caldrail

As shocking as it is, it seems that piracy is becoming more commonplace again. Never mind the brazen Somali's and their multi-million dollar ransom demands, now we have ships boarded in the English Channel, one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world and right on our own doorstep. Noticeably during the Cold War piracy wasn't an issue, what with naval vessels everywhere and so forth. The reduction of military ships since has made itself felt, and pirates now believe they are safe to conduct these operations without risk of being blown out of the water. The humourous comparisons with pirates of swashbuckling days is way off. Pirates back then were larcenous killers and many of the same personality types will be the ones in inflatable boats carrying AK47's. It isn't much different is it? Bye For Now Well it's time to log off. I'm heading for the hills with my backpack full of those essential survival items you'll never need until you don't bring them. The weather is cloudy, dry, and without the hot sun making life unbearable, it should be a good walk.

The praetorians were the amalgamated bodyguards of senior generals from the civil wars, tasked to guard the Princeps (Augustus) as the senior citizen of Rome once the wars were over. Guarding the palace wasn't their primary duty but obviously since that was where the boss spent his time, they guarded it. They weren't rusted though. Even Augustus had them in seperated barracks (though they were brought together later). Some emperors distrusted the praetorians to the extent of employing other units as personal guards, such as Caligulas Germans, or Nero's guards composed of tall men. Bear in mind that the Pratorian Prefect was an important figure in Rome and during the Principate, politically active.

Yes in theory, but understand the Romans hadn't access to unlimited numbers of horses. Further, being a very conservative society and having found a army organisation that suited them and one that worked, they felt no need for cavalry beyond the helpful asssistance of a few allies and scouts. In the modern hindsight cavalry is a very powerful arm, one that can use shock value and mobility to dominate a battlefield. The Romans weren't using their horsemen quite like that. By way of analogy, think of it rather like aeroplanes in warfare. These days they're essential, for all sorts of advantages, but when they began using them militarily in WW1, the generals saw no useful purpose other than recconaisance. A similar attitude prevailed in Roman times, but not just that, they Romans actually stressed the mobility aspect of cavalry and to bog them down in melees like the armoured crusteceans of the medieval period was to them a ridiculous and wasteful notion. The training of Roman cavalry stressed manoevers. Approaching, wheeling, lobbing missiles, and wheeling away to regroup for another attack. In fact, the reluctance of cavalry to get stuck in is notable. Partly this was the natural hesiitation of horses to physically bash into thick formations of armoured men armed with pointy things, but to do so meant losing mobility - an important asset in Roman eyes. PS - I have forgotten one aspect - status. The riding of horses is in Roman eyes, as it is in many societies, seen as an indicator of dominance. The Roman 'middle class', or Equites, derives from the highest order of plebian voter in the republican system. Whilst there were occaisions where legionaries were taught to ride horses as an expedience, notice that with the standardisation of the Reforms of Marius, the increased access of military service to the poor was countered by a withdrawal of the cavalry contingent for nearly a century. Although auxillary cavalry was commonly used, bear in mind this was done for practical purposes and was composed of barbarians anyway, who had little status other than the skills they offered Rome.

The plumbers turned up at the door last night. "We need to check for a leak in your bathroom." One boldly announced, "'Cos we cut a hole in the downstairs ceiling and the waters coming from upstairs." I had visions of a domestic disaster looming as these people disassembled my home in the hunt for a few drops of water. Two of them bounded upstairs and proceeding to dismantle the bathroom as expected. One brought his young duaghter along. Thankfully she was well behaved and was more concerned with making silly noises with her crisp packet than help daddy destroy my home. The two men ripped open pipes, meddled with taps, threw aside a length of mottled copper tubing, and heriocally found the leak. They fitted a brand new shining stainless steel hose thingy and lo and behold, the job was done. They announced they had succeeded, beaming with pride and delight. I was happy too. Well done lads. Yeah yeah that noise funny.... Seesh.... Haven of Evil It seems Britain isn't doing enough to bring war criminals to justice leaving MP's in a very derisive mood over our governments plans to extend such actions. Part of me worries about this though. War crime is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. As much as I would prefer to see warfare conducted in a more gentlemanly or chivalrous manner, it simply isn't going to happen like that. Human beings are both crafty and nasty, and if they see an advantage one of them will take it, whatever the human cost, to achieve their objective. There are those who believe all soldiers are war criminals by definition. I'm not one of them, and I do take pride that Britains armed forces conduct their gritty business in the generally competent and professional manner that they do. But of course, inevitably there comes a point where an individuals actions cross the line from necessity to something much worse. There are those for instance who point at 'Bomber' Harris and claim his campaign to bomb Germany was a war crime. He himself declared that it was a plan others had criticised but give it a chance because it's never been tried before. He was therefore attempting to find an advantage in the war against Nazi Germany, a regime that had bombed civilian targets from the start. I don't believe for one moment he derived pleasure from that decision - it was a time when Britain faced potential extinction, so it was either that or give up. There wasn't any real or practical alternative at that time, and of course the decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan is a terrifying concept but one designed to save the countless lives of American servicemen in a lengthy invasion of the Japanese homeland. They say history is written by the victors. That's true, but it's also reviewed by hindsight. Now whilst there may well be 'war criminals' as defined by the United Nations at large in Britain, is this hullabaloo a genuine call for justice or merely a convenient cause to lambast an ailing government?

