Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
… how is the militia supposed to "repel invasion, suppress insurrection" and prevent "representatives of the people [from] betray[ing] their constituents" (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 28) if you have taken away the weapons they need to succeed at those purposes?
A Quinnipiac University survey released Thursday showed that 92% of respondents support expanding background checks to all gun sales. In households with guns, support was 91%.
You know what's really quite hilarious, NMN. You and some others at Kevin's site no longer offer actual substance anymore. It's all a critique (in Latin, to make you sound more authoritative) of what other people say. Don't you have anything to offer of your own? Still about just "winning the argument"...
The "latin" is just the name of the fallacy. I didn't make it up.
But you clearly didn't follow the link to read what it means or why it is FALSE.
Don't you have anything to offer of your own?
You mean like the quotations of law, history, data, and analysis questions that you keep ignoring? Your refusal to acknowledge what I offer does not mean that I am not offering them. It just means you're sticking your head in the sand. (Is there a bubble under there?)
That's true, GD. I'd rather have a discussion about that then the Stalin and Hitler nonsense.
:)
Then I'd start by saying that 'appropriate' policies would allow arms that would be 'reasonable' to resist a budding tyranny so that we don't have our own home grown Stalin or Hitler....
Such policies would require your side to agree to a 'reasonable' compromise and give up some of your cherished laws that restrict the 'appropriate' and 'reasonable' exercise of a free people's rights.
that would be 'reasonable' to resist a budding tyranny so that we don't have our own home grown Stalin or Hitler....
In our 200+ year history, have we ever even come close to a home grown Stalin or Hitler? Maybe in short wave radio land but not in reality.
Such policies would require your side to agree to a 'reasonable' compromise and give up some of your cherished laws that restrict the 'appropriate' and 'reasonable' exercise of a free people's rights.
But you aren't offering your own analysis...just quotes and links with no real evaluation...coupled with obsessive questioning of yours truly. It's all geared around winning on style but not substance.
In our 200+ year history, have we ever even come close to a home grown Stalin or Hitler?
I thought that was supposed to be Chimpy McBushitler.
Markadelphia is absolutely convinced that he has figured out how to beat the odds. To prove it, he jumps from the top of the Empire State Building. As he passes the 30th, 20th, and 10th floors, he is heard to be saying, "So far, so good." Has he proven his point?
coupled with obsessive questioning of yours truly.
To try to get you to THINK, dammit! They're simple questions; easy to see the answers to. Some (like, "What makes you think tyranny is not possible?") are attempts to get you to explain your reasoning. But you hate what those answers mean, so you run away like the lying little coward you are.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I'm not thinking, NMN. That's one of the biggest flaws in the conservative mind...he doesn't think like me so he must be stupid.
And you're completely failing to make any sort of compelling argument whatsoever. For example, your assertion that because tyranny happened in the 20th century in Germany and in Russia, that means it could happen here is backed up by nothing. No comparison of economic, political, or social conditions. No historical frame of reference. Nothing. Just an imperial imperative followed by a chest thump. When I question that, it's obsessive focus on me with no counter argument.
Forget about links or quotes. Just make your own case in a paragraph or two. What similar circumstances do you see between the United States in 2013 and Germany post WWI?
What similar circumstances do you see between the United States in 2013 and Germany post WWI?
They are populated by people.
People who all to often willingly trade freedom for (temporary) security (Mark). People who see no problem in giving the government more power (as long as they 'trust' the people in power) - almost like...uhhh...demagoguery (Mark). People who say "It could never happen here" (Mark). People who look at history's lessons and say "we're different now (a new Soviet man) or we're better than those others(German blood) (Mark).
You know, people. Who do not evolve as fast as you imply.
People, who over and over and over again have found themselves in a tyranny - and by the time they realized it, it was too late to stop. Like giving up your means to resist a tyranny, because you don't see one coming. But when you do see it - it's too late to stop, because you've given up your means to resist.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I'm not thinking
If you refuse to explore the underpinnings of what is said - you cannot say you disagree, because you don't understand how that position is reached. Likewise a question on your position is not a 'gotcha' but an exploration of the logical path taken to reach said position.
