Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Invicta" channel.

  1.  @Niani23455  What statement? Your personal theory that N. Afirca "turned" something? The burden of the proof is in the one who adfirm. So come on. Prove it.
    1
  2.  @Niani23455  So "the big plot to turn N. Africa white". What was I dodging? That's exactly what you believe. BTW, Cheikh Anta Diop died before DNA testing was available, so he couldn't have proved anything, and anyone going into Egypt and then asking to perform tests on ancient mummies would be taken as a nut. That's not how science works. You have to submit your detailed research plan to the autorities and having it accepted BEFORE moving.
    1
  3. That was the pace they kept when there was no hurry. Mind that they first had to dismount the camp, then march, then build a new fortified camp.
    1
  4. Tourists: "Where for Sparta?" Spartan: "THIS IS SPARTAAAA!" Tourist: "Ok, thanks."
    1
  5. Any Roman citizen that would have raised one from the floor, would have legally adopted him.
    1
  6. Scissors (the ancient kind).
    1
  7. "panis ac perna", ham sandwich. There were several recipies. IE the bread was flavored with must, and the ham cooked in dried fig water.
    1
  8. Papyrus.
    1
  9.  @animatedawesome5550  Err... no. There were seveal kind of marriage in Rome. The only one where the husband had the same kind of power than a father had over his sons, was the mariage "cum mano". It progressively fell into disuse during the Republic, and in 1st century BC was already a relic of past times. Roman husbands had generally less power over their wives than 19th century westerners had.
    1
  10. The elevated stepping stones on the streets are due not that much to human but to animal crap. You know, horses do shit A LOT. It was stil a HUGE problem in big cities like New York or London in 19th century.
    1
  11. There were public toilets.
    1
  12. The Great Illirian Revolt is a topic by itself. To treat it as a test for Teutoburg (that, in respect, was a rather minor affair) seems way biased.
    1
  13. There were. But the customs didn't differ that much, because they were all Roman Citizens. The lower classes tried to adhere to the traditions and to follow the example of the notable ones as much as they could.
    1
  14. The Sicarii committed many atrocities towards the other Jews. None wanted to fight for them.
    1
  15. Rather strange, given the atrocieties the Sicarii already committed vs the Jews they considered not enough anti-Romans, or were simply in their way.
    1
  16. There is at least another mycenaean big conflict where chariots had been mentioned, that of the seven against Thebes. In the mith, after having failed his assault, Amphiaraus was fleeing whit his chariot from Periclymenus, when Zeus threw his thunderbolt, and the earth opened to swallow Amphiaraus together with his chariot. The chariot of Adrastus is mentioned too.
    1
  17. Fresh vegetables don't last. They were probably acquired while on march where available, as part of the non-rations food.
    1
  18. There were several kinds of marriages. In the marriage "cum manu" it was impossible for the woman to leave the husband if she wanted, while he could repudiate her. However the marriage "cum manu" became increasingly rare, and was only a relic in 1st century BC. In the other forms of marriage, men and women could decide to leave at will and without much ceremonies.
    1
  19. Chalking the toga... (yeah, "Candidatus" means "whitened", because the candidates worn togas that were made extra-white with chalk)
    1
  20. Box chariots were protective, but heavy. Quadrant chariots exchanged a little protection for a little lightness. Egyptian chariots were superlight and fast, but fragile, (apt for an archer to rapidly get in and out shooting range). Mycenean rail chariots weren't protective at all, but the railing made really easy to get up and down it (that's why it's believable that they were a "battle taxi" like described by Homer).
    1
  21. It's really difficult to estimate the number of inhabitants of ancient cities, I've seen estimates ranging from 150.000 to 500.000. It depends also if you consider only the city, or the entire state (many inhabitants were peasants that lived outside the city). It's known that, at that time, Syracuse was the largest city in the Greek world.
    1
  22.  @ennui9745  Yeah. How a reply on when the Illyrian emperors came to power is relevant to a post on illyrian emperors? Let's see...
    1
  23. Siege warfare and open field warfare were two completely different things. In the best logistic conditions possible, near to his base, having a clear numerical advantage and with plenty of allies, it took Hannibal six months to conquer the small city of Saguntum. Rome was way bigger. The Romans had more soldiers in the city than those Hannibal had to siege it (and more were in Spain, south Italy and Sicily) and, once he had deployed his army them around the city to siege it, Hannibal would have lost the possibility to manuver, or to quickly group in case a sector was attacked. The Romans instead would have had the choice of what sector to raid, always having the numerical superiority and the surprise.
