Destroying History

[Ex-California]

That seems like some pretty sketchy source material.

I hope it is Fake News, but you never know nowadays

[C-Mag]

That seems like some pretty sketchy source material.

I hope it is Fake News, but you never know nowadays

This is why you fail padawan................ believe

Original Swedish article
https://www.svd.se/fynd-fran-jarnaldern ... rvinningen

[Hastur]

That seems like some pretty sketchy source material.

I hope it is Fake News, but you never know nowadays

This is why you fail padawan................ believe

Original Swedish article
https://www.svd.se/fynd-fran-jarnaldern ... rvinningen

It's complicated. Ironically the root of the problem is the extensive privatizations that Sweden has gone through the last decades. Major constructions used to be handled by the state but is now subcontracted to private firms. In their bids they have to put aside funds to cover the costs for archaeological examinations and eventual excavations. They have to do that. Problem is that when they make a large find they haven't set aside enough money for conservation and for some reasons the museums aren't allowed to accept raw finds. It falls between chairs.
I blame the ultra left leaning ministry of Culture and their warped prioritizations.

[Montegriffo]

It's quite clear what Livy described. The degeneracy is very similar. You should read it someday.

Bjorn's licking you in this fight. He is advancing changes in argument (not backsteps though) to rebute your stubbornness, while you sit there and refuse to even read it. He seems to be right, and even if he isn't, he gets points for discussing and not sitting back in dismissal.

I always find that the moment you think you are totally incontrovertible is the moment to rethink your position and try to see another side.

Okay. Well, I don't even bother reading his wordwalls any longer anyway. If he has a point, he should put it into a succinct and less cunt-like post and maybe I will address it.

[Ex-California]

That seems like some pretty sketchy source material.

I hope it is Fake News, but you never know nowadays

This is why you fail padawan................ believe

Original Swedish article
https://www.svd.se/fynd-fran-jarnaldern ... rvinningen

It's complicated. Ironically the root of the problem is the extensive privatizations that Sweden has gone through the last decades. Major constructions used to be handled by the state but is now subcontracted to private firms. In their bids they have to put aside funds to cover the costs for archaeological examinations and eventual excavations. They have to do that. Problem is that when they make a large find they haven't set aside enough money for conservation and for some reasons the museums aren't allowed to accept raw finds. It falls between chairs.
I blame the ultra left leaning ministry of Culture and their warped prioritizations.

Jesus Christ

[Speaker to Animals]

Bjorn's licking you in this fight. He is advancing changes in argument (not backsteps though) to rebute your stubbornness, while you sit there and refuse to even read it. He seems to be right, and even if he isn't, he gets points for discussing and not sitting back in dismissal.

I always find that the moment you think you are totally incontrovertible is the moment to rethink your position and try to see another side.

Okay. Well, I don't even bother reading his wordwalls any longer anyway. If he has a point, he should put it into a succinct and less cunt-like post and maybe I will address it.

LMFAO

I am not the one moving goalposts and claiming Roman historians should be ignored while my unsubstantiated opinion should be taken as fact. He's a clown and he knows it.

I asserted that the closest analog to marxists and SJWs in the Roman world were the Bacchus cultists. I provided references to a first source on the matter (Livy) who describes them quite well. You should try reading it.

[BjornP]

Okay. Well, I don't even bother reading his wordwalls any longer anyway. If he has a point, he should put it into a succinct and less cunt-like post and maybe I will address it.

The point remains: Livy damned well described the closest analog to SJWs in the ancient world that you will find (Bacchus cults). It seems to me he is trying to backtrack and change what he initially tried to say (like a cunt, I might add) and weasel out of it, but whatevs.

You were the one posting a wall of Roman texts by Livius and Plutarch, followed by your own "analysis" of those sources. As for "cunt-like"...

It's quite clear what Livy described. The degeneracy is very similar. You should read it someday.

That's talking so much like a cunt, I'd wonder if you've accidentally started taking oestrogen supplements. Now... stop being a cunt and let's have a civilized conversation. So...

