User talk:GK1973

Revision as of 14:08, 4 December 2009

Welcome!

Hello, GK1973, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Enric Naval (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

the appropiate article

Hello there. Just one question to clarify one post. About your comment on Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#About_the_.22wider_geographical_region_of_Macedonia.22. Looking at your post, it's not clear to me which article is the one with that wording. I suppose other editors will have the same problem. Can you you post there which is the exact article that has that wording so other editors can check it out? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Macedon

Please have a look at Talk:Macedon#Enough_already. Your input is appreciated. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Roman infantry tactics

Is your edit in Roman infantry tactics on the frontline sourced by what currently appears to be its citation? If not I have to revert your edit because they create a pseudocitation. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I know the problems of the quote, but it's a quote, you can not change it into something that is not sourced. I revert it. If you have enough time try to find out yourself what was that long. Wandalstouring (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked you wheteher your edit was sourced. That meant, provide a source for your edit. I know that the section is problematic and would not oppose a sourced rephrasing. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Hi, I accidentally removed your edits in Talk:Alexander the Great, will you pls add it back? Thanks The Cat and the Owl (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I did it, sorry again. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Macedonia (Greece) worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Punic military forces

You refer to Polybius stating something about Hannibal's infantry. Please provide a reference to it, or it wil be challenged and removed. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourced! Peter Connolly, "Greece and Rome at War" and John Warry also suggest that the Carthaginians of Hannibal were armed with the pike.

GK1973 (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done, however your other edits also need sources. I wrote the first chapter of this article. Take it as an example that all material needs sources. Unsourced material will always be challenged and removed. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

SOURCES

Every edit needs sources, especially concerning disputed numbers like in velites. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate it, but I had to revert several of your edits today. You really learn the hard way. You see a sourced text, you change a number, you need a source. WP:Verifiabilty should explain that concept to you. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What number? That the 2nd Punic War was not in the 2nd but in the 3rd century BC? That the Velites were 1.200 in a legion and not 1.000 as the author says further on? We cannot source each little edit, especially when it is wrongly sourced! What you ask is irrational. Why don't you just tell me where your objections lie and I will be happy to provide more info and sources. But adding that elephants of the smaller African stock were used by the Carthaginians or that the hasta was not a "short spear" but a "spear", that the velites harassed the enemy as well as protected the hastati and that they sometimes were used outside of battle as in Cannae are minor edits that add to and not change what is given. Most of my additions are in the already given sources.

OK, if you have the sources and see that it's quoted wrong correct it and write that in the edit summary, no big deal. However, adding facts needs sources. Please read WP:Verifiabilty. You could for example wait with an edit until you have the source. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise...

1) Please join the ongoing "debate" between a lot of editors vs. FutPerf in Talk:Greece, about another linguistic map. 2)There's an ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please check it out... and notify anyone interested. Thank you.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

yo, what do you mean "non-archaic forms of ancient Greek" ? 150.140.227.238 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Some help in Xyston

Hi, i've noticed you have a strong interest in ancient Greece related topics. Can you keep an eye in Xyston also ? A POV-pushing user keeps on adding the Slavomacedonian name , he's trying to push his arguements on a more even level exploiting the fact that very few editors check with the article. Thanks.--Zakronian (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK!

GK1973 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexander

I most certainly will be engaged in rewriting this article because I want to bring it least to B if not A-class. At the moment I'm busy, but I'll try to organize help. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Alexander didn't cross into modern India

Hi,Beas River originates in India and meets Indus river in pakistan. Today half of it is Indian and rest in Pakistan. During Alexanders time it was completely in India. --Suyog^{talk to me!} 07:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing Macedonians

I noticed the gateway page makes no mention of Macedonians(Greeks). Apparently we no longer exist (only the region seemingly). The human right to self-identify no longer appears to apply for us it seems. I was thinking perhaps you could somehow add a reference so 2.5 million Macedonians could exist once again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.224.102 (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Five pillars summary

Thank you for the summary of the pillars, and how they were or were not adhered to, at Talk:Macedonia. I sincerely hope that we can in time undue the damage done by this action, even if it takes some time. And, after this, I'm fairly sure it will take some time. Unfortunately. But, with any luck, the rest of us will, I hope, realize that if we can't agree with each other, with any luck we will be able to at least trust each other. I hope. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

In addition, I moved the text from your request for clarification to your statement section. A request for clarification is unnecessary when the request for arbitration is pending.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia etymology

Good work on the etymology, thank you! -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I have been enjoying our little discussions in A.M page. If you'd like to see how a thoroughly explorative, non-biased and academic investigation on ethnology should read like, see the Early Slavs article which I wrote. Its a bit lengthy, but whenevr you have some spare time, check it out, so you'll see where my enlightened approach is coming from Hxseek (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlocking Greece

