> I was being generous about the 30 ton capacity of
> the Romans by loosely considering a solitary
> mention of a single 12-wheel cart in the mounts of
> Egypt. But when the standard of proof tightens up
> to the physical evidence, there's barely enough
> compelling evidence the Romans could carry a
> measly 10 tons on a 4 wheel cart. And that's
> assuming they had a way to lift the load onto the
> cart in the first place. Is there any physical
> evidence of any crane that could lift such a load?
> Physical evidence always counts, not
> just "when it suits".
Proof (were proof needed) that even when he spouts his favourite mantra (of “physical evidence”), Femano is in truth entirely arbitrary in his criteria.
What is this drivel about “carts”? Was it not crushingly obvious in earlier discussions that these form no part of serious proposals on the question?
No, Femano, you are not being generous. You are doing your sweated best to constrain the discussion to technologies which you have determined in advance (to you own satisfaction) deny the Romans the abilities you wish denied them.
What exactly is this? Doctoral-level fudging?
Imagine my surprise on learning that only in the case of the “lost” civilisation does a product count as “physical evidence” of what a culture could do. It’s a Roman temple, Femano: the burden of proof lies with those who claim otherwise.
When it suits, it’s “physical evidence” which counts—and when it suits, it’s “recorded record” (sic) which counts.
Isn’t there just a small inconsistency here?
One might have thought that, carrying through consistently, Femano would give greater weight to the “physical evidence” (his usual mantra) of a building whose identifiable cultural context is Roman.
My point was dodged (if it was understood at all) and that is revealing in itself.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-May-16 23:40 by Martin Stower.