Or the logic of your position is just flawed and is therefore nothing but emotion.
Take your pick, but either way IS an example of 'not thinking'.
That's one of the biggest flaws in the conservative mind...he doesn't think like me so he must be stupid.
I didn't realize you considered yourself a conservative.
What similar circumstances do you see between the United States in 2013 and Germany post WWI?
The Weimar Republic was quite the modern democracy. That didn't turn out so well, did it? That's the point you keep insisting on ignoring - that our apparatus of govt is just as frail as any other. No, it hasn't happened here - nor is there any reason (least of all one you have articulated) as to why it can't happen. Given the entire span of the history of human govt - we are the exception. That shouldn't give you near as much comfort as it does.
your assertion that because tyranny happened in the 20th century in Germany and in Russia
Which just goes to show that you didn't even look at the data I presented. It was a map of all the countries in the world. The countries which were not shaded were the ones where there had not been tyranny during the twentieth century. About 80% of the livable land mass was shaded. That makes the remaining 20% or so the EXCEPTION.
When you look back over history, Mark, freedom for the average population is not normal. It's unusual. Furthermore, every single form of government has either fallen eventually, or is new enough that it hasn't fallen YET.
You claimed that conditions have improved since the time of the Constitution, that the risk of tyranny has gone down. The history of the 20th century proves that claim is bullshit. (THERE'S analysis, you wanker!)
Because tyranny and soft (as in tolerable) tyranny are the normal state of affairs and every system of government has had a 100% failure rate, to assume that tyranny is not possible is to make a claim that is entirely contradicted by history.
If tyranny is to be ACTUALLY Not Possible, there has to be a REASON which is powerful enough to overcome such an inexorable trend towards the accumulation and abuse of power by some men over others. That is why I keep after you explain the REASON why you claim it is Not Possible.
At one point you claimed it was our system of checks and balances. Yet you are damned hot-and-heavy to finishes off one of those checks: a fully armed and capable population.
Then when I showed you how the Obama administration is bypassing another check and balance, you not only excused the destruction of a guard against tyranny using logic that—were it valid—would undermine every check and balance, you then went on to prove how easy it is to crash though those restrictions by pointing out that most of Congress is happy to go along with the shredding of our system.
There is nothing left. Your excuses for why it "cannot" happen have not held up to examination. Human nature cannot prevent tyranny because it causes it. It is not the system of checks and balances because you have helped show that it is in shreds. And you have even argued that the crippled remains of the 2nd Amendment has allowed the government to build a level of overwhelming force against a relatively unarmed population.
Congratulations, Mark. Not only have you helped to prove that tyranny is POSSIBLE in this country. You have helped prove that it is INEVITABLE. Certainly not this year. Maybe not in 5 years. There's even an outside shot that it won't be within 20.
You didn't prove it so much through your refusal to actually examine the evidence and logic, but by being a hardcore useful idiot, cheering and rooting for the last safeguards against tyranny being stripped away and thrown into the trash-heap of history.
People, who over and over and over again have found themselves in a tyranny
And yet western civilization hasn't seen that type of tyranny since Bretton Woods and what followed which lead to globalization. The problem with your analysis, GD, is that you can't take yes for an answer. The world has embraced free markets, capitalism, and liberal economic theory. Prosperity is on the rise (unlike conditions in the Soviet Union and Germany before their respective tyrants took over) and it isn't fleeting. It won't be long now before North Korea collapses and Cuba adopts a free market system. In some ways, they already are.
Certainly, there will be problems but they won't be of the nature that you are predicting. That's why it's time to leave your silliness behind and focus on the actual challenges we face in the age of globalization and not the paranoid fantasies.
juris, there are many reasons why it won't happen here. Some are as fundamental as geography. Others have to do with our wealth and our ability to achieve a balance of social programs and capitalism.