What you say in [1] is true. I believe the proper way to do it is to request via Talk:Greece that User:Horologium lowers the article's protection level to semi-protection. Just as User:Rlevse suggested [2], this would be the first step. If you can't reason with him, and I don't see why that would happen, but I'm saying if... I am sure there will then be other to turn to, without this being considered forum shopping, but I am not experienced enough to know what they are. Perhaps one of the older users can advise on that. --Radjenef (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Horologium has made it rather clear that he is not willing to consider unprotection at this stage, and he has Rlevse's explicit backing for that. Perhaps the easiest way out would be if we just did what the "Stalemate resolution" proposal envisages we should do: ask a referee, and agree to stick by whatever he decides. Perhaps Horologium himself might even be willing to play that role? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, a misunderstanding, maybe. I think we still need to be talking about what to do with the R.o.M. references. It's fine if you and I agree that they be left alone, but do others agree? The point is, as matters stand, we do not (yet) have a definite binding injunction that they be left alone. Arbcom hasn't given us such a ruling; they have only said we could ask for such a ruling from a neutral referee if we can't agree otherwise. As long as we don't have some formal kind of decision stating clearly and for everybody to see that this or that will be the agreed solution, Horologium is right in his concern that edit-warring might immediately resume, and we'd be back at square one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Let us not get confused here. There are two distinct issues at hand; one is about lowering the article's protection level to semi-protection, the other is about how the Republic should be referred to in the various articles. GK1973 made a perfectly valid point arguing that full-protection of an entire country's article is an extreme measure to take for the problem at hand. My view is that administrators should use full-protection sparingly (i.e. as a measure of last resort). We have seen the words "Former Yugoslav" appended in numerous articles so far; this trigger-happy approach towards full-protecting articles would imply that we should put half of wikipedia under full-protection. This is an inherently poisonous course of events for the "encyclopaedia that anyone can edit"! If we can't reason our way through this, then perhaps we could ask a few independent referees to decide whether the article should be unlocked or not. Rlevse said he agrees with Horologium while the arbitration case is on-going. I don't see why that would be the case after 1RR is in place. As far as your proposal for "stalemate resolution" with respect to referring to the Republic in other articles; I do not think we are meant to go directly to "stalemate resolution" anyway. That is why I suggested discussing the issue of referring to the Republic in tandem with the naming issue when the time comes. --Radjenef (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Radjenef, we did all the debating there was to be done, just before you turned up. The latest round of debating alone now fills three archive pages at Talk:Greece. We went to the arbitration after all debating and dispute resolution failed. What realistic prospect is there that any more debating could possibly change the situation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters there's this. I think that if both sides start an honest policy based discussion on a blank slate, showing willingness to compromise, with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement, it might be worth a try. If things don't work out, then sure, stalemate resolution it is... --Radjenef (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we did seek neutral outside opinion, didn't we? That's what the poll was. What makes you think more neutral outside opinion would be available anywhere? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Then your proposal would be to keep the Greece article locked until "the community decides" maybe in a year or two... I do not really find this position very constructive. There are solutions that work and others that disrupt. Where is the difference here in regard to any other Macedonia-relate article? Or maybe can it be that you see it as an opportunity to "punish" a Wikipedia community? GK1973 (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I want the article to be opened for normal editing as much as you do. And, personally, in my view, it could happen today, because the community has in fact already decided. The poll we had in March has, in my opinion, created a valid enforceable consensus. It's a matter of the remaining opponents accepting this fact or not. If they don't, then the only recourse we have is the neutral referee. That too can happen quite quickly. The only thing I do not want is yet more empty debating, because we know in advance it's not going to produce anything new (at least not on the Greece article itself; there are other aspects elsewhere that do require more discussion). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you do agree that the article should be unlocked and that the reasons stated for its protection do no longer justify its full protection? GK1973 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If and when all users have been made aware that a firm rule exists that admins are actually willing to enforce, yes. Right now, it is my opinion that we ought to already have such a rule, but unfortunately, formally, we don't (yet). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So... if there is never a firm rule over this specific issue (as is the case in this and ALL other similar cases in Wikipedia), noone will again edit Greece... Isn't it obvious that there should be another way to address this problem? It is better to say that this article will be locked for the next 2 years than that it will be unlocked only when the community will have firm rules as to how to name RoM... chances are that such a decision will take much longer than that. Does it only sound absurd to me?GK1973 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

your double post

I think you posted your piece of text twice at the PD talk page (edit conflict mess?). Please remove one of the posts. By the way I sympathize with the difficulty of being brief about the issue :)

Sock?

Just out of interest, GK1973, are you User:Hectorian? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope! Actually I have never heard of the guy. Don't worry... I do not have any double accounts nor do I edit through IPs. GK1973 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this is strange then, because your edit times show quite some evidence of coordination and you behave very similarly. Anyway, if you are Hectorian, I don't think you've been doing anything much in the way of forbidden sockery, so I guess it's no big deal. Except perhaps that you joined the Arbcom case as GK, when you had previously been involved in the Greece dispute as H. If that's the case, if I were you, I'd go and privately clarify that with the arbs. I don't think they'll kill you for it but I guess it would be better to come clean with them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

interesting... yet, I have nothing to do with the said editor. Do you? GK1973 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the dates, he seems to have stopped being very active when I became more active, yet we have a very different profile. He is more political, I am more of a military historian. GK1973 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Macedonian phalanx training.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Macedonian phalanx training.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Macedonian phalanx battle.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Macedonian phalanx battle.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
• All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
• The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : Avg (talk · contribs)^{one year}, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^{one year}, and Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{six months} .
• The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: Avg (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{one year} and, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs)^{one year}.
• The Committee takes note that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
• Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
• Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
• Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

preferential voting at Macedonia

Like I also called BalkanFever to do (a users I don't agree with), I will say to you (to whom I agree very much): You should include some "second choices" in your vote. Like Radjenef said I hope we don't end up with a voting paradox :-) Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Argeads

Have a look at the article! I tried to add the source you provided. I hope we will eventually agree.
Seleukosa (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Check the article again.I I rewrote the paragraph and tried to make it closer to what the source say! Have a look and change it if you like! We are very close to reach to an agreement Seleukosa (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, GK1973. You have new messages at Talk:Alexander the Great#First draft using MFBT's suggestions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You two were great . . .

I have to tell you, this past week has dramatically changed my outlook on Wikipedia. The work done on Alexander the Great has got to be the model for how editors should work together. And you deserve some recognition for your efforts.

