caldrail

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.

Thank you, I will. The strength of castle walls is something that provokes a response in the human psyche and has done right from the start. The need for defence gave rise to simple earthworks and palisades and so on to massive twenty four mile long curtain walls almost impregnable to military assault. That is however missing the point. While a military defeat might not have been suffered by the Byzantines until the fifteenth century, that is a very blinkered view. We do associate castles with medieval conflict. What is noticeable is that assaults, so favoured by Roman legions with a more direct mindset and a tolerance of casualties, was very rare in medieval times. It was often easier to either starve your opponent out or sneak in. There are any number of examples of such practises. It's the result of necessity. If a wall is too tough, you find a door or window to get through. The Byzantines were not invulnerable because Constainople had huge walls. To claim stone battlements around a city kept their empire alive is just ridiculous. In fact, had it not been for the religious fervour and cultural differences of the invaders, the defeat of 1453 might not have been final, irrespective of any military result at Constantinople. The fact that Baibers got in shows that even such defenses were not impossible barriers, but then, the christian crusaders had already done so much earler when they looted the city. The scale of the turkish conquest blinds us to the vulnerability demonstrated in previous centuries.

Winter is here. Okay, that statement might sound a tad obvious, but in Britain it means a good deal more. For the last few decades we've had gentle Autumn temperatures, and apart from strong winds for a few weeks, there's very little winter until after Christmas. This year we've had a sharp plunge in temperatures as cold winds from Europe sweep in from the east. For the last two days, grim warnings of snow have been made, which has pleased the doom-mongering weather people as it gives them a chance to display a different warning triangle. As I popped down to the library early this evening, I noticed a few flakes of smow drifting in the wind. It was all a bit odd seeing as there was hardly any clouds in the sky. I passed a young couple beside the busy town center road junction and the girl stopped her partner and said "Ooooh... Look at that!" Her breathless enthusiasm (yes, I looked, I am such a sheep) was about a dusting of snow piled against the side of the road. Just there. Nowhere else. It did look surreal, like some sort of advertisement for this years forthcoming snowfall. What A Nice Lady I was waiting at the booking screen in the library. This is, unfortunately an occaisonal test of patience, as there's a direct relationship between the number of people queueing to book computers and the time they take to find that special perfect cubicle. Not too suprisingly, it was happening again. This time the hopelessly confused dunce was a damsel in distress. She was actually older than me, a lively vivacious woman who was desperately trying to figure out how to get the selection she wanted. It was just a shame that I'm a complete dunce at speaking serbo-croat. So we spent a fun five minutes repeating ourselves in ever decreasing circles and enjoying it thoroughly. Sniff My noisy neighbour has finally given up and moved out, leaving a bunch of even noisier contractors rebuilding the premises from early morning to well into the evening. Nothing I can do about that I guess, but last night after they'd gone home it was like sniffing glue with the fumes of noxious paint and adhesives seeping through the floorboards. So bad was it that I had to keep the windows open to prevent suffocation, and in the freezing temperatures in the middle of the night, it wasn't funny. That's me under the piles of duvets and warm clothing. Sniff. Job Search Success of the Week It's a repetitive, soulless existence, forever filling out forms and sending optomistic appeals to employers to throw caution to the winds and hire someone like. Imagine my suprise then when an employer phoned me. As luck would have it, as always happens in moments of significant communication, I was up to my neck in bath water and missed the call completely (trust me, hot water is really lovely right now) When I phoned them back it was a private college who said (and I almost quote) that I meet their criteria and don't need to be interviewed. Erm.. Okay... But I still need to turn up and discuss whether I exist and have a criminal record. Why do I get the sinking feeling that I'm this years chosen victim at St Trinians? Rage of the Machine Go for it lads. Killing In The Name Of Real Music. Sorry Simon, but you didn't gatecrash my Christmas bash last year so I don't care if your ordered and monopolised little world is running into competition. Besides, your trousers are pulled higher than mine and that is soooo last year. A Bit More Tagged On The End Oooh, hang on a moment, don't go away... Keep on reading. Swindon just gets better and better. I saw some policemen the other day. Three of them patrolling together. You know you're in trouble when policemen go around in three's. I don't think they'll get into any trouble though, because I also saw a cheeky chap giving them a friendly wave. Sadly though not all criminals are so sociable. After all the hassle and mounting crime they've had to reopen the police stations in town, but only on three days a week, so criminals don't get too frustrated. On the other hand now Swindon's been twinned with Disneyland in Florida (that is not a joke... Oh hang on though...) perhaps we could open a theme park here. Swindonland. I can see it now... Oh. I see they have... Right out the window to my right... Stop Press!!! Today I discovered what was going on with the odd flurry of snow. Looking out the window to my right I see a snow making machine on the roof of IS= bar, just across the road. There it goes, a stream of snowflakes from a what looks like a gun barrel perched precariously on the roof. What on earth is it for? We've got snowfall drifting across Britain already. Kent is knee deep in the stuff (or so the alarmist news reports suggest) already. It's only a matter of time before we get a flurry or two here. So far, all the snow machine has achieved is several bemused pedestrians and a minor road accident.

