caldrail

It's occored to me that a deeper analysis of the cavalry charge is in order. The common conception is like a game of bowls. The horse crashes into the poor bloody infantrymen, and knocks them aside like ninepins. I must confess, having observed the approach of galloping horses at race meetings, it's a fairly nerve wracking experience to imagine standing in front of that oncoming herd, and you really do sene the weight and energy coming at you. But that's wrong. The problem is the horse. It isn't a machine. It's an animal, and it can be wilful, frightened, or suffer pain when you least expect it. They won't warn you. If they decide they don't like the idea of getting hurt (and a collision with the infantry is going to be as catastrophic for the horse and rider as much as the guy they trampled) the horse will simply stop. Right there. It'll just dig in its hooves and send you over its head, whether you have stirrips or not. Even trained horses behave like that. They have minds of their own regardless of how compliant they may seem, and any horse rider of any experience will tell you that some horses just don't like being told what to do! So if it isn't a game of bowls, what is a cavalry charge? It's a game of chicken. Who will break first? The horse, frightened of colliding with rows of shields and spears? Or the infantry, convinced that the horse really isn't going to stop? The cavalry charge is a risk, not a certainty. If the infantry remain steadfast, and present a solid wall, the horses will baulk, and the cavalry rider knows it. That's why the Roman cavalry generally avoided a frontal charge. It just wasn't worth the risk, and they considered it far better to harass the enemy until such a time as they could approach the enemies flank or rear, when they could so some real damage in melee, not by impact.

maybe so, but bear in mind on of the accepted trials of knighthood was to vault onto a horse in full armour, an act that didn't require stirrups and was intended as a demonstration of gaining your horse again in the heat of battle without fussing about footholds (or wooden cranes, for that matter!) In any case, the use of stirrups by the Huns is disputed - there's no direct evidence since if they did use them they were only made of rope and thus not very persistent in the archaeological record - but I also note that many formations of different nationalities of horsemen went without the benefit of stirrups. After all, the plains indians never used them and they were described by one contemporary as the best light cavalry in the world. The introduction of additional comfort in horse riding provided by the stirrup isn't disputed

The mass charge of cavalry with couched lances belongs to a later period. As for devastating charges, cataphracts, being hevily armoured on horses that didn't easily cope with such loads, refused to gallop, and attacked at the trot. I run into this problem quite often. The lure of the cavalry charge comes from very deep in the human psyche and it's a romantic ideal, the same attitude got hundreds killed in the first and second world wars (at least until someone remembered the other side had machine guns). If you can point at a Roman source that backs your arguement then I'll listen, but my research into Roman warfare suggests a very different cavalry regime than the one you're expecting. You cannot, simply cannot, brace yourself for impact with stirrups, and in fact, the Roman saddle was just as capable of retaining you in the saddle as later ones in that regard. It wasn't necessary in any case, because the Roman riders were more intelligent than horsemen in later periods and knew full well horses don't like bumping into shield walls or rows of sharp pointy things. Horses were shock troops in any case - their weight and size made them so - but they weren't used in that manner. It was the threat of facing cavalry that made them useful, and since cavalry units were almost always faced off against each other, clearly it was a contest to dominate. The winner would then be able to attack the rear or flank of his enemy at will. An important consideration. The Romans left us a number of sources which tell us exactly what they did on the battlefield. Roman cavalry used a lance overhand as a stabbing and thrusting weapon. Preferably though they would approach, wheel, and throw missiles, a manoever they are recorded as practising. Unit manoevers were very important because cavalry depended on mobility and used it to the full on the ancient battlefield.

Stirrups had nothing to do with it. The Rman saddle has been deomonstrated by re-enactors to be perfectly capable of supporting riders in combat, and since the Romans employed that style of saddle for centuries, one has to note they saw no reason to dispense with it. The trend toward cavalry had developed during the Roman period, partly by experience, partly by foreign influence. It also developed because of changing tactical balance with regard to protection and offensive capability between cavalry and infanty, the increasing sizes of horses available, the increasing numbers of horses available, and for military fashion. I wouldn't discount Roman cavalry tactics entirely - they worked very well indeed in the limited circumstances of the ancient battlefield, and without them, the legions would have been ambushed and outflanked a great deal more often. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6537 Furthermore, the medieval cavalryman as you define it (the armoured knight) was a minority of the troops available and generally found tremendous success against unprotected peasants and militia (and in one remarkable case, an entire turkish army attempting to besiege Antioch). Of course it was superior in these circumstances, but it wasn't universally true. In any case, the stirrup wasn't the key to success. It was physchological attitude and heavy protection by that time.