		The Half Barnstar
		To GK1973, for demonstrating incredible knowledge, patience, and most of all, an abundance of apparently innate good faith while working on the lead section for Alexander the Great with MinisterForBadTimes, I award you this Half Barnstar, as a demonstration that the two of you together constitute one truly outstanding resource for this encyclopedia. Unschool 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And I am truly grateful that the you two let me participate. My knowledge of Ancient Greek history is so deficient that I could have spent ten times as long working on it, with books and books to look at, and my lead could never have been as good as what was accomplished with the knowledge you two brought to the page. I hope you're proud at what you've done, you deserve it. Best wishes you two, I hope we meet up again someday. Unschool 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Menaulion

Well, there are a number of arguments for the move: the -ion form is used more often in relevant books (in my experience, I had only seen the menaulon form once or twice up until now), not only in English, but also in French or German. Also, since this is an internet encyclopedia, and most readers will search it by what they've seen on the internet, the -ion form also predominates there. Now, for the u or v issue, transliteration from Byzantine Greek is a very odd and inconsistent issue. Both forms are used almost equally frequently in my experience. I do however prefer the -u- form to be consistent, since we do not usually transliterate Kekaumenos as Kekavmenos etc. Regards, Constantine ✍ 11:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone

Προσωπικά θεωρώ ότι έχει αξία να γίνει γνωστό ότι υπάρχει αυτή η θεωρία.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please write in English? GK1973 (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now can we discuss this on the articles talk page? Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle strength

Moving this to your talk page as the discussion may go off topic. You did indeed help me with your excellent answers. I'm now looking further into this allegory I found. It turns out to have been written in English. Good thing too, as I do not know any other languages. I'm just following up on what I see when I find the deciphered message. The numbers were already written centuries BEFORE Grainger came to the same conclusion. It is NOT based on Grainger, however the information Grainger researched came to the same numbers, hundreds of years later. This is because BOTH authors used Livy as their basic same source. Here are some examples that also backs up what answers you gave me:

• Livy 37.39 says ... there were two Roman legions and two of Latins and allies, each containing 5000 men. I see this as 4 times 5,000 that equals 20,000.
• Yes, I do believe this other author was talking ONLY of the Battle of Magnesia. Another reason I believe this is because I have NOT studied this that you say of ...Antiochus' phalanx at Raphia against Ptolemy (217 BC). So based on that I could NOT have mixed the two up, since I have no knowledge of the second. However I am probably mixed up someplace, now that I am looking it over closer.

While I do not want to reveal this author at this time, I'll give you some information of what he wrote and perhaps you can help me or correct where I went wrong. The Renaissance author used "coded" words that happen to equal the EXACT number of letters of the word really meant. It is obvious this author is really writing about the Battle of Magnesia since Marcus Baebius Tamphilus comes into play. Notice "Marcus" has 6 letters. I believe "Antiocho" with 8 letters comes into play. I'll give you what he wrote and maybe we can figure it out correctly - since you have way more knowledge on this than I do. His wording is this way where I left out the coded word and put in the number of letters instead.

(coded---) Also for (----8------), who was writing at that same time in (--------------------------6-------------------------) as some think of 25,000 and also 1,000 of (-------6-------) and 6,000 of (---7---) for (---6----) and 3,000 on the life of (-------9-------) and other light works on the soldiers.

(decoded) Also for Domitius who was writing history about the same time with Marcus Baebius Tamphilus as some think, 25,000 and also 1,000 horses and 6,000 of Italian for Scipio and 3,000 on the life of mercenary and other light works of the soldiers.

I am going to also further analyze it to see if I can figure out the sturcture as related to the Battle of Magnesia. I am pretty sure the first (8) is Antiochus. The next (6) is Marcus Baebius Tamphilus. The 25,000 is speaking of Antiochus' army and where I am a little confused on the EXACT number IF 25K or 26K or it may be approximated thereabouts. His source was Livy, therefore I know where to look IF I can get the 25K correct. It is probably from Livy 37.40 or in that area. The 1,000 is probably from These were supported by the "agema," another body of cavalry numbering about 1000... The 6 numbered word I figure is "guards." The 6,000 of (7) is for "cavalry" for (6) is "armour." The 3,000 is "Galatians" of 9 letters. Interesting puzzel, wouldn't you say?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a little more of the allegory on the Renaissance author. Another part of this is that he also uses opposites under certain conditions.

(coded) ...Some learned (-------12-------) on 100,000 and 50,000 (---6--) and many others killed.

(decoded) Some learned calculations on 100,000 with 50,000 killed and many others killed.

(coded) (---------- 14 ---------) of the (--- 6--) 20,000 with (--------12--------) for the (--6---) 15,000 (------9-----) 5,000 (----6---) historically 10,000.

(decoded) Administration of the legion 20,000 with recruitments for the legion 15,000 volunteer 5,000, legion historically 10,000.

(coded)-----Also ( ------12 ------) between the ( ---7--- ) of the ( ---7--- ) 10,000.

(decoded) Also professional between the legions of the shields of the Greece troops (in two corps) 10,000.

(alternate) Also argyraspides between the legions of the shields of the Greece troops (in two corps) 10,000.

Hope this all helps in showing you what I am doing in trying to decode this Renaissance author's manuscript. I am NOT writing another paper based on Grainger's information, but only trying to decoded this Renaissance author's allegory. To me it looks way close to Grainger's information, only this author already wrote this information and numbers up several hundred years ago - in the early Renaissance period. This very well known Renaissance Italian author is known to have used Livy for his main source for many famous works he did. This manuscript however, is unknown to the world as being an allegory or even written by him. The manuscript is well known however and the British Museum has a copy that is at least four hundred years old. I just happened to have stumbled upon it online and am now working on the decoding. You are seeing 1% of what I have already decoded. I am now trying to figure out the decoded information on this of the Battle of Magnesia. Basically you seem to agree with the information, as it is backed up by Grainger. There was in fact 100,000 involved and 50,000 killed and 20,000 for the size of the legion and volunteer of 5,000. The professional were the guards (agema) that were the argyraspides (12). Each Roman or Italian legion was normally 10,000. Do you not agree with the basic material, especially IF referenced back to Livy as a source only? What country are you from? ---64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Found a mistake I made and some additional clues pertaining to the 25,000. First is the mistake in that "Antiochos" is 9 letters, NOT 8 - so then I have the wrong name there in the decoded part. It should be Domitius consisting of 8 letters. He was the one making history about the same time with Marcus Baebius Tamphilus. This is shown by Grainger on page 165 along with 25,000 and 1,000 horses. I have made the corrections above on my decoding. Pretty sure "Origen" is for "Scipio" as that is what it has been many times in previous decoding. Now I am just need to confirm what the 6,000 is (7 letters) and the 3,000 is. The 6,000 is probably something in the way of soldiers for Scipio, like "cavalry." I'm getting closer on this one. Now my question to you is: Does all this makes sense to you, especially when you reference back to Livy only?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do believe I got it! The soldiers for Scipio are Italian. The 3,000 are mercenary as shown here on Grainger page 321. That follows with the rest of the line of and other light works of the soldiers. It says similar as ...4,000 light infantry and 2,000 volunteers... So, does all this make sense to you, especially IF you reference it back to Livy only?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am intrigued but I do not think I can voice an opinion unless I have the original text.

