[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Response II and Roman emperors
Tim Donovan (KELL00BELL@aol.com) wrote:
when the regression began, but probably couldn't spread until it was far
advanced c. 65 Ma. Overrun by chasmosaurines, the Lancian ecosystem may
collapsed when many T-rexes migrated, easing predation pressure and causing
ceratopsid numbers and food demands to increase even more.
This reminds me of the mass Irish migration in the mid-19th century,
following the dreadful potato famine in Ireland. The population of Ireland
almost halved as Irish emigrants headed to America (mostly), Canada,
Australia, NZ and Britain.
However, there was no famine in Lancian North America to drive tyrannosaurs
across to Asia. I doubt if the tyrannosaur population of North America
would have declined so severely if food so was plentiful at home. With an
abundant supply of ceratopsian and hadrosaurian prey in N. America, why
would so many tyrannosaurs have rushed headlong across to eastern Asia?
Your theory also implies that the tyrannosaur migration was a sudden event,
with whole populations moving "en bloc" to the new environment (more like an
evacuation than a migration). If this trans-Bering tyrannosaur invasion did
happen, it was probably very slow (taking many thousands of years) and
probably occurred via the steady westward expansion of existing tyrannosaur
Moreover, T-rex had extremely acute senses and was very adept
at finding prey.
As opposed to all other Late Cretaceous theropod species, which were groping
And now for something completely different...
David Marjanovic wrote:
Before something like 400 or 500 AD, all c's, including those
before e and i, were pronounced as k. Caesar had the same first syllable as
Kylie... (German Kaiser is directly from there.)
I wonder if this corresponds to the demise of the Roman Empire in the
Latin-speaking West at the end of the 5th century, and its survival in the
Greek-speaking East (centered on Constantinople) for several centuries
And v was originally
pronounced w (that's why u and v were the same letter): In Greek
inscriptions the emperor Valerius was written Oualerios during his
while the later Valentinianus got a beta in front which was already
pronounced as v in Greek during his lifetime. [snip] I just
don't know when these two emperors lived...
Roman history is a hobby of mine, so I'll dive in here.
If you are referring to Valerian I, he was Emperor (Augustus) from
253 - 260 A.D. He was the first Roman Emperor to suffer the ignominious
fate of being captured alive by the King of Persia (Shah of Iran), Shapur I
- during what was supposed to be a truce.
Valerian II (son of the Emperor Gallienus) became Caesar in 256 A.D., but
was murdered by the rival Emperor Postumus two years later.
There were three Emperors named Valentinian: Valentinian I (364 - 375 A.D.),
Valentinian II (Emperor 375 - 392 A.D.) and Valentinian III (425 - 455
"Caesar" tended not to be an official title of the Roman Emperors, who were
typically acclaimed under the honorific title "Augustus"; "Caesar" was
usually applied to the Augustus's designated heir(s). This arrangement
became formalized under the Tetrarchy of Emperor Diocletian (ruled 284 - 305
A.D.). Both titles derive from the very first Roman Emperor, the great
Augustus Caesar (27 B.C. - 14 A.D.), grand-nephew and adopted son of Julius
Hence, I have always wondered why the title of "Caesar" should have been
co-opted in the Modern Era as an imperial title (as the Prussian/German
"Kaiser" and Russian and Bulgarian "Tsar"), rather than "Augustus". I guess
it may have more to do with the respect accorded to Julius Caesar than any
of his imperial successors.
Timothy J. Williams
Iowa State University
Ames IA 50014
Phone: 515 294 9233
Fax: 515 294 3163
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com