT" seems to have more than thirty
> version from ancient authors.
>
> Some FACT.>>>
>
> More UNSUBSTANTIATED BULLSHIT and dissembling tactics!
<<<On the contrary, giving an authoritative reference is SUBSTANTIATING
the argument. Learn the difference, pin head.>>>
You have given no authoritative reference whatsoever. The work is
REVISIONIST CHARLATANS is neither authoritative or a reference to genuine
historical facts.
>
> All twenty five and thirty distinct versions said exactly the same thing.
> Romulus and Remus founded Rome, and this is not challenged by any of them.
>
> > <<<and very little certainty. There is no evidence that the residents
> > in the area in the eighth century had become conscious of themselves
> > as a community at the initiative of a leader, at a stage of advanced
> > civic, political, and social organization.>>>
>
> > ABSOLUTE RUBBISH! There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of this.
>
> <<<I am dealing with an intellectual suicider... This is NoGall on
> steroids on ancient history.>>>
>
> You've lost the argument.
>
<<<You are not competent to decide; it's better if we leave it to
others. Let's see what others say, shall we?>>>
You've lost the argument. Get over it and read Livy and Dionysus of
Halicarnassus.
Renia
>
> <<<Dionysius of Halicarnassus died in 7 A.D. That is more than SEVEN
> centuries after the times he wrote about. Is that your idea of a>>>
>
> TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!
>
> He was a historian and who used primary sources, not a chronographer.
> Learn the difference you ignorant fool.
Which primary sources did he use seven centuries after the events about
which he was writing?
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:bd67ee42-b4f9-46b3...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 16, 8:12 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> >>>>> There is more evidence for Romulus than there is for
> >>>>> Herodotus and Thucydides
> >>>> We HAVE BOOKS written by Herodotus and Thucydides.
> >>>> Can you point out to any written works by Romulus?
> >> The poster can't answer my question. Noted.
> >> So much for "There is more evidence for Romulus
> >> than there is for Herodotus and Thucydides"
> > I have answered your idiotic questions. Clearly you cannot read.
>
> <<<Where did you answered? Show me.>>>
>
> Read my previous reply.
I have. There is no answer to my question there.
So you can't show me any books written my Romulus, is that it?
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
>
> Primary records of the seventh crusade still exist you ignorant imbecile.
> Dionysus job was therefore relatively simple.
>
Livy doesn't think so. See below.
>
> Learn to read and understand English you ignorant dissembling FOOL!
>
> There were 35 written accounts of the exact same facts which said EXACTLY
> THE SAME THING!
Your own source disagrees. If you don't read Livy, read at least the
references you post.
The Stupid Poster posted this from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, whose
name he couldn't even get right:
,
"Some of these say that Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were
the
sons of Aeneas, others say that they were the sons of a daughter of
Aeneas,
without going on to determine who was their father;
YOUR reference is telling you precisely that his sources WERE NOT
saying exactly the same thing.
How amusing; the Stupid Poster contradicts HIS OWN references.
He can't tell ass from elbow.
>
> > 100% reliably.
>
> <<<Any person who claims 100% reliability of ANY historical source,
> singles himself out as clown who prefers to be treated as the moron he
> is. I am happy to oblige.>>>
>
> You know nothing of history you IMBECILE! That Elizabeth II is queen of
> England is a 100% reliable historical fact.
You are rebutting an argument of your own invention. I said ANY
historical source, not a trivial contemporary fact.
The poster can't rebut my argument so he invents one he can rebut.
How entertaining.
>
> > Livy is part of the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS!
>
> <<<If all followed the same source, Q. Fabius Pictor, it's hardly a
> consensus of independent accounts, is it?>>>
>
> They didn't all copy Pictor you ignorant IMBECILE! There is NOT ONE SHRED of
> evidence to even remotely suggest that. Dionysus makes it perfectly clear to
> anyone who can read and understand English that the Roman historians,
> including Pictor reported what was said in the historical tablet held by
> their priests.
Any reference for such tablet?
>
> IMBECILE! The revisionist CHARLATAN goes on to CONTRADICT HIMSELF in the
> next sentence and says that there were. If the majority of earlier records
> were destroyed in the fire which devastated much of Rome then in order to
> accounted for what survived such as the stories of Romulus and Remus and
> that of Aeneas and the stone tablets then there must have been substantial
> written records before the fourth century.
Faulty logic. Tablets are not necessary, people are perfectly capable
of inventing myths. They do all the time. You are proof positive.
The poster now claims that obscurity is reliable. Amazing.
ob-scu-ri-ty 1. Deficiency or absence of light; darkness. 2. The
quality or condition of being unknown: "Even utter obscurity need not
be an obstacle to [political] success" (New Republic). One that is
unknown. 3. The quality or condition of being imperfectly known or
difficult to understand.
---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Substituting the meaning of "obscurity in Livy, we have:
"The subject matter is imperfectly known and difficult to understand."
In the wacky world of the Stupid Poster imperfect knowledge is certain
knowledge. Hilarious.
>
> For what is know to have survived to have survived the fire then there must
> have been plenty of historical records written and copies made.
>
Livy disagrees, why can't you believe him? He tells you that there
were few records and most of them were destroyed. Which of those
ideas is giving you trouble?
The Stupid poster is now REVISING Livy.
> > Their oldest records were held in the temples on stone tablets and that
> > was
> > who Roman historians used as their primary sources.
>
Show me the evidence. A primiary Roman historian tells you otherwise,
and you expect readers to believe you without any supported evidence
for your "theory."
Let me guess, those tablets must be in the company of the books
Romulus wrote, which you claim told me about, but didn't.
> <<<Livy doesn't think so:
>
> "[N]early all [written records] perished in the conflagration of the
> City">>>
>
> Do you know what the word NEARLY means?
>
How can you be so sure that the few records that survived were
precisely those concerning your argument?
>
> > BULLSHIT! Livy cites NO contrary accounts to the FACT the Romulus and
> > Remus
> > were found by this flock-master.
>
> <<<But YOU do. You claim they were found by a farmer AND HIS WIFE, which
> is false.>>>
>
> WRONG!
Show me the ancient source that claims that a farmer AND HIS WIFE
FOUND the twins. Can you?
>>
>
> > You've lost the argument.
>
> <<<You are not competent to decide; it's better if we leave it to
> others. Let's see what others say, shall we?>>>
>
> You've lost the argument. Get over it and read Livy and Dionysus of
> Halicarnassus.
Both disagree with you. See above.
Delusion is a mental disease. Your record in soc.ancient.medieval,
and this tread alone, certifies that you somewhere in the shuffle of
life lost your marbles.
You are an uneducated klutz and the only certain fact you communicate
is that you are the victim of a terrible upbringing. Discussing
anything serious with an ungraceful bungler like you is a comical
episode at best.
As time passes you become more entrenched in your delusions and what
you see in yourself is not what people see. What we see is an
intellectual wreck with no manners. It's a pity that you parked
yourself in the historical groups, and not over in the lawn
maintainance newsgroups.
People routinely ignore you, and if someone engages you, as I did, is
only to show you up and mock your pathetic little self.
Carry on, genius.
Agamemnon
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:h6bqq6$5ja$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Can you not read?
I already stated which primary sources he used. Read Dionysus of
Halicarnussus. He states his sources himself.
Agamemnon
On Aug 17, 8:33 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:bd67ee42-b4f9-46b3...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 16, 8:12 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> >>>>> There is more evidence for Romulus than there is for
> >>>>> Herodotus and Thucydides
> >>>> We HAVE BOOKS written by Herodotus and Thucydides.
> >>>> Can you point out to any written works by Romulus?
> >> The poster can't answer my question. Noted.
> >> So much for "There is more evidence for Romulus
> >> than there is for Herodotus and Thucydides"
> > I have answered your idiotic questions. Clearly you cannot read.
>
> <<<Where did you answered? Show me.>>>
>
> Read my previous reply.
<<<I have. There is no answer to my question there.>>
Then it is abundantly clear that you cannot read.
>
> Primary records of the seventh crusade still exist you ignorant imbecile.
> Dionysus job was therefore relatively simple.
>
<<<Livy doesn't think so. See below.>>>
WRONG! Livy know full well that the primary sources existed as did Dionysus
of Halicarnassus.
>
> Learn to read and understand English you ignorant dissembling FOOL!
>
> There were 35 written accounts of the exact same facts which said EXACTLY
> THE SAME THING!
<<<Your own source disagrees.>>>
No it does not. You clearly have a reading disability.
"Some of these say that Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were
the
sons of Aeneas, others say that they were the sons of a daughter of
Aeneas,
without going on to determine who was their father;
YOUR reference is telling you precisely that his sources WERE NOT
saying exactly the same thing.>>>
WRONG! My reference is saying that they were saying exactly the same thing.
There was a Romulus and Remus who were the sons of Aeneas or of his daughter
and another Romulus and Remus who were the sons of Rea Silvia the daughter
of Numitor. IMBECILE! You clearly have problems with basic comprehension.
Next you'll be telling me that Edward I and Edward VII were the same person.
>
> > 100% reliably.
>
> <<<Any person who claims 100% reliability of ANY historical source,
> singles himself out as clown who prefers to be treated as the moron he
> is. I am happy to oblige.>>>
>
> You know nothing of history you IMBECILE! That Elizabeth II is queen of
> England is a 100% reliable historical fact.
<<<You are rebutting an argument of your own invention. I said ANY
historical source, not a trivial contemporary fact.>>>
You are a comprehensionally challenged FOOL!
>
> > Livy is part of the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS!
>
> <<<If all followed the same source, Q. Fabius Pictor, it's hardly a
> consensus of independent accounts, is it?>>>
>
> They didn't all copy Pictor you ignorant IMBECILE! There is NOT ONE SHRED
> of
> evidence to even remotely suggest that. Dionysus makes it perfectly clear
> to
> anyone who can read and understand English that the Roman historians,
> including Pictor reported what was said in the historical tablet held by
> their priests.
<<<Any reference for such tablet?>>>
I have already given you the reference. LEARN TO READ IMBECILE!
>
> IMBECILE! The revisionist CHARLATAN goes on to CONTRADICT HIMSELF in the
> next sentence and says that there were. If the majority of earlier records
> were destroyed in the fire which devastated much of Rome then in order to
> accounted for what survived such as the stories of Romulus and Remus and
> that of Aeneas and the stone tablets then there must have been substantial
> written records before the fourth century.
<<<Faulty logic. Tablets are not necessary, people are perfectly capable
of inventing myths. They do all the time. You are proof positive.>>>
BULLSHIT!
Just as always with REVISIONIST CHARLATANS you conveniently miss out all the
kings before Romulus and all the kings after him. Where did they come from?
You would have us believe that all European history before the middle ages
was completely made up as part of a grand conspiracy where there is NOT ONE
SHRED of historical evidence to even remotely suggest that even one
historical king of Rome was made up. Your claims are COMPLETE AND UTTER
FANTASY. They are a REVISIONIST FICTION! You are a complete mentally
deranged IMBECILE! Do you seriously think that the Romans were all stupid
and believed in over 50 made up kings before Romulus who they worshiped a
demi-gods and built temples too for generation after generation and 6 more
after him and over 100 tribunes up until the Gauls burned down Rome? Do you
seriously think that the motivation for murdering Julius Caesar was all
based on a lie about a non-excitant line of kings and a transition to a
republic which they did not want to see replace with another monarchy? YOU
ARE TOTALLY INSANE!
IMBECILE! You clearly don't know the meaning of the word.
Obscure means LITTLE KNOWN!
>
> For what is know to have survived to have survived the fire then there
> must
> have been plenty of historical records written and copies made.
>
<<<Livy disagrees, why can't you believe him? He tells you that there>>>
No he does not. Learn to read and comprehend English.
> > Their oldest records were held in the temples on stone tablets and that
> > was
> > who Roman historians used as their primary sources.
>
<<<Show me the evidence. A primiary Roman historian tells you otherwise,>>>
WRONG! YOU ARE A SYSTEMATIC LIAR!
A primary Roman historian tells you that this source existed and NOT ONE
other Roman historian see fit to challenged him on this since he represents
the historical consensus.
Yet despite this evidence and the fact that NOT ONE ancient historical
challenge the existence and historicity of Romulus and Remus let alone said
that they were made up, you expect us to believe your REVISIONIST FANTASY
which does not appear until after 1800 AD that they were.
> <<<Livy doesn't think so:
>
> "[N]early all [written records] perished in the conflagration of the
> City">>>
>
> Do you know what the word NEARLY means?
>
<<<How can you be so sure that the few records that survived were
precisely those concerning your argument?>>>
BECAUSE ALL THE ROMAN WRITERS COPIED THEM!
>
> > BULLSHIT! Livy cites NO contrary accounts to the FACT the Romulus and
> > Remus
> > were found by this flock-master.
>
> <<<But YOU do. You claim they were found by a farmer AND HIS WIFE, which
> is false.>>>
>
> WRONG!
<<<Show me the ancient source that claims that a farmer AND HIS WIFE
FOUND the twins. Can you?>>>
It has already been shown to you. ALL Roman historians say the same thing.
>>
>
> > You've lost the argument.
>
> <<<You are not competent to decide; it's better if we leave it to
> others. Let's see what others say, shall we?>>>
>
> You've lost the argument. Get over it and read Livy and Dionysus of
> Halicarnassus.
<<<Both disagree with you. See above.>>>
YOU ARE A SYSTEMATIC LIAR! Both say what I have said they say and anyone can
read them to confirm this, whereas NOT ONE ancient, medieval or renaissance
historian agrees with any of your INSANE revisionist claims.
You've lost the argument. Get over it.
Tiglath
Good question.
In the excerpt he gave, Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentions two
historians: Polybius, another Greek separated from the events by more
than 500 years -- not a good primary source --- and Antiochus of
Syracuse, much closer to the events (420 B.C.) but still centuries
away.
Dionysius disagrees with Polybius, he says (so much for the poster's
claim that all ancient historians agree on the Foundation of Rome).
Unfortunately, Antiochus throws a big wrench into the whole works by
claiming that Rome was founded before the Trojan War, which for some
reason our hilariously erudite poster interprets also as part of a
general consensus.
He wrote: "Livy is part of the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS!"
HIS references show anything but consensus, but he sees consensus in
them. Go figure.
It's all part of Stupid Poster's ongoing comedy of errors.
Renia
Then cite them again.
Agamemnon
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
"I shall come to the Roman historians. The Romans, to be sure, have not so
much as one single historian or chronicler who is ancient; however, each of
their historians has taken something out of ancient accounts that are
preserved on sacred tablets."
2 Some of these say that Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were the
sons of Aeneas, others say that they were the sons of a daughter of Aeneas,
without going on to determine who was their father; that they were delivered
as hostages by Aeneas to Latinus, the king of the Aborigines, when the
treaty was made between the inhabitants and the new-comers, and that
Latinus, after giving them a kindly welcome, not only did them might good
offices, but, upon dying without male issue, left them his successors to
some part of his kingdom. 3 Others say that after the death of Aeneas
Ascanius, having succeeded to the entire sovereignty of the Latins, divided
both the country and the forces of the Latins into three parts, two of which
he gave to his brothers, Romulus and Remus. He himself, they say, built Alba
and some other towns; Remus built cities which he named Capuas, after Capys,
his great-grandfather, Anchisa, after his grandfather Anchises, Aeneia
(which was afterwards called Janiculum), after his father, and Rome, after
himself.192 This last city was for some time deserted, but upon the arrival
of another colony, which the Albans sent out under the leadership of Romulus
and Remus, it received again its ancient name. So that, according to this
account, there were two settlements of Rome, one a little after the Trojan
war, and the other fifteen generations after the first.193
"And if anyone desires to look into the remoter past, even a third Rome will
Agamemnon
On Aug 17, 10:51 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
> Agamemnon wrote:
>
> > <<<Dionysius of Halicarnassus died in 7 A.D. That is more than SEVEN
> > centuries after the times he wrote about. Is that your idea of a>>>
>
> > TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!
>
> > He was a historian and who used primary sources, not a chronographer.
> > Learn the difference you ignorant fool.
>
> Which primary sources did he use seven centuries after the events about
> which he was writing?
<<<Good question.
In the excerpt he gave, Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentions two
historians: Polybius, another Greek separated from the events by more
than 500 years -- not a good primary source --- and Antiochus of
Syracuse, much closer to the events (420 B.C.) but still centuries
away.
Dionysius disagrees with Polybius, he says (so much for the poster's>>>
LIAR!
<<<claim that all ancient historians agree on the Foundation of Rome).
Unfortunately, Antiochus throws a big wrench into the whole works by
claiming that Rome was founded before the Trojan War, which for some
reason our hilariously erudite poster interprets also as part of a
general consensus.>>>
IMBECILE!
When are you going to learn to comprehend what you read?
Antiochus is talking about a completly different historical event but a
completely different person. Rhomanessus the son of Roma was the original
founder of Rome in 1438 BC.
<<<He wrote: "Livy is part of the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS!"
