Alexandria wasn't known as a learning center? http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_database/ancient_alex.html

Here is Archimedes who studied at Aleaxndria. http://www.shu.edu/projects/reals/history/archimed.html

Indeed, they make me wonder if there's more to AE than just some dusty historical curiosity -- otherwise why are they so utterly desperate to "keep the cat in the bag"?: deny and trivialize AE's achievements AND claim it as "white", and keep African people away from the subject...

For my part, it only makes me more interested in the secrets they're trying to keep hushed...

Such a merger of religious traditions was seen in the Apis bull and Greek hybridization into the deity Serapis. The Serapeum most definatley had ancient Kemetian[Egyptian] literature and previsously temples called Pr Ankhs[House of Life] served as scriptoriums for scribes.

A rebuttal by Jill Kamil:

Alexandria before Alexander
Egyptians have allowed Greece to claim Alexandria as a Graeco-Roman legacy. Jill Kamil goes back three hundred years before the great Mediterranean capital was founded and attempts to set the record straight

<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/605/_hrk.jpg>
Click to view caption
Apis crowned with the solar disc in his incarnation of Serapis, in black granite, found underneath the former site of the Serapeum; Serapis in his human form, now in the Graeco-Roman Museum; part of a red granite statue of Ramses II found at Canopus
The arrival of Alexander the Great in 332 BC was not the close of an epoch, and nor did his heirs, the Ptolemies, cause a social revolution. The so-called "conquest" was a mere episode in Egyptian history, as there had been a blending of Egyptian and Greek cultures in Egypt long before Alexander's arrival. From the sixth century BC Greek traders and sailors had established communities in Egypt and worshipped Egyptian gods under Greek names.

As well as having these close ties with Greeks, the Egyptians welcomed Alexander because Egypt and Greece shared a common enemy: Persia. When Alexander, after vanquishing the Persians, arrived at the Nile he stopped in Memphis to pay homage at the temple of Ptah, one of the "great gods" of Egypt, but did not waste time going to Thebes (Luxor), the southern capital and the centre of the cult of Amun-Re (that gesture of respect could wait until he went to Siwa). Instead, he sent his officer Apollonius south as his envoy while he himself marched down the Canopic branch of the Nile towards the Mediterranean.

He reached its outlet east of the cape of present-day Abu Qir, a long limestone spur about 45 kilometres west of Alexandria where a port had existed as far back as the reign of Ramses II. This great New Kingdom Pharaoh had built fortresses all along the Mediterranean coast, and numerous statues of him found at Canopis are now in the Graeco-Roman Museum.

Continuing his march westwards, Alexander reached a long, narrow sandy ridge where a series of islands separated the Mediterranean from Lake Maryut (Mareotis). Pharos, the largest of the offshore islands, protected a natural bay, and tradition holds that Alexander immediately perceived a site on the mainland opposite as an ideal location for his new city.

In fact, its strategic importance had been recognised much earlier. A community which existed nearby was probably founded i n the 18th dynasty, about 1567 BC. This town was known as Rhakotis, a name it retained in the Egyptian community until the 12th century AD. This community grew, and two centuries later Ramses II built a temple there in honour of Osiris to cater to the people's spiritual needs. In the Saite Dynasty, six centuries before the arrival of Alexander, a military garrison was established at Rhakotis.

So it is clear from the above that alongside the site chosen by Alexander for his new capital there was already a large town with a temple, and there is indication, but no conclusive proof, that it was important enough for Nektanebo II, the last native Pharaoh before the Greek conquest, to consider being buried there.

Rhakotis was clearly not the insignificant village peopled by nomadic pastoralists and their flocks alluded to in classical sources, nor "the wretched fishing village" described by Idris Bell in his Egypt from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest.

Pre-Ptolemaic ruins have been found beneath the sea between the large rock known as Abu Bakr and the western tip of the island of Pharos, along with a series of smaller rocks joined by breakwaters placed on the north side to create a harbour. Most of these ancient quays were reused in the foundations of a modern breakwater, but evidence of their existence was confirmed by M Jondet in his Les ports submergés de l'ancienne ?le de Pharos , in which he attributed construction of the harbour to Crete, then a maritime power. Furthemore, he claims the 1,800m-long Heptastadion Dike attributed to Alexander's engineers was built on an older foundation.