Why didn't the East atrophy in the same way to where it could no longer support itself? It did, or rather, was in the process of doing so. Human societies evolve, whether a small gang, commercial enterprise, or virtual website, to the greatest empires in history. What happens is that relationships are formed, ritual behaviour to some degree, and things get more and mmore structured, so that they become over complex and bloated. It loses the dynamism it had in the beginning. Now that process of formalisation sometimes takes a long time. Witness though the Constantinople the crusaders discovered - huge, otherworldly, vastly impressive, beyond their imaginings, but a society they found was completely unable to cope with thousands of barbaric sworsdmen turning up on their doorstep, only too willing to shoo them away at the first opportunity, and ultimately, a civilisation that was robbed blind by those men's descendants (who ultimately got robbed blind by a blind doge of Venice, demonstrating above all else that competitive commerce breeds ruthlessly greedy and successful men, and underlines my point in that a wild and wooly commercial sector was the winner, not the semi-chivalrous thugs of europe or the the grandiose civilisation of Byzantium) As for the fortifications of Constantinople - no, they were not responsible for Byzantine success in any way, and whilst fortification represented medieval power in a very solid and overt manner, that power was ultimately political and castles changed hands all too readily, plus the ability of the Crusaders to loot Constantinople proved how little value the walls had. You find that ever since mankind evolved a barrier you couldn't break through, it was the front door that usually let the enemy in. Erm... Okay.... Well when I figure out why nihilsm crept into this I'll happily destroy that argument Please don't try to explain it. I've run out of bandages. Anyhow, if 'we' are already finding stuff we're looking for, all it is a pile of bricks. Tell you what Scylla, why don't you stop making random piles of bricks and instead build something? Write an article. Not a list of events or random personalities - a reasoned constructed case for whatever subject pleases you. Can you? You might find people listen to you a little more. At the moment all you're doing is jabbering away in a foreign language, and as you know, us brits only reply with the same message but louder. How about Nihilism in Modern Revisionist Historical Constructs and Analogies - a subject you seem to have a lot to say about. Can't wait to read it.

You seem to be searching for some elegant and sophisticated answer. Sometimes there just isn't one. I'm not sure what mechanisms you're talking about but you might find it useful to read Polybius and his model of cultural life and death, which is very appropriate and prophetic. That really is the underlying cause, whatever the influences that dragged Rome toward it. The western empire, as a zone of imperial control, had atrophied to the point where it couild no longer support itself. It died of old age, ill health, and more than one stab in the back. You can analyse it all with a microscope if you want, but until you step back and look at the bigger picture, the one Polybius himself underlined, all you do is swim around in a sea of detail and sometimes conflicting information. It's rather like a glass of water. Viewed as such, you see it clearly. Zoom in on the brownian motion and all you see is chaos that has no definitive answer, since one molecule is merely interacting with another.