    1
  24.  Nom Anor  Actually the Huns had been defeated by an already dying Roman Empire and ceased to exist, they didn't defeat it. In reality China paid tributes to the Xiongnu for 70 years, Much more than the Eastern Roman Empire did to the Huns. What's sure is that more than three centuries had passed since the Han fought someone with a similar name. The Romans defeated many Germanics before the Goths managed to invade the Empire. The Goths were not stronger than those than had been defeated before, It was the Empire that was weaker. Times changes.
    1
  25. Yeah, absolutely. The pre-Thermopilae agoge was nothing so dramatic. Spartans were rich loafers that, in the Olympyc games, shined only in the chariot race (the competition of the rich loafers). After the Thermopylae, they begun to build the mith of the "tough warriors", hardening the agoge and trying to live up to the mith. In Roman times they took that to the extremes.
    1
  26. I think you are projecting. Try to listen real leftists sometimes.
    1
  27. "In dubio pro reo" (if there are doubts, then the defendant must prevail).
    1
  28. Later Roman armies successfully fended off cavalry charges. They knew the "squares of pikemen" tactic. But those were raw troops.
    1
  29. The first Illyrian emperor came to power only in 268 AD, more than 250 years after the end of the revolt. Simply the Romans would have laughed at your precious concepts of nationality and etnicity. They ad no meaning for them. All that counted was if you were a Roman citizen or not.
    1
  30. That's what the ones we call Byzantines did for centuries. They were the Romans, westerners were the Latins.
    1
  31. 1) Carthaginians were Phoenicians. Middle eastern semitic people. 2) North Africans were generally not black at that time. They were as "brown" as they are today. There was some enclave (described by the ancient sources) where people were mostly black, but those were exceptions to the rule.
    1
  32.  @andrelove9634  Sorry, what you call "mith" is actual history. What you say you have "studied" are fairy tales. As already said: 'North Africans were generally not black at that time. They were as "brown" as they are today.' "around what time in North Africa the people begin to become brown skin people,as they are today?" is a question without any sense, since there is no evidence people in North Africa having ever had another skin colour.
    1
  33.  @andrelove9634  Sorry, but the things you call "facts" are fairy tales you like to believe. You have never really studied anything on the matter and obviously you don't know how to study. You only believe what you like more. 1) several waves of "homini" originated from sub saharian Africa, and some of them returned to Africa. That's why, IE, even Africans have a percentage of Nehandertal DNA, when Nehandertals never inhabitated Africa. 2) You don't know what skin colour the homo sapiens had when first expanded in North Africa and out of Africa. Skin colour is more a question of sexual preference than adaptation to climate (see for example the different skin colour among the inhabitants of different islands of Polynesia, that have all pretty much the same insulation and climate) and it's not uniform among sub Saharian Africans. The skin colour and physical traits that you mistake for "human original" are those specific of the Bantu, an ethnic group that originated in west Africa and expanded from there to occupy almost all the sub saharian Africa starting around 1000BC.
    1
  34.  @andrelove9634  what you call "facts" are fairy tales, because, as you clearly stated, you refuse to follow science. You follow your fantasies. Africans got a percentage of Neanderthal DNA because modern humans that get out of Africa and intermixed with Neanderthals then returned to Africa. As said, several waves of "homini" originated from sub saharian Africa, and some of them returned to Africa.
    1
  35.  @andrelove9634  Yeah, there had been a study on the percentage of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA on the various populations of the world. Subsaharian African have a percentage of Neanderthal DNA, inferior to that of people out of Africa, but present. Since Neanderthals never inhabitated Africa (they are an evolution of the Homo Heidelbergensis that happened outside Africa), the explanation is that migrations in prehistoric times not only happened from Africa to outside Africa, but from outside Africa to Africa as well. What I write is pretty clear. It's quite evident you are not studying at all.
    1
  36.  @andrelove9634  What emerged 2 million years ago was the Homo Abilis. We are Homo Sapiens, that emerged 300.000 years ago, so there is 1.7 million years evolution between monkeys and mdern humans, more than enough to change skin colour, provided you are right about the colour of the monkeys' skin. But you are wrong, there is some sample with dark skin, but Chimpanzee (our closest relative) skin colour, if not tanned by the sun, is generally light. Researchers generally think that our early australopithecine ancestors in Africa probably had light skin beneath hairy pelts. “If you shave a chimpanzee, its skin is light. If you have body hair, you don’t need dark skin to protect you from ultraviolet radiation.” (evolutionary geneticist Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania). Hope this helps you realize you had studied nothing and need start doing that before speaking about this topic.
