Valerianus as an example

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Can we say that he (the Emperor) was a Valerius who was adopted by a Licinius (when and who ?) who was a descendant from a libertini that got his name and freedom from a true Licinius from the Republian or early Empire ?

The same can be asked about his third name - Valerianus - surly he was not a true Valerii

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

As far as I can tell very little is known about Publius Licinius Valerianus' early life but it does appear that he was unusual for his time period in that he did actually come from an old Roman senatorial family but as to which branch, as far as I know I don't think that is known.

[sylla]

Can we say that he (the Emperor) was a Valerius who was adopted by a Licinius (when and who ?) who was a descendant from a libertini that got his name and freedom from a true Licinius from the Republian or early Empire ?

The same can be asked about his third name - Valerianus - surly he was not a true Valerii

Why not simply one of the true Licinii?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

As far as I can tell very little is known about Publius Licinius Valerianus' early life but it does appear that he was unusual for his time period in that he did actually come from an old Roman senatorial family but as to which branch, as far as I know I don't think that is known.

 

 

I agree . There is no information about republican/early empire families in mid third century . There is a source about Valerianus' coming from old senatorial family (not HA) ?

[sylla]

There is no information about republican/early empire families in mid third century .

That depends on your definition criteria; if you consider ANY Republican nobile nomen from this period as freedmen or clients' offspring, your argument is circular.

 

There is a source about Valerianus' coming from old senatorial family (not HA) ?

Both Aurelius Victor and Zosimus.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Why not simply one of the true Licinii?

 

By the mid second century BCE there were only two Licinian branches, the Luculli and the Crassi . The last Luculli was lucius Licinius Lucullus who died in 42 BCE . The last biological Crassi was Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives cos. 30 BCE, he adopted a son and named him M. L. C. D. (cos. 14 BCE) . The son of the last one was M.L.C. Frugi (cos. 27 CE), he had a son with the same name - executed by Nero . This Frugi (II) had two sons (cos. 87 and cos. suff. 88) . They are the last true Licinnii, by adoption . The chanse that Valerianus was their descendant is no more than 0.0001 % . Take for example Marcus Licinius Sura cos. 93/97, 102 and 107 . He was a contemporary of the last two and did not had any familial connections with them . He was a descendant of some Hispanic who got his Roman citizenship sometime in the first century CE .

[sylla]

Why not simply one of the true Licinii?

 

By the mid second century BCE there were only two Licinian branches, the Luculli and the Crassi . The last Luculli was lucius Licinius Lucullus who died in 42 BCE . The last biological Crassi was Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives cos. 30 BCE, he adopted a son and named him M. L. C. D. (cos. 14 BCE) . The son of the last one was M.L.C. Frugi (cos. 27 CE), he had a son with the same name - executed by Nero . This Frugi (II) had two sons (cos. 87 and cos. suff. 88) . They are the last true Licinnii, by adoption . The chanse that Valerianus was their descendant is no more than 0.0001 % . Take for example Marcus Licinius Sura cos. 93/97, 102 and 107 . He was a contemporary of the last two and did not had any familial connections with them . He was a descendant of some Hispanic who got his Roman citizenship sometime in the first century CE .

You're quoting last ATTESTED descendants. Even if your sources are reliable, I don't think you can be absolutely sure that there were not UNATTESTED descendants from these or even other branches. In any case, I don't understand your Maths or how did you get the 0.0001%.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

You're quoting last ATTESTED descendants. Even if your sources are reliable, I don't think you can be absolutely sure that there were not UNATTESTED descendants from these or even other branches. In any case, I don't understand your Maths or how did you get the 0.0001%.

 

 

So, in your logic, the descendants of Hamurabi are with us today but are not ATTESTED...and how that's helps us ?

Edited April 30, 2009 by Caesar CXXXVII

[sylla]

...and how that's helps us ?

At least, by pointing you a faulty assumption that would bias your prosographical analysis.

BTW, it seems the less than 0.0001% was just an alternative way of expressing full impossibility (0% chance). And that's one impossibility that you can't sustain.

Any family anywhere has the potential of leaving descendants; you may consider unlikely that Valerian came from bona fide Licinii, and you may be right; but from the content of this thread or the primary sources on this Emperor you simply can't reach such conclusion.