Actually, no, because the Romans were on the defensive and subject to withering assaults all day, both by missile and melee, and in any case, although the spatha was longer, it was still usable as a thrusting sword in the Roman manner, and I've pointed myself to the difficulties of fighting when pushed together so tightly, because there comes a point when the concentration of men makes fighting difficut regardless of the type of sword used. In any case, the majority of Roman soldiers at Adrianople were mediocre quality and many unwilling to be there at all, and noticeably Vegetius and Zosimus both mention the poor quality of manhood displayed by troops of the day (I think Marcellinus does too, but I don't remember what he said). In fact, the lack of quality was one of the reasons Vegetius wrote his manual of legionary practice.

The lack of stirrups made no effective difference. Roman saddles were designed to retain their rider by supporting them between prongs. It's a complete fallacy that stirrups allowed cavalry a quantum leap in capability and for the most part only allow the rider more comfort. Since the Roman cavalry never made mass charges anyway it was irrelevant. I can't stress this enough. Roman horsemen were used in a light role, to scout, harass, and pursue. Whilst the advantage of being on a horse was recognised, they were valuable assets and the Romans weren't keen to waste them against shield walls and ranks of sharp points. Typical tactics were to frighten the enemy by bluffs, force them to make a relatively immobile defensive formation, and to wheel away while throwing missiles. Usually a battle began with cavalry manoevers on the wings, not necessarily closing in, but riding to seek an advantage and secure the flanks against their opposing cavalry. There is a report that one sides cavalry waited for their enemy to get tired before commtitting themselves to melee. It was standard practice to charge at an enemy cavalry unit (they wouldn't charge a compact infantry unit because horses interpret that as solid barrier and don't like it, never mind the problems in penetrating mass ranks) in open order, the receiving unit spreading their horses likewise, in order to avoid collisions. The lack of 'horse culture' was one of the reasons the Romans employed auxillaries.

When did the Great War end? Now most of you will say November 1918, but you'd be wrong. Nope, not after that Russian trouble in 1920/21 either. It offically ended on September 25th 1939, when the little country of Andorra (who'd been forgotten by the Versailles Treaty) kissed and made up with Germany. Hmmm... One wonders they suddenly decided to make a big deal of it... When did the Secobnd World War end? If you said August 1945 and muttered about gay slogans on bombers carrying atom bombs, you're completely wrong. Apparently President Truman declared the Second World War officially at an end in December 1946. Just in case anyone hadn't noticed.

'Tis the eve of a new year good people, and the party mood is upon me. It's upon the birds in the park too, and walking through the otherwise empty beauty spot I noticed a certain feistiness in the collected flocks of swans, geese, ducks,coots, moorhens, pidgeons, and those little white seabirds with black tails. All except the solitary crane at the back of the lake, viewing the noise and excitement of the breadcrumb hunt with it's usual static disdain. Sometimes I wonder if birds have an easier time of it. They only wake up when they feel like it and not by the savage noise of electric tools downstairs. Trust me to live in the only noisy part of Swindon this morning. I also suspect it might get a tad noisier tonight. Just a gut feeling. Music Giveaway of the Year Here's a little New years gift, recorded at no expense whatsoever last night in the wee small hours. Yes, it's me playing keyboards live. You can even hear all the fumbled keypresses and bum notes. I wouldn't cheat you. InAndOut.mp3

It's interesting then that Theodosius's strategy concerning the goths was to starve them out just like everyone else had done since they crossed the Danube. Surely though a defensive work would make a siege all the more likely a course of action, since goths would simply pounce on an open settlement and take whatever they wanted?

