RomanArmyTalk

I can't believe how wrong the history is in this article on msnbc.com:

[url:1g95vsem]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28060532/[/url]

Not to mention the minor fact that their "study" only shows a little less mineral-laden water leaking into THAT part of THAT cave. A shovelful of concrete in the right place might have done that accidentally. Gads... Who knows, maybe water to the cave was diverted by construction of new drains and aqueducts needed to carry a growing amount of rainfall?

Anyway, it was obviously lead poisoning which killed off all the Romans by 100 AD, right?

Matthew

Only a complete buffoon makes any statements based off only a single piece of evidence. There are just so many different things that can taint a single sample.

Thse clowns sound like the same people who will mis-use a single source of data to prove that "Global Warming" is happening.

Sad really.

hock: :x ?

Well, that settles it then -- clearly the gods were unhappy with Rome (Vestals not being virginal enough) and destroyed Rome in 100AD.

Ok, I over stated that. However, based upon this one article it is clear that the gods forced Rome into a decline in 100AD from which it never recovered.

Now this saves me having to read any of the chapters in the Roman History books the deal with events after 100 as clearly these are fiction.

Glad that's cleared up. Now, about Darth Vader being Luke's father...

:wink:

Narukami

Well,

I read the article and it does not suggest that Rome went into decline in 100AD. The articles uses the word "period" which is a spread of time and the Roman Empire did go under in the period between 100-400 AD. It certainly was not at 100 AD but by 400 AD Rome was no longer the power the world reconed with.

Another way you can look at it is that Rome was not on the "up" as time proceeded foward.

Generally, I could believe climatic changes affecting a civilisation.

In this story it is just unfortunate that they are off on their dates. The gentleman quoted was a geologist. Perhaps he didn't consult a historian for some cross-discipline work. :wink:

Actually , you could go with those dates. The decline may not have been so obvious at the start, but things were a changing.

Byron,

What you said is exactly what I was trying to convey. It is not mentioned implicitly that 100AD was the end of Rome.

400 AD seems fine in regards to the Byzantium claim (Constantine created Byzantium as far as I'm concerned), but 100 AD is surely wrong on the decline aspect! I never understood where the stigma attached to the Antonine period comes from; the over-abounding prosperity was only matched by Ptolemy, by Galen, by Diophantus, by the polymath Hadrian, etc. Decline could be considered to start from the reign of Severus, but to put it straight in the middle of Trajan's rule is woefully out of place.

James,

Again, the article does not say Rome declined in 100AD. It says that the geological event occurred within the period of decline of the Roman Empire 100AD-400AD. The key word is "period" since it is within this time that Rome did decline. In fact Rome was not really on the way up in this 300 year period. It still remained "ROME" but not the Rome of Augustus.

If the article would have read "the geological event occurred during the decline of Rome around 100AD or in 100AD, then everyone would be correct to give a shout.

Also we cannot go with everything that is written in articles. The media in their ambition to make something sound mysterious or even eventful tend to forget the facts or the correctness of their information and just write. It is possible that in talking the geologist was trying to give an answer that everyday people can grasp. The reporter then just took the information and interpreted it they way he/she felt was best to convey.

You should know living in New York as I do, that the media can make or break an issue, person, event, etc. regardless of the truth.

All I have to say is, "ha!" Maybe they could add that as an appendix in a two-parter with The DaVinci Code and Modern Nostradamus!

Quote:James,

Again, the article does not say Rome declined in 100AD. It says that the geological event occurred within the period of decline of the Roman Empire 100AD-400AD. The key word is "period" since it is within this time that Rome did decline. In fact Rome was not really on the way up in this 300 year period. It still remained "ROME" but not the Rome of Augustus.

If the article would have read "the geological event occurred during the decline of Rome around 100AD or in 100AD, then everyone would be correct to give a shout.

Also we cannot go with everything that is written in articles. The media in their ambition to make something sound mysterious or even eventful tend to forget the facts or the correctness of their information and just write. It is possible that in talking the geologist was trying to give an answer that everyday people can grasp. The reporter then just took the information and interpreted it they way he/she felt was best to convey.

You should know living in New York as I do, that the media can make or break an issue, person, event, etc. regardless of the truth.

To me the dates are a trivial matter. What I very much oppose it the use of a single point of reference. IE data gathered from a single rock from a single cavern to make sweeping statements about the environment.

That is incredibly poor science to the point that one should not even call it science.

Timothy,

The issue was originally about the dates not the science. Normally, I would have to agree with you being that I am a scientist myself; more data would be required to make a sweeping statement. However, if a particular issue is being researched, then any evidence is important. If this small sample is the only piece of evidence then certain hypotheses can be derived.

Furthermore, unless there are geologists amongst us we cannot critisize the methods and conclusions of this article. There may be other underlying issues that we are not aware of that led to these "sweeping statements". Thus unless we too have all the facts that these geologists have, we cannot say that it is bad science or make any conclusions.

Quote:[...] more data would be required to make a sweeping statement. However, if a particular issue is being researched, then any evidence is important. If this small sample is the only piece of evidence then certain hypotheses can be derived.

Furthermore, unless there are geologists amongst us we cannot critisize the methods and conclusions of this article. There may be other underlying issues that we are not aware of that led to these "sweeping statements". Thus unless we too have all the facts that these geologists have, we cannot say that it is bad science or make any conclusions.

That's spot on, Paolo. I might add that usually big efforts are made to ensure that a sample is representative. It's one of the core requirements for scientific work and it's hard to imagine that these guys just randomly picked some stalagmite because it looked so nice.
Regardless of that the article doesn't even claim any causal connection between Roman decline and climate change. In scientific terminology the term *correlation* refers just to the fact, that (at least) two different occurences/series of incidents happen at roughly the same time. And they merely state that this correlation is interesting.

Carsten,

Thank you for replying to my post and as you mentioned to me, I will proceed in kind to repeat "SPOT ON" to you as well.

What you eloquently said is what I have been trying to convey.