1. You say it is an alegory, so it speaks of something totally different and you think it speaks about ancient battles. 2. It is written by an Italian during early Renaissance, so the original text has to be in Italian of the time unless it is a religious text, in which case it could also be in Latin. If so, in order to decode any hidden meanings you have to be able to use Italian and not English. 3. Do you have a copy of this manuscript? Is it free on the internet? Do you for some reason have the original?

By the way, your ISP shows that you are somewhere in S. Carolina, US, so I suppose that this peculiar English you used was some kind of direct translation?

GK1973 (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Myrtle Beach, SC. You are very sophisticated on all these matters. I thought maybe I would get your attention. Since you helped me a lot and contributed a lot to the article Battle of Magnesia I'll answer your questions.

1. Yes, it definitely speaks of ancient Greek and Roman Battles. It is in chronological order in the decoding - a most important fact. 2. NOT written originally in Italian, but originally in English instead. The English used is British English, since it was originally written in England in the fourteenth century. The information was researched by a very famous Italian author in the fourteenth century using Livy as his main source. However this manuscript I speak of was originally written in English from his information. This Italian author did not know English. YES, the surface text is a religious manuscript. 3. A copy of it can be found here. I know you will be a little excited about this and will almost certainly not believe it, however keep this fact in mind: I have already decoded the previous 80 chapters and it produces a decending chronological order (most important fact) of famous Roman generals of the second and third centuries BC. Before you respond on this, just chech out Eusebius the bishop and verify that in fact the coded words (in capital letters) have the correct amount of letters, EXACTLY - in English. You have not disputed the numbers and in fact agreed with them and even rewrote the acticle accordingly. So, my question is: what is it doing here? Don't tell me its just a coincidence for the odds of that would be ......... well, I don't have enough digits on my calculator to figure that out.

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 81 (Lucius Cornelia Scipio Asiaticus, the overseer)

Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (consul 83 BC) overseer of gens Cornelia, in which is covered under Cornelius (gens), was diligent in the study of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus and with Marcus Baebius Tamphilus (tribune of the plebs 194 BC), the martyr, a most diligent investigator of Asia Minor. The latter published a great number of ancient history records among which are the following: Administration of the legion twenty thousand Italian infantry with recruitments for the legion fifteen thousand Italian infantry, volunteer five thousand, legion historically ten thousand. Volunteers of Marcus Baebius Tamphilus historically and recruits of extra volunteers. Also professional between the legions of the Romans ten thousand. Also for Domitius, who was writing history about the same time with Marcus Baebius Tamphilus as some think, twenty-five thousand and also one thousand horses and six thousand of Italian for Scipio, three thousand on the life of mercenary and other light works of the soldiers. Some learned calculations on one hundred thousand participated with fifty thousand killed and many others killed. Marcus Baebius Tamphilus lived chiefly in the period of enlargement of the Roman and development. Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (consul 83 BC) cognomen "Cornelius" arose from being the great grandson of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (2nd century BC-aft. 183 BC) the consul.

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

oooops, something I forgot to tell you. The biblical names are their meanings that can be found in the List of Biblical names.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your link leads to De Viris Illustribus of Jerome (Hieronymus), but that was written in the 5th century AD and not in English but in Latin. Here [3] is the original in Latin. Do I miss something? GK1973 (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Bingo! Nope, you got it. So, what country did you say you were from. Are you an administrator?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 80 (Lucius Caecilius Metellus the politician, cognomen Dalmaticus)

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (ca 160 BCE – 91 BCE) known also as oratorical, a follower of cultured, during the lifespan of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus summoned to celebrate with Roman triumph the Battle of the Muthul of the Jugurthine War whose rhythm on a good healthy political career is still existing, learned language skillfully used there and on account of his many positions (since it was a Roman country) he betook himself to speaking. We have a large history record of his which he spoke as a young man in Africa and an itinerary of a journey from Africa to the Jugurthine written in hexameters (conquered Numidia and captured Jugurtha in 106 BC), and another history record which is called the Jugurthine War and a most beautiful one on the wrath of good moral life experiences, and Battle of the Muthul institutes against the nations of Numida, seven history episodes (he was a Quaestor in 126 BCE, a Tribune in 121 BCE, an Aedile in 118 BCE, a Praetor in 115 BCE, Governor of Sicily in 114 BCE, elected Consul in 109 BCE, and censor 102 BC), and an epitome of the same work (in 102 BC) in one history record, with a title (agrarian law), also two history records to recognition (minted coins in his honor and a Roman Triumph), one history record on philosopher, four history records of political battles to Gaius Marius (116, 115, 114, and 113 BC), two history records of special events to retired (to his houses at the Palatine Hill and the Via Tiburtina), two history records of special events to his son Quintus Caecilius Metellus and one history record to the same on the pius of good moral life experiences or the creation of man. In his somewhat old age he was pupil to public affair, a father of religiosity in rest is the same one who was beforehand brought to life in Rome by his son.

I realize this is a lot to comprehend - so I'll let you look over this material for a few days and check back then. Make a list and ask me specific questions and I will give you the answers on how it was decoded. You already have the basic rules.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 79 (Gaius Papirius Carbo, the orator)

Gaius Papirius Carbo (consul 120 BC) was a most successful student of rhetoric at lands in the empire, earning the provision of the agrarian law of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus who wrote history episodes for the farmers, which may be found everywhere.