Last night, armed with a few quid in my pocket saved up for enjoying my festive season, I wandered down to the bottom of the hill to a chinese takeaway. Not a simple fish and chip shop like the one over the back of the hill, but a proper chinese meal purveyor. I don't go there very often, prices being what they are, but they do a 'Mega Meal Deal' which is reasonable value for money. Basically you get a choice of three dishes plus free rice or noodles, and some spring rolls on the side. Not bad. On this occaision the usual chinese crowd weren't around. Instead, a sultry blonde woman smiled at me from behind the counter, or at least she did in between smiling when people phoned orders in. She had that sort of slavic accent and a deepish voice which quite frankly reduces me to jelly. Anyway, when I 'd finished quivering, being in a conversational mood, I mentioned her accent and voiced my suspicion about her eastern european origin. "Oh no," She said, almost blushing, "I am not from eastern europe." Oh really? Where are you from then? "Brazil." Brazil? Brazil? What on earth are you doing in rainy old Swindon (and it was raining too). "I don't know" She chuckled. You don't know? What? You just woke up one morning and thought 'Ohmigosh, I'm in Swindon? (in Brazilian)'. Wow. Guess you're not in Rio De Kansas any more. Like Minded People On my way to the internet cafe where I'm writing this I encountered a couple of lads loudly minding their own business. One commented to the other about how often he came to Swindon. As part of his answer he said "I like Swindon." What? You like Swindon? "Well it's better than Marlborough. That's a small town. Nothing happens there." My answer is that things happen because people make them happen. I'm not sure, but I think he struggled with that concept. Annoying Person of the Week Just lately there's a bloke who sits down at the next computer to me. It makes absolutely no difference which computer I choose, nor when I sit down to access the internet. There he is. He coughs, splutters, hums merry ditties, huffs and puffs, groans and moans, and sighs in continuous streams of irritating background noise. There he goes again.

Interesting, but if the Goths were fundamentally unable to attack a walled settlement (no arguement there, they had no experience of siege warfare as such) why would Theodosius tie down so many troops in garrisons when clearly he knew better, and recent experience had proven the value of small unit tactics favoured by Sebastianus?

I don't know why we need to be afraid. There's so many threats we cannot escape from... 1 - Food is bad for you 2 - Drink is bad for you 3 - Driving cars will slaughter hapless hordes of inncoent beings 4 - Mountain sized meteorites are heading our way 5 - Space aliens are going to invade us any day now 6 - Jesus will pick up the faithful in a puff of smake and leave the rest of us to suffer damnation. Any day now. It's been prophecised. 7 - Climate change will kill us with heat prostration 8 - Climate change will kill us with another ice age 9 - Sasquatch will kill us because that's what hairy monsters do 10 - Dan Brown will destroy civilisation as we know it by inventing conspiracies that people believe in 11 - The earths magnetic field will flip over any day now and our bodies will work in reverse. 12 - Arcaeologisits will accidentially uncover Antlantean super-weapons 13 - Caldrail might go back to flying Cessnas 14 - If I've forgotten anything, please insert it on the end of the list... Let's face it... We're doomed! But Actually, yes we are. Ultimately human beings prefer certain ecological conditions and we can only thrive in them. The earth will gradually grow hotter and hotter (bar a few ice ages and such) until the sun burns it off in a few billion years or so. Just in case you were optimistic...