You have helped prove that it is INEVITABLE. Certainly not this year. Maybe not in 5 years. There's even an outside shot that it won't be within 20.
Wow, you're really going out on a limb there, aren't you?:)
There's your analysis, fool.
No, not so much.
If you are making the assertion that there are similar conditions between our time and post WWI Germany, then you need to share some economic data, for example. Compare the poverty then with the poverty now. Further, compare the political machinations of the Paris peace treaty and what Germany was forced to do with anything that comes close to today here in the US. Considering we haven't lost any wars of late, that's going to be a tall order.
You might also want to take a look at the global economy back then to what it is today. Compare the GDP of Germany at the time with our GDP. Or their wealth then with our wealth now. The other thing to consider is (and this is from the other thread) how political ideology has changed since the fall of the Soviet Union.
our wealth and our ability to achieve a balance of social programs and capitalism
Dept exceeding total GDP is "wealth" and "balance"?
The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender. — Proverbs 22:7
The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. — Revelation 17:4
Out of curiosity, what do you do with Revelation 17-18?
That's an awfully short time frame to base an observation upon. Especially if you are using that short time frame to counter the entire remaining history of civilization.
It took less than 14 years for Hitler to rise to power. It's been 68 years since Bretton Woods. If you are going to make the claim that the US is going to we another Hitler or Stalin, then you must have the comparative evidence to back it up. Where is it?
It took less than 14 years for Hitler to rise to power.
How many years did it take for conditions to be right for him to rise to power? Did he create all the conditions needed for his authoritarianism to succeed?
The Roman Empire (as a unified entity under emperors) lasted 500 years. It took more than 700 years to reach that first emperor, and went through a long lingering decline that finally ended in 1461. From its very first founding in 753 BC to final annihilation was 2,214 years.
From the time this country was first discovered in 1492 to the imposition of the Stamp Act in 1765 (when the British government became tyrannical enough to cause a stink) was 273 years.
And you think we're going to permanently be fine just because we're the snot nosed kids on the block?
The Crisis of the Third Century was a period in which the Roman Empire nearly collapsed under the combined pressures of invasion, civil war, plague, and economic depression. The Crisis began with the assassination of Emperor Alexander Severus at the hands of his own troops, initiating a fifty-year period in which dozens of claimants to the Imperial throne (with dozens more usurpers and pretenders), mostly prominent Roman Army generals, assumed imperial power over all or part of the Empire. In 260, the Empire split into three competing states: the western Gallic Empire, the eastern Palmyrene Empire, and the Roman Empire proper in the center. The Emperor Aurelian reunited the three states into a single Empire by 274. The Crisis ended with the ascension and reforms of Diocletian.
The Crisis resulted in such profound changes in the Empire's institutions, society, economic life and, eventually, religion, that it is increasingly seen by most historians as the transition period between the historical periods of Classical antiquity and late antiquity.
I wanted to double-check that 500 year number I used, and found this. Additional info in that timeline revises that 500 year number (unified Roman Empire under emperors) down to 340 years.
30 comments:
Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country?
Is the Constitution law?
Also, given the following…
This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law.
— Markadelphia
and this…
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
… how is the militia supposed to "repel invasion, suppress insurrection" and prevent "representatives of the people [from] betray[ing] their constituents" (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 28) if you have taken away the weapons they need to succeed at those purposes?
A Quinnipiac University survey released Thursday showed that 92% of respondents support expanding background checks to all gun sales. In households with guns, support was 91%.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/08/politics/weapons-ban/index.html?hpt=po_c1
Saying and doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is...well...you know:)
Who cares is a poll supports what the federal govt is not empowered to do.
Oh, that's right - progressives have never cared about the Constitution thwarting their beautiful dreams.
Argumentum ad populum FALLACY
Fallacy: unsound, erroneous, misleading, deceptive, FALSE.
Why do you keep using inherently FALSE arguments? Are you some special kind of stupid? Or are you just a really bad liar?
Mark's argument is that tyranny is okay as long as the majority votes for it.