When considering the Roman cavalry it has to be understood what the Romans actually used it for. They employed light horsemen in a scouting or skirmish role. In battle, cavalry were typically used to secure the armies flanks (a very commion occurence in ancient battles) by attacking the enemies horsemen. This would be the opening move, and as an example we see this happen at Cannae. Such confrontations were highly mobile affairs and there seems to have been a marked reluctance to get stuck in with a melee. Indeed, one tactic was wear out the enemies horses. The threat to infantry from horsemen is of course as valid as it always was - but again, the preferred Roman tactic was to approach, loose off missile fire, and wheel away. Harrasement was the order of the day, and there was a ntaural tendency for the opposing infantry to halt and form a defensive posture against such attacks. The two main reasons for these methods of employing horsemen in battle were that horses were rare and expensive animals, and that the Romans had no cultural bias toward the riding of horses and thus lacked inate ability (which was why auxillary cavalry of foreign troops was so important to Rome). However, Roman allies weren't consistently capable. Caesar was not impressed by his Aedui allies in the gaulish Campaign and gave orders to have his own men trained as riders - this being in the period when cavalry were dispensed with as part of the legionary organisation (Marius had done away with the scouting contingent and these were reintroduced by Augustus). It must be understood that auxillaries were foreign mercenaries fighting for Rome. There was no Roman army until the late empire since each legion was functionally independent and lacked formal and persistent senior organisation. Legions were grouped under commanders on an ad hoc basis, not by military order of battle. A legion was a small army in itself for much of their history, either as a annual militia or the persistent standardised legion of the post-marian era. Auxillary cavalry were therefore 'attached' to legions as extra troops available for a particular campaign rather than an established unit in some non-existent Roman army. The Romans had no pyramid style army as we do today during their Republican and Pax Romana periods. The reasons were historical - since Rome, or rather the senatorial class, didn't want another tyrannical dictator after the ousting of Tarquinus the Proud, no one person in Rome would be allowed to control completely, and even the formal Dictator of Republican times was a temporary emergency post. Regarding the Partians, their style of warfare differed considerably. Since they favoured the use of fast moving mounted archers, the Romans had little to get to grips with. The Romans however had another disadvantage, and that was the generally 'safe' style of leadership. The Romans liked steady cautious characters leading legions both to offset any rash disasters and also to prevent political adventurism (Caesar was ordered to lay down his command for that reason prior to his march on Rome). This sort of leadership did in fact produce many of the disasters the Romans were hoping to avoid, and since imaginative use of cavalry requires bold thinking, there was little sparkle in Roman operations, something we see illustrated regularly. Roman cavalry was therefore used in a light role, scouting, harrasing, or pursuing, as opposed to direct confrontation. They were few in number, relatively unskilled, and easily swamped or seen off by superior horsemen - Again, Cannae provides another well known example of this.