    1
  37.  @andrelove9634  What you told me had never been said by any scientist. Or who said it to you wasn't a scientist, or you didn't understand him. You don't know, and didn't report here any fact. What you call "facts" are faiy tales. Science works by general consensus. So scientists "generally think". "Sarah Tiskoff" is a scientist (evolutionary geneticist of the University of Pennsylvania). Scientists are a source of mine. Fairy tales are a source of your. You can google at how many images of hairless chimpanzee you want, and see that they generally have light skin. You need to start studying this topic before speaking about it.
    1
  38.  @andrelove9634  The fact that what you call "facts" are not backed by any scientific evidence.
    1
  39. landowning yes, wealthy not that much. If you could afford the basic equipment, you had the duty to join the Legion.
    1
  40.  Afrodisiac  Chariot race was one of the competitions in Olympic games.
    1
  41.  @rayne_brown  Spartan army in Philip's time was not large at all. That had been precisely the problem that led to the fall of the Spartan power. There were very few citizens that had the right to fight in the army. At Mantinea the entire Spartan army was composed of 3584 men. As for "well trained", they could be marginally better trained than the other Greek formations Philip crushed, but they were still oplites (and very conservative ones). The Macedonian phalanx was a change of paradigm.
    1
  42. Conservatives are on the wrong side of history.
    1
  43. Think of easy of transport too. In medieval time to move an Army from Germany to Northern Italy was a big thing. In Roman times they moved them from Spain to Anatolia like nothing.
    1
  44. It was common, but not a norm.
    1
  45.  @shapurthegreat8314  If you don't like history, it's not my problem.
    1
  46. There was fresh water available obviously (Roman acueducts). Wine required preparation (ancient wine was very thick, and had to be diluted) and was served in the tabernae. Posca (50% water and vinegar) was the favoured drink of the legionaries (the vinegar prevented the water to spoil, so it could be carried for long time in barrels and canteens).
    1
  47.  @dittmannrudolfrohr2149  Oh, yeah. To pretend to seem intelligent ignoramus like you say to know anything, AFTER. Dismissing the OTHERS' (plural) SOURCES (plural) without being able to provide anything better is the favourite way for ignoramus like you to pretend to seem intelligent. Someone that's not an ignoramus like you would have noticed I was referring to what ignoramus like you usually do. And that demonstrates you know nothing abot logic too (how could it have been otherwise?). YOU are the ignoramus that asked for a source. YOU are the ignoramus that dismissed it without being able to provide ANYTHING better (so who would have appealed to authority?). You did it because that's what ignoramus like you do to pretend to seem intelligent without doing any effort to really learn something, and you appealed to logical fallacies whthout being able to understand them because that's what ignoramus like you do to pretend to seem intelligent without doing any effort to really learn something.
    1
  48.  @dittmannrudolfrohr2149  I recognised you as an ignoramus pretending to know something because dismissing the others' sources, without being able to provide anything better, is the favourite way for ignoramus like you to pretend to seem intelligent without doing any effort to really learn something. You pretending to indicate logical fallacies without being able to understand them is a further confirmation. Also stating the others being "mad" is another way ignoramus like you use to pretend to be able to dismiss the others' statements without having to do any effort to really learn something.
    1
  49.  @dittmannrudolfrohr2149  I made you the favor of answering your question and provided a source, but you are still dismissing it, WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE ANYTHING BETTER OBVIOUSLY (are you a little closer to understand the terms of the question now?), because that's the favourite way for ignoramus like you to pretend to seem intelligent without doing any effort to really learn something. Also stating the others being "fanboys" is another way ignoramus like you use to pretend to be able to dismiss the others' statements without having to do any effort to really learn something. The matter is not Tacitus being good or bad, but you mocking who made you a favour while, at the same time, you wouldn't be able to provide a better source to save your life. Since you then even pretended to indicate logical fallacies without being able to understand them (because, in your fantasy, to casually name a logical fallacy makes you seem intelligent), nor had contributed to the discussion with anything other than the smug that, in your fantasy, made you seem oh so much intelligent, any statement of you being aware of something is not believable, sorry. Had you not been an ignoramus, maybe you would have recognised the surce of my nickname being a novel (I changed it a little).
    1
  50.  @dittmannrudolfrohr2149  So you first asked for a source, and then whined because it was copied and pasted. You thought a "source" had to be an original work written on the spot. You are even more an ignoramus than I previously thought. You don't even know the meaning of the term "source". Like for the logical fallacies, you randomly use the term because you think it makes you seem intelligent.
    1