 

 

So, in your logic, the descendants of Hamurabi are with us today but are not ATTESTED...

Is that impossible in your logic? Really?

I'm absolutely sure that my ascendants, your ascendants and Valerian ascendants were all alive by the time of Hammurabi, and there's a priori no reason why this king couldn't have been one of them (in fact, his polygamy would have made it particularly feasible).

After all, about 1 in every 200 men in the World comes from a genetic lineage related to Gengis Khan.

And of course, all known life came from a common ancestor that lived in the Paleoarchean, some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago.

[Northern Neil]

I can trace my family back to a protozoa floating around in the Tethys Ocean.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

...and how that's helps us ?

At least, by pointing you a faulty assumption that would bias your prosographical analysis.

BTW, it seems the less than 0.0001% was just an alternative way of expressing full impossibility (0% chance). And that's one impossibility that you can't sustain.

Any family anywhere has the potential of leaving descendants; you may consider unlikely that Valerian came from bona fide Licinii, and you may be right; but from the content of this thread or the primary sources on this Emperor you simply can't reach such conclusion.

 

 

So, in your logic, the descendants of Hamurabi are with us today but are not ATTESTED...

Is that impossible in your logic? Really?

I'm absolutely sure that my ascendants, your ascendants and Valerian ascendants were all alive by the time of Hammurabi, and there's a priori no reason why this king couldn't have been one of them (in fact, his polygamy would have made it particularly feasible).

After all, about 1 in every 200 men in the World comes from a genetic lineage related to Gengis Khan.

And of course, all known life came from a common ancestor that lived in the Paleoarchean, some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago.

 

 

let me get it - Do you have any source, ancient or (far better) modern about Valerianus being a descendant of the Licinnii or you just enjoy being argumentative ?

 

You know, when one makes an argument, one must bring a source . If no one said that Valerianus was a descendant of M. licinius crassus the Triumvir is because there is no source about it . In your logic one can say that the Martians landed in the Sahara desert in 10,000 BCE but they did not record it . I must say, the possibility is there...

 

Why not stay with what we have ? We heve no information about his connections with the Licinnii of the Republic so we must assume that he got his name by a different way .

 

 

"It is disconcerting that no authoraty I have found seems willing to hazard a guess as to the idedtity of Valerian's father". (Gallienus by John Jefferson Bray) .

 

Oh, let me correct my numbers, the chances are 0.00000856

[Caesar CXXXVII]

I can trace my family back to a protozoa floating around in the Tethys Ocean.

 

 

I can do better ! My ancestor is Topoiuyrfnhus 1245/23 IUT, who put the above protozoa in the Tethys Ocean. You can not dismiss the possibility...

[sylla]

You know, when one makes an argument, one must bring a source .

As a last remark, just check this thread; I never made any agument.

You made the argument that Valerian can't be a true Licinius, but you didn't bring any source.

You actually try to base your argument in the absence of sources!!! (ie, as no source proves it, it's impossible)

You know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

I just pointed the faulty logic, and indeed it is; but that's also not my business.

Edited April 30, 2009 by sylla

[Caesar CXXXVII]

You know, when one makes an argument, one must bring a source .

As a last remark, just check this thread; I never made any agument.

You made the argument that Valerian can't be a true Licinius, but you didn't bring any source.

You actually try to base your argument in the absence of sources!!! (ie, as no source proves it, it's impossible)

You know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

I just pointed the faulty logic, and indeed it is; but that's also not my business.

 

 

I did not made an argument. I made a suggestion . You made an argument based on nothing that Valerianus can be a descendant of the Licinnii with out a source . There is no possibility for that since the genealogy of the Licinnii is well known . See above .

 

 

 

Edit : And btw, one can make an argument (if you want to call like that) even if the sources are silent , it is called argumentum ex silentio , So when I say that no source mentioned Valerianus Licinnian ancestry, I can argue that he han none such ancestry . Now, thanks to you I have just burned 3 houres .

Edited April 30, 2009 by Caesar CXXXVII

[sylla]

From the List of Logical Fallacies, this is the entry for Argumentum ex Silentio.

 

However, it's easy to see that such fallacy doesn't apply here; this thread has an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Click on it.

Edited April 30, 2009 by sylla