Monday morning... Usually the Monday Blues are associated with dragging yourself out of bed to go to work, but since I'm unemployed, you'd think that wouldn't apply to me. Oh but it does. For today is my Signing On Day, my fortnightly ritual aimed at convincing the authorities that I've something toward getting a job thus entitling me to receive my meagre handout from the government. Typically for a Monday the good weather has vanished with the weekend. It's damp and grey out there. What a miserable day. Oh well, never mind, time to haul my begging bowl down the road. Having gotten out of bed and made it to the office on time, the lady behind the desk asked me which job I was interested in, showing me a list of potential vacancies on her swivelling monitor screen. There were two jobs on offer. The first was in another town. To be honest, a four hour walk to walk every morning isn't really what I had in mind as a rewarding career opportunity. So.... Lets think about this.... Which job offer should I consider? How about the other one? It was one of those office jobs you see advertised that ask for people with extensive in some obscure part of Microsoft Office. No doubt they're looking for people with that mature, professional outlook you see in television adverts, and want to exclude non-droids like me. "Do you have that experience?" The lady behind the desk asked me. Err... No.... But what the hey, a vacancy is a job I haven't done yet. At least I think that was the saying... Yep, I'll apply for that. "What's the point of applying?" She asked, somewhat confused by my strange prediliction for not making excuses for not finding work, "You don't have the experience they're asking for. There's no point applying for a job you're not qualified for." Well you see, it doesn't matter. If by some miracle I get the job, brilliant. If not, I include a letter and CV asking them if they do have a job I'm qualified for. She then started printing off bits of paper. We chatted about 'long term job search goals' and so forth before she asked me if I wanted to apply for that job she'd pointed out. I sort of shrugged. Oh go on then. "I thought you wanted to apply for that job?" She asked as if emotionally hurt by my lack of enthusiasm. Well you've put me off now! Gripe of the Week The disappointing news for British foreign policy is that the war in Afghanistan might take another forty years to win, according to one senior officer. I have a similar problem with my plumbing. Tradesmen are a different species. They have their own language, their own rules and regulations, and have absolutely no sense of time whatsoever. You might have guessed why by now. I had a text message on my mobile this morning, sent very early this morning, from a tradesman who wants to get into my home to check for water leaks again. I phoned him back and the cheerful character arranged to be let in this afternoon. I'm still waitining... ...No I'm not. I've given up. It's evening now and so I'll pop down to the library to finish off my daily doings before they close for the night. It's only a five minute walk there, up the stairs, check for a free computer and log on. A quick cracking of the knuckles, and lets begin typing.... Oh hang on, somebody's ringing my phone...

The news last night had a breaking story of a mid air collision between a light aeroplane and a helicopter over the Hudson River, resulting in the tragic deaths of nine people. How? With the entire sky to fly through, how is it that two aircraft can collide like that? The truth is that it's all too easy. In the earliest days of commercial flying, just after the First World War, a new regulation to pass on the right was brought in to prevent head on collisions when following linear features like railway lines. Even today, with extensive navigation aids and radar services available even to the common private pilot should he request it, people still bump into each other and the skies are not a forgiving enviroment. One way to look at this problem is to see the need for human beings to travel in certain directions when going from place to place in an aeroplane, machines that can't realistically take off and land anywhere thus always move from airport to airport, plus the human need to follow landmarks to find their way around. There is some truth to that. However, the answer is much simpler and much more basic.... You're on a Collision Course! I was flying east on my way home to Thruxton airfield. The approach, as was my usual practice, was to fly at fifteen hundred feet both for convenience and to comply with airspace restrictions. Cloud cover was total and it obscured the blue sky above me at something like three thousand feet - a fairly ordinary occurence for British skies. I'd already contacted the airfield so they knew I was inbound. Then they made an urgent call to me... "Charlie Uniform, Boscombe Radar tell us there's an aeroplane ahead of you and on a converging course. Do you have visual?" No, I didn't. Aircraft are tiny little specks at a distance and looking over the instrument panel I could see nothing out there. I acknowledged the warning, and turned five degrees to the right as a precaution. A few moments there he was, a small single seater about a quarter of a mile away down on my left. It must have looked very different to the radar operator at Boscombe. Have You Seen This? Back in the days when I was learning to fly I was heading north after a visit to Shoreham on the south coast. My flying instructor, who was a veteran of World War Two (He'd flown with Bomber Command throughout the war), calmly asked me if I'd seen this? Hmm? What? With a rush of engine and propellor noise a civilian owned Bulldog trainer pulled up sharply to my right. No, I hadn't seen it. I suspect my instructor hadn't either, but it was me at the controls. Lesson learned. Where Did He Come From? Part of the pleasure I derived from flying aeroplanes was taking friends and workmates along for the ride. Most had never flown in light aircraft before. Time and again they were suprised by the experience, and most genuinely enjoyed it. On one particular flight I decided to demonstrate a few things along the way. It made things interesting for them but also for me too, allowing me to practise skills that would otherwise wither. Okay, I said, now I'm going to stall the aeroplane. "What?" Asked my passenger with some concern, "You're going to stop the engine?" No not the engine... I'm going to stop the aeroplane from flying. He stared at me in disbelief. After a reassuring chuckle I looked around for any aircraft in the area and satisfied the sky was empty, I throttled back, lifted the nose a little, and waited for the aeroplane to slow down. The controls were getting lighter... The noise of flying had all but vanished.... There's the stall warner, warbling in a hesitant shrill tone..... And there we go! The aeroplanes nose fell forward (assisted by me it must be said - safety first) and the little Cessna began to start flying again. Then I saw the Piper Arrow travelling away to my right. Ye gods that was close! Where did he come from? Strictly speaking I'd had the right of way, so to pass that close to me was poor airmanship, but then it occured to me that for whatever reason, he hadn't seen me any more than I'd noticed him.