I think the problem here is that it's too hard to convince you of any evidence at all. You allude to criteria for acceptance but I sense a lot of goal post moving. If you dion't want to accept anyone elses view, fair enough, but at least have the honesty to say that instead of clicking your fingers at people to find more arguments for you to dismiss.

I can remember the find of a large 'city' off the coast of Japan, and there was tha guy who reckoned he'd found a lost city at the bottom of the Mediterranean, although in that last case there's a better possibility since the Med has dried out at least once in prehistory after the Straits of Gibraltar were blocked That said, a salt desert isn't a very good location for a large city. We humans are designed to spot patterns. So we do. Rocks, holes, conspiracies, supernatural entities, vampires, werewolves, missing links, flying saucers, secret government projects, secret governments, or even just secrets - we spot them even when they ain't there and our inbuilt need for religion sometimes latches on to these things that no-one else knows. I'm not discounting the Caribbean find - I haven't any info other than the report, and as archaeology tells us, the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - and I've always maintained that there must have been abortive societies older than the ones we generally recognise, such as the possibility of an African culture up to around 45,000 years ago. That doesn't mean they were sophisticated city states we tend to think of, and isn't odd that we always associate early civilisation with some sort of 'golden age' in which the 'ancients' achieved fantastic levels of attainment before they blew it? Surely as we go back, the general level of sophistication must be lower, and the finds of extremely old temples in Turkey based on animal spirit worship demonstrate human intelligence and ambition to create is nothing new, just not quite as capable as the wilder theories tell us. So I'm afraid Stonehenge has nothing to do with Egyptians, space aliens, grids of wierd energies, or Atlantean spacemen who needed a landmark to land on. Just so you know.

It did affect the western half. The Roman state was at that time a single entity, albeit ruled in two halves by different emperors both out of political ambition and expedience. The fortunes of either affected the other to a large degree, and notice that despite the religious and personality differences between the leaders, there was still a modicum of co-operation if offset by personal motives of those involved.

That doesn't sound right to me. The medieval crossbow evolved as a means of coping with better protected troops, and having an advantage of easier aiming, found some favour, though the weapon was not universally popular and the larger ones hopelessly slow and laborious to load. They also worked on a different method. The Roman ballistas used the torsion of ropes or sinews to prvide the power, the crossbow uses a wooden spring. The Byzantines weren't unfamiliar with the crossbow at all. Such weapons had appeared at the end of the Roman period and some of the eastern empires tropps used them, I believe, though I don't have a source on that. It wasn't a question of lagging behind technology. It had more to do with military tactics and fashion. If you don't need a weapon, troops generally discard them whatever their commanders say. On the other hand, necessity is the mother of all invention. The technology of handheld and siege weapons wasn't a smooth progression from Rome to Renaissance - it had lots of rises and falls due to relative organising ability and requirements of the day.

Marcellinus mentions a third of the army making an escape in darkness after hours of fighting. Personally, I think the estimate of 650,00 is a little large. Bear in mind legions of the day were considerably smaller than in the classic era, were very likely under strength in any case, and would have been subject to desertion en route. I do note that Valens had to make more than one rousing speech whilst parked up at Melanthia just to get his unwilling army to go with him. If that number fought at Adrianople, then clearly this underlines the lack of ability of Roman command of the day to successfully handle such large set piece battles, which is incidentially a major contributor to their defeat. The commanders had little or no experience of running such a large army. Of course Sebiastianus was chosen to lead the campaign because he'd demonstraed ability in the first place, and Marcellinus tells us how he stressed small scale actions instead of a massive strike deep into unsecured countryside. Zosimus does actually mention that 'heads were sent to Constantinople every day', which although a very defined point in his otherwise skimpy account, does illustrate the success Sebastianus had with newly raised and motivated troops. Both Zosimus and Marcellinus point at the 'effeminacy' and lack of will in the troops as a whole. Of course it doesn't take a genius to see that Sebastianus was employing a cadre of forces he considered up to the job of whittling down the Goths. His policy clearly worked. Four days before the battle an advance party led ahead of the column at the instigation and personal command of sebastianus slaughtered a group of gothic foragers at the River Maritza, the Goths by that stage being forced to forage in large numbers for fear of ambush. However, I must emphasise that this accounts for a capable minority of Roman troops used in a manner for which they were trained and best suited for. The rest of Valens army had nothing like the same willingness - at least one unit vanished into thin air once the fighting started. But the initial question was whether the losses were minimal. A third of 650,000 surviving? Four hundred thousand casualties or deserters isn't exactly a minor problem. Neither was the loss of credibility of Roman leadership. They never fought another battle on that scale that I'm aware of. Such was the difficulty of raising more troops to protect Roman terrritory that Theodosius later hired Goths on wholesale. Partly that gave them a reason to remain loyal, despite the rambuctuous nature of the Goths, but also it demonstrated an expedience forced upon Theodosius in dealing with threatened borders and manpower problems. The Goths had arrived in Roman territory both as a migration southeastward from their homelands, but also as an escape against the Huns. The walls built by Trajan (not the emperor, but a 4th century general) to protect against the ravages of those horsemen illustrating the preparedness the Romans sought in their defence against them.. With an enemy arriving on the borders capable of mounting fast attacks at long ranges, the matter of having enough troops to defend the borders was not inconsiderable, and a policy that failed, requiring the campaigns of Aetius to deal with the problem.