When Alexander, with the help of Dinocrates, an experienced Greek city planner from Rhodes (who built the great temple of Diana at Ephesis), laid out his new city, it was designed on a regular blueprint of Hellenic cities but on a much larger scale. Rhakotis and its temple, ideally located at the shortest distance between Pharos and the mainland, was automatically absorbed into the city on the west.

Ptolemy I Soter, who assumed the throne some years after Alexander's untimely death, saw the need to create a national god who would be equally acceptable to all members of the community of Alexandria, Egyptian and Greek, and Osir-Apis (Serapis) was invented. This was a god who combined Osiris, Egypt's most beloved ancestor-figure who was worshipped in Rhakotis and popular throughout Egypt, with Apis, the sacred bull of Memphis. The invention of this hybrid deity has been attributed to two sources: a priestly family acquainted with Greek ritual and an Egyptian familiar with local tradition. To launch Serapis on his career, the colossal statue of a reclining man (carved by the Greek sculptor Bryaxis) was appropriated from a sanctuary of Hades at Sinope on the north coast of Asia Minor and shipped to Alexandria. The Temple of Osiris was rebuilt to accommodate Osir-Apis, and became known as the Serapeum.

This temple was destroyed by Christians during the religious strife in Alexandria in 391, but archaeological evidence, along with the description of the historian Rufinus at the end of the fourth century, reveals that it was large, rectangular in shape, and surrounded by a colonnade, halls and storerooms -- in other words much like a traditional Egyptian temple. Surviving blocks of stone suggest that considerable material from earlier Pharaonic structures was reused in its construction. In 1943 and 1945 the foundation deposits at the site revealed two sets of bilingual Greek-Egyptian texts which attest to the Serapeum having been completed under Ptolemy III Euergetes and to its catering to a Graeco-Egyptian community.

When the Mouseion, a great research facility with its famous library, was founded by Ptolemy I Soter and completed under Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-247 BC) Alexandria became culturally unrivalled. It attracted the most illustrious poets, artists and scientists of the day. Ptolemy II had a passionate desire to store up knowledge, and one of his chief librarians, Callimachus, a Homeric scholar and one of the greatest epic poets of antiquity, accumulated a store of Greek literary heritage. The library of Alexander's former tutor Aristotle was also brought to Alexandria. The complex scriptures of the Zoroastrian Bible (Avasta Zend) were translated into Greek in the institution, along with the Hebrew scriptures and the Egyptian "king list", which was compiled by a priest called Manetho.

But little was done to collect or collate the rest of Egypt's enormous literary heritage, and one must ask why this was so. The answer is self- evident. It was because the Egyptians had their own library in the now upgraded temple of Osir- Apis (Serapis) in Rhakotis.

All important Egyptian temples had a "house of life" where ancient literature was stored, texts copied by scribes, and some of the papyrus scrolls cut and bound into books (codices). The temples of Heliopolis, Sais and Memphis were among the most famous for their scribes and sages, who studied the constellations and the courses of the planets, trained physicians, and copied their ancient wisdom from generation to generation through the millennia.

Under what is known as the Saite revival in the sixth century BC, for example, scribes were ordered to collect, document and recopy proverbial wisdom, medical prescriptions and sacred religious texts. Faced with mountains of inherited literature they had to acquaint themselves with an archaic method of writing, and soon became an exclusive class of society. They were not historians, however, and sometimes in their copies of the texts they added fresh associations, or rendered them in a form they never originally possessed. Recollections of earlier times had become hazy, and the interpretations sometimes confused. But they were proud of their heritage, and when Alexandria became the capital and a great centre of learning the contents of some of the most important "houses of life" in the temples may have been transported there.

In other words, the libraries of Alexandria, which are referred to in classical literature as the Great Library and the so-called Daughter Library established in the Serapeum "at some unknown date", may well have been two separate and distinctive libraries.