Furthermore, "right to demand…"?!?
You have a right to free speech. You do not have a "right" to be free of fear.
Your right to make an argument does NOT trump the well known and accepted Right to LIFE.
'Appropriate' and 'reasonable' all being in the eye of the beholder and such...
That's true, GD. I'd rather have a discussion about that then the Stalin and Hitler nonsense.
Argumentum ad populum FALLACY
You know what's really quite hilarious, NMN. You and some others at Kevin's site no longer offer actual substance anymore. It's all a critique (in Latin, to make you sound more authoritative) of what other people say. Don't you have anything to offer of your own? Still about just "winning the argument"...
The "latin" is just the name of the fallacy. I didn't make it up.
But you clearly didn't follow the link to read what it means or why it is FALSE.
Don't you have anything to offer of your own?
You mean like the quotations of law, history, data, and analysis questions that you keep ignoring? Your refusal to acknowledge what I offer does not mean that I am not offering them. It just means you're sticking your head in the sand. (Is there a bubble under there?)
That's true, GD. I'd rather have a discussion about that then the Stalin and Hitler nonsense.
:)
Then I'd start by saying that 'appropriate' policies would allow arms that would be 'reasonable' to resist a budding tyranny so that we don't have our own home grown Stalin or Hitler....
Such policies would require your side to agree to a 'reasonable' compromise and give up some of your cherished laws that restrict the 'appropriate' and 'reasonable' exercise of a free people's rights.
that would be 'reasonable' to resist a budding tyranny so that we don't have our own home grown Stalin or Hitler....
In our 200+ year history, have we ever even come close to a home grown Stalin or Hitler? Maybe in short wave radio land but not in reality.
Such policies would require your side to agree to a 'reasonable' compromise and give up some of your cherished laws that restrict the 'appropriate' and 'reasonable' exercise of a free people's rights.
Give me a couple of examples.
Your refusal to acknowledge what I offer
But you aren't offering your own analysis...just quotes and links with no real evaluation...coupled with obsessive questioning of yours truly. It's all geared around winning on style but not substance.
In our 200+ year history, have we ever even come close to a home grown Stalin or Hitler?
I thought that was supposed to be Chimpy McBushitler.
Markadelphia is absolutely convinced that he has figured out how to beat the odds. To prove it, he jumps from the top of the Empire State Building. As he passes the 30th, 20th, and 10th floors, he is heard to be saying, "So far, so good." Has he proven his point?
coupled with obsessive questioning of yours truly.
To try to get you to THINK, dammit! They're simple questions; easy to see the answers to. Some (like, "What makes you think tyranny is not possible?") are attempts to get you to explain your reasoning. But you hate what those answers mean, so you run away like the lying little coward you are.
To try to get you to THINK, dammit!
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I'm not thinking, NMN. That's one of the biggest flaws in the conservative mind...he doesn't think like me so he must be stupid.
And you're completely failing to make any sort of compelling argument whatsoever. For example, your assertion that because tyranny happened in the 20th century in Germany and in Russia, that means it could happen here is backed up by nothing. No comparison of economic, political, or social conditions. No historical frame of reference. Nothing. Just an imperial imperative followed by a chest thump. When I question that, it's obsessive focus on me with no counter argument.
Forget about links or quotes. Just make your own case in a paragraph or two. What similar circumstances do you see between the United States in 2013 and Germany post WWI?
What similar circumstances do you see between the United States in 2013 and Germany post WWI?
They are populated by people.
People who all to often willingly trade freedom for (temporary) security (Mark). People who see no problem in giving the government more power (as long as they 'trust' the people in power) - almost like...uhhh...demagoguery (Mark). People who say "It could never happen here" (Mark). People who look at history's lessons and say "we're different now (a new Soviet man) or we're better than those others(German blood) (Mark).
You know, people. Who do not evolve as fast as you imply.