HIS references show anything but consensus, but he sees consensus in
them. Go figure.>>>
BULLSHIT! All Roman historians are agreed that Romulus founded Rome,
including the ones that mention its earlier foundation by Rhomanessus. Rome
was founded, abandoned and refunded on several different occasions.
IMBECILE!
Renia
Thank you.
Not primary sources, are they? Not contemporary sources, so they are
secondary sources. And they don't seem to agree as to the history.
Renia
But Romulus is now thought to have been a mythical figure.
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:91515813-d844-491b...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 17, 8:33 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:bd67ee42-b4f9-46b3...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 16, 8:12 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > > "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> > >>>>> There is more evidence for Romulus than there is for
> > >>>>> Herodotus and Thucydides
> > >>>> We HAVE BOOKS written by Herodotus and Thucydides.
> > >>>> Can you point out to any written works by Romulus?
> > >> The poster can't answer my question. Noted.
> > >> So much for "There is more evidence for Romulus
> > >> than there is for Herodotus and Thucydides"
> > > I have answered your idiotic questions. Clearly you cannot read.
>
> > <<<Where did you answered? Show me.>>>
>
> > Read my previous reply.
>
> <<<I have. There is no answer to my question there.>>
>
> Then it is abundantly clear that you cannot read.
>
>
Maybe. But just to be clear, just humor me. Please tell me again the
books Romulus wrote.
Can you? What are the titles?
>
> > Primary records of the seventh crusade still exist you ignorant imbecile.
> > Dionysus job was therefore relatively simple.
>
> <<<Livy doesn't think so. See below.>>>
>
> WRONG! Livy know full well that the primary sources existed as did Dionysus
> of Halicarnassus.
That's not what he says in his Sixth Book. He says that records were
scant and most were destroyed. He doesn't mention at any time any
surviving record of the Foundation of Rome, tablet or otherwise.
When I quote Livy, it means that you read Livy's words, not mine. You
know that, don't you?
His words in no way justify any certainty about your claims.
To validate your claims you need to show readers books written by
Romulus. And you need to show more than one ancient historian who
expresses certainty that Romulus existed.
So far your references don't go beyond mentioning hearsay, like:
"Some say," "The tradition goes on to say." Those are not expressions
of dead certainty, which is your position.
All great historians, including the ancient, show a large degree of
skepticism about long past events and sources non-contemporary with
the events. In modern historians skepticism is their topmost
quality.
Your lack of total skepticism about events even the ancients tell us
that are shrouded in obscurity, is remarkable.
Since your certainty can't be fueled by evidence, it must be fueled by
your delusional nature, and your apparent lack of sense of ridicule.
How can you make the statements you make in public and not imagine
your readers cringing?
They are more embarrassed for you that you have ever been by the bunk
you produce in prodigious quantities.
>
> Do you seriously think that the Romans were all stupid
> and believed in over 50 made up kings before Romulus who they worshiped a
> demi-gods
What Roman kings can there have been before Romulus if he was the
founder of the city?
> and built temples too for generation after generation and 6 more
> after him and over 100 tribunes up until the Gauls burned down Rome?
So the fact that people build temples to something makes that
something real?
So the gods Jupiter and Mars are real?
So because the Vatican exists, that makes St. Peter a historical
figure?
So because Mexico has a great basilica to the Virgin of Guadalupe,
that makes the mother of Jesus real?
You are a cracker.
>
> > Do you know what obscurity means? Clearly you don't. It means that it is
> > little known of, not that it isn't reliably. Get an education you fool.
>
> <<<The poster now claims that obscurity is reliable. Amazing.>>>
>
> IMBECILE! You clearly don't know the meaning of the word.
>
> Obscure means LITTLE KNOWN!
>
Fine, so little is LITTLE IS KNOWN about the Foundation of Rome and
the early times, yet you claim that every abundant particular detail
is true.
If LITTLE is known why is that you claim to know all the kings, how
long they reigned, and all the important details about Romulus and
Remus from birth to death?
That is not consistent with LITTLE KNOWN, but much known rather.
Make up your mind.
>
> A primary Roman historian tells you that this source existed and NOT ONE
> other Roman historian see fit to challenged him on this since he represents
> the historical consensus.
>
Existence of a source does not guarantee the truth of what the source
says.
> Yet despite this evidence and the fact that NOT ONE ancient historical
> challenge the existence and historicity of Romulus and Remus let alone said
> that they were made up, you expect us to believe your REVISIONIST FANTASY
> which does not appear until after 1800 AD that they were.
>
False.
Plutarch(c. AD 46 – 120) relates that the story was thought to be
fiction "by some."
"Although most of these particulars are related by Fabius and Diocles
of Peparethus, who seems to have been the first to publish a "Founding
of Rome," some are suspicious of their fictitious and fabulous
quality."
Edward Gibbon, (1737-1794), Roman historian, thought Romulus was
fiction.
So much for nobody challenging the story until AFTER 1800.
The poster crashes every time he tries to wing it. Hilarious.
> > <<<Livy doesn't think so:
>
> > "[N]early all [written records] perished in the conflagration of the
> > City">>>
>
> > Do you know what the word NEARLY means?
>
> <<<How can you be so sure that the few records that survived were
> precisely those concerning your argument?>>>
>
> BECAUSE ALL THE ROMAN WRITERS COPIED THEM!
>
How can you possibly know that?
>
>
> > > BULLSHIT! Livy cites NO contrary accounts to the FACT the Romulus and
> > > Remus
> > > were found by this flock-master.
>
> > <<<But YOU do. You claim they were found by a farmer AND HIS WIFE, which
> > is false.>>>
>
> > WRONG!
>
> <<<Show me the ancient source that claims that a farmer AND HIS WIFE
> FOUND the twins. Can you?>>>
>
> It has already been shown to you. ALL Roman historians say the same thing.
Translation: "I can't, so I'll just lie and say I did."
Again. This thread is archived, point at the post and place where.
SHOW ME where ANYONE but you, says that the twins were found by a
farmer AND HIS WIFE.
Again the poster talks but can't do.
Tiglath
Great paragraph. It's a real gas to read.
So EVEN the historians who believe Rhomanessus founded Rome, believe
Romulus founded Rome.
So how many times was Rome founded? Dates?
> But Romulus is now thought to have been a mythical figure.
It just gets better and better, with this poster.
He has the knack for tying his knickers in a giant Gordian Knot every
time if you give him the rope...
How can you found a city that has already been founded before?
If you went to the site of Babylon and built a city you would hardly
be founding Babylon.
So Livy and Q. Fabius Pictor, and Florus and Cassus Dio, are all wrong
when they speak of the "Foundation of Rome."
According to this deranged poster, they should have said "The Re-
Founding of Rome."
And for some reason the re-founder of Rome has achieved far more fame
than the real founder Rhomanessus (who?).
What's next, poster? Dinosaurs in the Forum?
This poster's abilty to unleash bunk, surpasses NoGall's by a mile.
Tiglath
>
> Antiochus is talking about a completly different historical event but a
> completely different person. Rhomanessus the son of Roma was the original
> founder of Rome in 1438 BC.
>
How can Antiochus know what happened more than 1000 years before his
time with any reliability?
Are you THAT gullible?
> <<<He wrote: "Livy is part of the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS!"
>
> HIS references show anything but consensus, but he sees consensus in
> them. Go figure.>>>
>
> BULLSHIT! All Roman historians are agreed that Romulus founded Rome,
> including the ones that mention its earlier foundation by Rhomanessus. Rome
> was founded, abandoned
Abandoned? The first human settlements in Rome were in the Palatine
Hill and date back to 1000 B.C., by people of the Villanovan Culture,
and since the site has been uninterruptedly inhabited.
Agamemnon
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
WRONG and WRONG!
> secondary sources. And they don't seem to agree as to the history.
WRONG AGAIN!
You clearly don't have a clue what a primary source is or even what history
is. Typical revisionist. You live in a fantasy world.
The historical tablets held by the Roman priests were a PRIMARY SOURCE.
Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
The canons of Eratosthenes were also a PRIMARY SOURCE and proven to be
historically sound. Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
The list of Roman consuls and tribunes back to Lucius Junius Brutus and
Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus was a PRIMARY SOURCE. Their existence and
historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
The list of Roman kings which went back more than 50 generations before
Brutus to Morges, Italus and even earlier to Comerus Gallus was a PRIMARY
SOURCE. Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
The list of Archons of Athens was a PRIMARY SOURCE. Their existence and
historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
The list of Olympiads was also a PRIMARY SOURCE. Their existence and
historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
ALL of these lists of reigns and the events that were associated with them
provided an UNDISPUTED fixed PRIMARY chronology and an UNDISPUTED PRIMARY
list of rulers by which all other independent historical accounts were
correlated and synchronised.
The existence of these PRIMARY SOURCES is NOT AND WAS NEVER IN QUESTION.
The historical validity of these PRIMARY SOURCES is NOT AND WAS NEVER IN
QUESTION.
The names listed by these PRIMARY SOURCES are NOT AND WERE NEVER IN
QUESTION.
The events listed by these PRIMARY SOURCES are NOT AND WERE NEVER IN
QUESTION.
Agamemnon
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
NO HE IS NOT!
Just as always the REVISIONIST CHAPERONS leave out over 50 kings of Rome and
Italy who ruled before him, 6 who ruled after him and over 100 Roman
Tribunes and Consuls which I can name who ruled up to the Gallic Invasion.
How do you account for all of them you REVISIONIST FANTASIST?
How do you account of over close to 40 kings of the Tyrrhenians who ruled in
parallel and fought battles with the kings of Rome and Alba and Italy which
I can name?
How do you account for all the kings of Sicily who ruled at the same time
whose reigns were recorded not only in Roman but in Greek sources such as
Herodotus and go back over 1000 years before the Gallic Invasion which I
can name?
How do you account for all of the kings of the Sabines who go back just as
far and still further and who fought against the kings listed above which I
can name?
Are you suggesting there was collusion and conspiracy to fake over 1000
years of history by all the city states of Greece, Sicily, Italy and
Tyrrhenia you FANTASIST?
Were Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus real?
Was Tarquinius Superbus real or are you disputing the entire existence of
the Roman republic in its entirety because if there was no Tarquinius
Superbus how can there have been a Republic?
Since Tarquinius Superbus clearly existed and his existence is TOTALLY
UNDISPUTED AND BEYOND QUESTION then clearly Servius Tullius also existed and
more importantly Tarquinus Prisucs who founded the line of the Tarquniae
also existed as well. He will take you back to 616 BC and clearly since
Tarquinus Prisucs clearly existed and his existence is TOTALLY UNDISPUTED
AND BEYOND QUESTION the account of how he became king after a power vacuum
was left after the death of must be accepted Ancus Martius must be accepted
otherwise you deny the history of the entire Roman republic and any effort
to do so would be totally untenable. From the end of the reign of Ancus
Martius to the end of the reign of Rompus is exactly 100 years. Martius
lived within living memory of Romulus and since he is undisputed then how
can you dispute Romulus when eye whiteness accounts of him existed during
Martius reign?
Aenaes when he became king after Latinus, lived at the same time as
Tiberinus, Mezentius and Tharcon the kings of Tyhennia who are recorded both
in Roman histories and Tyrrhenian histories as doing battle with each other.
Clearly there can be no dispute of their existence and there was not.
Herodotus in 450 BC already recorded the Tyrrhenian's foundation and the
name of their founder as well as the kings of Sicily going back to the
foundation of Syracuse in 738 BC which was contemporary with Romulus,
therefore Romulus' existence is BEYOND QUESTION since it is totally
uncredible to claim that the Syracusians and Tyrrhenians who inhabited the
parts of Italy either side of Rome had a written history dating back to the
reign of Romulus and the Romans did not, not withstanding the fact the this
history was NEVER in dispute!
You don't have a clue about history.
Tiglath
>
> > Not primary sources, are they? Not contemporary sources, so they are
>
> WRONG and WRONG!
>
> > secondary sources. And they don't seem to agree as to the history.
>
> WRONG AGAIN!
>
> You clearly don't have a clue what a primary source is or even what history
> is. Typical revisionist. You live in a fantasy world.
>
Anyone and everyone who does not agree with this poster is a
revisionist if you strongly disagree you are also a fantasist.
I wonder what is this poster's definition of a primary source.
Will he let the readers know?
He is quick to say wrong, but rarely tells what is right.
> The historical tablets held by the Roman priests were a PRIMARY SOURCE.
> Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
>
That depends on when such tablets were created and by whom.
A primary source is of little value if it is anonymous, for one cannot
know the qualifications of the author who wrote it.
People write a lot of bunk. it's been a problem since the time when
people started writing until the present, as the poster magnificently
exemplifies.
Therefore an undated anonymous tablet is no primary source, tough it
might be, unless it is part of a collection where a larger context
give it credibility, like the Assyrian tablets found recently in
Turkey in an ancient temple.
> The canons of Eratosthenes were also a PRIMARY SOURCE and proven to be
> historically sound. Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
>
Readers believe you when you tell us that you take ancient historians
at their word, without question, and without any skepticism. Their
word is like the Bible to you. Thus, there is no need to critically
evaluate any ancient sources. We believe you.
>
> The list of Roman kings which went back more than 50 generations before
> Brutus to Morges, Italus and even earlier to Comerus Gallus was a PRIMARY
> SOURCE. Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
>
Fifty generations? That is 1500 years. Since Lucius Junius Brutus
lived c. 500 B.C. that makes the Roman royal lineage beginning around
2000 B.C. That's centuries BEFORE Hammurabi, and well before the
Amorites put an end of the Sumerian empire.
Wow!
Historically UNDISPUTED too....
Wow!
This poster is just marvelous.
>
> The existence of these PRIMARY SOURCES is NOT AND WAS NEVER IN QUESTION.
>
Thank you for that. It's nice to be sure.
Tiglath
> Agamemnon wrote:
> Not primary sources, are they? Not contemporary sources, so they are
> secondary sources. And they don't seem to agree as to the history.
To you, me, and other sane people a primary source is one that is
authoritative and contemporary or near contemporary to the time under
study.
But to this guy, who knows, anything goes.
The people we find around these precincts are simply amazing, aren't
they.
This one is straight from the cuckoo's nest.
How's the sumer, agapi mou?
Agamemnon
CLUELESS IMBECILE!
1438 BC Rome founded by Rhomanessus the son of Roma.
c.1150 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romulus the son of Aeneas and/or his
daughter.
c.1120 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romanus the son of Hisicion.
c.923 BC Rome founded/colonised by Tiberinus the son of Carpentus after whom
the Tiber which was previously called the Albula was named.
797 BC Aventinus the son of Romulus/Aremulus Silvius buried in Rome on the
Aventine hill named after him.
753 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romulus the son of Rea Silvia the daughter
of Numitor the brother of Amulius and son of Procas the son of Aventinus.
Clearly you don't have even the remotest clue about the history of Rome.
Agamemnon
On Aug 17, 1:55 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> Antiochus is talking about a completly different historical event but a
> completely different person. Rhomanessus the son of Roma was the original
> founder of Rome in 1438 BC.
>
<<<How can Antiochus know what happened more than 1000 years before his
time with any reliability?>>>
In the same way that we know what happened 1000 years ago in 1066 when
William defeated Harold and 2000 years ago when Augustus was Emperor of Rome
and 2500 years ago when Xerxes invaded Greece and 2800 years ago when the
Olympic games were founded. It was written down by historians and
chorographers in sources which were still extant hundreds and thousands of
years later.
<<<Are you THAT gullible?>>>
ARE YOU THAT STUPID?
> <<<He wrote: "Livy is part of the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS!"
>
> HIS references show anything but consensus, but he sees consensus in
> them. Go figure.>>>
>
> BULLSHIT! All Roman historians are agreed that Romulus founded Rome,
> including the ones that mention its earlier foundation by Rhomanessus.
> Rome
> was founded, abandoned
<<<Abandoned? The first human settlements in Rome were in the Palatine
Hill and date back to 1000 B.C., by people of the Villanovan Culture,
and since the site has been uninterruptedly inhabited.>>>
COMPLETE AND UTTER FICTION!
We already know from Roman historians that Rome was founded by Romulus the
son of Aeneas and that its inhabitants were Trojan Greeks.
J Antero
"" The legend of Romulus and Remus probably originated in the 4th century
BC and was set down in coherent form at the end of the 3rd century BC. It
contains a mixture of Greek and Roman elements. The Greeks customarily
created mythical eponymous heroes to explain the origins of place-names. The
story of the rape of the Sabine women was perhaps invented to explain the
custom of simulated capture in the Roman marriage ceremony. By including
Mars in the legend, the Romans were attempting to connect their origins with
that important deity. ""
Ency. Britannica
Agamemnon
On Aug 17, 12:00 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:91515813-d844-491b...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 17, 8:33 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:bd67ee42-b4f9-46b3...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 16, 8:12 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > > "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> > >>>>> There is more evidence for Romulus than there is for
> > >>>>> Herodotus and Thucydides
> > >>>> We HAVE BOOKS written by Herodotus and Thucydides.