Working on this hypothesis -- that they were parallel institutions -- the first, the Serapeum, comprising a reputed 428,000 rolls of papyrus and some bound volumes, would have had its own professional scribes, book binders and calligraphers who probably inherited their skills. The contents of this library may have included some of the same syncretic material as that discovered in the Nag Hammadi codices in 1945: Pharaonic and Greek mythological texts and folklore, Persian mysticism, Greek philosophy, ancient Egyptian wisdom and "teachings" and pre-Christian Gnostic texts.

Meanwhile, 490,000 original works were stored at the so-called Great Library in the Mouseion. Here research was carried out on the brain by Herophilus of Chalcedon, as a result of which it was understood to be the central organ of the nervous system and the seat of intelligence; Erasistratus of Chios distinguished veins from arteries and the capillary connection between the venous and arterial systems, and Hipparchus the astronomer made accurate determinations of the tropic year and lunar month and mapped out positions of 850 stars using 150 years of Alexandrian observations, plus earlier Egyptian and Babylonian observations.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that in this Egypto-Greek Mediterranean city, where there was a hybrid god to cater to both segments of the Egypto-Greek community, there were parallel schools of learning. Certainly the Egyptian presence in Alexandria in Ptolemaic times was strong. In fact, the brilliant Greek city state known as "the bride of the Mediterranean" wore its distinctly Egyptian flavour with pride. And the myth of "Graeco-Roman" Egypt created by classicists has unfortunately remained unchallenged by Egyptologists.

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/605/hr1.htm

quote:

---

And the myth of "Graeco-Roman" Egypt created by classicists has unfortunately remained unchallenged by Egyptologists.

---

Help for Horembeb,

classicism - of or relating to the ancient Greek and Roman world and especially to its literature, art, architecture, or ideals

quote:

---

Originally posted by Osiris II:
Egypt became a Greek posession, and Alexandria was the main city in Egypt, according to the Greeks. It became the center of the Greek and then the Roman cultures. In fact, the last ruler of Egypt was Cleopatra VII, and she ruled from Alexandria.

---

The reality that has often been missed , is that the Greek rulers weren’t necessarily that last rulers of dynastic Egypt. We have touched this point in an earlier discussion.

Ausar, for his part, provided the following information in an earlier discussion:

“XXXI: Persians 343-323
XXXII: Macedonians (Alexander's family, the
Ptolomies, and the Selucid Antiochus IV Epiphanies, who was
Pharaoh for a few months in 169-168) 323-30
XXXIII: Indegenes (Khabaabash, Harmachis, Ankmachis,
Dionysius Peroserepis, who liberated much of upper Egypt in 165, Harsiesis, who
did the same for a couple of years around 132, and other occasional rebels.)
337-80
Had they lived a couple of centuries earlier Harmakis and Ankmachis would have
undoubtably have been recognized as legit.”

------------------
Logic

The reality that has often been missed , is that the Greek rulers weren’t necessarily that last rulers of dynastic Egypt. We have touched this point in an earlier discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Why did the Greeks choose Alexandria as their learning center?

[This message has been edited by blackman (edited 16 September 2004).]

---

Good topic guys. I have very little information and knowledge on this topic. It would be helpful if someone lays out in a point format the Egyptian influence and then the Greek influence. I get the impression that it was a synergysm of the two.

The only Egyptian influece that most contemporary classics scholars don't disagree on is through the kuori sculpture and doric column seen in Greek temples. New reserch is also showing that early Greeks might have used Egyptian numbers to build on their own mathematics. I pointed out earlier in the post that disection was not discouraged in Alexzandria like it was in Greek centers in Athens or other polis. This is why prominent Egyptologist believe this might be a sign of ancient Egyptian influence upon Greek medicine. Certainly the physcians and funerary priest where very skilled in anatomical knowleadge that probabaly helped Greek scholars like Galen in the later Roman periods.

Osiris II, I find it funny you called the Ptolemaic rulers legitimate when most regular Egyptians hated them. You can read in various texts from this period like the Demotic Chronicle,Oracle of the Potter,and Oracle of the Lamb paint a unfriendly Greek-Egyptian relation. Even in Alexzandria Egyptians lived in their section and shunned Greeks,Jews,and other foreginers.

The fatal error of most historians of this period is the lack of reserch. Most Egyptologist don't seriously study this era,and it deserves more attention,because we begin to see that ancient Egyptian culture never died. In many ways over the years of foreign rule never elminated the religious culture,funerary culture,or even the common culture of the peasents. What occured was some synchrinization,and Greeks often placed temples in areas where the most reistrance to their rulership.