The weekend is here and the rain has gone away. It's official. The weatherman ruefully told us to look forward to a good one and he was was correct. He so loves those amber triangles on the screen with "Weather Warning" emblazoned upon it. I think it really makes his day. The Hybrid Is Here Quite a few years ago, on another site, the discussion on the forums got around to the merits of the hybrid car and its ecological impact. At the time, I was wholly dismissive. This was of course the era of the Sinclair C5, electric travel for the masses, albeit it was only a open cockpit for one, powered by a motor from a washing machine. How I chortled... Of course, one day someone in Swindon actually bought one. He used to drive to work in it and hold up rush hour traffic at 5-10 mph. How I snarled and hooted my horn.... These days we have the Gee-Wizz, a cartoon mockery of a car that has become the butt of considerable humour, and how I chortled... Thing is though, with the advent of the Toyota Prius and everyone waffling on about it, I did say that I would sit up and take notice once Ferrari made a hybrid. That day is soon to dawn. Next year they plan to bring it out. Electric mode for safe, responsible day to day motoring, and an 'Insane Mode' for those moments when you want to forget about speed cameras on country roads. How about that? You'll be able to drive faster for less money than lesser mortals in their economical diesel hatchbacks. There is justice after all. Parrots Of course I could start quoting Monty Python sketches, the temptation is enormous, but I'll try not to. Parrots are after all, along with ravens, magpies, and crows, among the most intelligent of birds. We all know they can imitate human speech but studies have shown that the African Grey Parrot can form simple sentences of its own! This is to be expected. They've been around longer than us and originate from the Late Cretaceous period. Probably why then that the five year old female parrot named "Strawberry" won a share dealing contest in South Korea then. It seems we human beings are only emulating the financial ability of our feathered friends. Must be why our ailing human bankers find wonderful plumage so important. Doh! Car the Week Not only are Ferrari planning to build a hybrid ultracar for responsible speeding, but they also have a 4x4 on the drawing boards. How green is that? Wrong colour really, isn't it?

Today the sun has made a hesitant reappearance. The thuinderstorms and prolonged heavy rain we got yesterday has moved north, and hopefully I won't get drenched again today. Mornings like this are to be savoured in Britains new globally warmed (and definitely wetter) climate. So in a relaxed happy frame of mind I sat down at the library computer. As it happened, I was answering a question made by someone else about Roman legions. It deserved a fuller answer than a few sentences, so I got typing furiously bearing in mind you only get a limited time on these computers each day. "Cannot write to memory" came up on the screen in one of Windows message boxes that tells you something hasn't worked they Microsoft would like you to believe it should. Disaster. It means the various web pages and programs will freeze-up, rendering everything I've done useless. Quickly I used a text editor and saved as much of my work as I could. The librarians were very sympathetic of course, but none of them are IT experts and apparently I'm not the only one suffering these kinds of breakdowns. Well, as you can see, I'm back up and working after faffing around and trying to explain the situation to the computer-illerate. It's that sense of helplessness that's so stressful. You lose your work and can't do anything to restore the situation. Computers are such insidious machines. Great when they work, but... It Happened Again Another breakdown. Memory can't be referenced. I even had the IT man out to stare helplessly at the screen like they do when put on the spot. Needless to say it's been hugely frustrating. As it happens, the IT man is going to flag this library PC as 'down' when I'm finished, even though this problem has ocurred on other PC's. I broke the computer Back From The Dead My recent personal disaster with my own computer at home has been addressed up to a point. After a rebuild I got the thing working (I've already posted on that subject) but having sifted through the wreckage that is my hard drive I've discovered how much has been lost. By good fortune not too much. My reference files are intact and I can access a lot of data I was working on. Sadly however some files are gone, vanished into the electronic ether, and unrecoverable. What can you do? Start over, replace what has been lost, and build toward the objective you wanted. Thankfully most of the lost data isn't vital - so I shall count myself lucky.

