Why wait 55 years to raze the city to the ground? Was there a particular reason the Romans didn't siege the city?

The version that I have heard the most locates it on the West coast of Mexico, within the state of Nayarit. I also know of the thesis that proposes that Cerro de Culiacán, a mountain in the state of Guanajuato, is the legendary place. Finally, I've been told that the chicano movement has tried to place Aztlan far up to the north, inside the current day states of California, Arizona and New Mexico.

Has any nation ever decided it would be better off without some of its territory (perhaps because the region was an economic drag on the country or because of social or ethnic tensions) and told the region to go it alone? What happened to the suddenly stateless region? If it hasn't ever happened, does international law contemplate a system for dealing with such a situation?

As an example: I was born in the United States and would say, "I am an American."

Since Igbo is a designation applied by Europeans, I don't know if someone would say "I'm Igbo." In the early 1800s, Nigeria didn't exist as a country yet. There were kingdoms such as Onitsha, Nri Kingdom and Arochukwu, but I'm having trouble finding out how someone from one of those cultures would describe themselves when speaking to someone from another area.

Born out of wedlock/ born in affair. Was there ever a period that adressed the issues faced by this group?

The only one that seems likely off the top of my head is Bocci. Any other thoughts?

What are the arguments for and against this belief?

Like question says. I want know what are difference in mentality between modern people and people in Rome of 2 century or 150 AD. Can anybody could help me?

Specifically wondering about ancient Roman and Greek historians, as I imagine different societies had different ideas about time.

I recently completed reading Lewis Sorley's outstanding book about Gen. William Westmoreland, and while I can't say I was surprised by its contents, I was rather shocked at the lack of institutional self reflection after such an incompetent man made it all the way to the top. Maybe Dr Sorley didn't include that information, which is why I thought I would ask here. The only tidbit in the book was the mention of a report made in 1972 that Westmoreland made sure was buried (since he was chief of staff at the time) but nothing else.

Specifically I'd like to know if the OPR system was changed, if any more oversight and punishment of wrongdoing was implemented, basically if any review was done of why we lost the war from a personnel point of view.

I'll be honest, I'm doing an assignment on him. The idea is that we have to decide if our 'great man' was a driver or a product of their surroundings, and after doing research on Alan Turing, I'm kinda stumped as to what I should write about. I mean yes, he was a mathematical genius, and he did Hypothesise the concept of modern computing and artificial intelligence, but in terms of actual outcomes, the only thing I can see him doing is help to break the enigma code, and even then he was merely a codebreaker. And Colossus, the machine that broke the Lorenz Cipher was made possible by another Mathematician and an Engineer with Turing only passively contributing a concept to the design, it can even be argued that this 'computer' wouldn't have existed if it weren't for the war itself, bringing his contribution into even more dispute.

I guess what I'm asking is really, what did he do?

What are the main sources for information about his life? Are we sure he existed?

I read on Wikipedia that eyeglasses were not invented until the 13th century and then only for the rich at first. What jobs did people with bad eyesight before these times have? Were they outcasts because of their limitations? How did they deal with it every day? I cant see anything clearly without glasses thats more than a meter away from me so I have to imagine it had to be really difficult for them.

When was Ancient Rome at it's largest (and how lond did it take)?