Even when Christianity appear on the scene,the local religious customs went on a local village level[according to scholar David Frankfurther] This did not wipe out the local religious traditions and continued on up to even the Islamic era and beyond to today.

Anyway,many of these rulers in Upper Egypt were cornated in Men-Nefer. I know this is definatley with the case with Khabbash who ruled for a short time during the Persian era.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Osiris II:
Cleopatra was the last of the line of Ptolomiac (legitamite) rulers of Egypt.

---

Ausar has made an appropriate case in response to your statement above, but here is another observation of that statement: It is as though you are saying the Ptolomaic were the last "legitamite" rulers, either because you say so, or you might as well be implying that it is so, because "various" historians agree so; even if such knowledge, doesn't reflect the complete story or truth!

Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that you have the last word in history by calling the Greeks the last "legitimate" rulers, when many Egyptians in that era held a different view of the extent of Greek rule...can you disprove such broader assessment of Egyptian history and if so, why should your claims be more "legitimate" than historians who have reasonably supported such claim? I am open to hearing your justification for discrediting historians, whose documentation reflect a more thorough research into Ancient Egypt!

------------------
Logic

Of course Alexzander was welcomed in Egypt because to the liberation from the Persians,but the rulership of Ptolomey,Alexzander's general, was bitterly hated by the rebellious Upper Egyptians.

In order to become pharoah you have to be cornated in Men-Nefer which none of the Ptolomeic rulers did except Alexzander.

The indigenous Egyptians neither respected nor wanted Ptolmeic rule in their country,for they have their own pharoahs who ruled portions of Upper Egypt during the Ptolmeic dyansty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
[B]rasol, In terms of ancient thought he is right. The masses did not pick or sanction governments in ancient times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I would say who ever had the military power to take charge. Prior to 1800 legitamacy was pretty much dictated by who had the longest stick.

---

But that defines legitimacy as simply 'rule', meaning to exercise power over another. In which case all rulers (people with power) are legitimate. In which case the idea of the Ptolemy' as the last legitimate rulers still makes little sense.

Horemheb,I will have to disagree with you that the peasents in Egypt didn't have a conscious of nationalism. If this were not the case then we would have not had various texts like the Oracle of the Potter,Demotic Chroncile,or any other circulated amungst the indigenous population. If you read the texts clearly we see that Alexzandria is called foregin land,and the intructions are quite clear for the Ptolemic rulership to fall.

Truth is that nobody could control people in Upper Egypt,nor could the Romans or the Arabian Caliphtes of later time periods. Garrisons were never placed in Thebes[modern day Luxor],nor within Aswan,which remained for the most part independent.

The problem is that over the last Ramesside Dyanstic the northern and southern parts of Egypt were no longer unified as they were in earlier times. We see that Amun priests controlled most of the Upper Egyptian territory and pharoahs ruled from the Delta.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Why did the Greeks choose Alexandria as their learning center?

[This message has been edited by blackman (edited 16 September 2004).]

---

Some relevant quotes from Diop...

Alexandria: the center of learning

quote:

---

It is impossible to stress all that the world, particularly the Hellenistic world, owed to the Egyptians. The Greeks merely continued and developed, sometimes partially, what the Egyptians had invented...

during the Hellenistic epoch, Alexandria was the intellectual center of the world. Assembled there were all the Greek scholars we talk about today. The fact that they were trained outside of Greece, in Egypt, could never be overemphasized. Even Greek architecture has its roots in Egypt.

---

On The Greek Democratization of Knowledge
( the real 'Greek miracle' ?)

quote:

---

Once they had borrowed Egyptian values, the wordly genius of the Greeks, emanating basically from the Eurasian plains and from their religious indifference, favored the existence of a secular, worldly science. Taught publicly by equally worldly philosophers, this science was no longer a monopoly of a priestly group to be jealously guarded and kept from the people, lest it be lost in social upheavals: The power and prestige of the mind which, everywhere else, exercised their invisible empire, alongside of military force, were not in the hands of the priests, nor of government officials among the Greeks, but in the hands of the researcher and the thinker. As was already visibly the case with Thales, Pythagoras, and Empedocles, the intellectual could become the center of a circle in a school, an academy, or the living community of an order, drawing nearer first to one, then to the other, setting scientific, moral, and political goals, and tying it all together to form a philosophical tradition. Scientific, philosophical teaching was dispensed by laymen distinguished from the common people only by their intellectual level or social status. No saintly halo encompassed them.