With my experience in filling in job applications you would expect a certain level of competence. Funny thing is, the encroachment of modern technology such as personal computers has meant that these days I fill in two or three a year (Please don't tell the government - they won't understand what I mean). This last Sunday night however I was forced by a private education college to fill in one of their application forms manually. Okay, let's see if I can remember how to do this. Oh hang on, I need something to write with... Have I got any pens left? Do they still make those? Ahh... Here we go... Filling these things in silence is dull. No, really, it's excessively dull. It's no good, I'm going to have to put the radio on. As chance would have it the radio station was having problems finding hit singles and instead played a load of classic rock. My chance discovery is that filling in application forms while listening to Led Zeppelin not only enables you survive the experience, but also complete the multitude of boxes without making a complete doctors signature of it. My conclusion then is thinking about filling in forms is definitely not recommended. I think that made sense. Filling in Forms Now that I'm ready to go I discover just how anal application forms can be. First question is... Surname. Oh that's an easy one. Rail. The second box asks me if I know my... Forenames. Actually, it so happens I do. Cal D. Next question is... Name I would like to be called by. The temptation is enormous. Sir? Boss? Duke? Emperor of the Known Universe? Sigh. Oh all right I'll be sensible. Why is it employers have no sense of humour? Now we come to the crunch. There's a big page of boxes demanding to know what my previous employment was and explain any gaps in it. Ah. Now there it's a problem because my unemployment doesn't look very good. Salary and Benefits? Yes, several times now. Wow... That's going to impress them... Sliding Doors During the last week I was sat in my favourite seat in the second floor lounge in our local library. It overlooks a major road junction and all the drama and passion of everyday life is played out below me whenever I discover the book I'm reading is even more boring than that. The irony is that the book was interesting. Not only is the book a very well considered analysis of King Arthur and his historical credibility, it also manages to list his family. Cousins, uncles, aunts, they're all in there. At this rate I'll find his phone number in chapter seventeen. I wonder if King Arthur has any vacancies? Most of the Round Table should died of old age by now surely? Just when I got to the really really interesting bits there was a clatter outside, I dropped the book in suprise, and completely lost my place. The side door of a van passing the library opened by accident. Trays of fresh tomato's fell onto the road. The driver knew it had happened. He pulled over, shut the door securely, as he should have in the first place (important safety notice) and drove off, leaving two tons of red groceries lying in the road. Luckily some members of the public were public spirited enough to help council workmen clear up the mess, and if I were honest, one or two simply helped themselves. Now I know what happens to roadkill. The thing is though that side doors on vans are ludicrously dodgy. I know this from personal experience. I used to do a van driving job, delivering and collecting from customers in Maidenhead area. In Windsor there used to be a clothes shop run by the most ferocious French woman alive. She had obviously come to the conclusion that van drivers were a lower form of life and treated them as such, which, if I'm honest, I had something to do with, because I once delivered her parcels (Must deliver before 8:30am or die horribly) at 16:30 that afternoon. I may have got that one wrong. Anyway, the point was that on another occaision when I succeeded in getting there on time and still got mauled within an inch of my life (good grief does this woman have any friends?), I collected some boxes of hers for delivery to some customer who clearly hadn't the guts to enter her shop. On the motorway I overtook a car and it beeped its horn insistently at me. At the time I couldn't see anything wrong and just assumed the other driver was related to a woman in Windsor. No. It turns out my side door was opening, and with only two miles to go before I reached the depot, her parcels fell out of the van and into the ditch. That did not go well. But that isn't the only example m'lud. I now produce exhibit C, the Red Jasper Tour Van. The old Iveco van was our faithful transport between gigs in my glory years as the drummer for Red Jasper. We had a compartment put in next to the side door for the lads and any roadies who fancied helping us tote that box and lift that speaker cab. On one such trip with a willing volunteer, he made the observation that there was a draft coming through the door. I told him not to touch the door or the draught might get worse. The door sometimes fell off entirely. The effect was like telling someone on the verge of a parachute jump that we forgot to pack it. So you see. Sliding side doors on vans are dangerous and must not be used without a government warning, lots of glossy advertisements, several bright yellow warning signs, and a man with a red flag walking sixty yards ahead of the vehicle. Trust me, they know how to make rules like that. Invitation to the Royal Navy Time again to wander down the hill and sample the delights of Turkish cuisine, which if you're into English culture, has nothing to do with confectionary. It's more to do with spicy ammunition for people who like throwing up in the small hours. Thing is, the cheery bloke who cooks those kebabs for me has received a printed card inviting him to a presentation by the Royal Navy. Questions to be asked have been thoughtfully printed on the back of the invite, so if anyone forgot to think of a question, the Navy has thought of it for you. Okay, we had a bit of a laugh over it, but then I noticed the small print at the bottom said photo ID required. It just proves how sophisticated and civilised we've become over the last four centuries. Now you get politely invited by a press gang. RSVP Copenhagen Global Warming Oh no. They're at it again. Demanding money to save the worlds climate. And true to form, Giveaway Gordon has led the field with a whopping