> > >>>> Can you point out to any written works by Romulus?
> > >> The poster can't answer my question. Noted.
> > >> So much for "There is more evidence for Romulus
> > >> than there is for Herodotus and Thucydides"
> > > I have answered your idiotic questions. Clearly you cannot read.
>
> > <<<Where did you answered? Show me.>>>
>
> > Read my previous reply.
>
> <<<I have. There is no answer to my question there.>>
>
> Then it is abundantly clear that you cannot read.
>
>
<<<Maybe. But just to be clear, just humor me. Please tell me again the
books Romulus wrote.>>>
I already answered your question. Go back and read it.
>
> > Primary records of the seventh crusade still exist you ignorant
> > imbecile.
> > Dionysus job was therefore relatively simple.
>
> <<<Livy doesn't think so. See below.>>>
>
> WRONG! Livy know full well that the primary sources existed as did
> Dionysus
> of Halicarnassus.
<<<That's not what he says in his Sixth Book. He says that records were>>>
WRONG!
<<<scant and most were destroyed. He doesn't mention at any time any
surviving record of the Foundation of Rome, tablet or otherwise.>>>
WRONG! He mentions many. Where do you think he got his account from if none
existed?
<<<To validate your claims you need to show readers books written by
Romulus. >>>
I don't need to show anything of the kind. Your claim has NO historical
basis or validity. It is PURE FANTASY! Romulus wrote down the laws of Roman
which were accepted by all Romans as being his work. In order to even
postulate your ridicules and nonsensical claim you have to show that Romulus
existence was questioned by a significant number Roman historians. You can't
even find one that does this.
> Do you seriously think that the Romans were all stupid
> and believed in over 50 made up kings before Romulus who they worshiped a
> demi-gods
<<<What Roman kings can there have been before Romulus if he was the
founder of the city?>>>
IDIOT!
1438 BC Rome founded by Rhomanessus the son of Roma.
c.1200 BC Rome founded/colonised Romus, the son of Emathion
c.1170 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romanus son of Odysseus and Circe
c.1150 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romulus the son of Aeneas and/or his
daughter.
c.1120 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romanus the son of Hisicion.
c.923 BC Rome founded/colonised by Tiberinus the son of Carpentus after whom
the Tiber which was previously called the Albula was named.
797 BC Aventinus the son of Romulus/Aremulus Silvius buried in Rome on the
Aventine hill named after him.
753 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romulus the son of Rea Silvia the daughter
of Numitor the brother of Amulius and son of Procas the son of Aventinus.
Clearly you don't have even the remotest clue about the history of Rome.
There was a line of successive kings of Rome dating back from its foundation
by Rhomanessus the son of Roma, most of whom were named after the city.
> and built temples too for generation after generation and 6 more
> after him and over 100 tribunes up until the Gauls burned down Rome?
<<So the fact that people build temples to something makes that
something real?>>>
Yes.
<<<So the gods Jupiter and Mars are real?>>>
Yes. Their historical existence was UNDISPUTED!
They were historical Greek kings who ruled between 1700 and 1600 BC who were
deified and called Theoi or Disposers because of the wonderful things they
did for mankind. Read Herodotus.
<<<So because the Vatican exists, that makes St. Peter a historical
figure?>>>
Of course he was.
<<<So because Mexico has a great basilica to the Virgin of Guadalupe,
that makes the mother of Jesus real?>>>
YOU ARE AN IMBECILE!
There were thousands of Jews who lived in 30AD who were called Jesus. How do
you thing they were born without a mother? You don't have a clue about
history.
>
> > Do you know what obscurity means? Clearly you don't. It means that it is
> > little known of, not that it isn't reliably. Get an education you fool.
>
> <<<The poster now claims that obscurity is reliable. Amazing.>>>
>
> IMBECILE! You clearly don't know the meaning of the word.
>
> Obscure means LITTLE KNOWN!
>
<<<Fine, so little is LITTLE IS KNOWN about the Foundation of Rome and
the early times, yet you claim that every abundant particular detail
is true.
If LITTLE is known why is that you claim to know all the kings, how
long they reigned, and all the important details about Romulus and
Remus from birth to death?
That is not consistent with LITTLE KNOWN, but much known rather.
Make up your mind.>>>
CLUELESS IMBECILE!
You don't even know the meaning of the word little. It clearly implies that
something was know and that includes the names of its kings and the number
of years they reigned.
>
> A primary Roman historian tells you that this source existed and NOT ONE
> other Roman historian see fit to challenged him on this since he
> represents
> the historical consensus.
>
<<<Existence of a source does not guarantee the truth of what the source
says.>>>
The fact that it was accepted to be the historical consensus and was TOTALLY
UNDISPUTED AND BEYOND QUESTION does.
> Yet despite this evidence and the fact that NOT ONE ancient historical
> challenge the existence and historicity of Romulus and Remus let alone
> said
> that they were made up, you expect us to believe your REVISIONIST FANTASY
> which does not appear until after 1800 AD that they were.
>
<<<False.>>>
LIAR!
<<<Plutarch(c. AD 46 � 120) relates that the story was thought to be
fiction "by some.">>>
<<<"Although most of these particulars are related by Fabius and Diocles
of Peparethus, who seems to have been the first to publish a "Founding
of Rome," some are suspicious of their fictitious and fabulous
quality."
Edward Gibbon, (1737-1794), Roman historian, thought Romulus was
fiction.>>>
So you can't quote Plutarch but quote the revisionist founder Gibbon because
you are a LIAR!
This is what Plutarch actually says about the account about the wolf
"Others think that the first rise of this fable came from the children's
nurse, through the ambiguity of her name; for the Latins not only called
wolves lupoe, but also women of loose life; and such an one was the wife of
Faustulus, who nurtured these children, Acca Larentia by name. To her the
Romans offer sacrifices, and in the month of April the priest of Mars makes
libations there; it is called the Larentian Feast."
And earlier Plutarch calls Faustulus a swineherd
"Meantime Faustulus, Amulius's swineherd, brought up the children without
any man's knowledge; or, as those say who wish to keep closer to
probabilities, with the knowledge and secret assistance of Numitor"
Thus my assertion that he was a farmer is correct and more accurate than
your description of him as a shepherd. So apologise.
<<<So much for nobody challenging the story until AFTER 1800.
> > <<<Livy doesn't think so:
>
> > "[N]early all [written records] perished in the conflagration of the
> > City">>>
>
> > Do you know what the word NEARLY means?
>
> <<<How can you be so sure that the few records that survived were
> precisely those concerning your argument?>>>
>
> BECAUSE ALL THE ROMAN WRITERS COPIED THEM!
>
<<<How can you possibly know that?>>>
Because they say so. IDIOT!
>
>
> > > BULLSHIT! Livy cites NO contrary accounts to the FACT the Romulus and
> > > Remus
> > > were found by this flock-master.
>
> > <<<But YOU do. You claim they were found by a farmer AND HIS WIFE, which
> > is false.>>>
>
> > WRONG!
>
> <<<Show me the ancient source that claims that a farmer AND HIS WIFE
> FOUND the twins. Can you?>>>
>
> It has already been shown to you. ALL Roman historians say the same thing.
<<<"I can't, so I'll just lie and say I did.">>>
Yes you do.
Agamemnon
On Aug 17, 2:59 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
> Agamemnon wrote:
> Not primary sources, are they? Not contemporary sources, so they are
> secondary sources. And they don't seem to agree as to the history.
<<<To you, me, and other sane people a primary source is one that is
authoritative and contemporary or near contemporary to the time under
study.>>>
Which proves you don't have a clue what a primary source actually is.
A primary source is an eye witness account. A kings list or list of archons
is such an account since the kings and archons or tribunes were added to it
as they reigned. An stone tablet or parchment held in protective custody in
a temple is also a primary source as are all those found in Egypt.
Agamemnon
On Aug 17, 11:06 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > Not primary sources, are they? Not contemporary sources, so they are
>
> WRONG and WRONG!
>
> > secondary sources. And they don't seem to agree as to the history.
>
> WRONG AGAIN!
>
> You clearly don't have a clue what a primary source is or even what
> history
> is. Typical revisionist. You live in a fantasy world.
>
> The historical tablets held by the Roman priests were a PRIMARY SOURCE.
> Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
>
<<<That depends on when such tablets were created and by whom.>>.
They were created and kept by the priests of Rome and are therefore primary
civic records just like the tablets found in Egyptian and Hittite temples
are.
<<<Therefore an undated anonymous tablet is no primary source, tough it
might be, unless it is part of a collection where a larger context
give it credibility, like the Assyrian tablets found recently in
Turkey in an ancient temple.>>.
Which is exactly what the tablets held by the priests of Rome were.
> The canons of Eratosthenes were also a PRIMARY SOURCE and proven to be
> historically sound. Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
>
>
> The list of Roman kings which went back more than 50 generations before
> Brutus to Morges, Italus and even earlier to Comerus Gallus was a PRIMARY
> SOURCE. Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
>
<<<Fifty generations? That is 1500 years. Since Lucius Junius Brutus>>>
Its actually 1100 years, 1200 if you go back to the time of the gods. It
case already been historically proven from inscriptions that Saturn was the
Minoan Greek king Satur of Crete who reigned in 1700 BC.
<<<lived c. 500 B.C. that makes the Roman royal lineage beginning around
2000 B.C. That's centuries BEFORE Hammurabi, and well before the
Amorites put an end of the Sumerian empire.>>>
IDIOT!
It takes you to between 1700 and 1600 BC. Hummurabi was about 1800 or 1900
BC.
>
> The existence of these PRIMARY SOURCES is NOT AND WAS NEVER IN QUESTION.
>
<<<Thank you for that. It's nice to be sure.>>>
Get an education.
Agamemnon
"J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:YPmdnaODctfxsBfX...@earthlink.com...
COMPLETE AND UTTER UNSUBSTANTIATED REVISIONIST BULLSHIT AND A CONCOCTION OF
PURE FANTASY!
The existence of Romulus and Remus was NEVER disputed by any ancient,
medieval or renaissance historian. There is NO historical basis whatsoever
to challenge it.
Greek, Sicilian and Tyrrhenian records of Romulus and Remus contemporaries
and predecessors already predate the 4th century BC and you conveniently
ignore over 50 kings of the Latins before Romulus, nearly 40 kings of the
Tyrrhenians before him, and the kings of Sicily and the kings after Romulus
and over 100 Tribunes of Rome before 400 BC.
J Antero
"" The system presented here is the so-called Varronian system worked out
in the late first century B.C. Before 300 B.C., it is manifestly incorrect,
but this system is generally used in modern accounts and provides a fixed
basis against which other traditions for the early period can be assessed.
From the year 300 B.C. on, the dates and names of the list are accurate.
Before that date, there were various lists in antiquity, that are in overall
agreement. However, for a few years alternative magistrates are listed. More
worryingly, years were at times inserted into the lists to bring them into
line with various preconceived notions of chronology. ""
http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/Consuls.List.html
J Antero
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:bJudnd8WaZ-gqRfX...@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in message
> news:YPmdnaODctfxsBfX...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "" The legend of Romulus and Remus probably originated in the 4th
>> century BC and was set down in coherent form at the end of the 3rd
>> century BC. It contains a mixture of Greek and Roman elements. The Greeks
>> customarily created mythical eponymous heroes to explain the origins of
>> place-names. The story of the rape of the Sabine women was perhaps
>> invented to explain the custom of simulated capture in the Roman marriage
>> ceremony. By including Mars in the legend, the Romans were attempting to
>> connect their origins with that important deity. ""
>>
>> Ency. Britannica
>
> COMPLETE AND UTTER UNSUBSTANTIATED REVISIONIST BULLSHIT AND A CONCOCTION
> OF PURE FANTASY!
>
> The existence of Romulus and Remus was NEVER disputed by any ancient,
> medieval or renaissance historian. There is NO historical basis whatsoever
> to challenge it.
Neither was the existence of Hercules, or Neptune....
>
> Greek, Sicilian and Tyrrhenian records of Romulus and Remus contemporaries
> and predecessors already predate the 4th century BC and you conveniently
> ignore over 50 kings of the Latins before Romulus, nearly 40 kings of the
> Tyrrhenians before him, and the kings of Sicily and the kings after
> Romulus and over 100 Tribunes of Rome before 400 BC.
Well, I didn't "overlook" it - the scholars whose consensus opinion is
reflected in the Britannica article did....
I will admit, your approach is more "creative" than mine... ;-)
Surreyman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let's be fair. This chap does have a point.
After all, you can't disprove that London was founded by the Hebrew
tribe of Dan.
Surreyman
Agamemnon
"Surreyman" <alandavi...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:69c4ebee-0b63-4bc6...@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
London was founded by Lud the king of the Britons who ruled in 73 BC, which
before had been called Trinovantum or new Troy when it was founded by Brutus
in about 1100 BC.
Besides which the Hebrew tribe of Dan was plagiarised by the authors of the
bible from the Greeks since it was the Danaans who are known to be Greeks
from Egyptian inscriptions.
Agamemnon
>
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:bJudnd8WaZ-gqRfX...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>> "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in message
>> news:YPmdnaODctfxsBfX...@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "" The legend of Romulus and Remus probably originated in the 4th
>>> century BC and was set down in coherent form at the end of the 3rd
>>> century BC. It contains a mixture of Greek and Roman elements. The
>>> Greeks customarily created mythical eponymous heroes to explain the
>>> origins of place-names. The story of the rape of the Sabine women was
>>> perhaps invented to explain the custom of simulated capture in the Roman
>>> marriage ceremony. By including Mars in the legend, the Romans were
>>> attempting to connect their origins with that important deity. ""
>>>
>>> Ency. Britannica
>>
>
>> COMPLETE AND UTTER UNSUBSTANTIATED REVISIONIST BULLSHIT AND A CONCOCTION
>> OF PURE FANTASY!
>>
>
>> The existence of Romulus and Remus was NEVER disputed by any ancient,
>> medieval or renaissance historian. There is NO historical basis
>> whatsoever to challenge it.
>
> Neither was the existence of Hercules, or Neptune....
The existence of Herakles and Poseidon is undisputed. Poseidon's name and
worship is recorded in Mycenaean Linear B inscriptions along with that of
Zeus and Dionysus at the time in which Herakles lived. There is no
historical basis whatsoever to deny their existence.
>
>
>>
>> Greek, Sicilian and Tyrrhenian records of Romulus and Remus
>> contemporaries and predecessors already predate the 4th century BC and
>> you conveniently ignore over 50 kings of the Latins before Romulus,
>> nearly 40 kings of the Tyrrhenians before him, and the kings of Sicily
>> and the kings after Romulus and over 100 Tribunes of Rome before 400 BC.
>
> Well, I didn't "overlook" it - the scholars whose consensus opinion is
> reflected in the Britannica article did....
Those are not scholars. They are REVISIONIST CHARLATANS. The historical
consensus of all ancient, medieval and renaissance historians is the Romulus
and Remus and the 100 and more other named kings who ruled in Italy all
existed. Their is no historical basis whatsoever by which to doubt or
dispute their existence.
Agamemnon
>
> "" The system presented here is the so-called Varronian system worked out
> in the late first century B.C. Before 300 B.C., it is manifestly
> incorrect, >>>
And there evidence for that? THERE ISN'T ANY! It's an HISTORICALLY
UNSUPPORTED REVISIONIST FANTASY made up in the 18 and 1900s!
> but this system is generally used in modern accounts and provides a fixed
> basis against which other traditions for the early period can be assessed.
> From the year 300 B.C. on, the dates and names of the list are accurate.
> Before that date, there were various lists in antiquity, that are in
> overall agreement. However, for a few years alternative magistrates are
> listed. More worryingly, years were at times inserted into the lists to
> bring them into line with various preconceived notions of chronology. ""
BULLSHIT!
Paul Murray
>> <<<What Roman kings can there have been before Romulus if he was the
>> founder of the city?>>>
>>
>> IDIOT!
>>
>> 1438 BC Rome founded by Rhomanessus the son of Roma.
>>
>> c.1200 BC Rome founded/colonised Romus, the son of Emathion
>>
>> c.1170 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romanus son of Odysseus and Circe
>>
>> c.1150 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romulus the son of Aeneas and/or his
>> daughter.
>>
>> c.1120 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romanus the son of Hisicion.
>>
>> c.923 BC Rome founded/colonised by Tiberinus the son of Carpentus after whom
>> the Tiber which was previously called the Albula was named.
>>
>> 797 BC Aventinus the son of Romulus/Aremulus Silvius buried in Rome on the
>> Aventine hill named after him.
>>
>> 753 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romulus the son of Rea Silvia the daughter
>> of Numitor the brother of Amulius and son of Procas the son of Aventinus.
That is a whole bunch of really prescient parents right there.
What are the odds that you just happen to name your child Romus/Romanus/Romulus/
Romanus/Romulus, and they go on to refound a city called Rome?
Carpentus was clearly a bit of a thicky, he didn't get his sons name even close.
>> Clearly you don't have even the remotest clue about the history of Rome.