---

"Contribution of Ethiopia-Nubia and Egypt" from;
The African Origin of Civilization
C.A. Diop

quote:

---

Osiris II writes:
Supercar--drop the know it all, condensending attitude. It demeans you no end. There is a possiblity, one that you would discount, that you might be wrong in your statements.[/b]

---

Reactions of hypocrites like yourself doesn’t surprise me the least bit. But let me make one thing very clear to you: I don’t take orders from anyone, as to whether I should disagree with them or not, and whether to express that disagreement or not!

It is you who has the condescending attitude of thinking that you have the last word. YOUR word is supposed to be the last word over what Egyptians thought or what any other historians think about that era , regardless of what reality entailed. Whenever necessary, I will expose the stupidity of reasoning such as the one you are making, with or without your approval. I will post whatever I see as a valid view, and anyone who sees that view otherwise, reserves the right to counter it. The onus is on that opponent to provide a more valid statement, and back it up! If I am wrong in my statement, then prove that I am wrong. That is your responsibility, but don’t be whining about whether I should have held such a view!

quote:

---

Osiris II writes:
Accepted by the populous or not, Alexander conquered the Persians and became the "legitimite" ruler of Egypt. On his death, his generals became his hiers. And one of these was Ptolomy, who gained possession, rightly or wrongly, of Egypt. In other words, he became the "legimite" ruler. The last of the line of rulers of Egypt who was a Ptolomy was Cleopatra VII. This made her the "legitimite" ruler, whether the Egyptian people wanted a Ptolomaic ruler or not. It didn't matter what she was, really--time and the world have accepted her as the last of the line of Ptolomaic rulers of Egypt. Do you won a house? You are considered the legitimite owner. That might be argued by the Native Americans, though--and then there is the ownership of the bank, until your loan is paid. The use of the word "legitimite" is open for debate in quite a few definitions. Try to have an overall view of its use in this case.

---

What a weak argument or reasoning for your earlier statement! First of all, can you prove that the Ptolemaic rulers were able to extend full authority all over Egypt, not to mention particularly the Upper Egyptians? We have seen foreign rulers who had left the various Upper Egyptian regions to be autonomous regions, in terms of taking care of their political matters, because of the lack of those foreign rulers to be able to "fully" extend their leadership to the entire Egyptian nation. In this regard, the Hyksos rulers comes to mind. The local Egyptian resistance played no small part in such developments. So now, can you prove that the Upper Egyptians stayed in line with Ptolemaic laws and that they weren’t left alone to handle their own political affairs, in order to ease tension between them and the Greeks? Who are you then, to say that the Ptolemaic rulers were the last “legitimate” rulers of dynastic Egypt?


------------------
Logic

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
ausar, The idea of man as a political being at a mass level did not begin until the late middle ages. This is a very hard concept for a modern person to hitch on to because it is so foreign to the way our mind works. The term, 'the people' did not exist in ancient times as it does today.
The things you mentioned may have to do with culture but not politics. The average Egyptian would not even have thought of himself as 'an Egyptian' in a national sense. The King could have been on Mars and it would have worked for the average person.
When you say that different power bases existed in upper and lower Egypt you may be correct but that is not the same thing. Whatever power base existed would have excluded the masses in either area.

---

What a laughable statment! What do you think the creation of the entire Egyptian nation was all about? A nation, without the people having a sense of belonging to that "nation"! You think it was called a cradle of civilization, only because of the central leadership and complex culture, in the absense of the element of nationalism? If Kemetians didn't see themselves apart from others (including Nubians who had similar culture) and have a sense of belonging to Kemet as a nation, why would it have mattered to them, that they could die anywhere else, including Mars as you carelessly mentioned!
The notion that only a small body of Upper Egyptians could have handled successful rebellions against the foreign rulers as they did, without the involvement and endorsement of average Egyptians, is just ridiculous and over simplistic!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Wally, He is incorrect when he states that the Greek thinkers that are famous today assembled at Alexandria. Sort of makes you question the rest of his comments, does it not?