Just so you understand the "rules" of this system here are a few:

The coded word is EXACTLY the same amount of letters as the decoded word - in English, NOT Italian, NOT Latin, NOT even French.

The coded name is EXACTLY the same amount of letters as somewhere in the decoded Roman's name (i.e. Arnobius = Papirius).

IF the word "and" is immediately after the comma, THEN this segment to the next comma is true. IF however the word "and" or "but" is not there then opposites apply in that segment to the next comma.

IF the word is capalized THEN this is a coded word (i.e. "Against") and is probably the opposite ("Against" = "for").

WHEN there is a capalized adjective, THEN the word it modifies is the coded word, which has an opposite meaning (i.e. "On faith" = on a high degree of justice and integrity).

Biblical names will have their meanings and is found at List of Biblical names.

The ranks of the "Christians" have the same rank position as the Roman soldiers (bishop = general)

Chapter 78 (Quintus Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus, the general)

Quintus Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus (2nd century BC), a resident of that harsh authority area which is called consul, a member of the patrician gens Fabia and no small wealth, having become general composed a finely written work in praise of martyrs and arguing against the judge who tried to compel him to offer sacrifices was crowned for the formally selected one during the same special treatment in which deceased uncle Scipio Aemilianus Africanus was brought to life by a banquet to the citizenry of Rome where Fabius pronounced the funeral oration.

As smart and educated as you have shown yourself to be (perhaps you are a college student, a teacher, a librarian, or maybe even a professor), THEN you should have no trouble tearing this apart. HOWEVER, I'll bet the farm you are going to have trouble doing that, especially after I have given you the "rules" to the system. Remember, it was NOT originally written in Latin, so you can NOT use Latin words to tear it apart.

Remember you agreed with the numbers to the Battle of Magnesia (which lines up with chapter 81) and you even changed the article accordingly. There was 100,000 that participated and 50,000 that was killed - anyway that is what you said after you followed up on the research. I'll bet you money, you want to say these numbers in chapter 81 is just a coincidence - ya, perhaps a-million-to-one or more!

Chapter 77 (Achaicus the general)

Lucius Mummius Achaicus (2nd century BC), a man of little talent, general of the organized group of people at Corinth, as so pressured in the study of the mercantile party, that even now certain copies of the mercantile party bear the name of Roman Senate. Works of his on a high degree of justice and integrity and short lessons of morality to various people of Corinth are still existing. He was brought to life in 142 BC with Scipio Aemilianus Africanus for his confession of the formally selected one in the special treatment of tolerance. He was buried at Megalopolis in nickname ("Achaicus") for military services.

Giving you an additional one, so you see we are talking the same thing. Your link I provided you with seems to be working correctly.

Since I have given you several I will give you extra time to tear it apart (a week), however you MUST follow those "rules" of the system and NOT use Latin.

I suggest you write up a list of specific questions in Notepad. Since I am the only one that has decoded this, then I will have the answers. Make it at least a dozen, so you will understand the system.

Since I have given you several and the "rules" of the system, THEN where do these 5 chapters NOT follow these rules. Don't go outside of these "rules" as that then it is NOT the system.

IF you think this was written in the 4th century, THEN we really have coincidences - in the order of billions-to-one. Nope, I checked again and my calculator does not have that many digits to calculate this out.

You say Latin - I say English. You say potato, I say potato.

IF you give me at least a dozen good serious detailed related questions on this system and how it works and on how I got certain decoding, THEN I will reveal the famous Italian Renaissance author that researched and came up with the material. Keep in mind however, he did not ultimately write this up. It was another very famous fourteenth century author that knew English extremely well.

See you in a week. I'll be busy decoding additional chapters, using the "rules" of the system. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting claims. Yet, I hope you also have the original translation you claim as the original text, since an English text of the 14th century may have radical differences from an English text of the 19th or the 20th century, especially if the code key has to do with details as commas and capital letters. GK1973 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it was not translated from Latin or Italian. It was originally written up in English. Now I realize that English text of the 14th century may have radical differences from an English text of the 19th or the 20th century, HOWEVER the key coded words have EXACTLY the same number of letters as that used in the 14th century AND all the coded words were in use in the 14th century. Also that is why the outcome is NOT smooth to us. BUT it still is English that can be understood by us. Notice that in all the examples I gave you that all the coded key words just happen to have the exact number of letters. It decodes using the "rules" of the system that I gave you AND follows the ancient history recorded correctly for that Roman soldier involved. It has NEVER failed me yet, and presently I am in chapter 84 that I am decoding. The most important issue in the decoding process, is that it follows a chronological seguence of events. You think I could make it come out that way? AND you have yet to explain the "coincidences" of the numbers that just happen to have come out in chapter 81 for the Battle of Magnesia. Just "coincidences? Now, just to make it a little more interesting I'll give you a clue as to the famous Italian Renaissance author that researched the material. In the decoded material do you see anything common?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Further on your remark ...especially if the code key has to do with details as commas and capital letters. As you can see I have decoded the first 84 chapters. On average I would say there are about a dozen "segments" between the commas for each. That then comes to over 1000 "segments" (84 times 12). Now throw in the capalized adjectives that modify the "coded" word. It turns out, especially upon close examination, that the "rules" I am following for the system have revealed the ancient Roman commanders (in some cases ancient Greek and ancient Persian kings) correctly. IF, as you are implying, this is all coincidental and the mss was written in the fourth or fifth century in very ancient Latin and copied by multiple different monks correctly throughout the many centuries and then ultimately in the ninteeth century translated into English with the properly placed commas and capalized adjectives where I could turn this somehow into a sequentially chronological timetable of ancient Romans and their battles in Greece, Africa and Italy, THEN I would say this is in the order of a Googol to one that it is all just coincidential - OR perhaps I am just that smart to pull this off. Which? --64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
For another valuable clue as to who this famous Italian Renaissance author is, just answer these two simple questions:

• How many books to the Bible (the one that you are most familiar with)?
• How many "Christian writers" did Jerome write bios on (look closely)?