Clearly you are insane.
>> <<So the fact that people build temples to something makes that
>> something real?>>>
>>
>> Yes.
Wow.
Renia
Wonderful, now my other son is with us. Off to Rhodos tomorrow. Filakia!
Renia
Golly! Rome was founded a lot, wasn't it?
Renia
Of course. My fellow countrymen, the Greeks, founded everything. Greeks
are understandably extremely proud of their ancient history and it
permeates their existence even today.
Renia
We can't prove London wasn't founded by the Greeks, either.
Renia
>
> <<<Let's be fair. This chap does have a point.
> After all, you can't disprove that London was founded by the Hebrew
> tribe of Dan.>>>
>
> London was founded by Lud the king of the Britons who ruled in 73 BC,
> which before had been called Trinovantum or new Troy when it was founded
> by Brutus in about 1100 BC.
>
> Besides which the Hebrew tribe of Dan was plagiarised by the authors of
> the bible from the Greeks since it was the Danaans who are known to be
> Greeks from Egyptian inscriptions.
There you go. I knew this was coming.
Renia
Worship is still very important to Greeks. They cross themselves when a
plane takes off and lands and they go to church and kiss icons. I can
really admire a micro-skirted woman of a certain age, so full of botox
and enhanced bosoms, who has enough devotion to kiss about 20 icons.
William Black
>
> London was founded by Lud the king of the Britons who ruled in 73 BC,
> which before had been called Trinovantum or new Troy when it was founded
> by Brutus in about 1100 BC.
And so, a new champion loon.
Someone who believes that Geoffrey of Monmouth can be used as a primary
source...
A man whose 'History of the Kings of Britain' was considered exceptional
in its inaccuracies even by his contemporaries...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Agamemnon
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h6e4rf$eg2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Agamemnon wrote:
>>
>
>> London was founded by Lud the king of the Britons who ruled in 73 BC,
>> which before had been called Trinovantum or new Troy when it was founded
>> by Brutus in about 1100 BC.
>
> And so, a new champion loon.
>
> Someone who believes that Geoffrey of Monmouth can be used as a primary
> source...
>
> A man whose 'History of the Kings of Britain' was considered exceptional
> in its inaccuracies even by his contemporaries...
No it was not you dissembling liar. Geoffrey of Monmouth was considered to
represent the historical consensus by his contemporaries and successors. His
History of the Kings of Britain was never disputed.
William Black
That'll be why William of Newborough devotes a whole chapter of his book
'Historia' to why Geoffrey is inaccurate, including his rather
devastating comment that Geoffrey disagrees with Bede, who is
considered, even today, as reasonably accurate.
I have refrained from a personal attack.
It would be far too easy...
Agamemnon
> Agamemnon wrote:
>>
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:h6e4rf$eg2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> London was founded by Lud the king of the Britons who ruled in 73 BC,
>>>> which before had been called Trinovantum or new Troy when it was
>>>> founded by Brutus in about 1100 BC.
>>>
>>> And so, a new champion loon.
>>>
>>> Someone who believes that Geoffrey of Monmouth can be used as a primary
>>> source...
>>>
>>> A man whose 'History of the Kings of Britain' was considered exceptional
>>> in its inaccuracies even by his contemporaries...
>>
>> No it was not you dissembling liar. Geoffrey of Monmouth was considered
>> to represent the historical consensus by his contemporaries and
>> successors. His History of the Kings of Britain was never disputed.
>>
>
> That'll be why William of Newborough devotes a whole chapter of his book
> 'Historia' to why Geoffrey is inaccurate, including his rather
No he doesn't. William of Newborough was in no position to challenge
Monmouth's accuracy since he didn't have a clue about the history Monmouth
was describing, and did nothing more than state his totally ignorance of the
history of the Britons. Newborough is therefore totally irrelevant to this
discussion.
> devastating comment that Geoffrey disagrees with Bede, who is
No he doesn't.
> considered, even today, as reasonably accurate.
>
> I have refrained from a personal attack.
>
> It would be far too easy...
>
You don't have the remotest clue of what you are talking about.
Bede wrote the history of the Anglo-Saxon Church. His history has absolutely
NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the main subject matter of Monmouth who wrote
about the history of the Britons (Welsh).
Once again the REVISIONIST CHARLATANS try to use diversionary tactics and
take everyone for a fool. Bedes history starts independently of Monmouth, is
about the Anglo-Saxons and their church and doesn't cover or and never
intended to cover the history full history of the Britons. In the places
were Monmouth and Bede cover the same territory they both agree with each
other on people and events precisely within a 30 year margin of error on the
dating of events which is an inherent error in both Monmouth and Nennius
since either they or their copyists or original sources confused dates which
were made from the baseline of year of the Nativity or Epiphany of Christ
with dates which were made from the baseline of year of the Passion of
Christ which were approximately 30 years apart. Thus the only criticism of
Monmouth was his dating and nothing more, and that is easily accounted for.
Tiglath
>
> <<<That depends on when such tablets were created and by whom.>>.
>
> They were created and kept by the priests of Rome and are therefore primary
> civic records just like the tablets found in Egyptian and Hittite temples
> are.
>
You are a very sloppy "historian." You continually fail to state the
date of place of the "evidence" you produce, and rarely include
references.
Again, WHEN were such tablets produced and in which temple were they
found. If you don't know say so instead of dodging a legitimate
question again.
You have yet to provide evidence for Romulus' books, which you claim
you provided. Be honest and say you don't know instead of
dishonestly dodging the question.
> <<<Therefore an undated anonymous tablet is no primary source, tough it
> might be, unless it is part of a collection where a larger context
> give it credibility, like the Assyrian tablets found recently in
> Turkey in an ancient temple.>>.
>
> Which is exactly what the tablets held by the priests of Rome were.
>
A vital difference being that we HAVE the Assyrian tablets but you
don't seem to know where the Roman tablets are or were.
> > The canons of Eratosthenes were also a PRIMARY SOURCE and proven to be
> > historically sound. Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
>
> > The list of Roman kings which went back more than 50 generations before
> > Brutus to Morges, Italus and even earlier to Comerus Gallus was a PRIMARY
> > SOURCE. Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
>
> <<<Fifty generations? That is 1500 years. Since Lucius Junius Brutus>>>
>
> Its actually 1100 years,
It's not unless you are innumerate. 50 X 30 = 1500.
> 1200 if you go back to the time of the gods. It
> case already been historically proven from inscriptions that Saturn was the
> Minoan Greek king Satur of Crete who reigned in 1700 BC.
>
What does Crete has to do with Roman kings?
> <<<lived c. 500 B.C. that makes the Roman royal lineage beginning around
> 2000 B.C. That's centuries BEFORE Hammurabi, and well before the
> Amorites put an end of the Sumerian empire.>>>
>
> IDIOT!
>
> It takes you to between 1700 and 1600 BC. Hummurabi was about 1800 or 1900
> BC.
>
A generation is the average interval of time between the birth of
parents and the birth of their offspring. Everybody knows it's 30
years, but this poster.
Stand at least behind your own words.
"The list of Roman kings which went back more than 50 generations
before Brutus"
50 X 30 + 500 = 2000.
And you STATE that Romans kings went back MORE than that. That makes
it EARLIER than 2000 B.C.
That is what YOU wrote, poster.
Take responsibility for your own creepy words, at the very least.
>
>
> > The existence of these PRIMARY SOURCES is NOT AND WAS NEVER IN QUESTION.
>
> <<<Thank you for that. It's nice to be sure.>>>
>
> Get an education.
An education is the process that transforms ignorant certainty into
informed uncertainty.
Guess which side of "education" you are standing at?
Tiglath
No kidding. Human settlements are usually founded once, and they may
have several revivals.
I have to preserve this list as a monument to...
Rome was founded on 797 B.C., and ONLY 44 years later it was founded
again. What happened?
Perhaps the poster can explain...
Tiglath
>
> > But Romulus is now thought to have been a mythical figure.
>
> NO HE IS NOT!
>
> Just as always the REVISIONIST CHAPERONS leave out over 50 kings of Rome and
> Italy who ruled before him, 6 who ruled after him and over 100 Roman
> Tribunes and Consuls which I can name who ruled up to the Gallic Invasion.
>
> How do you account for all of them you REVISIONIST FANTASIST?
>
Renia, my fellow revisionist fantasist, wanna fantasize together?
>
> Since Tarquinius Superbus clearly existed and his existence is TOTALLY
> UNDISPUTED AND BEYOND QUESTION
Do you believe also that the heroic tradition that the monarchy ended
because the son of Tarquinius raped Lucretia, a noble woman, is the
undisputed historical truth?
--------
The poster has never heard of "independent corroboration" of
historical sources, apparently.
Can he provide INDEPENDENT sources that corroborate his bold claims?
Let's see them.
>
> You don't have a clue about history.
I don't think you will ever wonder why the The Cambridge Ancient
History, Volume 7, Part 2: "The Rise of Rome To 220 B.C., completely
fails to mention all the kings before Remulus, whose existence you
claim it's undisputed.
The poster should explain this strange fact.
On one hand he claims the existence of Roman kingdoms going back
before 2000 B.C.
Let us do him the favor of taking a later date 1700 B.C., and he has
later claimed.
How come that the archeological record, regarding human settlements in
Latium, is completely silent until around 1000 B.C., and even then
only sporadic?
From 1000 B.C. increasing evidence of settlements and huts all the way
to the stone foundations of the mid seventh century; before 1000 B.C.
zero.
Why did some 23 generations of Roman kings and kingdoms left no trace
at all?
The poster who claimed at least 17 times that the story of Romulus is
undisputed historical fact, brings an interesting question. Does the
poster realize that the story says that Romulus had a divine father.
Does that mean that the pagan god Mars is real, or is that a myth?
Will the poster be able to resolve this difficulty?
Tiglath
Antero, my good old fellow. You are well on your way of being
branded a revisionist fantasist.
Can you live with that?
Tiglath
> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
NoGall move over...
Tiglath
As usual this "historian" fails to produce references for his bold
assertions.
Can you give your sources and references for the above?
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> On Aug 17, 1:55 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
> > completely different person. Rhomanessus the son of Roma was the original
> > founder of Rome in 1438 BC.
>
> time with any reliability?>>>
>
> In the same way that we know what happened 1000 years ago in 1066
Not exactly. We HAVE those the sources and evidence for 1066, we do
not have the same for your imaginary Roman kings. Learn the
difference.
>
> <<<Abandoned? The first human settlements in Rome were in the Palatine
> Hill and date back to 1000 B.C., by people of the Villanovan Culture,
> and since the site has been uninterruptedly inhabited.>>>
>
> COMPLETE AND UTTER FICTION!
>
> We already know from Roman historians that Rome was founded by Romulus the
> son of Aeneas and that its inhabitants were Trojan Greeks.
Again, no references. Some "historian" you are.
Tiglath
>
> Of course. My fellow countrymen, the Greeks, founded everything. Greeks
> are understandably extremely proud of their ancient history and it
> permeates their existence even today.
The poster claims the Greeks invented sushi and the kimono.
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> On Aug 17, 2:59 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
>
> > Agamemnon wrote:
> > secondary sources. And they don't seem to agree as to the history.
>
> <<<To you, me, and other sane people a primary source is one that is
> authoritative and contemporary or near contemporary to the time under
> study.>>>
>
>
> A primary source is an eye witness account. A kings list or list of archons
> is such an account since the kings and archons or tribunes were added to it
> as they reigned. An stone tablet or parchment held in protective custody in
> a temple is also a primary source as are all those found in Egypt.
A tablet, a list, a canon, a stone can be inscribed at any time by
anyone. Just because they are old it doesn't mean they are primary
sources.
HOW do you know (1) that a tablet or a list was created by an eye
witness? (2) That the eyewitness was telling the truth?
The poster's total lack of skepticism and fatal credulity disqualifies
him to be in this discussion, but I am willing to make an exception
because of his entertainment value.
Renia
> On Aug 17, 11:43 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>>> But Romulus is now thought to have been a mythical figure.
>> NO HE IS NOT!
>>
>> Just as always the REVISIONIST CHAPERONS leave out over 50 kings of Rome and
>> Italy who ruled before him, 6 who ruled after him and over 100 Roman
>>
>> How do you account for all of them you REVISIONIST FANTASIST?
>>
>
> Renia, my fellow revisionist fantasist, wanna fantasize together?
Any time!
Tiglath
> Agamemnon wrote:
>
Answers.com be afraid.
Tiglath
>
> <<<Maybe. But just to be clear, just humor me. Please tell me again the
> books Romulus wrote.>>>
>
> I already answered your question. Go back and read it.
>
I need your help finding it. Please.
Where?
>
> <<<That's not what he says in his Sixth Book. He says that records were>>>
>
> WRONG!
>
> <<<scant and most were destroyed. He doesn't mention at any time any
> surviving record of the Foundation of Rome, tablet or otherwise.>>>
>
> WRONG! He mentions many.
Show me where.
> Where do you think he got his account from if none
> existed?
He got if from previous historians like Q. Fabious Pictor.
>
> <<<To validate your claims you need to show readers books written by
> Romulus. >>>
>
> I don't need to show anything of the kind. Your claim has NO historical
> basis or validity.
It's not my claim. It's YOUR claim. You claimed that there is more
evidence for Romulus that for Herodotus and Thucydides. We have
copies of books written by Herodotus and Thucydides. For Remulus to
have MORE evidence that Herodotus and Thucydides you need to show that
he wrote at least two books.
You are incapable of substantiating your claims time and time again.
You are long on verbiage and short on references. If you knew what
you were talking about you would have no problem showing the readers
references for your claims.
Where are Romulus's books. What are the titles?
Agamemnon talks, talks but he can't produce the goods.
Let's have them.
> It is PURE FANTASY! Romulus wrote down the laws of Roman
> which were accepted by all Romans as being his work
What is the source of this information? Again, no references.
The earliest Roman written law is the Twelve Tables and it's dated 450
B.C.
> In order to even
> postulate your ridicules and nonsensical claim you have to show that Romulus
> existence was questioned by a significant number Roman historians. You can't
> even find one that does this.
>
The poster's claim that no historian up to 1800 disagrees with his
version of the facts is nothing to sneeze at. It means nothing less
than the poster has surveyed the totality of Roman historians that
lived in the last 2550 years, and verified personally that not one
contradicts the "facts" on Romulus. How could the poster make such a
claim otherwise?
>
> 1438 BC Rome founded by Rhomanessus the son of Roma.
>
> c.1200 BC Rome founded/colonised Romus, the son of Emathion
>
> c.1170 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romanus son of Odysseus and Circe
>
> c.1150 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romulus the son of Aeneas and/or his
> daughter.
>
> c.1120 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romanus the son of Hisicion.
>
> c.923 BC Rome founded/colonised by Tiberinus the son of Carpentus after whom
> the Tiber which was previously called the Albula was named.
>
> 797 BC Aventinus the son of Romulus/Aremulus Silvius buried in Rome on the
> Aventine hill named after him.
>
> 753 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romulus the son of Rea Silvia the daughter
> of Numitor the brother of Amulius and son of Procas the son of Aventinus.
>
> Clearly you don't have even the remotest clue about the history of Rome.
>
Saying so doesn't make it so. Especially when you STILL have not
posted references for all those "foundations" of Rome. What are you
waiting for?
> There was a line of successive kings of Rome dating back from its foundation
> by Rhomanessus the son of Roma, most of whom were named after the city.
>
So you keep saying. Where is the evidence? So far ZERO.
> > and built temples too for generation after generation and 6 more
> > after him and over 100 tribunes up until the Gauls burned down Rome?
>
Temples? No stone foundation buildings have been found in Rome
dating earlier than the mid seventh century B.C. Where are the
remains of all those temples?
> <<So the fact that people build temples to something makes that
> something real?>>>
>
> Yes.
>
> <<<So the gods Jupiter and Mars are real?>>>
>
> Yes. Their historical existence was UNDISPUTED!
>
And where are these gods now?
> They were historical Greek kings who ruled between 1700 and 1600 BC who were
> deified and called Theoi or Disposers because of the wonderful things they
> did for mankind. Read Herodotus.
>
> <<<So because the Vatican exists, that makes St. Peter a historical
> figure?>>>
>
> Of course he was.
>
What's the evidence of the historicity of St. Peter other than the
biased claims by the Church and the Church's friends?
>
> <<<Plutarch(c. AD 46 – 120) relates that the story was thought to be
> fiction "by some.">>>
>
> <<<"Although most of these particulars are related by Fabius and Diocles
> of Peparethus, who seems to have been the first to publish a "Founding
> of Rome," some are suspicious of their fictitious and fabulous
> quality."
>
> Edward Gibbon, (1737-1794), Roman historian, thought Romulus was
> fiction.>>>
>
> So you can't quote Plutarch but quote the revisionist founder Gibbon because
> you are a LIAR!
>
Try to keep with the program. Pay attention. The quote above is from
Plutarch's Lives, the Live of Romulus in particular. Which you
obviously have not read either.
When are you going to start reading Plutarch?