Would you believe it? My car has been broken into again! Has anyone actually noticed that it's been standing unused for a long time? The hood has been shredded by previous theft attempts and is covered with gaffa tape. Did that not point to a disused car? Or did he stop when he noticed the steering wheel is gone? As it happens, seeing the damage made me look at the vehicle again and there was a thriving algae colony on it. As useless as the car is, I feel duty bound to make some effort with appearances, so I decided it was time to wash the wretched thing. It's a cold day outside, so I'll use warm water. I filled the bucket - ahhh, the steamy vapours are wonderful - went downstairs, and as I was closing the front door, I spotted a plastic box sitting on the pedestrian crossing, causing motorists some obstruction. With an urge to be public spirited, I signalled for the oncoming traffic to stop for me so I could remove the obstacle to their progress, and fair play to the drivers (who had a green light I should mention), who slowed down and stopped to let me assist them. One good kick and the offending box shot across the road onto the pavement. Job done. The road was clear, and everyone lived happily ever after. So happy were two idiots walking down the road some yards away that they cheered me for my expedient and aggressive handling of the situation. Cheers guys. Have a nice day. As I wandered down the alley with a bucket of warm water, those idiots started suggesting other ways to demonstrate my manhood at the tops of their voices. Thanks guys. It was funny when you cheered me kicking the box, but now you're just getting boring. And I though Swindon was quiet this Christmas. Wake Up Britain Monday morning is always a trial isn't it? After a relaxing weekend the last thing you want to do is get up and return to the daily grind. It seems this morning that everyone else felt the same way. Britain is closed until further notice because we can't get out of bed. Not that it makes any difference. Most of us can't drive up the road in wintery weather anyway. Nice Weather While It Lasts I have to say though today is bright and sunny, albeit a bit cold. There is of course yet another wintery assault on its way. You know what's going to happen don't you? Once the Spring sets in all this rain and snow is going to cause floods. So anyone who hasn't received flippers and/or a wetsuit for christmas really does have thoughtless and inconsiderate relatives. I on the other hand don't need such apparatus since I live on a hillside, but then again, has any of my family thought to give ice picks and ropes so I can go to the shops without falling over on icy mornings? Nope. No wonder Britain can't handle bad weather.

Everyone used such threats against what we would today call 'civilian targets'. Ever since the republic, the Romans had made it clear to settlements that if they didn't surrender and open the gates, they seriously were going to regret it later. In fact, Theodosius could not prevent the goths from threatening siege with garrison troops, although the garrison itself would tend to dissuade confrontations with smaller groups. The point is, if a siege is laid, then the garrison is on the defensive (sallies notwithstanding) and if contained within the walls, they starve right alongside the populace, and quickly become much less of a threat to the besiegers. You are therefore left with a numbers game, and there the Romans had a distinct advantage. That said, dispersal of your troops in the ancient world in a vain attempt to stop sieges of your settlements is a policy liable to weaken your military strength - in the ancient world, you want as many troops as possible in one place, and the mobile army doctrine of the late empire period was intended to address this need, with sizeable formations able to march wherever they were needed to plug the gaps. In theory anyway.

By now the snow and ice have gone, and the weather is a turbulent mix of cold sunshine and showers, though we've been warned to expect another bout of wintery weather as an Atlantic cyclone moves northeast toward the cold air over Britain. By now Christmas is over, and the battles won (you know what I mean). This year was quieter than some I've experienced, especially since the workmen downstairs have been polite enough to go home to their families for the festive season. I did note however they left the front door poorly hung, so it wasn't possible to close it properly. Groan. Well I fixed that with a screwdriver and much huffing and puffing. Santa's been and gone - don't want any other unwelcome visitors. On the plus side though, the workmen have been very considerate and left bread for the birdies. Now you'd think they'd throw some breadcrumbs around so poor little songbirds can survive the winter and die of a heart attack from obesity in the spring like nature intended, but no, they simply threw big chunks of stale bread onto the roof. What sort of bird is going to carry that off? There's going to be pterodactyls with fifty foot wingspan landing outside my bathroom window before long. Either that or they're feeling sorry for me. More Feeding The Birds I notice all the local gulls have vanished. What's the matter guys? Can't hack the bad weather? But of course the crowd of water fowl at the park around the corner are still there, mobbing kids and pensioners for their breadcrumbs. I passed through their a few days ago and a pair of swans were strutting their stuff on the pavement. Normally I give swans a wide bert - The breeding couple at Lawns are much more aggressive - but these two squawked at me for not giving generously at this time of hardship. Sorry about that Mr Swan. I forgot to bring bread with me. Train of the Week I see China has unveiled the worlds fastest train, clocking in at some ridiculous speed. The Chinese have been showing off for ages about their technological and industrial progress. So is this train a reality, or more political propaganda? Do I care? I find it very hard to. Perhaps if China worried less about high speed trinkets they might export better fish and chip shops. Then I would care a lot more.