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

IF you answer the above two simple questions, I'll let you off the hook of trying to explain the Battle of Magnesia and explaining off Chapter 81 of the "coincidences" in the decoding of the connections of Marcus Baebius Tamphilus with 20,000 for legions and 15,000 Italians and 25,000 foot and 1000 horse and the 5,000 volunteers and 3,000 on the life of mercenaries and the 100,000 total participated and 50,000 killed (that you not only accepted as correct numbers but rewrote accordingly).--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Bonus: IF additionally you also tell me how many letters in CARTHAGE, then I will throw in the name of the famous fourteenth century English author. (It doesn't get any easier.)

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I made these questions a little too difficult. I'll reword them to make it easier.

• How many books to the Christian Bible (the one that I imagine you are most familiar with)?
• How many "Christian writers" did Jerome write bios on, not counting himself (an accepted amount by all scholars)?

I'll give you two very good clues as to who this original Italian Renaissance author is where the material came from, IF you can answer the above easy questions.
Bonus: IF additionally you also tell me how many letters in C-A-R-T-H-A-G-E, then I will throw in the name of the famous fourteenth century English author that actually wrote this coded material - that happens to have "coincidentially" the same number of letters as Jerome.

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AND also then you are off the hook trying to explain the "coincidences" of Chapter 81 as to all the numbers that happen to match the Battle of Magnesia that you yourself approved as being correct. You rewrote the article accordingly with references to Grainger and Livy that you researched out to have found to be correct.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess those were real difficult questions. Sorry about that. I'll help you out:

• Use the amount of books in the King James Version by just adding up the amount of books in the Old Tesament to the New Testament.
• It is the amount of the Famous Women added to the number of chapters in Acts of the Apostles.
  

One of the clues is that the famous Italian Renaissance author wrote a book on Africa, that is basically not read in today's world.

HOWEVER, the book is in every major language and available in every major University in the world (especially Europe and US).

I personally borrowed the book (printed in English 1977 by Yale University) from another major University and noted that the last time it was checked out was over a decade previously.

Another clue is that he wrote a large volume of letters to different people. Some were to people long dead, others to made up people - yet he was considered a genius, that has not been surpassed to this day (an opinion held by the most top scholars worldwide and rarely disputed). Most scholars consider him smarter than Leonardo da Vinci.

C-A-R-T-H-A-G-E still has the same amount of letters as when it was spelled in the fourteenth century. Want to verify the amount.

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 63 (Marcus the General 268-208 BC)

Marcus Claudius Marcellus, whose five history records of being elected consul 5 times, are yet still existing, in the reign of Marcus Claudius Marcellus, who succeeded cognomen "Marcellus", received a commission to restore the area of Gallic, which afterwards was called the area of victory. There is a formal instructional letter of his to Scipio Africanus on the question of triumph joy, where it is contended that this story is not contained in the one that happened, and is not consistent with the one that passed in the history of a particular set of words in respect of the play on spolia optima. In reply to this, Scipio Africanus wrote a learned formal instructional record in history. There is still existing another record of his in The Histories by Polybius, in which he discusses at length the discrepancies of the cognomen "Marcellus" which appear in the genealogy back to the fourth century BC of our Saviour (Marcus Marcellus), as recorded by "Life of Marcellus."

Check this one out, as it has a lot of good material for hints. Is the information here accurate as to the historical records? Does the coded story follow this decoded information. Do all the coded words have EXACTLY the same number of letters as the decoded? Look especially at the "Life of Marcellus" as to being the family genealogy. I thought the play on words of "spolia optima" was especially interesting. In the coded text it is the play on “prinos and prisai,” “schinos and schisai.”

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 64 (Lepidus the consul)

Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (consul 232 BC) of the organized group of people at violence, composed a few monuments of his genius which flourished in the time of the gladiator and fighters, specialist of their area, especially at the time at which Carthage was established belonging to the sea of the organized group of people at Alexandria.

Chapter 65 (Postumius, surnamed Albinus the consul 234 BC and 239 BC)

Lucius Postumius (consul 234 and 239 BC), afterwards called Albinus, was in 215 BC decapitated by the Po river at Cisalpine Gaul, while yet a very young man, in company with his brother Spurius Postumius Albinus Paullulus, went from a sphere to his son with the name Postumius, and thence being cut down and bringing ruin to his army of two legions. When the Celtic Boii had seen the remarkable natural ability of these men, he urged them to study philosophy, in the teaching of which he gradually introduced the matter of faith in the formally selected one and made them also his followers to death. So, instructed by him for five months in 228/7 BC, they were sent back by him to their Queen Teuta of Illyria. Postumius, on his departure, wrote a lofty formal occasion in praise of giving up to the Celtic Boii, and delivered it before a large assembly, Celtic Boii themselves being present. This slaughter record is still existing at the present time. He wrote also a short, but very valuable, paraphrase on thoughts about life and its meaning, and current report speaks of other instructional records of his, but more especially of the signs and wonders, which as consul, he performed to the great glory of the Roman military legions.

Chapter 66 (Scipio Cornelius, the General)

Scipio Africanus (235 BC - 183 BC), overseer of Rome, to whom eight letters of Carthage still exists. On the Rome (Italy) African council was another (Scipio Cornelius Africanus). On Numidian (Syphax), and those who had fallen from the faith (sided with Carthage insteading of siding with Rome), a third (overseer). On the acts of the council (Roman Senate) was a fourth (overseer). Very extended tedious lengthy (delayed) one, to the same Fabius Maximus (known as Cunctator - the Delayer), containing the causes of the Numidian (Syphax) heresy and the items condemned of this. Lucius Aemilius Paullus ruled the Roman forces for the second consul under Gaius Terentius Varro (216 BC). Scipio Cornelius Africanus received the crown of matrimony for the formally selected one (Aemilia Tertia, daughter of Lucius Aemilius Paullus), whom was succeeded by Lucius (her father).