People, who over and over and over again have found themselves in a tyranny - and by the time they realized it, it was too late to stop. Like giving up your means to resist a tyranny, because you don't see one coming. But when you do see it - it's too late to stop, because you've given up your means to resist.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I'm not thinking
If you refuse to explore the underpinnings of what is said - you cannot say you disagree, because you don't understand how that position is reached. Likewise a question on your position is not a 'gotcha' but an exploration of the logical path taken to reach said position.
Or the logic of your position is just flawed and is therefore nothing but emotion.
Take your pick, but either way IS an example of 'not thinking'.
That's one of the biggest flaws in the conservative mind...he doesn't think like me so he must be stupid.
I didn't realize you considered yourself a conservative.
What similar circumstances do you see between the United States in 2013 and Germany post WWI?
The Weimar Republic was quite the modern democracy. That didn't turn out so well, did it? That's the point you keep insisting on ignoring - that our apparatus of govt is just as frail as any other. No, it hasn't happened here - nor is there any reason (least of all one you have articulated) as to why it can't happen. Given the entire span of the history of human govt - we are the exception. That shouldn't give you near as much comfort as it does.
your assertion that because tyranny happened in the 20th century in Germany and in Russia
Which just goes to show that you didn't even look at the data I presented. It was a map of all the countries in the world. The countries which were not shaded were the ones where there had not been tyranny during the twentieth century. About 80% of the livable land mass was shaded. That makes the remaining 20% or so the EXCEPTION.
When you look back over history, Mark, freedom for the average population is not normal. It's unusual. Furthermore, every single form of government has either fallen eventually, or is new enough that it hasn't fallen YET.
You claimed that conditions have improved since the time of the Constitution, that the risk of tyranny has gone down. The history of the 20th century proves that claim is bullshit. (THERE'S analysis, you wanker!)
Because tyranny and soft (as in tolerable) tyranny are the normal state of affairs and every system of government has had a 100% failure rate, to assume that tyranny is not possible is to make a claim that is entirely contradicted by history.
If tyranny is to be ACTUALLY Not Possible, there has to be a REASON which is powerful enough to overcome such an inexorable trend towards the accumulation and abuse of power by some men over others. That is why I keep after you explain the REASON why you claim it is Not Possible.
At one point you claimed it was our system of checks and balances. Yet you are damned hot-and-heavy to finishes off one of those checks: a fully armed and capable population.
Then when I showed you how the Obama administration is bypassing another check and balance, you not only excused the destruction of a guard against tyranny using logic that—were it valid—would undermine every check and balance, you then went on to prove how easy it is to crash though those restrictions by pointing out that most of Congress is happy to go along with the shredding of our system.
There is nothing left. Your excuses for why it "cannot" happen have not held up to examination. Human nature cannot prevent tyranny because it causes it. It is not the system of checks and balances because you have helped show that it is in shreds. And you have even argued that the crippled remains of the 2nd Amendment has allowed the government to build a level of overwhelming force against a relatively unarmed population.
Congratulations, Mark. Not only have you helped to prove that tyranny is POSSIBLE in this country. You have helped prove that it is INEVITABLE. Certainly not this year. Maybe not in 5 years. There's even an outside shot that it won't be within 20.
You didn't prove it so much through your refusal to actually examine the evidence and logic, but by being a hardcore useful idiot, cheering and rooting for the last safeguards against tyranny being stripped away and thrown into the trash-heap of history.
There's your analysis, fool.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I'm not thinking,
You couldn't even agree with this question:
Is the Constitution law?
Do I really need to analyze that refusal?
People, who over and over and over again have found themselves in a tyranny
And yet western civilization hasn't seen that type of tyranny since Bretton Woods and what followed which lead to globalization. The problem with your analysis, GD, is that you can't take yes for an answer. The world has embraced free markets, capitalism, and liberal economic theory. Prosperity is on the rise (unlike conditions in the Soviet Union and Germany before their respective tyrants took over) and it isn't fleeting. It won't be long now before North Korea collapses and Cuba adopts a free market system. In some ways, they already are.