Pliable swords are mentioned by the Romans. Stiffness might in some respects be desirable but that runs the risk of brittleness, and in combat a brittle blade will eventually snap. The best spanish swords, according to sources, can be placed on the head and the blade bent to touch a mans shoulders, and return to its former straightness. That's high quality steel.

My name isn't Coldrail. Neither did I dismiss the defenses of Constantinople. You really aren't getting the point. The longevity of that city had very little to do with the cities defenses (though it certainly kept the Goths out, but then as one of them said, they weren't there to fight walls) The walls of any location are all very well but history shows a determined enemy will get past them at some point. What matters far more is what that enemy will do afterward. Loot the place? Or raze it to the ground? Usually the former is preferable as it's profitable and unless there's a degree of hatred the latter isn't worth the effort. For instance, the Huns were seen as a threat by the Romans before they'd encountered them, largely out of reputation. So much so that Trajan (not the emperor, but the army commander replaced by Sebastianus) had a wall built to fend them off. History shows the Huns were held up not one jot. This brings up an aspect of Roman military thinking that had been true ever since republican days. They didn't think in terms of exclusion. It wasn't practical to assume that a barrier will keep out the enemy. A palisade might look effective - any determined group of men can soon find a way to cross it. This was why the Romans made such widespread use of border patrols and watchtowers - they knew the border was effectively porous. Such obstructions however do inhibit horses. With cavalry, an enemy can ride around causing havoc inside Roman territory and thus the limes were seen as effective deterrents. In other words, the idea was to 'limit' the damage caused by enemy incursion. The stone walls of forts and settlements might be seen differently. Most people see them as insurmountable obstacles and that's partly why so many curtain walls were built over the centuries, right up to the modern day. No wall, however strong, represents a completely impassable barrier, because we conventiently need to leave doorways through them, which is usually the point of access during sieges. The point is that a wall may be a permanent and strong defence, but people are as vulnerable as always. Not just physically in terms of death and injury, but also in terms of morale and health. Many sieges are finished by starving the defenders out, or simply frightening them into opening the doors anyway - something the Romans did by policy. The question of stone walls also ignores the politics that surround them. Constantinople was defended by treaties and negotiation as much as stone blocks, not to mention numerous legions. Had those legions not been so indifferent, reluctant, or just plain worthless, the eastern empire would not have been so threatened as it was, and the question of stone walls at Constantinople would then be a pointless. The diplomacy that saw rivalry and backscratching in the Adrianople campaign was typical of the Romans. Had the gothic refugees not been so badly treated, then they might not have rebelled so readily against Lupicinus and Maximus to begin with. The first half of them had after all been allowed into Roman territory under the terms of the treaty won in the previous gothic war. That the second half got over the Danube serriptitiously shouldn't suprise given their rambuctuous nature, but this was not seen as a security problem by the local Roman command and rather more of a business opportunity. That the gothic leadership was betrayed and subjected to a "Dinner of the Long Knives" merely reinforced the gothic will to rebel, and again, it was politics that failed Rome, not the stone walls. Also, the reputation of the Huns has survived right down to the modern day intact. The very same characteristics we hear in common circulation are those the Romans wrote about themselves. It is true they were hardy warriors and extraordinary opportunists, but note that the real underlying reason for Roman concern was that they were essentially a cavalry. They knew the Huns had a capability to penetrate deep into their territory, hence the efforts of (general) Trajan to obstruct their progress. That said, we must note that the Romans also used politics to impede them, a standard tactic. We shouldn't forget that these apparently hellish warriors had a capital city under the reign of Attila with hot baths in the Roman fashion. Another example of exported luxury and identification? This was a standard Roman policy. They didn't simply defend militarily, but made efforts to suppress the thread at it's heart. Stone walls therefore are an emergency measure only. Apart from the psychological advantage of such constructions (which I see still afflicts the human mindset), they serve no useful function other than to control passage in and out of a settlement or fort. There is only a limited value to their effectiveness, the extent of which is dependent on the scale and design of them, which admittedly Constantinople was more impressive - but that's the point. Fritigern and his goths had no means with which to conduct a siege of Constantinople. Granted, he was deterred from trying it, regardless of the excuses the goths made, but notice that the motives of the goths weren't complete conquest. They turned into the Roman countryside and began a war of brigandry, which was more to their liking anyway. For all their safety, the defenders of Constantinople were helpless to stop goths running roughshod around the land. In other words, the impedance of a wall is also directly linked to its purpose. If enclosing a small location, a settlement or fort, it's only effective if the enemy see value in assaulting it. In terms of a lengthy border wall, it's only effective until the enemy find a way around it. Constantinople did not survive as a city because its walls were massive, but rather because it wasn't fighting enemies intent on its destruction. Only when Baibers arrived in 1453 did that situation change.