---

Horemheb, the point you seem to have missed from Diop's statement is that, Greeks came all the way to Alexandria to accumulate knowledge. There must have been obvious reasons for them not to have stayed in Greece to do the same. It may make sense to you, to move elsewhere solely for education, in the face of having the same or equivalent resources in your homeland. But others do it, whenever there is more advantage of doing so abroad, over that of their original residence. Moreover, are you still suggesting that Alexandria was never a learning center, in the face of all available evidence?

------------------
Logic

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Wally, He is incorrect when he states that the Greek thinkers that are famous today assembled at Alexandria. Sort of makes you question the rest of his comments, does it not?

---

You gotta be kidding...

Diop has a wise response for those who atempt to discredit scholarship by pointing out any minor and questionable discrepancy...

quote:

---

To criticize Nations negres et culture, a very imperfect work, one should not attack its structure, for that approach will be unproductive. Its structure is solid, its perspectives valid. Instead, the target should be the small details, for then it will be possible to detect numerous shortcomings. . . .

---

Do you get it?

For those with genuine interest, here's an interesting discussion on the topic:
Ancient Alexandria : A Beacon of Enlightenment
By Professor Mostafa El-Abbadi http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_database/ancient_alex.html

...

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
What a weak argument or reasoning for your earlier statement! First of all, can you prove that the Ptolemaic rulers were able to extend full authority all over Egypt, not to mention particularly the Upper Egyptians? We have seen foreign rulers who had left the various Upper Egyptian regions to be autonomous regions, in terms of taking care of their political matters, because of the lack of those foreign rulers to be able to "fully" extend their leadership to the entire Egyptian nation. In this regard, the Hyksos rulers comes to mind. The local Egyptian resistance played no small part in such developments. So now, can you prove that the Upper Egyptians stayed in line with Ptolemaic laws and that they weren’t left alone to handle their own political affairs, in order to ease tension between them and the Greeks? Who are you then, to say that the Ptolemaic rulers were the last “legitimate” rulers of dynastic Egypt?

---

Ausar, isn't this bull**** called flaming, and isn't it against the rules of this board--or at least, should be.

I have no authority to ban people but I will begin to deleate people when the problem presents themselves. I realize history can get very political and emotions flare,but let us please handle ourselves with some respect to other people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Osiris II:
I stand by my original statement, supercar.
Accepted by the populous or not, Alexander conquered the Persians and became the "legitimite" ruler of Egypt. On his death, his generals became his hiers. And one of these was Ptolomy, who gained possession, rightly or wrongly, of Egypt. In other words, he became the "legimite" ruler. The last of the line of rulers of Egypt who was a Ptolomy was Cleopatra VII. This made her the "legitimite" ruler, whether the Egyptian people wanted a Ptolomaic ruler or not. It didn't matter what she was, really--time and the world have accepted her as the last of the line of Ptolomaic rulers of Egypt. Do you won a house? You are considered the legitimite owner. That might be argued by the Native Americans, though--and then there is the ownership of the bank, until your loan is paid. The use of the word "legitimite" is open for debate in quite a few definitions. Try to have an overall view of its use in this case.

As of now, any messages between us are at an end. I do not appreciate verbal abuse. You may think that my original reponse was wishy-washy. Surprise! I REALLY DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

---

Since you have been unable to provide any answer that reflects coherent thinking, I still stand by my earlier statement about you being wrong. As much as this may come as a surprise to you, I could care less about whether or not you post anything in response to my statements. I joined this forum not knowing that you existed, posted many comments in the absence of your participation, and I will continue to make comments despite you. In fact, when and if you make other erroneous statements in the future, you better believe that I will point them out as I see them. So you might want to reconsider about posting at all! You seem to think that you are better than everyone else; that you can throw insulting comments at others, but not have the stomach to receive one. Welcome to the real world of getting a taste of your own medicine!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Supercar, You will not find a single historian on the planet that will agree with you that ancient people had some sort of nationalistic viewpoint, .

---