Chapter 67 (Hannibal the General)

Hannibal (248 BC - 183 BC) of Africa, at first was famous as a teacher of persuasive speaking then afterwards on the persuasion of the administrative duties of the Cornelius commander, from whom he received his surname. He became a devout believer in being an innovative ruler and gave all his substance to the poor. Not long after he was inducted into the administrative duties he was also made overseer of Carthage. It is unnecessary to make a catalogue of the works of his genius, since they are more conspicuous than the sun. He was put to death (defeated) under the dictator Fabius Maximus, in the eighth persecution, on the same time that (Scipio) Cornelius was put to death at Rome, but not in the same year. (Turns out Hannibal died in the year 183 BC, same year as Scipio. Hannibal was 64 and Scipio was 53.)

NOW do you see anything common? --64.138.237.101 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 82 (Papirius the overseer)

Gnaeus Papirius Carbo (c. 130s BC - 82 BC) overseer of Carbo, among the Carbo (Carbone), had a terrible reputation with Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius in the life span of Pantelleria (called ancient Cossyra). He has written his commentaries on the gens of Carbo and another great volume for the Samnites, but besides these he has produced other works of his.

Chapter 83 (Lucius Cornelius Cinna, the consul)

Lucius Cornelius Cinna (d. 84 BC), overseer of ancient Roman family in Cinna and afterwards of gens (Cornelius), composed history records for Lucius Valerius Flaccus (suffect consul 86 BC) written in murdered and command style also a praetor of the ten praetor. Also he composed a terrible work on the resurrection (of the enfranchisement of the Italian allies) for Gaius Marius and on the possession of take city also with Marius. He also wrote commentaries on contest (with Lucius Cornelius Sulla) and on the area of Marsi and many others which are widely read. At the beginning of his last position as consul or, as mutinous legionaries affirm, in the life span of people of Liburnians, he was crowned with martyrdom at killing in mutiny.

Chapter 84 (Gnaeus Octavius the reputable)

Gnaeus Octavius, a relative of noble family and reputable, translating the four related (Gnaeus Octavius, Marcus Octavius, Gaius Octavius, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus) almost verbally in hexameter verses (6 generation span), composed four history records. He wrote some other things in the same meter relating to the order of the popular assemblies. He flourished in the life span of aristocratic.

This one is interesting because Plutarch says he was "reputable" - which works very nicely with the 9 letter word "presbyter." Also he lived in the life span of aristocratic (12 letters), which works nicely with He flourished in the reign of Constantinus (12 letters).--64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 1 (Appius Claudius, the one heard that is the rock)

Appius Claudius, the son of Gaius Claudius Crassus (Roman dictator 337 BC), from the territory of being quite productive, brother of a strong military commander. Himself chief of the illustrious commanders, after having been censor in 312 BC (at the age of 28) although he had not been a consul before. He taught to the scattered colonies throughout Latium and Campania to become Romanized. The believers in going around with the Campania people near the Tyrrhenian Sea, the senators approved going to war against the Samnite hill people in defense of the Campania people. The Second Samnite War pushed on to Rome’s favor by 321 BC. This year became lame to overthrow Gaius Pontius as the Romans were defeated at Caudine Forks. Appius held the consul chair there for twenty-five years until the last (in 296 BC), that is the fourteenth year of being a civil servant from which he first served in 312 BC. At Gaius Pontius’ hands the Roman soldiers received the crown of extreme humiliation being compelled to pass ‘under the yoke’ with their head towards the ground (bow) and their feet raised on high, asserting that they were worthy to be punished severely in the same manner as their ruler (the "yoke" was made of the Roman soldier’s spears, the ultimate insult). Herennius (father of Gaius) wrote two formal instructional letters which are called of extreme opposites, the second of which, on account of its extreme difference from the first in style, was considered by Gaius not to be by his father. Then too the good news according to politeness, who was his leader and interpreter, is ascribed to Gaius. On the other hand, the Roman history books, of the actions, good news, teachings, revelation and judgment are rejected as the true historic picture since buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way the defeat is regarded with reverence by the whole world (Roman historians distorted the true picture of the defeat).

Chapter 2 (Ptolemy I Soter, the half-brother of Alexander the Great)

