Error Corrections

[Kosmo]

The excelent article on Dacia mentions that it was used as a base for wars on Parthia. I don't think that is correct or even possible. (americans recently established an airbase in Scythia Minor for control of the Middle East, but romans had no jetfighters)

The provided map of the province in the article it is debatable as it is not known if the regions east of Carpathians mountains were ever under roman control. If they were this lasted for only ten years when Hadrian partialy withdrew. The same with some western parts of Dacia.

 

The UNRV wallpaper map shows Dacia's borders more accurate.

[Primus Pilus]

The excelent article on Dacia mentions that it was used as a base for wars on Parthia. I don't think that is correct or even possible. (americans recently established an airbase in Scythia Minor for control of the Middle East, but romans had no jetfighters).

 

Yes, I think my point lacked clarity. I meant to suggest that the military frontier was essentially a staging ground for veteran legionaries. Vexillations moved to and fro from the Danubian region as they were needed on the the various frontiers because of Dacia's excellent central location. Regardless, the point is not necessary and I removed the sentence.

[Alphaeus of Gadara]

I noticed a couple of issues in my browsings:

 

In the page at: http://www.unrv.com/empire/timeline-4th-century.php

 

The historian and Christian Eusebius is placed as the new bishop of Rome after opposition to Marcellus forces him into exile.

 

That is noted for 308 AD.

 

Among the several bishops named Eusebius in the fourth century the one known for being a historian was Eusebius of Caesarea (AKA Eusebius Pamphili). He didn't become a bishop until 313 or 314, and wasn't bishop in Rome.

 

It seems that the main significance of Eusebius of Rome involved the interference of Maxentius in church affairs. Conflicts within the church were causing disruptions so Marcellus was removed, and a few months later Eusebius of Rome was also removed. Henry Wace's

Dictionary of Christian Biography tells the story, which involved disagreements about reaccepting people who had denied Christianity during Diocletian's persecution.

 

 

In the page at: http://www.unrv.com/provinces/syria.php

 

In Syria itself however, the independence of their culture was under constant train. The Assyrian Nebuchadnezzar overran Syria in the 8th century BC and was soon followed by the Babylonians a century later.

 

I'm guessing that should say "constant strain", and then have a comment about how "The Assyrians under Tiglath-Pileser III overran Syria in the 8th century BC and were soon followed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar in the next century."

 

It was about 140 years later, so I'd suggest not just saying "a century later", though the influence of the Babylonians may have been felt before they arrived.

[Primus Pilus]

I noticed a couple of issues in my browsings:

 

The historian and Christian Eusebius is placed as the new bishop of Rome after opposition to Marcellus forces him into exile.

 

That is noted for 308 AD

 

Indeed just a flat out error... the line has been removed rather than edited. Thanks.

 

I'm guessing that should say "constant strain", and then have a comment about how "The Assyrians under Tiglath-Pileser III overran Syria in the 8th century BC and were soon followed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar in the next century."

 

It was about 140 years later, so I'd suggest not just saying "a century later", though the influence of the Babylonians may have been felt before they arrived.

 

Point taken... I'll make a slight clarification (in addition to correcting the typo). Thanks!

[Alphaeus of Gadara]

 

The historian and Christian Eusebius is placed as the new bishop of Rome after opposition to Marcellus forces him into exile.

 

That is noted for 308 AD

 

Indeed just a flat out error... the line has been removed rather than edited. Thanks.

 

I'm guessing that should say "constant strain", and then have a comment about how "The Assyrians under Tiglath-Pileser III overran Syria in the 8th century BC and were soon followed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar in the next century."

 

It was about 140 years later, so I'd suggest not just saying "a century later", though the influence of the Babylonians may have been felt before they arrived.

 

Point taken... I'll make a slight clarification (in addition to correcting the typo). Thanks!

 

 

The 308 note in the timeline (about Eusebius replacing Marcellus) looks like it was meant to follow up on the comment about Marcellus in 307

Marcellus is appointed as the new bishop of Rome.