Both Plutarch and Gibbon refute your claim that nobody disputed the
veracity of Remulus before 1800, whether you like Plutarch and Gibbons
or not.
Are you ever right?
> This is what Plutarch actually says about the account about the wolf
>
> "Others think that the first rise of this fable came from the children's
> nurse, through the ambiguity of her name; for the Latins not only called
> wolves lupoe, but also women of loose life; and such an one was the wife of
> Faustulus, who nurtured these children, Acca Larentia by name. To her the
> Romans offer sacrifices, and in the month of April the priest of Mars makes
> libations there; it is called the Larentian Feast."
>
He got it from Livy. You would know that if you had read some Livy in
your life.
That is no evidence that Romulus existed, by the way. Try to quote
something relevant to your claims.
> And earlier Plutarch calls Faustulus a swineherd
>
> "Meantime Faustulus, Amulius's swineherd, brought up the children without
> any man's knowledge; or, as those say who wish to keep closer to
> probabilities, with the knowledge and secret assistance of Numitor"
>
> Thus my assertion that he was a farmer is correct and more accurate than
> your description of him as a shepherd. So apologise.
>
Fuck you.
Plutarch was a GREEK historian writing almost a hundred years after
Livy, one of the most eminent ROMAN historians, who says the tradition
has Faustulus being a flock-master.
When is the last time you saw a flock of swine?
Livy calls Faustulus: "magister regii pecoris"
Pecus, pecoris - cattle, a flock, especially of sheep.
So the phrase is properly translated as the, "king's flock-master"
So much for your universal CONSENSUS on Romulus story.
You keep forgetting to address the second half of your INCORRECT
assertion that the "farmer Faustulus and his wife" found the twins.
Why is that?
Which historian says that that Faustulus AND HIS WIFE, found the
twins?
You have gone very silent on that. Speak up.
Tiglath
>
> No it was not you dissembling liar. Geoffrey of Monmouth was considered to
> represent the historical consensus by his contemporaries and successors. His
> History of the Kings of Britain was never disputed.
>>>> Insert here reference of Monmouth being disputed <<<<
And see the challenger being labeled a dissembling, revisionist,
fantasist, which naturally makes the dispute evaporate.
Why have politicians not caught on to that yet?
Tiglath
And evidence keeps pouring in...
>
> >> <<So the fact that people build temples to something makes that
> >> something real?>>>
>
> >> Yes.
>
> Wow.
Whoever wired this chap's brain did a hell of a nigger-rigging job.
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> On Aug 17, 2:59 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Agamemnon wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 17, 10:51 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
> > >> Agamemnon wrote:
>
> > >> > centuries after the times he wrote about. Is that your idea of a>>>
>
> > >> > TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!
>
> > >> > He was a historian and who used primary sources, not a chronographer.
> > >> > Learn the difference you ignorant fool.
>
> > >> Which primary sources did he use seven centuries after the events about
> > >> which he was writing?
>
> > > <<<Good question.
>
> > > In the excerpt he gave, Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentions two
> > > historians: Polybius, another Greek separated from the events by more
> > > than 500 years -- not a good primary source --- and Antiochus of
> > > Syracuse, much closer to the events (420 B.C.) but still centuries
> > > away.
>
> > > Dionysius disagrees with Polybius, he says (so much for the poster's>>>
>
> > > LIAR!
>
> > > <<<claim that all ancient historians agree on the Foundation of Rome).
> > > Unfortunately, Antiochus throws a big wrench into the whole works by
> > > claiming that Rome was founded before the Trojan War, which for some
> > > reason our hilariously erudite poster interprets also as part of a
> > > general consensus.>>>
>
> > > IMBECILE!
>
> > > When are you going to learn to comprehend what you read?
>
> > > completely different person. Rhomanessus the son of Roma was the
> > > original founder of Rome in 1438 BC.
>
>
> > > HIS references show anything but consensus, but he sees consensus in
> > > them. Go figure.>>>
>
> > > BULLSHIT! All Roman historians are agreed that Romulus founded Rome,
> > > including the ones that mention its earlier foundation by Rhomanessus.
> > > Rome was founded, abandoned and refunded on several different occasions.
> > > IMBECILE!
>
> <<<Great paragraph. It's a real gas to read.
>
> So EVEN the historians who believe Rhomanessus founded Rome, believe
> Romulus founded Rome.
>
> So how many times was Rome founded? Dates?>>>
>
> CLUELESS IMBECILE!
>
>
> daughter.
>
> c.1120 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romanus the son of Hisicion.
>
> c.923 BC Rome founded/colonised by Tiberinus the son of Carpentus after whom
> the Tiber which was previously called the Albula was named.
>
> 797 BC Aventinus the son of Romulus/Aremulus Silvius buried in Rome on the
> Aventine hill named after him.
>
> 753 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romulus the son of Rea Silvia the daughter
> of Numitor the brother of Amulius and son of Procas the son of Aventinus.
>
I'd like to see you recite the list above to a room full of ancient
historians with offal and rotten tomatoes and eggs at hand.
Poetic Justice
>1438 BC Rome founded by Rhomanessus
>the son of Roma.
>c.1150 BC Rome founded/colonised by
>Romulus the son of Aeneas and/or his
>daughter.
>c.1120 BC Rome founded/colonised by
>Romanus the son of Hisicion.
>c.923 BC Rome founded/colonised by
>Tiberinus the son of Carpentus after
>whom the Tiber which was previously
>called the Albula was named.
>797 BC Aventinus the son of
>Romulus/Aremulus Silvius buried in Rome
>on the Aventine hill named after him.
>753 BC Rome founded/colonised by
>Romulus the son of Rea Silvia the
>daughter of Numitor the brother of
>Amulius and son of Procas the son of
>Aventinus.
>Clearly you don't have even the remotest
>clue about the history of Rome.
Renia wrote;
>Golly! Rome was founded a lot, wasn't it?
The Foundings were easy but hiding the physical evidence for their
existence and kingdoms was tricky:). Regards, Walter
J Antero
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:R6qdnS5mr8P--xfX...@eclipse.net.uk...> news:iuadnZDtU8PbqRfX...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "" The system presented here is the so-called Varronian system worked
>> out in the late first century B.C. Before 300 B.C., it is manifestly
>> incorrect, >>>
>
> And there evidence for that? THERE ISN'T ANY! It's an HISTORICALLY
> UNSUPPORTED REVISIONIST FANTASY made up in the 18 and 1900s!
http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronology/varro.html
The third solution is that of the Roman antiquarian Marcus Terentius
Varro (116-27), a contemporary of Julius Caesar. He introduced four years in
the second half of our fourth century BCE in which Rome was ruled by
dictators. These years are, in the Varronian chronology, 333, 324, 309 and
301.
There is not one single argument to corroborate this constitutional
absurdity, which is just an all too transparent attempt to invent historical
precedents for the annual dictatorship of Julius Caesar in 48 BCE. In fact,
there are indications that falsify Varro's idea:
a.. Pliny the Elder writes that the career of the popular Roman
general general Marcus Valerius Corvus lasted 46 years, but it lasts 50
years in Varro's chronology. The difference disappears when the 'dictator
years' are ignored. It also means that the treaty between Rome and Carthage,
usually dated to Varronian year 348, was in fact concluded in 344/343 BCE,
exactly at the moment when the Carthaginians are known to have intervened in
a civil war on Syracuse and needed support in Italy.
b.. Livy writes that in the Varronian year 351, the Romans and the
inhabitants of Tarquinii concluded a peace treaty for forty years. War broke
out again in the Varronian year 308, which is indeed the fortieth year if we
ignore the dictator years.
Unfortunately, Varro's list contains a second error. Not content with
the introduction of four extra years, he added four years of anarchy. In
other words, he solved the same problem twice, and the result is that all
his dates before 300 BCE are wrong. Nevertheless, the Varronian chronology
was canonized. The emperor Augustus had it inscribed in his triumphal arch
(the fragments, called Fasti Capitolini, can be seen in the Capitoline
Museums in Rome) and most modern scholars use the only Roman chronological
system that is demonstrably incorrect. Several common errors are:
a.. The dating of the invasion of the Gauls in 390; the real date
can be deduced from the Greek historian Polybius of Megalopolis and is
387/386 BCE (World History, 1.6.1-2). There is independent confirmation from
Diodorus of Sicily. (The Roman army was defeated on 18 July. As we have
already seen above, this can not be identified with 'our' 18 July, but we
can be almost certain that the invasion took place in the summer/autumn of
387, although 386 can not be excluded.)
b.. The dating of the expulsion of Rome's last king, Tarquin the
Proud, in 510. Varro must have liked this date, because it offers a nice
synchronism with the expulsion of the tyrant Hippias from Athens. (And it
must have been appreciated more generally. Writing a century later, Pliny
the Elder was also aware of it.). However, it is simply wrong. A fragment
from the city chronicle of the Greek town Cumae, quoted by the Greek scholar
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Roman Antiquities, 5.36), proves that the battle
of Aricia in the second or third year of the Roman republic, took place in
505/504; this means that the republic was founded in either 507/506 or
506/505 (more...).
c.. The dating of the foundation of Rome in 754/753. Varro obtained
this year by multiplying the number of known kings, seven, by 35 regnal
years. It must be noted that there are still Italian scholars who ignore the
radiocarbondates and maintain that the hill top villages of Rome were
united -the equivalent of the founding of a city- in the middle of the
eighth century, which is a century too late.
Although the Varronian dates are clearly erroneous, they can be found
in almost every publication on the ancient history of Rome.
>> but this system is generally used in modern accounts and provides a fixed
>> basis against which other traditions for the early period can be
>> assessed.
>> From the year 300 B.C. on, the dates and names of the list are accurate.
>> Before that date, there were various lists in antiquity, that are in
>> overall agreement. However, for a few years alternative magistrates are
>> listed. More worryingly, years were at times inserted into the lists to
>> bring them into line with various preconceived notions of chronology.
>> ""
>
> BULLSHIT!
See above.
>
>>
>> http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/Consuls.List.html
J Antero
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>>
>> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> "" The legend of Romulus and Remus probably originated in the 4th
>>>> century BC and was set down in coherent form at the end of the 3rd
>>>> century BC. It contains a mixture of Greek and Roman elements. The
>>>> Greeks customarily created mythical eponymous heroes to explain the
>>>> origins of place-names. The story of the rape of the Sabine women was
>>>> perhaps invented to explain the custom of simulated capture in the
>>>> Roman marriage ceremony. By including Mars in the legend, the Romans
>>>> were attempting to connect their origins with that important deity. ""
>>>>
>>>> Ency. Britannica
>>>
>>
>>> COMPLETE AND UTTER UNSUBSTANTIATED REVISIONIST BULLSHIT AND A CONCOCTION
>>> OF PURE FANTASY!
>>>
>>
>>> The existence of Romulus and Remus was NEVER disputed by any ancient,
>>> medieval or renaissance historian. There is NO historical basis
>>> whatsoever to challenge it.
>> Neither was the existence of Hercules, or Neptune....
> The existence of Herakles and Poseidon is undisputed. Poseidon's name and
> worship is recorded in Mycenaean Linear B inscriptions along with that of
> Zeus and Dionysus at the time in which Herakles lived. There is no
> historical basis whatsoever to deny their existence.
Yahweh shows up in early writings, too.
What a relief - he must be real, too.
Thousands of years from now, when people dig up space alien movies, they'll
even get to see what they looked like in real life and what kind of gizmos
they brought to earth.
>>> Greek, Sicilian and Tyrrhenian records of Romulus and Remus
>>> contemporaries and predecessors already predate the 4th century BC and
Sort of like movie reviews proving the movies showed real things?
>>> you conveniently ignore over 50 kings of the Latins before Romulus,
>>> nearly 40 kings of the Tyrrhenians before him, and the kings of Sicily
>>> and the kings after Romulus and over 100 Tribunes of Rome before 400 BC.
>>
>> Well, I didn't "overlook" it - the scholars whose consensus opinion is
>> reflected in the Britannica article did....
>
> Those are not scholars. They are REVISIONIST CHARLATANS. The historical
> consensus of all ancient, medieval and renaissance historians is the
> Romulus and Remus and the 100 and more other named kings who ruled in
> Italy all existed. Their is no historical basis whatsoever by which to
> doubt or dispute their existence.
J Antero
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:naqdnTrqRvi6BBfX...@eclipse.net.uk...
Did you see the movie: "The Invasion", with Nicole Kidman?
Very entertaining, and it's never been disputed.
J Antero
On Aug 18, 12:26 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> "" The legend of Romulus and Remus probably originated in the 4th century
> BC and was set down in coherent form at the end of the 3rd century BC. It
> contains a mixture of Greek and Roman elements. The Greeks customarily
> created mythical eponymous heroes to explain the origins of place-names.
> The
> story of the rape of the Sabine women was perhaps invented to explain the
> custom of simulated capture in the Roman marriage ceremony. By including
> Mars in the legend, the Romans were attempting to connect their origins
> with
> that important deity. ""
>
> Ency. Britannica
==
Antero, my good old fellow. You are well on your way of being
branded a revisionist fantasist.
Can you live with that?
==
Well, if Romulus and Remus were real people, then I guess Hercules, Poseidon
and the holey jebus could be, too.
Agamemnon
>
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:R6qdnS5mr8P--xfX...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>> "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in message
>> news:iuadnZDtU8PbqRfX...@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "" The system presented here is the so-called Varronian system worked
>>> out in the late first century B.C. Before 300 B.C., it is manifestly
>>> incorrect, >>>
>>
>> And there evidence for that? THERE ISN'T ANY! It's an HISTORICALLY
>> UNSUPPORTED REVISIONIST FANTASY made up in the 18 and 1900s!
>
>
>
> http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronology/varro.html
>
> The third solution is that of the Roman antiquarian Marcus Terentius
> Varro (116-27), a contemporary of Julius Caesar. He introduced four years
> in
He didn't introduce anything. The years and dictators were already there.
> the second half of our fourth century BCE in which Rome was ruled by
> dictators. These years are, in the Varronian chronology, 333, 324, 309 and
> 301.
>
> There is not one single argument to corroborate this constitutional
BULLSHIT! It's the historical consensus. There isn't a single piece of
historically evidence in order to base a claim questioning its validity. Are
you saying that the years 333, 324, 309 and 301 didn't exist? Well they must
have done otherwise how do you date the death and campaigns of Alexander the
Great and his successors?
> absurdity, which is just an all too transparent attempt to invent
> historical
> precedents for the annual dictatorship of Julius Caesar in 48 BCE. In
> fact,
> there are indications that falsify Varro's idea:
What is TOTALLY ABSURD is the INSANE notion that any ancient historian would
want to make up non existent history and everyone of his contemporaries and
successes would accept it. Not only that you saying that not just one but
every ancient historian did this and yet every historian agreed with it and
every historian made up exactly the same thing at the same time writing
independently from Britain to Syria and that they managed to suppress all
other accounts that said something different so that there is not a mention
of them anywhere. The idea is so NONSENSICAL that it's only basis is PURE
REVISIONIST FANTASY and DENIAL!
>
> a.. Pliny the Elder writes that the career of the popular Roman
> general general Marcus Valerius Corvus lasted 46 years, but it lasts 50
> years in Varro's chronology. The difference disappears when the 'dictator
SO WHAT YOU IGNORANT FOOL?
What's a difference of 4 years? NOTHING!
> years' are ignored. It also means that the treaty between Rome and
> Carthage,
> usually dated to Varronian year 348, was in fact concluded in 344/343 BCE,
You clearly haven't read the texts properly and in any case it makes no
difference whatsoever to the chronologies since there are hundreds if
independent synchronisation points and baselines to use to correct minor and
even major numerical errors.
> exactly at the moment when the Carthaginians are known to have intervened
> in
> a civil war on Syracuse and needed support in Italy.
> b.. Livy writes that in the Varronian year 351, the Romans and the
> inhabitants of Tarquinii concluded a peace treaty for forty years. War
> broke
> out again in the Varronian year 308, which is indeed the fortieth year if
> we
> ignore the dictator years.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, Varro's list contains a second error. Not content with
> the introduction of four extra years, he added four years of anarchy. In
Not content with you misread of what he wrote.
Post where he says he introduced 4 extra years and four years of anarchy on
top of that, and I want to see it in the Latin as well?
> other words, he solved the same problem twice, and the result is that all
Or you misread him twice.
> his dates before 300 BCE are wrong. Nevertheless, the Varronian chronology
> was canonized. The emperor Augustus had it inscribed in his triumphal arch
> (the fragments, called Fasti Capitolini, can be seen in the Capitoline
> Museums in Rome) and most modern scholars use the only Roman chronological
> system that is demonstrably incorrect. Several common errors are:
BULLSHIT! You have not demonstrated that it is incorrect in any way.