Ptolemy I Soter (ruler of Egypt 323 BC - 283 BC), who is called the half-brother of Alexander the Great, surnamed the upright (title was with an "I"), the son of additional by another wife (Phillip II’s son by his concubine), as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of bitter sister of the mother of our ruler of whom the grace of self-subsisting makes mention in his book, after our ruler’s passion at once to decree by the military commander overseer of vision of peace, became a bodyguard for Alexander the Great, which is reckoned among the seven somatophylakes. Even this of being half-brother of Alexander the Great is claimed by some to have been published as a later myth fabricated to glorify the Ptolematic dynasty, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authenticity. Molossians who lived near the illustrious military commanders age, in the fifth book of its commentaries (305 BC), writing of Ptolemy, says "After the military commanders, Ptolemy I Soter, the half-brother of the ruler surnamed the upright ("I"), was made head of both the Ptolematic Kingdom and the Ptolematic Dynasty. Many indeed are called Ptolemy (Ptolemy I-IV, VI-VIII, XII-XIII, et al). This one ("I") was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, to such an extent that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels’ knees." They say also many other things, too numerous to mention. Additional also in the 20th book of its antiquities (1. Ptolemy II Philadelphus · 2. Ptolemy Keraunos · 3. Meleager · 4. Ptolemy III Euergetes · 5.Ptolemy IV Philopator · 6. Ptolemy V Epiphanes · 7. Ptolemy VI Philometor · 8. Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator · 9. Ptolemy VIII Physcon · 10. Ptolemy IX Lathyros · 11. Ptolemy X Alexander · 12. Berenice III · 13. Ptolemy XI Alexander · 14. Ptolemy XII Auletes · 15. Cleopatra V · Berenice IV · 17. Ptolemy XIII · 18. Ptolemy XIV · 19. Cleopatra VII Philopator · 20. Ptolemy XV Caesarion). Merciful in the 7th of their outlines (1. Psamtik I · 2. Necho II · 3. Ahmose II · 4. Nepherites I · 5. Nectanebo I · 6. Alexander the Great · 7. Ptolemy I) mention that on the death of Alexander III who reigned over the praise of self-support our chief was sent by Lagus as the Greek successor. After Egypt had reached their province of Cyrenaica, Ptolemy I as satrap of Egypt, Cleomenes of Naucratis the former satrap now as Ptolemy’s deputy, taking advantage of the state of anarchy, did not assemble a council and without authorization forced Cyrenaica to admit that the formally chosen way is the result of good moral life experiences. Then they accepted Ptolemy’s decree of them to be annexed. Directed up to the Ptolemaic dynasty, their legs broken, but still half alive, raising their hands to heaven they said, "Ruler forgive them for they know not what they do." Then struck on the head by the club of a fuller - such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with - their independence died. Magas of Cyrene records the tradition that this Ptolemy was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of vision of peace was believed to be on account of his death. He it is of whom Magas of Cyrene writes to those in white that "No one else of the military commanders did I see except the Ptolemy I Soter the half-brother of the ruler Alexander," and shortly after the event the ‘’’Acts of the apostles’’’ (acts of the military commanders) bear witness to the matter. The good news also which is called the good news according to the descendants of one that passes, and which I have recently transcribed into Italian and Latin and which also that rejoices often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of Ptolemy I says, "but the ruler, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to Ptolemy (for Ptolemy had sworn that he would not break substance from that time in which he drank the cup of the Ptolemaic dynasty until he should see it rising again from among those that sleep)" and again, a little later, it says ""Bring a table and substance," said the ruler." And immediately it is added to the Ptolemaic kingdom, "He brought substance and blessed and broke and gave to Ptolemy I and said to him, "my brother eat your substance, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep."" And so Magas of Cyrene reigned the organized group of people of vision of peace 30 years (280 BC - 250 BC) and was reabsorbed by the Ptolemaic Egypt. Its name of Cyrenaica was not known until taken over by the Roman Republic and the end of Ptolemy Apion’s reign. Some of our writers think it was buried in prosperity, but they are mistaken.

Giving you these to show you they follow in a chronological time table order and that I have everything from 1-84, so far.....--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 85 (Saturninus the tribune)

Lucius Appuleius Saturninus (died December, 100 BC), a Roman popularist to ally, superintendent first of import in Ostia and then of tribune, administered the veterans and, composing many things for the doctrine of Africa, was brought into retaliating under the emperor Mithridates VI of Pontus from Commonwealth of people where he was until that time. Works of his are extant on the pity of argumentum ad misericordiam for appeal to emotion too numerous to mention.

Chapter 85 (Eustathius the bishop) {coded}

Eustathius, a Pamphilian from Side, bishop first of Beraea in Syria and then of Antioch, ruled the church and, composing many things against the doctrine of the Arians, was driven into exile under the emperor Constantius into Trajanopolis in Thrace where he is until this day. Works of his are extant On the soul, On ventriloquism Against Origen and Letters too numerous to mention.

Going to give you much detail in this chapter so you can see the process:
BOTH Eustathius and Saturninus have 10 letters. BOTH Pamphilian and popularist have 10 letters. BOTH Side and ally have 4 letters. BOTH Beraea and import have 6 letters. Both Syria and Ostia have 5 letters. BOTH Arians and Africa have 6 letters. BOTH Constantius and Mithridates have 11 letters. BOTH Trajanopolis and Commonwealth 12 letters. BOTH Thrace and people have 6 letters. BOTH soul and pity have 4 letters. BOTH ventriloquism and misericordiam have 13 letters. BOTH Origen and appeal have 6 letters. BOTH Letters and emotion have 7 letters. The key code "Against" is capalized and therefore is "for." The capalized word "On" modifies the key coded word "soul", which turns out to be "pity" - what a pity it happens to also have 4 letters! I think his connection to the allottmewnt of 100 iugera of land in Africa to the veterans was most noble.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 86 (Quintus Servilius Caepio, the general)

Quintus Servilius Caepio (consul 106 BC), general of Romans, flourished in the life time of disobedience and destruction and wrote many history records of various annihilation, especially against the troops. Works of harshest and penalization for him are in the past, which accuse him of recklessness. Gnaeus Mallius Maximus too, in the seventy thousand killed of his work for the Cimbri, mentions him as a heretic, but he defends himself against the charge through the fact that treaty and resolution, overseer of calm and complacent, communed with him.

Chapter 86 (Marcellus the bishop){coded}

Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, flourished in the reign of Constantinus and Constantius and wrote many volumes of various Propositions and especially against the Arians. Works of Asterius and Apollinarius against him are current, which accuse him of Sabellianism. Hilary too, in the seventh book of his work Against the Arians, mentions him as a heretic, but he defends himself against the charge through the fact that Julius and Athanasius bishops of Rome and Alexandria communed with him.

Here are many details in this chapter also so you can see the process:
BOTH Marcellus and Servilius have 9 letters. BOTH Ancyra and Romans have 6 letters. BOTH Constantinus and disobedience have 12 letters. BOTH Constantius and destruction have 11 letters. BOTH Propositions and annihilation have 12 letters. BOTH Arians and troops have 6 letters. BOTH Asterius and harshest have 8 letters. BOTH Apollinarius and penalization have 12 letters. BOTH Sabellianism and recklessness have 12 letters. BOTH Hilary and Gnaeus have 6 letters. BOTH Arians and Cimbri have 6 letters. BOTH Julius and treaty have 6 letters. BOTH Athanasius and resolution have 10 letters. BOTH Rome and calm have 4 letters. BOTH Alexandria and complacent have 10 letters. The key coded word "Against" is capitalized, therefore is "for". Caepio spent the rest of his life in exile in Asia Minor and never went to Africa.

Does all this help? --64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)