We've had some snow, a few dustings, and if I were honest, nothing like the problem it's been for some parts of Britain. Apart from that section of pavement beside the College Car Park. Sheltered by the shadow of the abandoned building, it never thaws out in sunshine, and thus alwys freezes into a thirty yard skating alley. Woah... That was close... Walk slowly... You'd think by now someone would have noticed. Okay, it isn't some Dickensian vista of snowdrifts between tudor shops, but it certainly is a pain in the backside... If you know what I mean... Down and Out? I've noticed that teenage beggars have made a certain alleyway between a car park and a shopping mall a place of business. Every day you find one sat against the wall, asking if you've got any spare change. Should I feel guilty about my comfort and be charitable? To be honest, I can't really see these people as genuinely homeless. They don't have that resigned helplessness about them. It's just begging for extra income. A part of me is annoyed by that, but then, isn't that exactly what I'm doing but in a different way? The truth is that the government will have me in a workhouse before long. Oh it might be different in image to the charitable slavery of Dickensian London, I might be protected by labour legislation of the modern era, but it amounts to the same thing. At least I'll have something to put on my CV. Bah! Humbug! My goose is cooked! But at least I get an extra few quid for my trouble. Interview of the Week I was given a job interview the other day. A rare event. The estate agent I was summoned to was a very businesslike office, a sort of clean modern enviroment with a minimum of comfort and visual diversion from the business of selling property. The mood was quiet. It was like those dickensian workplaces where nothing moves, the only sound a ticking of a clock. The two managers who interviewed me described me as "an interesting person". I suspect that was an undesirable aspect of my character. Can you imagine the scene two weeks later? Whaddaya mean I'm sacked? All I said was "Party on dudes!" Seasonal Greetings of the Year Have a happy christmas, saturnalia, or any fun party you happen to get involved in at this time of year. I'm getting so many knocking sounds from the contractors downstairs I'm starting to wonder if the Three Ghosts of Christmas have settled in...

What fascinates me is the widespread use of coins. Now... Is that Roman influence? I ask because gauls and britons adopted coinage from the Romans, but then, did Rome adopt coinage from those clever greeks?

Hang on, hang on, everyones getting heated about commercial computer games not representing Rome as we'd like it to be seen. What do you expect? Computer games aren't exactly easy to program, and if you don't believe me, try it yourself. In any case, a game is nothing more than an organised challenge and the milieu of its setting really isn't intended to be a history lesson is it? If you want accurate depictions of Roman period armies, architecture, strategies, etc etc, why are you looking at a game?

Not to mention some fundamental aspects of logic. Actually, it was C. who originally expressed such points; I just pointed them out.In fact, C. remained congruent with his original tautologies, in spite of his best efforts (keep reading). I get the impression that the fundamental aspect of any tautology (without "quotation marks") is being forgotten here: they are statements that are necessarily true; therefore, it's hardly surprising that we tend to agree on them Oh ye gods Sylla, you do talk a load of old cobblers sometimes. tautology is nothing more than semantics anyway. You're just classifying text for the sake of it. C.'s negative is just a bare assertion. No it isn't scylla, and you're making a great many assertions based on nothing more than criticising my prose. Armies fight well if properly motivated and led, plus favourable circumstances such as terrain, logisitcs, weather, reinforcement, etc etc etc. Sorry if that's too much of an assertion for you, but the here's another one - armies have been fighting for four thiousand years - we have learned a little bit about the subject, even if you haven't. That's the entire problem Scylla. I don't use university gobbeldegook which you draw great delight in disparaging. Gamesplayer? Is that supposed to be a criticism? Wargaming is a recreational activity I don't take part in on this site. Funny thing is though, I have noticed that wargaming as a hobby does tend to encourage people to learn more about their subject. Try it. You'll learn something. You wish buddy. You haven't provided any case at all. Not one single coherent argument. All you do is cast scorn. That, in my view, isn't clever. Scylla - you're a troll.

