no!, they were all buggered!
Pompeii has been in ruins for nearly 2,000 years, as it was buried under volcanic ash and pumice following the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. The site was rediscovered in the 18th century, and ongoing excavations have provided significant insights into ancient Roman life. Since its destruction, Pompeii has remained a prominent archaeological site and a powerful reminder of the catastrophic event.
No. Pompeii happened in 79 AD the attack on Rome in 410 AD so the two are not related in any form. Pompeii was buried by a volcanic eruption ( parts are still buried today since it comprises of 65 acres) and there is historical proof that is what happened to the city. Not only are there eyewitness accounts and the ruins of the people/city for historians to see but the volcano is still there and active. The last eruption was in the 1940's.
prevent the destruction of essential organic compounds by oxygen.
Pompeii is 164 acres, with roughly 2/3rds of it having been excavated.
20%
The aye-ayes, a type of lemur found in Madagascar, are endangered due to habitat destruction. Also, more recently, they have been hunted for meat or killed by villagers to prevent crop destruction.
Pompeii was a Roman city whosepopulation has been estimated at 8,000 to 12,000. Pompeii was used by its inhabitants. Rich men form Rome built villas inPompeiiand in other cities around theNaplesarea. Pompeii alsohada trading port.
Pompeii was originally a "Samnite" town. The Roman term for the Oscan speaking peoples of southern Italy was Samnite. Inscriptions have been unearthed in Pompeii written in the old Oscan language.
four
There must have been barns in the outskirts of the town and in the surrounding countryside. Pompeii was in a very fertile area and agriculture was thriving.
Brain cells
As a repossession investigator and agent liason, I can tell you that yes, in fact, I know of several instances of felony charges being filed against an individual for hindering repossession of a vehicle. Your lawyer's response may have been motivated more by the fact that he felt confident that he could successfully prevent prosecution, but nothing will prevent the vehicle from being repossessed aside from the destruction of the vehicle. In the event the possessor of a vehicle under repossession were to destroy a vehicle to prevent that repossession, he could then be charged with malicious destruction of private property and hindering a lender.