> a.. The dating of the invasion of the Gauls in 390; the real date
> can be deduced from the Greek historian Polybius of Megalopolis and is
> 387/386 BCE (World History, 1.6.1-2). There is independent confirmation
> from
> Diodorus of Sicily. (The Roman army was defeated on 18 July. As we have
> already seen above, this can not be identified with 'our' 18 July, but we
> can be almost certain that the invasion took place in the summer/autumn of
> 387, although 386 can not be excluded.)
> b.. The dating of the expulsion of Rome's last king, Tarquin the
> Proud, in 510. Varro must have liked this date, because it offers a nice
> synchronism with the expulsion of the tyrant Hippias from Athens. (And it
Nonsense. For a start the Athenians used a lunar calenderer which began in
July and the Romans used a Solar calendar which began in March. Hippias was
expelled in 511/10 BC. Tarquinus was expelled in 509/8 BC according to the
standard Roman chronology.
> must have been appreciated more generally. Writing a century later, Pliny
> the Elder was also aware of it.). However, it is simply wrong. A fragment
> from the city chronicle of the Greek town Cumae, quoted by the Greek
> scholar
> Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Roman Antiquities, 5.36), proves that the
> battle
> of Aricia in the second or third year of the Roman republic, took place in
> 505/504; this means that the republic was founded in either 507/506 or
> 506/505 (more...).
> c.. The dating of the foundation of Rome in 754/753. Varro obtained
> this year by multiplying the number of known kings, seven, by 35 regnal
> years. It must be noted that there are still Italian scholars who ignore
> the
BULLSHIT! He did nothing of the kind. There were more than 22 known kings
from Aeneas to Superbus and more than 30 before Aeneas and all the lengths
of their reigns were known.
> radiocarbondates and maintain that the hill top villages of Rome were
> united -the equivalent of the founding of a city- in the middle of the
> eighth century, which is a century too late.
Aventinus was buried on the Aventine hill in 818 BC. Your archaeological
conjecture is pure BULLSHIT!
> Although the Varronian dates are clearly erroneous, they can be found
> in almost every publication on the ancient history of Rome.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> but this system is generally used in modern accounts and provides a
>>> fixed
>>> basis against which other traditions for the early period can be
>>> assessed.
>>> From the year 300 B.C. on, the dates and names of the list are accurate.
>>> Before that date, there were various lists in antiquity, that are in
>>> overall agreement. However, for a few years alternative magistrates are
>>> listed. More worryingly, years were at times inserted into the lists to
>>> bring them into line with various preconceived notions of chronology.
>>> ""
>>
>> BULLSHIT!
>
> See above.
>
Yes, its still BULLSHIT!
>
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/Consuls.List.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
Agamemnon
On Aug 18, 12:49 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> <<<That depends on when such tablets were created and by whom.>>.
>
> They were created and kept by the priests of Rome and are therefore
> primary
> civic records just like the tablets found in Egyptian and Hittite temples
> are.
>
<<You are a very sloppy "historian." You continually fail to state the
date of place of the "evidence" you produce, and rarely include
references.>>>
<<<Again, WHEN were such tablets produced and in which temple were they
found. If you don't know say so instead of dodging a legitimate
question again.>>>
I don't have to provided you with any such evidence. The evidence were seen
and accepted by ALL Roman and Greek historians WITHOUT QUESTION! It's
authenticity was proven beyond doubt from PRIMARY SOURCES to their own
satisfaction and formed the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS! There is NOTHING TO
DISCUSS. Even if all the histories of Rome were burned in the fire and
nothing at all survived there would have still be thousands of people who
would have been able to remember reading them or studying them a school so
if there was any deviation in their reconstruction they would have spoken
up. Since these histories were unquestioned there clearly was no deviations.
<<<You have yet to provide evidence for Romulus' books, which you claim
you provided. Be honest and say you don't know instead of
dishonestly dodging the question.>>>
I don't have to provided you with any evidence for Romulus books. I told you
that he wrote the LAWS of Rome and this fact was accepted by ALL Roman and
Greek historians WITHOUT QUESTION! It was proven beyond doubt from PRIMARY
SOURCES to their own satisfaction an formed the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS! There
is NOTHING TO DISCUSS.
> <<<Therefore an undated anonymous tablet is no primary source, tough it
> might be, unless it is part of a collection where a larger context
> give it credibility, like the Assyrian tablets found recently in
> Turkey in an ancient temple.>>.
>
> Which is exactly what the tablets held by the priests of Rome were.
>
<<<A vital difference being that we HAVE the Assyrian tablets but you
don't seem to know where the Roman tablets are or were.>>>
The Romans had the tablets and wrote down what they said and this was
accepted as the by and unquestioned by ALL historians and was therefore the
consensus .
> > The canons of Eratosthenes were also a PRIMARY SOURCE and proven to be
> > historically sound. Their existence and historical validity is
> > UNDISPUTED!
>
> > The list of Roman kings which went back more than 50 generations before
> > Brutus to Morges, Italus and even earlier to Comerus Gallus was a
> > PRIMARY
> > SOURCE. Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
>
> <<<Fifty generations? That is 1500 years. Since Lucius Junius Brutus>>>
>
> Its actually 1100 years,
<<<It's not unless you are innumerate. 50 X 30 = 1500.>>>
The average length of reign was not 30 years you innumerate FOOL!
The first king of Italy after the gods was Ianus Gallus who ruled after the
Ogygian deluge which corresponds to the Thera Eruption of 1628 BC.
> 1200 if you go back to the time of the gods. It
> case already been historically proven from inscriptions that Saturn was
> the
> Minoan Greek king Satur of Crete who reigned in 1700 BC.
>
<<<What does Crete has to do with Roman kings?>>>
It was abundantly clear that you don't have a clue of Roman history from
that statement.
Saturn ruled at Knossos before he was expelled from Crete by Zeus and his
brothers Poseidon and Hades and their allies, after which he settled in
Italy and became king after Ianus in about 1675 BC.
Teucer who all the Roman kings from Aeneas were descended from was
originally from Crete. Read Livy you fool.
> <<<lived c. 500 B.C. that makes the Roman royal lineage beginning around
> 2000 B.C. That's centuries BEFORE Hammurabi, and well before the
> Amorites put an end of the Sumerian empire.>>>
>
> IDIOT!
>
> It takes you to between 1700 and 1600 BC. Hummurabi was about 1800 or 1900
> BC.
>
<<<A generation is the average interval of time between the birth of
parents and the birth of their offspring. Everybody knows it's 30
years, but this poster.>>>
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT BULLSHIT!
We are talking about KINGS you IMBECILE!
<<<Stand at least behind your own words.
"The list of Roman kings which went back more than 50 generations
before Brutus"
50 X 30 + 500 = 2000.>>>
We know all the lengths of reign of these kings and we also know the base
lines on which their reigns are synchronised with Greek, Tyrrhenian,
European and Biblical chronology.
The exact dates (error margin +/-5 years) are these:
OVER ITALY
1700 Janus
1674 Saturn
1663 Jupiter?
1628 <Flood>
1613 Ianus Gallus (Ogyges Saga)
1605 Comerus Gallus
1591 Ochus
1579 Camese (Saturn)
1574 Janus
1554 Cranus Razeus
1540 Aurunus
1529 Tagus Ormah
1519 Sicanus
1511 Enachi Tyrants
1503 Iupiter Iustus Olympicus (Zeus Picus)
1501 Lestrigonians
1489 Herakles Oron (Faunus)
1482 Tuscus
1475 Alteus
1473 Hesperus
1471 Italus Atlanteus Kittim
1466 Morges
1461 Cambon Corythus
1448 Iasius (brother of Daradnus)
1436 Corybantus
OVER TYRRHENIA
1424 Tyrrenus
1411 Tharcon
1388 Abas
1373 Olanus
1352 Veibenus
1310 Oscus
1276 Tharcon
1230 Tiberinus
1200 Mezentius
1178 Tharcon
1158 Ocnus Blanor
1112 Pipinus
1060 Nicius Fesulanus
1013 Piseus
961 Thuscus
922 Amnus
897 Felsinus
854 Bon
826 Atreius
799 Marsias
781 Etalus
742 Coelius
721 Galerius Arbanus Lucomo
701 Lukius
676 Cibitus
635 Lucumo Clusius
577 Rhaetus
557 Hyellus
513 Porcena Clusius
OVER ROME AND ALBA
1455 Roma
1432 Romanessus
1392 Picus
1363 Faunus
1348 Annus
1322 Vulcan
1304 Marte (Mars)
1292 Saturn
1274 Picus
1254/39 Faunus
1210/15 Latinus
1178 Aeneas 3
1175 Ascanius 38
1137 Sylvius Posthumus 29
(1120 Sylvius Latinus 12)
1108 Aenaes Sylvius 31/30
1077 Latinus Sylvius 50
1027 Alba Sylvius 39/38
988 Aegyptus Sylvius 24/26
968 Capis Sylvius 28
936 Carpentus Sylvius 13
923 Tiberinus Sylvius 8
915 Agrippa Sylvius 41
874 Aremulus Sylvius 19
855 Aventinus Sylvius 37
818 Procas Sylvius 23/21
795 Amulius Sylvius 42/44
753-716 Romulus 37
716-715 <no king> 1
715 Numa Pompilius 43
672 Tullus Hostilius 32
640 Ancus Martius 24
616 Targuinius Priscus 38
578 Servius Tullius 44/34
534-509 Tarquinius Superbus 25/35
509 L. Iunius Brutus
<<<And you STATE that Romans kings went back MORE than that. That makes
it EARLIER than 2000 B.C.
That is what YOU wrote, poster.
Take responsibility for your own creepy words, at the very least.>>>
YOU ARE A CLUELESS IMBECILE!
>
>
> > The existence of these PRIMARY SOURCES is NOT AND WAS NEVER IN QUESTION.
>
> <<<Thank you for that. It's nice to be sure.>>>
>
> Get an education.
<<<An education is the process that transforms ignorant certainty into
informed uncertainty.>>>
POPPYCOCK!
<<<Guess which side of "education" you are standing at?>>>
One that is better than yours, since you don't have one.
Agamemnon
On Aug 18, 12:41 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:5d28b4f7-3203-405f...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 17, 2:59 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
>
> > Agamemnon wrote:
> > Not primary sources, are they? Not contemporary sources, so they are
> > secondary sources. And they don't seem to agree as to the history.
>
> <<<To you, me, and other sane people a primary source is one that is
> authoritative and contemporary or near contemporary to the time under
> study.>>>
>
> Which proves you don't have a clue what a primary source actually is.
>
> A primary source is an eye witness account. A kings list or list of
> archons
> is such an account since the kings and archons or tribunes were added to
> it
> as they reigned. An stone tablet or parchment held in protective custody
> in
> a temple is also a primary source as are all those found in Egypt.
<<<A tablet, a list, a canon, a stone can be inscribed at any time by
anyone. Just because they are old it doesn't mean they are primary
sources.>>>
It authenticity was varied by primary witnesses and documents held by the
Romans and their priests. Since this is the historical consensus its
authenticity is UNQUESTIONABLE! There is NO HISTORICAL BASIS WHATSOEVER to
even remotely doubt the existence and historical validity of this tablet
unless you accuse every Roman and all of their historians of being liars,
which is clearly not credible and totally irrational.
Agamemnon
I've already given you the reference and posted the complete text. This is
the historical consensus. All historians say the same thing. You can find
this information in Dionysus and Plutarch, Livy, Eusebius, Jerome, Nennius,
Lynch, and the Book of Invasions among others.
Agamemnon
He is. He has been identified as the Hyksos Pharoah Meruserenre Yakubher who
ruled over Palestine from about 1673 to 1665 BC.
>
> Thousands of years from now, when people dig up space alien movies,
> they'll
> even get to see what they looked like in real life and what kind of gizmos
> they brought to earth.
IDIOT! You clearly can't recognise fact from fiction. That is what
historical revisionism has done to you.
>
>
>>>> Greek, Sicilian and Tyrrhenian records of Romulus and Remus
>>>> contemporaries and predecessors already predate the 4th century BC and
>
> Sort of like movie reviews proving the movies showed real things?
>
IDIOT!
Agamemnon
On Aug 17, 11:43 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > But Romulus is now thought to have been a mythical figure.
>
> NO HE IS NOT!
>
> Just as always the REVISIONIST CHAPERONS leave out over 50 kings of Rome
> and
> Italy who ruled before him, 6 who ruled after him and over 100 Roman
> Tribunes and Consuls which I can name who ruled up to the Gallic Invasion.
>
> How do you account for all of them you REVISIONIST FANTASIST?
>
Renia, my fellow revisionist fantasist, wanna fantasize together?
>
> Since Tarquinius Superbus clearly existed and his existence is TOTALLY
> UNDISPUTED AND BEYOND QUESTION
<<<Do you believe also that the heroic tradition that the monarchy ended
because the son of Tarquinius raped Lucretia, a noble woman, is the
undisputed historical truth?
-------->>>
Of course it it.
<<<The poster has never heard of "independent corroboration" of
historical sources, apparently.>>>
No you haven't have you.
All of these facts were independently corroborated by the Roman state, the
Roman people and their historians and the historians of Greece. This is why
they formed the historical consensus and why the have survived to this day.
Their very existence alone prove their authenticity.
>
> You don't have a clue about history.
<<<I don't think you will ever wonder why the The Cambridge Ancient
History, Volume 7, Part 2: "The Rise of Rome To 220 B.C., completely
fails to mention all the kings before Remulus, whose existence you
claim it's undisputed.>>>
Because it is written by a bunch of IGNORANT CLUELESS REVISIONISTS
How about you actually read something written by the ROMANS themselves!
<<<The poster should explain this strange fact.
On one hand he claims the existence of Roman kingdoms going back
before 2000 B.C.>>>
WRONG! I said up to 1700 BC if you included the gods.
<<<Let us do him the favor of taking a later date 1700 B.C., and he has
later claimed.
How come that the archeological record, regarding human settlements in
Latium, is completely silent until around 1000 B.C., and even then
only sporadic?>>>
THAT IS A LIE! And it is more evidence of your complete cluelessness.
The kings descended from Aeneas who founded Rome ruled first over Lavinium
and then over Alba Longa which was founded 30 years afterwards. You are
digging in the wrong place.
The kings descended from Ianus up to Latinus who ruled over Italy ruled
primarily from Ianiculum and Latinus was based in Laurentium when Aeneas
came to Italy. You are digging in the wrong place.
The existence of Saturn has already been proven. His was the Minoan Greek
king Satur who ruled at Knossos in about 1700 BC.
<<<From 1000 B.C. increasing evidence of settlements and huts all the way
to the stone foundations of the mid seventh century; before 1000 B.C.
zero.
Why did some 23 generations of Roman kings and kingdoms left no trace
at all?>>>
YOU ARE DIGGING IN THE WRONG PLACE YOU IGNORANT FOOL!
<<<The poster who claimed at least 17 times that the story of Romulus is
undisputed historical fact, brings an interesting question. Does the
poster realize that the story says that Romulus had a divine father.>>>
IMBECILE!
Romulus father was either unknown or it was Amulius who raped his own niece.
<<<Does that mean that the pagan god Mars is real, or is that a myth?>>>
Of course Mars is real. He is the Greek god Ares the son of Zeus the son of
Kronos (Saturn), the Minoan Greek king Saasi(tepi) (refered to in German
texts as Istaveon or Ausstaeb, ie Zeus Diwioion) who ruled over Knossos and
over Egypt by the name Sheshi in 1674 BC
<<<Will the poster be able to resolve this difficulty?>>>
The only difficulty is in your TOTAL AND UTTER IGNORANCE!
Agamemnon
On Aug 18, 12:10 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:44a36fa1-ab77-4ca2...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 17, 1:55 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Antiochus is talking about a completly different historical event but a
> > completely different person. Rhomanessus the son of Roma was the
> > original
> > founder of Rome in 1438 BC.
>
> <<<How can Antiochus know what happened more than 1000 years before his
> time with any reliability?>>>
>
> In the same way that we know what happened 1000 years ago in 1066
<<<Not exactly. We HAVE those the sources and evidence for 1066, we do>>>
IMBECILE! The Romans writing in 400 BC had the sources for 1400 BC and 1700
BC.
<<<not have the same for your imaginary Roman kings. Learn the
difference.>>>
Why should we you IMBECILE? Do you know how long paper or parchment or clay
lasts for in the open? We have COPIES you FOOL! Copies whose authenticity
was verified when they were made and is UNCHALLENGED as the historical
consensus. IMBECILE!
The earliest copies of Herodotus and Thucydides that we have only date to
about 900 AD. Does that mean Herodotus and Thucydides didn't exist and
neither did the people and events they recorded? CLUELESS FOOL!
>
> <<<Abandoned? The first human settlements in Rome were in the Palatine
> Hill and date back to 1000 B.C., by people of the Villanovan Culture,
> and since the site has been uninterruptedly inhabited.>>>
>
> COMPLETE AND UTTER FICTION!
>
> We already know from Roman historians that Rome was founded by Romulus the
> son of Aeneas and that its inhabitants were Trojan Greeks.
<<<Again, no references. Some "historian" you are.>>>
POPPYCOCK! I have given you abundant reference and even posed the full text.