There's nothing absurd at all. You're too rigid in comparison when all I intended was something generic, which is intentional on your part because it it allows you an excuse to criticise. Of course there are differences. What I mean is that the zealots were a pressure group with their own agenda and a hatred of a powerful occupying force whose religious beliefs differ. The parallels on that superficial level are obvious. To take the comparison further is simply a blind alley which I notice you entered with your usual enthusiasm. In any case, the modern world has global issues and infrastructure that didn't exist in Roman times, but whilst we're on the subject, there was plenty of jewish anger in the Mediterranean world of the time and it has been noted that that the Book of Revelation (yes, our very own apocalyptic vision from the bible) was likely no more than a disguised call for violence against Rome, much the same as modern terrorist propaganda. The case for jewish involvement in the Fire of Rome of ad64 is still under consideration. It would be worth realising that since the jews were largely restricted to one part of the empire and that their religious teachings hadn't spread far at that time, there was little reason for the jews to attack beyond their own borders, seeing as the zealots (besides knifing their own politicians and so forth) had domestic issues with occupation and were attempting rebellion to oust the Romans. As for analyzing Josephus, I find that an odd attitude. So what if he was a turncoat? We aren't here to castigate him for his actions, just to reflect on his writings and their historical significance and content, which is something we could apply to any classical source, even the ones you prefer - and the ones you claim to be supremacists. The only reason you're puzzled is that you're finding people don't necessarily share your views. The values you place on classical sources seem very partisan. As far as I'm concerned, they're all of value in determining the course of events. Certainly some are better than others - I wouldn't claim the Historia Augustae to be anything other than the romanticised and entertaining history that it was. That doesn't detract from its value as a source. Lets face it. Human beings have a very nasty psyche. Period.