Certainly, there will be problems but they won't be of the nature that you are predicting. That's why it's time to leave your silliness behind and focus on the actual challenges we face in the age of globalization and not the paranoid fantasies.
juris, there are many reasons why it won't happen here. Some are as fundamental as geography. Others have to do with our wealth and our ability to achieve a balance of social programs and capitalism.
You have helped prove that it is INEVITABLE. Certainly not this year. Maybe not in 5 years. There's even an outside shot that it won't be within 20.
Wow, you're really going out on a limb there, aren't you?:)
There's your analysis, fool.
No, not so much.
If you are making the assertion that there are similar conditions between our time and post WWI Germany, then you need to share some economic data, for example. Compare the poverty then with the poverty now. Further, compare the political machinations of the Paris peace treaty and what Germany was forced to do with anything that comes close to today here in the US. Considering we haven't lost any wars of late, that's going to be a tall order.
You might also want to take a look at the global economy back then to what it is today. Compare the GDP of Germany at the time with our GDP. Or their wealth then with our wealth now. The other thing to consider is (and this is from the other thread) how political ideology has changed since the fall of the Soviet Union.
If you are making the assertion that there are similar conditions between our time and post WWI Germany
Once again you are trying to put words in my mouth.
Voices In Your Head.
You just keep on lying. I hope I'm there when you can no longer avoid the truth.
western civilization hasn't seen that type of tyranny since Bretton Woods
Just keep saying "so far, so good," Marky. Maybe that chant will keep you comforted as you pass those floors.
our wealth and our ability to achieve a balance of social programs and capitalism
Dept exceeding total GDP is "wealth" and "balance"?
The rich rules over the poor,
and the borrower is the slave of the lender.
— Proverbs 22:7
The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality.
— Revelation 17:4
Out of curiosity, what do you do with Revelation 17-18?
Since Breton Woods?
Really?
That's an awfully short time frame to base an observation upon. Especially if you are using that short time frame to counter the entire remaining history of civilization.
It took less than 14 years for Hitler to rise to power. It's been 68 years since Bretton Woods. If you are going to make the claim that the US is going to we another Hitler or Stalin, then you must have the comparative evidence to back it up. Where is it?
And yet western civilization hasn't seen that type of tyranny since Bretton Woods and what followed which lead to globalization.
So I talk about the entire sweep of human history and you reply with the scope of two generations.
You're kinda hopeless, ya know.
It took less than 14 years for Hitler to rise to power.
How many years did it take for conditions to be right for him to rise to power? Did he create all the conditions needed for his authoritarianism to succeed?
The Roman Empire (as a unified entity under emperors) lasted 500 years. It took more than 700 years to reach that first emperor, and went through a long lingering decline that finally ended in 1461. From its very first founding in 753 BC to final annihilation was 2,214 years.
From the time this country was first discovered in 1492 to the imposition of the Stamp Act in 1765 (when the British government became tyrannical enough to cause a stink) was 273 years.
And you think we're going to permanently be fine just because we're the snot nosed kids on the block?
Hmmm, interesting:
The Crisis of the Third Century was a period in which the Roman Empire nearly collapsed under the combined pressures of invasion, civil war, plague, and economic depression. The Crisis began with the assassination of Emperor Alexander Severus at the hands of his own troops, initiating a fifty-year period in which dozens of claimants to the Imperial throne (with dozens more usurpers and pretenders), mostly prominent Roman Army generals, assumed imperial power over all or part of the Empire. In 260, the Empire split into three competing states: the western Gallic Empire, the eastern Palmyrene Empire, and the Roman Empire proper in the center. The Emperor Aurelian reunited the three states into a single Empire by 274. The Crisis ended with the ascension and reforms of Diocletian.
The Crisis resulted in such profound changes in the Empire's institutions, society, economic life and, eventually, religion, that it is increasingly seen by most historians as the transition period between the historical periods of Classical antiquity and late antiquity.
I wanted to double-check that 500 year number I used, and found this. Additional info in that timeline revises that 500 year number (unified Roman Empire under emperors) down to 340 years.
Post a Comment