Learn to read and understand English.
Agamemnon
Just like I said. You can't tell fact from fiction. "The Invasion" is
branded as a MOVIE not as history you IMBECILE. You clearly shouldn't be
here.
Agamemnon
On Aug 18, 12:37 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> <<<Maybe. But just to be clear, just humor me. Please tell me again the
> books Romulus wrote.>>>
>
> I already answered your question. Go back and read it.
>
<<,I need your help finding it. Please.
Where?>>>
It's earlier on in this thread. Read it. It shouldn't be that difficult.'
>
> <<<That's not what he says in his Sixth Book. He says that records were>>>
>
> WRONG!
>
> <<<scant and most were destroyed. He doesn't mention at any time any
> surviving record of the Foundation of Rome, tablet or otherwise.>>>
>
> WRONG! He mentions many.
<<<Show me where.>>>
In his history.
> Where do you think he got his account from if none
> existed?
<<<He got if from previous historians like Q. Fabious Pictor.>>>
And where do you think they got it from? Their predecessors who only
survived because the were accepted as part of the consensus and therefore
act as defacto primary sources.
>
> <<<To validate your claims you need to show readers books written by
> Romulus. >>>
>
> I don't need to show anything of the kind. Your claim has NO historical
> basis or validity.
<<<It's not my claim. It's YOUR claim. You claimed that there is more>>>
No. It is your claim that they did not exist. NOT ONE ancient historian
agrees with you. You are making it all up.
<<<evidence for Romulus that for Herodotus and Thucydides. We have
copies of books written by Herodotus and Thucydides. For Remulus to
have MORE evidence that Herodotus and Thucydides you need to show that
he wrote at least two books.>>>
BULLSHIT!
More historians mentioned Romulus than they do Herodotus or Thucydides. More
is said about the history of Romulus than that of Herodotus or Thucydides.
Romulus created the laws and constitution of Rome which are recorded by
every Roman historian.
Where is your historical basis for claiming that Romulus did not exist? YOU
DON'T HAVE ONE. IT'S PURE REVISIONIST FANTASY.
> It is PURE FANTASY! Romulus wrote down the laws of Roman
> which were accepted by all Romans as being his work
<<<What is the source of this information? Again, no references.
The earliest Roman written law is the Twelve Tables and it's dated 450
B.C.>>>
Then that proves the existence or Romulus once again, since he made them.
> In order to even
> postulate your ridicules and nonsensical claim you have to show that
> Romulus
> existence was questioned by a significant number Roman historians. You
> can't
> even find one that does this.
>
<<<The poster's claim that no historian up to 1800 disagrees with his
version of the facts is nothing to sneeze at. It means nothing less>>>
It's not my version. IT'S THE HISTORICAL CONSENSUS!
>
> 1438 BC Rome founded by Rhomanessus the son of Roma.
>
> c.1200 BC Rome founded/colonised Romus, the son of Emathion
>
> c.1170 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romanus son of Odysseus and Circe
>
> c.1150 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romulus the son of Aeneas and/or his
> daughter.
>
> c.1120 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romanus the son of Hisicion.
>
> c.923 BC Rome founded/colonised by Tiberinus the son of Carpentus after
> whom
> the Tiber which was previously called the Albula was named.
>
> 797 BC Aventinus the son of Romulus/Aremulus Silvius buried in Rome on the
> Aventine hill named after him.
>
> 753 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romulus the son of Rea Silvia the
> daughter
> of Numitor the brother of Amulius and son of Procas the son of Aventinus.
>
> Clearly you don't have even the remotest clue about the history of Rome.
>
<<<Saying so doesn't make it so. Especially when you STILL have not
posted references for all those "foundations" of Rome. What are you
waiting for?>>>
Yes I have. I posted not just references but the full text. Learn to read.
> There was a line of successive kings of Rome dating back from its
> foundation
> by Rhomanessus the son of Roma, most of whom were named after the city.
>
<<<So you keep saying. Where is the evidence?>>>
The evidence is OVERWHELMING and is the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS. Where is your
evidence against the consensus? So far ZERO and it will always be ZERO.
> > and built temples too for generation after generation and 6 more
> > after him and over 100 tribunes up until the Gauls burned down Rome?
>
<<<Temples? No stone foundation buildings have been found in Rome
dating earlier than the mid seventh century B.C. Where are the
remains of all those temples?>>>
IMBECILE! When was the Gallic invasion? 390 BC. Plenty of stone temples by
then and temples do not have to be of stone. The first temples were make of
wood. Look at the Phoenician temple of Herakles which the temple of Solomon
was based on.
> <<So the fact that people build temples to something makes that
> something real?>>>
>
> Yes.
>
> <<<So the gods Jupiter and Mars are real?>>>
>
> Yes. Their historical existence was UNDISPUTED!
>
<<<And where are these gods now?>>>
They are in the heavens with our ancestors.
> They were historical Greek kings who ruled between 1700 and 1600 BC who
> were
> deified and called Theoi or Disposers because of the wonderful things they
> did for mankind. Read Herodotus.
>
> <<<So because the Vatican exists, that makes St. Peter a historical
> figure?>>>
>
> Of course he was.
>
<<<What's the evidence of the historicity of St. Peter other than the
biased claims by the Church and the Church's friends?>>>
The existence of the Church itself and the historical consensus.
>
> <<<Plutarch(c. AD 46 � 120) relates that the story was thought to be
> fiction "by some.">>>
>
> <<<"Although most of these particulars are related by Fabius and Diocles
> of Peparethus, who seems to have been the first to publish a "Founding
> of Rome," some are suspicious of their fictitious and fabulous
> quality."
>
> Edward Gibbon, (1737-1794), Roman historian, thought Romulus was
> fiction.>>>
>
> So you can't quote Plutarch but quote the revisionist founder Gibbon
> because
> you are a LIAR!
>
<<<Try to keep with the program. Pay attention. The quote above is from
Plutarch's Lives, the Live of Romulus in particular. Which you
obviously have not read either.>>>
LIAR! It is you that had not reading otherwise you would not have described
Fastulus as a shepherd, when he clearly was a livestock farmar. I having
read Plutarch knew he was called a pig farmer.
When are you going to start reading Plutarch?
<<<Both Plutarch and Gibbon refute your claim that nobody disputed the
veracity of Remulus before 1800, whether you like Plutarch and Gibbons
or not.>>>
LIAR!
Gibbon is a revisionist FANTASISTS and Plutarch is part of the historical
consensus who accepts Romulus' existance without question.
> This is what Plutarch actually says about the account about the wolf
>
> "Others think that the first rise of this fable came from the children's
> nurse, through the ambiguity of her name; for the Latins not only called
> wolves lupoe, but also women of loose life; and such an one was the wife
> of
> Faustulus, who nurtured these children, Acca Larentia by name. To her the
> Romans offer sacrifices, and in the month of April the priest of Mars
> makes
> libations there; it is called the Larentian Feast."
>
<<<He got it from Livy. You would know that if you had read some Livy in
your life.>>>
LIAR!
<<<That is no evidence that Romulus existed, by the way. Try to quote
something relevant to your claims.>>>
LIAR!
Why would the Romans make up Romulus and still believe in over 50 other
kings and over 100 tribunes either side of him to the Gallic invasion?
You claim have NO basis whatsoever in either fact or rationality.
> And earlier Plutarch calls Faustulus a swineherd
>
> "Meantime Faustulus, Amulius's swineherd, brought up the children without
> any man's knowledge; or, as those say who wish to keep closer to
> probabilities, with the knowledge and secret assistance of Numitor"
>
> Thus my assertion that he was a farmer is correct and more accurate than
> your description of him as a shepherd. So apologise.
>
<<<Fuck you.
Plutarch was a GREEK historian writing almost a hundred years after
Livy, one of the most eminent ROMAN historians, who says the tradition
has Faustulus being a flock-master.
When is the last time you saw a flock of swine?
Livy calls Faustulus: "magister regii pecoris"
Pecus, pecoris - cattle, a flock, especially of sheep.>>>
So once again you have shown that you were completely WRONG and that I was
always right in calling him a livestock farmer.
Where is your apology?
<<<So the phrase is properly translated as the, "king's flock-master"
So much for your universal CONSENSUS on Romulus story.>>>
IMBECILE! The consensus is that he was livestock farmer.
<<<You keep forgetting to address the second half of your INCORRECT
assertion that the "farmer Faustulus and his wife" found the twins.
Why is that?>>>
It is answered by Plutarch and Livy, FOOL!
<<<Which historian says that that Faustulus AND HIS WIFE, found the
twins?>>>
Plutarch and Livy for a start FOOL!
I already posted you the exact question but as usual you deliberately ignore
them because you are in denial just like all revisionist CHARLATANS.
Surreyman
> Agamemnon wrote:
>
>
> > <<<Let's be fair. This chap does have a point.
> > After all, you can't disprove that London was founded by the Hebrew
> > tribe of Dan.>>>
>
> > which before had been called Trinovantum or new Troy when it was founded
> > by Brutus in about 1100 BC.
>
> > the bible from the Greeks since it was the Danaans who are known to be
> > Greeks from Egyptian inscriptions.
>
> There you go. I knew this was coming.
I should have known better!
Surreyman
Surreyman
> "Surreyman" <alandavid.spen...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> On 18 Aug, 05:37, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 12:00 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > > "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> > > On Aug 17, 8:33 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > > > "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > On Aug 16, 8:12 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> > > > >>>>> Herodotus and Thucydides
> > > > >>>> We HAVE BOOKS written by Herodotus and Thucydides.
> > > > >>>> Can you point out to any written works by Romulus?
> > > > >> The poster can't answer my question. Noted.
> > > > >> So much for "There is more evidence for Romulus
> > > > >> than there is for Herodotus and Thucydides"
> > > > > I have answered your idiotic questions. Clearly you cannot read.
>
> > > > <<<Where did you answered? Show me.>>>
>
> > > > Read my previous reply.
>
> > > <<<I have. There is no answer to my question there.>>
>
> > > Then it is abundantly clear that you cannot read.
>
> > <<<Maybe. But just to be clear, just humor me. Please tell me again the
> > books Romulus wrote.>>>
>
> > I already answered your question. Go back and read it.
>
> > > > imbecile.
> > > > Dionysus job was therefore relatively simple.
>
> > > <<<Livy doesn't think so. See below.>>>
>
> > > WRONG! Livy know full well that the primary sources existed as did
> > > Dionysus
> > > of Halicarnassus.
>
> > <<<That's not what he says in his Sixth Book. He says that records were>>>
>
> > WRONG!
>
> > <<<scant and most were destroyed. He doesn't mention at any time any
> > surviving record of the Foundation of Rome, tablet or otherwise.>>>
>
> > none
> > existed?
>
> > <<<To validate your claims you need to show readers books written by
> > Romulus. >>>
>
> > I don't need to show anything of the kind. Your claim has NO historical
> > Roman
> > which were accepted by all Romans as being his work. In order to even
> > postulate your ridicules and nonsensical claim you have to show that
> > Romulus
> > existence was questioned by a significant number Roman historians. You
> > can't
> > even find one that does this.
>
> > > and believed in over 50 made up kings before Romulus who they worshiped
> > > a
> > > demi-gods
>
> > <<<What Roman kings can there have been before Romulus if he was the
> > founder of the city?>>>
>
> > IDIOT!
>
> > 1438 BC Rome founded by Rhomanessus the son of Roma.
>
> > c.1200 BC Rome founded/colonised Romus, the son of Emathion
>
> > c.1170 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romanus son of Odysseus and Circe
>
> > c.1150 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romulus the son of Aeneas and/or his
> > daughter.
>
> > c.1120 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romanus the son of Hisicion.
>
> > c.923 BC Rome founded/colonised by Tiberinus the son of Carpentus after
> > whom
> > the Tiber which was previously called the Albula was named.
>
> > 797 BC Aventinus the son of Romulus/Aremulus Silvius buried in Rome on the
> > Aventine hill named after him.
>
> > 753 BC Rome founded/colonised by Romulus the son of Rea Silvia the
> > daughter
> > of Numitor the brother of Amulius and son of Procas the son of Aventinus.
>
> > Clearly you don't have even the remotest clue about the history of Rome.
>
> > foundation
> > by Rhomanessus the son of Roma, most of whom were named after the city.
>
> > > after him and over 100 tribunes up until the Gauls burned down Rome?
>
> > something real?>>>
>
> > Yes.
>
> > <<<So the gods Jupiter and Mars are real?>>>
>
> > Yes. Their historical existence was UNDISPUTED!
>
> > were
> > deified and called Theoi or Disposers because of the wonderful things they
> > did for mankind. Read Herodotus.
>
> > <<<So because the Vatican exists, that makes St. Peter a historical
> > figure?>>>
>
> > Of course he was.
>
> > that makes the mother of Jesus real?>>>
>
> > YOU ARE AN IMBECILE!
>
> > There were thousands of Jews who lived in 30AD who were called Jesus. How
> > do
> > you thing they were born without a mother? You don't have a clue about
> > history.
>
> > > > Do you know what obscurity means? Clearly you don't. It means that it
> > > > is
> > > > little known of, not that it isn't reliably. Get an education you
> > > > fool.
>
> > > <<<The poster now claims that obscurity is reliable. Amazing.>>>
>
> > > IMBECILE! You clearly don't know the meaning of the word.
>
> > > Obscure means LITTLE KNOWN!
>
> > <<<Fine, so little is LITTLE IS KNOWN about the Foundation of Rome and
> > the early times, yet you claim that every abundant particular detail
> > is true.
>
> > If LITTLE is known why is that you claim to know all the kings, how
> > long they reigned, and all the important details about Romulus and
> > Remus from birth to death?
>
> > That is not consistent with LITTLE KNOWN, but much known rather.
>
> > Make up your mind.>>>
>
> > CLUELESS IMBECILE!
>
> > You don't even know the meaning of the word little. It clearly implies
> > that
> > something was know and that includes the names of its kings and the number
> > of years they reigned.
>
> > > A primary Roman historian tells you that this source existed and NOT ONE
> > > other Roman historian see fit to challenged him on this since he
> > > represents
> > > the historical consensus.
>
> > <<<Existence of a source does not guarantee the truth of what the source
> > says.>>>
>
> > The fact that it was accepted to be the historical consensus and was
> > TOTALLY
> > UNDISPUTED AND BEYOND QUESTION does.
>
> > > Yet despite this evidence and the fact that NOT ONE ancient historical
> > > challenge the existence and historicity of Romulus and Remus let alone
> > > said
> > > that they were made up, you expect us to believe your REVISIONIST
> > > FANTASY
> > > which does not appear until after 1800 AD that they were.
>
> > <<<False.>>>
>
> > LIAR!
>
> > <<<Plutarch(c. AD 46 – 120) relates that the story was thought to be
> > fiction "by some.">>>
>
> > <<<"Although most of these particulars are related by Fabius and Diocles
> > of Peparethus, who seems to have been the first to publish a "Founding
> > of Rome," some are suspicious of their fictitious and fabulous
> > quality."
>
> > Edward Gibbon, (1737-1794), Roman historian, thought Romulus was
> > fiction.>>>
>
> > So you can't quote Plutarch but quote the revisionist founder Gibbon
> > because
> > you are a LIAR!
>
>
> > "Others think that the first rise of this fable came from the children's
> > nurse, through the ambiguity of her name; for the Latins not only called
> > wolves lupoe, but also women of loose life; and such an one was the wife
> > of
> > Faustulus, who nurtured these children, Acca Larentia by name. To her the
> > Romans offer sacrifices, and in the month of April the priest of Mars
> > makes
> > libations there; it is called the Larentian Feast."
>
>
> > "Meantime Faustulus, Amulius's swineherd, brought up the children without
> > any man's knowledge; or, as those say who wish to keep closer to
> > probabilities, with the knowledge and secret assistance of Numitor"
>
> > Thus my assertion that he was a farmer is correct and more accurate than
> > your description of him as a shepherd. So apologise.
>
>
> > > > <<<Livy doesn't think so:
>
> > > > "[N]early all [written records] perished in the conflagration of the
> > > > City">>>
>
> > > > Do you know what the word NEARLY means?
>
> > > <<<How can you be so sure that the few records that survived were
> > > precisely those concerning your argument?>>>
>
> > > BECAUSE ALL THE ROMAN WRITERS COPIED THEM!
>
> > <<<How can you possibly know that?>>>
>
> > Because they say so. IDIOT!
>
> > > > > BULLSHIT! Livy cites NO contrary accounts to the FACT the Romulus
> > > > > and
> > > > > Remus
> > > > > were found by this flock-master.
>
> > > > <<<But YOU do. You claim they were found by a farmer AND HIS WIFE,
> > > > which
> > > > is false.>>>
>
> > > > WRONG!
>
> > > <<<Show me the ancient source that claims that a farmer AND HIS WIFE
> > > FOUND the twins. Can you?>>>
>
> > > It has already been shown to you. ALL Roman historians say the same
> > > thing.