So if the one is just going the other probably should as well. Fine by me, anyway.

 

The newly adjusted text in the Syrian history says:

The Assyrian Nebuchadnezzar overran Syria in the 8th century BC and was soon followed by the Babylonians roughly a century and a half later.

 

The rephrasing I suggested in my earlier message included a couple of changes which I didn't specifically mention in my comments immediately after the rephrasing, which were based on correcting Nebuchadnezzar's identity as a Babylonian king.

 

So now if those changes were incorporated it would be more like: "The Assyrians under Tiglath-Pileser III overran Syria in the 8th century BC and were soon followed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar roughly a century and a half later."

 

I had brought up the bit about the 140 year timing earlier because I thought it wasn't clear how that aspect of the issue should be reflected in the text, but I was actually more interested in having the correct naming. Sorry to have caused confusion.

 

Circles are so neat, the way they keep going back to where they started, huh? : )

[Primus Pilus]

Not a problem... just the fault of trying to do too many things at once without giving full attention to a single one of them

 

Both items now corrected... thanks again.

[agamemnus]

Hi Primus,

 

Not sure if the message system is working... I sent you two messages so far. Anyway, I'll post here.

 

Under the lead article, http://www.unrv.com/economy/lead.php, you have this:

 

It's not surprising that Lead has been associated as a potential major factor in the fall of the Roman Empire. Lead is known to cause a variety of disastrous illnesses along with sterility, which was prevalent in late Roman society, and it obviously had a major presence in manor facets of Roman life. Its likely that lead played a minor role in comparison to other factors, but when combined with all other pressures, there is no doubt that it had an impact.

 

However, the impact of lead on the fall of the Roman Empire was apparently quickly disproven, or cast into major doubt, almost as soon as it was popularized in the 80s, according to the research here:

 

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html

Edited August 28, 2010 by agamemnus

[Primus Pilus]

Indeed, the use of the term "no doubt" is clearly too strong. I've modified it.

 

Thanks.

 

Chris

[agamemnus]

Indeed, the use of the term "no doubt" is clearly too strong. I've modified it.

 

Thanks.

 

Chris

 

 

I think, after reading the above article I mentioned, that this statement is too strong, as well: " and it obviously had a major presence in manor facets of Roman life."

 

 

Regardless of whatever you decide about that, I caught some spelling errors/typos in the same paragraph, bolded:

 

It's not surprising that lead (lower case L..) has been associated as a potential major factor in the fall of the Roman Empire. Lead is known to cause a variety of disastrous illnesses along with sterility, which was prevalent in late Roman society, and it obviously had a major presence in many (manor --> many [?]) facets of Roman life. It's (Its --> it's) likely that lead played a minor role in comparison to other factors, but when combined with all other pressures, it may have added (add --> added) a compounding effect, even if a minor one.

[Primus Pilus]

Indeed, the use of the term "no doubt" is clearly too strong. I've modified it.

 

Thanks.

 

Chris

 

 

I think, after reading the above article I mentioned, that this statement is too strong, as well: " and it obviously had a major presence in manor facets of Roman life."

 

 

Regardless of whatever you decide about that, I caught some spelling errors/typos in the same paragraph, bolded:

 

It's not surprising that lead (lower case L..) has been associated as a potential major factor in the fall of the Roman Empire. Lead is known to cause a variety of disastrous illnesses along with sterility, which was prevalent in late Roman society, and it obviously had a major presence in many (manor --> many [?]) facets of Roman life. It's (Its --> it's) likely that lead played a minor role in comparison to other factors, but when combined with all other pressures, it may have added (add --> added) a compounding effect, even if a minor one.

 

That's strange... I don't think it was in there before... alas. The spelling error that is.

 

As for the fact that lead was a major facet in the lives of Romans... I stand by that regardless of the health effect it may or may not have had.

[agamemnus]

Hi,

 

Most of those typos are still not fixed...

[Viggen]

thanks again, was fixed but not uploaded

 

now fixed and uploaded

 

cheers

viggen