Huh? What's going on? Why is the light through my curtains a light grey colour? Why is there a sound of someone struggling to drive a vehicle in the yard? Why did I just hear a metallic crunch as he failed utterly? Sorry, I just have to find out, so pull back the duvet (Aaargh! It's c-c-c-cold!) and look out the curtains to see.... No! It's not possible! Surely this cannot happen in Rainy Old Swindon! Yes, I'm afraid it has. We've had snow. Blizzards On A Different Scale Considering what I've been writing, the blizzards hitting the northeastern US are of a different order entirely. I was interested to hear a US journalist being interviewed on our news channel who said that this snow was unexpected at this time of year and the authorities weren't prepared for it. On a smaller scale, that's entirely our problem too. How odd that a country so used to harder winters had no contigency plan at all to deal with unusual weather. For Britain, that's simply how we are, it's all about cost cutting, crossing fingers, and just plain forgetting the problem might happen at all. I had always thought the US was efficient and forward thinking about such things, that they always had their act together. Well, if it's any consolation, at least you cope with it better than we do. We've had a couple of millimetres overnight and the town is deathly quiet. So quiet you can hear cars and lorries slipping on the roads... Whoops... There goes another one.

- All armies perform better against enemies that fought in any predictable manner; that is a tautology (i.e. a statement that is necessarily true). No, it most certainly isn't, as any study of Roman defeat can show you. It isn't so much whether armies fight in a particular fashion, but the straegies and tactics used to confront them that matter, and those are the brainchild of the leaders involved. Where leaders are formulaic and traditional, such Varro & Paulus at Cannae, then the situation you describe arises. If however a creative commander arises, then you have people that are essentially unpredictable and that direction changes the manner in which armies meet and conduct themselves. As always, situation is very much the advantage on the battlefield. In any case, armies sometimes get lucky or do something incredibly dumb, and the battle goes against expectation. Warfare is often compared to a chessboard - no, it just isn't, there are too many human factors for prediction to work as a strategy alone. - For any conqueror (even for nomads like the Mongols) wilderness has always been difficult to adequately maintain peacefully, as it has always been harder to keep control over dispersed non-urban populations than over cities; ergo, another tautology. Woo Hoo! - All armies engage in control population; no one can fight against unpopulated territories . Not so. An army can also engage in asset control, or in other words, strategic locations and objectives beyond mere people. Resources, facilities, or even the control of a defile can all be important objectives in their own right. - Can you explain a bit more the concept of "area denial"? You have a country. I want to invade it. In modern terms, I don't want your troops active behind my lines. So I entrap, surround, and stifle all resistance. Failure to do so can result in situations where partisans and guerillas emerge with obvious problems in security. In other words, I deny the captured territory to your forces. Whether that territory actually contains anything useful is beside the point. With mobile forces, any concentration of the enemy behind my lines is not a good thing. The only parallel with this situation is of course via the horse, but the parallel fails because although the horse allows fast travel and outflanking moves (as did happen in ancient times), there is no wide front to break through or encircle. Armies of the ancient world march in a linear fashion toward objectives, either locations or each other, and don't attempt to control wide areas of land simply to avoid flank attacks,. It is of course advisable for cavalry to scout and prevent such ambushes and attacks, but that in itself does not represent the same thing as a modern front line. To make the situation clearer - They played strategy in columns, we play strategy in lines. It's just ocurred to me that you might see the various walls and limes as 'area denial'. Not so. This was 'area control', in that the Romans did not expect to deny territory to the enemy, but attempted to control access to it, a point noticeable when you relaise that 'Fortress Roman Emoire' never really existed. Most of these broders were not great obstacles anyway, and only intended to impede the horse. In fact, later Roman military policy allowed for penetrative incursions from enemy forces and the mobile army was intended to deal with that eventuality.