>
> > <<<"I can't, so I'll just lie and say I did.">>>
>
> > Yes you do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> <<<Let's be fair. This chap does have a point.
> After all, you can't disprove that London was founded by the Hebrew
> tribe of Dan.>>>
>
> London was founded by Lud the king of the Britons who ruled in 73 BC, which
> before had been called Trinovantum or new Troy when it was founded by Brutus
> in about 1100 BC.
>
> Besides which the Hebrew tribe of Dan was plagiarised by the authors of the
> bible from the Greeks since it was the Danaans who are known to be Greeks
>
> - Show quoted text -
They spoke Latin in London in 1100BC?
Surreyman
Surreyman
Hence the residual restaurants.
Surreyman
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:85fff866-778a-403c...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 12:49 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <<<That depends on when such tablets were created and by whom.>>.
>
> > They were created and kept by the priests of Rome and are therefore
> > primary
> > civic records just like the tablets found in Egyptian and Hittite temples
> > are.
>
> <<You are a very sloppy "historian." You continually fail to state the
> date of place of the "evidence" you produce, and rarely include
> references.>>>
>
> <<<Again, WHEN were such tablets produced and in which temple were they
> found. If you don't know say so instead of dodging a legitimate
> question again.>>>
>
> I don't have to provided you with any such evidence.
On the contrary old chap, what you say without references is babble,
with references might be information.
Learn the difference.
> The evidence were seen
> and accepted by ALL Roman and Greek historians WITHOUT QUESTION!
Repeating falsehoods does not improve their truth content around
here.
I quoted Plutarch expressing doubts about the veracity of the
story.
Ignoring contrary evidence is bad form, poster.
>
> <<<You have yet to provide evidence for Romulus' books, which you claim
> you provided. Be honest and say you don't know instead of
> dishonestly dodging the question.>>>
>
> I don't have to provided you with any evidence for Romulus books.
Providing references is for YOUR benefit not mine, so that readers can
-- perhaps -- stop laughing at you and see that there is a little
substance behind your frenzied babble.
> I told you that he wrote the LAWS of Rome and this fact was accepted by ALL Roman
> and Greek historians WITHOUT QUESTION!
And I told you that you are dead wrong. And unless you provide
references for your claim you are dead in the water.
> It was proven beyond doubt from PRIMARY
> SOURCES to their own satisfaction an formed the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS! There
> is NOTHING TO DISCUSS.
>
Your gratuitous assertions persuade no one but yourself, do you
realize that?
>
> The Romans had the tablets and wrote down what they said and this was
> accepted as the by and unquestioned by ALL historians and was therefore the
> consensus .
>
They it should be easy for you to find some references about Romulus
books.
What are you waiting for?
> > > The list of Roman kings which went back more than 50 generations before
> > > Brutus to Morges, Italus and even earlier to Comerus Gallus was a
> > > PRIMARY
> > > SOURCE. Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
>
> > <<<Fifty generations? That is 1500 years. Since Lucius Junius Brutus>>>
>
> > Its actually 1100 years,
>
> <<<It's not unless you are innumerate. 50 X 30 = 1500.>>>
>
> The average length of reign was not 30 years you innumerate FOOL!
You did not write "reigns" you wrote "generations." Are you blind
too?
>
> The first king of Italy after the gods was Ianus Gallus who ruled after the
> Ogygian deluge which corresponds to the Thera Eruption of 1628 BC.
>
References?
>
> > It takes you to between 1700 and 1600 BC. Hummurabi was about 1800 or 1900
> > BC.
>
> <<<A generation is the average interval of time between the birth of
> parents and the birth of their offspring. Everybody knows it's 30
> years, but this poster.>>>
>
> COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT BULLSHIT!
>
> We are talking about KINGS you IMBECILE!
Are we? You WROTE generations. Kings have also generations from
their birth to the birth of their offspring, just like anyone else,
and the average is 30 years, just like for other people.
Unless you provide references for all those dates and name, readers
will continue to believe you just pulled them out of your proliferous
ass.
Tiglath
More babble.
Yet you are UNABLE to provide evidence that any such tablet was
created by an eye witness and that they were not lying.
Let me give you a clue on how you might do that. Find several
INDEPENDENT sources that agree on the question, and then your claim
will have a foothold. Failing to do that it's just bunk and babble.
Tiglath
The usual tactic of lying.
You HAVE NOT provided ANY references for various "foundations" of Rome
as you list above.
If that is the consensus why is it so hard for you to find the source
of that list?
Let's see it.
This is
> the historical consensus. All historians say the same thing. You can find
> this information in Dionysus and Plutarch, Livy, Eusebius, Jerome, Nennius,
> Lynch, and the Book of Invasions among others.
It's not up to your readers to find evidence for your claims, it's
your responsibility to provide it.
Let us see where Dionysus and Plutarch, Livy, Eusebius, etc., mention
that list.
Quote them.
I bet you can't
Tiglath
>
> > How do you account for all of them you REVISIONIST FANTASIST?
>
> Renia, my fellow revisionist fantasist, wanna fantasize together?
>
>
>
> > Since Tarquinius Superbus clearly existed and his existence is TOTALLY
> > UNDISPUTED AND BEYOND QUESTION
>
> <<<Do you believe also that the heroic tradition that the monarchy ended
> because the son of Tarquinius raped Lucretia, a noble woman, is the
> undisputed historical truth?
>
> -------->>>
>
> Of course it it.
>
>
> All of these facts were independently corroborated by the Roman state, the
> Roman people and their historians and the historians of Greece. This is why
> they formed the historical consensus and why the have survived to this day.
> Their very existence alone prove their authenticity.
>
Brilliant. So the very existence of the record of a story makes the
story truthful.
How can a Greek historian independently corroborate a Roman tale?
He has to depend on the Romans.
>
>
> > You don't have a clue about history.
>
Don't worry about me, when I get bored with your madness I'll leave.
> <<<I don't think you will ever wonder why the The Cambridge Ancient
> History, Volume 7, Part 2: "The Rise of Rome To 220 B.C., completely
> fails to mention all the kings before Remulus, whose existence you
> claim it's undisputed.>>>
>
> Because it is written by a bunch of IGNORANT CLUELESS REVISIONISTS
>
Why is it that I saw that coming?
You are so predictable it's getting tedious.
> How about you actually read something written by the ROMANS themselves!
Well The Cambridge is sum of all ancient information, collated by well-
respected academics (except by you) where you can easily separate what
the sources say from the editor's comments.
In other words books by people who know more history than me and a
hell of a lot more history than you.
They are periodically updated with new information, and are the
Standard of academia.
Your disregard for such works, shows that you are as scholarly as a
slug.
How did all that dogmatic sewage get into your head?
>
> <<<The poster should explain this strange fact.
>
> On one hand he claims the existence of Roman kingdoms going back
> before 2000 B.C.>>>
>
> WRONG! I said up to 1700 BC if you included the gods.
>
> <<<Let us do him the favor of taking a later date 1700 B.C., and he has
> later claimed.
>
> How come that the archeological record, regarding human settlements in
> Latium, is completely silent until around 1000 B.C., and even then
> only sporadic?>>>
>
> THAT IS A LIE! And it is more evidence of your complete cluelessness.
>
I remain open to persuasion, but not by babble. You MUST show
references, if you are to be believed.
<snip more babble devoid of references>
What part of "Please provide references" is that you do not
understand?
> <<<From 1000 B.C. increasing evidence of settlements and huts all the way
> to the stone foundations of the mid seventh century; before 1000 B.C.
> zero.
>
> Why did some 23 generations of Roman kings and kingdoms left no trace
> at all?>>>
>
> YOU ARE DIGGING IN THE WRONG PLACE YOU IGNORANT FOOL!
>
Where is the RIGHT place?
In the crust deep hole you are digging for yourself in this thread,
did you find any Neolithic Roman remains?
> <<<The poster who claimed at least 17 times that the story of Romulus is
> undisputed historical fact, brings an interesting question. Does the
> poster realize that the story says that Romulus had a divine father.>>>
>
> IMBECILE!
>
> Romulus father was either unknown or it was Amulius who raped his own niece.
>
Historians say it was Mars.
> <<<Does that mean that the pagan god Mars is real, or is that a myth?>>>
>
> Of course Mars is real. He is the Greek god Ares the son of Zeus the son of
> Kronos (Saturn), the Minoan Greek king Saasi(tepi) (refered to in German
> texts as Istaveon or Ausstaeb, ie Zeus Diwioion) who ruled over Knossos and
> over Egypt by the name Sheshi in 1674 BC
Where is Mars now?
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f7cdedbf-6a45-48bd...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 12:10 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:44a36fa1-ab77-4ca2...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 17, 1:55 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > > Antiochus is talking about a completly different historical event but a
> > > completely different person. Rhomanessus the son of Roma was the
> > > original
> > > founder of Rome in 1438 BC.
>
> > <<<How can Antiochus know what happened more than 1000 years before his
> > time with any reliability?>>>
>
> > In the same way that we know what happened 1000 years ago in 1066
>
> <<<Not exactly. We HAVE those the sources and evidence for 1066, we do>>>
>
> IMBECILE! The Romans writing in 400 BC had the sources for 1400 BC and 1700
> BC.
>
That is not the same. WE don't have them, and it is us who want to
have the primary references without intermediaries.
Learn the difference.
>
> The earliest copies of Herodotus and Thucydides that we have only date to
> about 900 AD. Does that mean Herodotus and Thucydides didn't exist and
> neither did the people and events they recorded? CLUELESS FOOL!
>
Copies of a record will reproduce the record with more or less
mistakes, but it is still a copy.
Works by ancient historian separated centuries from the events, are
not copies of sources, they are interpretations.
An interpretation of a source is not a copy. Learn the difference,
tiresome moron.
Agamemnon
On Aug 19, 5:45 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f7cdedbf-6a45-48bd...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 12:10 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:44a36fa1-ab77-4ca2...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 17, 1:55 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > > Antiochus is talking about a completly different historical event but
> > > a
> > > completely different person. Rhomanessus the son of Roma was the
> > > original
> > > founder of Rome in 1438 BC.
>
> > <<<How can Antiochus know what happened more than 1000 years before his
> > time with any reliability?>>>
>
> > In the same way that we know what happened 1000 years ago in 1066
>
> <<<Not exactly. We HAVE those the sources and evidence for 1066, we do>>>
>
> IMBECILE! The Romans writing in 400 BC had the sources for 1400 BC and
> 1700
> BC.
>
<<<That is not the same. WE don't have them, and it is us who want to
have the primary references without intermediaries.>>>
IRREVERENT BULLSHIT!
The Romans had them and all their historians said the same thing and formed
the historical consensus therefore the existence and provenance of these
sources is not and has never been disputed. It is totally irrelevant weather
or not we still have the original sources. The original television
recordings of the first moon landing have been lost, but that does not mean
that Neil Armstrong didn't set foot on the moon. Only a deranged crank would
dispute that.
>
> The earliest copies of Herodotus and Thucydides that we have only date to
> about 900 AD. Does that mean Herodotus and Thucydides didn't exist and
> neither did the people and events they recorded? CLUELESS FOOL!
>
<<<Copies of a record will reproduce the record with more or less
mistakes, but it is still a copy.
Works by ancient historian separated centuries from the events, are
not copies of sources, they are interpretations.
An interpretation of a source is not a copy. Learn the difference,
tiresome moron.>>>
COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT!
Ancient historians did not make interpretations. That is what lying modern
historical revisionists do. Ancient historians wrote down what was written
in their sources word for word or redacted it word for word so that all the
essential facts were conveyed. We have primary testimony of this and we have
the record of the historial consensus. The existence of Romulus and the over
50 kings who reigned before him and those that reigned after him was NEVER
disputed. It was the peer reviewed historical consensus and beyone
questione. There is NO HISTORICAL BASIS WHATSOEVER to doubt the existence of
Romulus.
Agamemnon
On Aug 19, 5:01 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:85fff866-778a-403c...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 12:49 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <<<That depends on when such tablets were created and by whom.>>.
>
> > They were created and kept by the priests of Rome and are therefore
> > primary
> > civic records just like the tablets found in Egyptian and Hittite
> > temples
> > are.
>
> <<You are a very sloppy "historian." You continually fail to state the
> date of place of the "evidence" you produce, and rarely include
> references.>>>
>
> <<<Again, WHEN were such tablets produced and in which temple were they
> found. If you don't know say so instead of dodging a legitimate
> question again.>>>
>
> I don't have to provided you with any such evidence.
<<<On the contrary old chap, what you say without references is babble,
with references might be information.:>>>
You don't have a shred of on evidence on which to even remotely base your
nonsensical and deranged denial of the existence of Romulus. Your denial is
PURE REVISIONIST DENIALIST FANTASY whereas I have provided overwhelming
evidence for the existence of Romulus in the historical consensus.
> The evidence were seen
> and accepted by ALL Roman and Greek historians WITHOUT QUESTION!
<<<Repeating falsehoods does not improve their truth content around
here.>>>
I am not repeating any falsehoods, you are. What I have referred to is the
provenance of the historical accounts.
<<<I quoted Plutarch expressing doubts about the veracity of the
story.>>>
You are a LIAR and quoted nothing of the kind. Plutarch expressed complete
agreement with the story of Romulus foundation of Rome and his existence. He
did not question either in any way.
<<<Ignoring contrary evidence is bad form, poster.>>>
There is no contrary evidence. All you have is LIES and DISSEMBLINGS. This
is the typical style of historical revisionists, to twist, dissemble and
omit the words of ancient historians to say something which they clearly did
not.
>
> <<<You have yet to provide evidence for Romulus' books, which you claim
> you provided. Be honest and say you don't know instead of
> dishonestly dodging the question.>>>
>
> I don't have to provided you with any evidence for Romulus books.
<<<Providing references is for YOUR benefit not mine, so that readers can
-- perhaps -- stop laughing at you and see that there is a little
substance behind your frenzied babble.>>>
The historical consensus states that Romulus wrote the laws of Rome and this
had a verified and undisputed provenance based on the corroborated and peer
reviewed accounts of primary documents and eyewitnesses and was never the
subject of any dispute. I am not requited to provided you with a single word
that Romulus wrote, not did he have to write anything. The fact that all
historians testify to his existence and their accounts all had verified
provenance makes his existence the DEFAULT POSITION of historical science.
If you wish to dispute Romulus existence you are required not only to
provide at least one verified historical account that says something to the
effect that not only was there no Romulus and some other king founded Rome
instead (because Rome must have had a founder given that there were at least
7 kings who ruled over it and over 50 earlier kings that had control over
it), but you must also proved that that was the accepted consensus. You
can't even provided evidence for the first clause let alone that it was the
consensus.
> I told you that he wrote the LAWS of Rome and this fact was accepted by
> ALL Roman
> and Greek historians WITHOUT QUESTION!
<<<And I told you that you are dead wrong. And unless you provide
references for your claim you are dead in the water.>>.
YOU DON'T HAVE EVEN ONE SINGLE SHRED OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR
RIDICULOUS CLAIMS
> It was proven beyond doubt from PRIMARY
> SOURCES to their own satisfaction an formed the HISTORICAL CONSENSUS!
> There
> is NOTHING TO DISCUSS.
>
>
> The Romans had the tablets and wrote down what they said and this was
> accepted as the by and unquestioned by ALL historians and was therefore
> the
> consensus .
>
> > > The list of Roman kings which went back more than 50 generations
> > > before
> > > Brutus to Morges, Italus and even earlier to Comerus Gallus was a
> > > PRIMARY
> > > SOURCE. Their existence and historical validity is UNDISPUTED!
>
> > <<<Fifty generations? That is 1500 years. Since Lucius Junius Brutus>>>
>
> > Its actually 1100 years,
>
> <<<It's not unless you are innumerate. 50 X 30 = 1500.>>>
>
> The average length of reign was not 30 years you innumerate FOOL!
<<<You did not write "reigns" you wrote "generations." Are you blind
too?>>>
I wrote both, and a generation is not 30 years and has never been accepted
as such.
>
> The first king of Italy after the gods was Ianus Gallus who ruled after
> the
> Ogygian deluge which corresponds to the Thera Eruption of 1628 BC.
>
<<<References?>>>
Dionysus, Antiochus, Sempronius, Berosus, John Nikiu, Annius, Lynche et. al.
>
> > It takes you to between 1700 and 1600 BC. Hummurabi was about 1800 or
> > 1900
> > BC.
>
> <<<A generation is the average interval of time between the birth of
> parents and the birth of their offspring. Everybody knows it's 30
> years, but this poster.>>>
>
> COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT BULLSHIT!
>
> We are talking about KINGS you IMBECILE!
<<<Are we? You WROTE generations. Kings have also generations from>>>
I said KINGS YOU ILLITERATE LYING IMBECILE!
I have already provided references. The above is the undisputed historical
consensus. If you wish to question it then you are required to provide an
alternate king list which covers the same period of time and proved that
that was the accepted consensus and not what I have quoted. The DEFAULT
POSITION of ALL genuine historians is the acceptance of the above list.