And if you want succint, here is the central point for why your analysis is wrong:

*Spartacus was not Roman. His wife, if he even had one, was not Roman. Nor Greek, for that matter. Ergo: Making Livius account of Bacchus cults becoming popular among Roman nobles irrelevant, since neither would have worshipped either Bacchus or Dionysus. *

In continuation of that: What Livius was arguing against was allowing those cults to spread in the Roman republic, that their foreign ways be adopted by Roman nobles. Your claim is that that makes the Bacchus cults like proto-cultural Marxists, bent on destroying their own society.

Spartacus' and his potential wife's own society was not Roman and unless you have a historical source that claims his "prophetess" wife and Spartacus' army by extension, was on some sort of religious crusade, you will (continue to) lose your argument.

[Speaker to Animals]

Okay. Well, I don't even bother reading his wordwalls any longer anyway. If he has a point, he should put it into a succinct and less cunt-like post and maybe I will address it.

The point remains: Livy damned well described the closest analog to SJWs in the ancient world that you will find (Bacchus cults). It seems to me he is trying to backtrack and change what he initially tried to say (like a cunt, I might add) and weasel out of it, but whatevs.

You were the one posting a wall of Roman texts by Livius and Plutarch, followed by your own "analysis" of those sources. As for "cunt-like"...

It's quite clear what Livy described. The degeneracy is very similar. You should read it someday.

That's talking so much like a cunt, I'd wonder if you've accidentally started taking oestrogen supplements. Now... stop being a cunt and let's have a civilized conversation. So...

And if you want succint, here is the central point for why your analysis is wrong:

*Spartacus was not Roman. His wife, if he even had one, was not Roman. Nor Greek, for that matter. Ergo: Making Livius account of Bacchus cults becoming popular among Roman nobles irrelevant, since neither would have worshipped either Bacchus or Dionysus. *

In continuation of that: What Livius was arguing against was allowing those cults to spread in the Roman republic, that their foreign ways be adopted by Roman nobles. Your claim is that that makes the Bacchus cults like proto-cultural Marxists, bent on destroying their own society.

Spartacus' and his potential wife's own society was not Roman and unless you have a historical source that claims his "prophetess" wife and Spartacus' army by extension, was on some sort of religious crusade, you will (continue to) lose your argument.

Oh, but you know what Livy meant, even though Livy damned well clearly described people absolving class distinctions, gender distinctions, and sexual mores. I mean.. He EXPLICITLY said that. But fuck. Here comes Bjorn telling us he didn't really mean that.

I don't even believe you read it.

You are such a clown.

[BjornP]

Okay. Well, I don't even bother reading his wordwalls any longer anyway. If he has a point, he should put it into a succinct and less cunt-like post and maybe I will address it.

LMFAO

I am not the one moving goalposts and claiming Roman historians should be ignored while my unsubstantiated opinion should be taken as fact. He's a clown and he knows it.

I asserted that the closest analog to marxists and SJWs in the Roman world were the Bacchus cultists. I provided references to a first source on the matter (Livy) who describes them quite well. You should try reading it.

I have a BA in History from the University of Aalborg. Apart from learning to read historical sources in general for three years, we had Roman history and worked with Roman sources exclusively for a semester. My 30 page paper that semester dealt with the gradual disappearance and "barbarization" of the Western Roman Army.
I've worked three years in a museum and historical archive assessing the provenance of historical artifacts, documents and photographs and handled countless of people's inquiries about genealogy research or finding out knowledge about some historical site for them. I have just been hired from December onwards for that same task for a museum and archive an hours drive from here.

It is pathetic of you to keep claiming I "ignored" your sources or moved any goalposts, when in all of my replies to you I specifically, and in detail addressed those sources' content, and you kept ignoring the replies. I have never claimed you should ignore a source. I proved why Livius is not a source on Spartacus. Livius is definitely a source, a source on Roman attitudes towards the Bacchus cults. But he is not a source on wether or not Spartacus was a proto-SJW, "Dionysian" Bacchus cultist.

[BjornP]

Oh, but you know what Livy meant, even though Livy damned well clearly described people absolving class distinctions, gender distinctions, and sexual mores. I mean.. He EXPLICITLY said that. But fuck. Here comes Bjorn telling us he didn't really mean that.

I don't even believe you read it.

You are such a clown.

You're the clown because you still don't get that what you're failing and flailing to do, is reliably connect Livius's source on Bacchus cults to Spartacus.

I am such a historian.