My regular readers might remember that I made an attempt to become Mayor of Swindon. It was of course folly, a dream doomed to be broken, and as it turned out the local borough ignored my desperate plea for attention completely. So I decided to take revenge. If I can't achieve social status and civic responsibility by the democratic process, then I'll fall back on that aspect of British civilisation that has sustained the British Empire for centuries. I am of course talking about the class system. No, not another socialist revolution (or Prescottian fist-shaking and scapegoating), but a real and very vaild capitulation to the inevitable as I assume what should have been my status but for an accident of birth. From the 1st of January, I am Lord Caldrail. Bad News As I sat down for Sunday Lunch earlier I heard the television news in the front room. Airports closed due to bad weather, motorways closed due to bad weather, schools closed due to bad weather, in fact, Britain has pretty much shut down because, yes, you guessed it, we've had some snow. Snow is of course the great British bugbear. We are uttely flummoxed by it, an annual disaster that brings Britain to a grinding halt. Of course I'm affected not at all. Out of the window I see clear blue skies and not a flake anywhere. Swindon is peculiarly blessed by a lack of snowflakes at the best of times, and as I mentioned before, one local bar has even provided a snow making machine on their roof to remind us that winter is here. Okay, that's not entirely true. This morning produced a sharp frost in which everything is slightly slippery. So far however I have managed to stay on my feet. Just Making Sure You Got The Message No, really, from next year I am Lord Caldrail, legally, properly, and able to put that title on my driving license and passport should I be so inclined. Praise For Librarians Once again the senior librarian sidled up to me and said "We're still looking for that book you know" It gladdens the heart. Actually it turns out they've got a storeroom filled with old books. I saw one not so long ago, a victorian treatise on some subject or other printed in 1840, stamped by the Great Western Railway for their now long-defunct library in the Mechanics Institute, now itself defunct, abandoned, and a controversial restoration scheme. It isn't that significant I guess, but at times like that you can reach out and touch history. It's quite a feeling. No, Really, I'm Serious Look, this Lord thing. I'm not joking. I really have attained a title in this realm of England. It may not be hereditary, I might not qualify for a seat in the House of Lords (for foreigners, that's the bedroom in the British governmental system), but I have a legal right to present myself as a Lord. Bow down before me plebs. I did want to be called Lord of Rushey Platt, but that isn't actually allowed. So I'll have to settle for Lord of Eascott Ward. Can't wait to try it on the locals. Can you imagine the scorn, outrage and mockery I'm about to face? Doesn't matter. I'm inherently superior from January. Officially, I'm finally a fully fledged nob.

No. The empire was too big to retain conquests. It was perfectly capable of defeating enemies around them, provided those enemies fought in any predictable manner (the Romans being an organised people were usually beter at defeating an organised enemy, at least until the smaller legions of the late empire when raiding became the better option) Trajan had shown the parthians were beatable. However, the territory was largely wilderness had had no strategic or econimic value, thus Hadrian was only too happy to be rid of the problem and handed it back, along with hostages, in return for a stable frontier by peace treaty. In other words, in this case at least, expansion was limited by politics, not practicality. Also the endless wilderness was not easily held by Romans who were an essentially urban civilisation. Without defined settlements to hold and colonise, their grip on terrain was entirely down to military occupation and experience had shown them that wilderness was difficult to adequately maintain peacefully. It might be observed that the territorial conquests of modern times are of a different order to the location focused conquests of ancient times. Areas meant little - what mattered was the infrastructure and assets contained within. In other other words, a modern army engages in area denial, an ancient army engages in population control. If your enemy has a dispersed disorganised population, he isn't easily controlled no matter how good your planning and logistics, which is one reason why the Romans were so keen to bring local populations into their system of government, and barbarian chiefs were regularly given such positions in the Roman heirarchy for that very reason. There are instances in which the Romans demonstrated superiority in wilderness campaigns. Caledonia for instance, which was aborted for political reasons, not from any difficulty in logistics.