That's a possibility, but the image of organised relentless troops distorts our view of Rome's effectiveness in military terms. Rome had a track history of poor performance on campaign to begin with, and significantly it was usually a change of leadership and a more determined approach that saw Rome through to the end it sought. In studying the Roman legions we tend to examine it in such a way as to find some tactical and strategic truth in the manner they organised their troops on the ground. We admire their level of orgainising and see Roman administration as hauntingly familiar. In a sense, we should do, because as people we're not really different at all, apart from a different set of rules. In other words, human beings always tend to do business the same way - it's our behavioural patterns as a species. The point is that we often see what we want to in this sort of close examination. As to what extent Roman military organisation worked to its advantage is that the manipular system replaced the greek phalanx as a mode of battle. The Romans had realised that the sturdy pike formations had significant disadvantages and wanted a more flexible approach to warfare. Or did they? Such ideas didn't occur to all them simultaneously. As always with far reaching changes, it would have been the idea of one especially insightful person who had the good fortune to be in a position where he could influence others. Military people are often quite unimaginative and tend to do things as they've always been done, for good reason it must be said, but the Roman failure to adapt quickly to clever opponents is a notable aspect of Roman military history. The manipular system worked to Rome's advantage, that can't be denied. It was flexible and allowed tacticlal diversity against the fixed and almost 'linear' thinking involved in phalanxes of the earlier times. But that alone wouldn't secure victory. Much depended on the quality of the troops, and as study shows, the image of Roman military perfection is a gross exaggeration. All too often, their troops were lazy, indifferent, rebellious, and unwilling - all the same character flaws as their opponents. When you consider the Romans before the much standardised (but never completely unanimous) training and discipline in the post marian era, it becomes clear that Rome fought it's wars with a what was effectively a militia. These men weren't professional soldiers at all, but citizens doing their bit (either willingly or because they had little choice - individual motives would have varied). Before we assume that organisation was the key to Roman success, we should remind ouselves that Rome was an intrinsincally militaristic society. They had evolved from warrior tribes raiding each other and in later times the military ethic was highly valued. Politicians based their careers ion their service record for instance. The battlefield is however a confrontation between large groups of men. Without effective leadership, the mass of opinion prevails and all too often, armies fail to achieve what was possible because their leader had failed to inspire them. This happened to Roman legions too at times. In fact, there are mentions of actions in which one suspects that with the lack of inspired leadership the Roman organisation wasn't advantageous at all, but rather just there, in the background, a means by which the men were ordered and one that had failed to maintain such order in that circumstance. The important point to realise is that Roman battles were not fought by central control as we see in later eras. There was a high degree of local autonomy amongst the maniples, and indeed, the centurion as a leader of men is a direct descendant of the warrior leader. Roman armies were given their strategy for the coming battle before it began, just as other armies did in their day. The success of brilliant generals wasn't so much that they 'played better chess', but that they had a better idea of what they wanted to achieve on the battle field. Troops were informed beforehand - whenever possible - of what they were expected to do. That is of course the reason that ambushes were so effective in the ancient world and the preferred means of dealing with the enemy if you gained the strategic advantage. So, was the manipular system a major reason for Rome's success? Yes, up to a point, until the enemy had learned to adapt to it or until their leader had a craftier idea of how to conduct his campaign against them. But remember that military technique evolves and eventually even the manipular system wasn't good enough to take on the enemies of Rome.

Sooner or later they infiltrate your home. No matter how secure you believe your privacy to be, they find ways to intrude upon your premises. Even when you discover their presence, there's a good chance they will find a way to escape you, and worse still, no matter how hard you try to push them out, they will find a way back against all adversary. Yes, the spider is at large in my home. I know he's up there, I've seen him, scurrying across the no-mans land of the carpet in a mad dash to find cover under the furniture. The hunt is on. Already I've scoured the shops for catchers and bug sprays, hardware vital in the fight for territory. Sooner or later, spider, you will face the wrath of the homeowner.... Species of the Week Everyone knows that spiders are carnivores. Sort of. They don't actually 'eat' their prey, just inject enzymes into it and suck out the nourishing goo. They can't handle solid food. There is however a vegetarian species of spider, first observed last year. So later today I'll be checking out the spider in my home. Is it wearing a woolly hat and waving a Greenpeace pamphlet? It will avail you nothing spider...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=6672 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

Public entertainment seems to be the in thing. Our labour government has been doing that fpr some time now and we're due to have the London Olympics foisted on us. Bread and circuses huh? At least in Roman times politicians had the decency to pay for it themselves.

I am by nature a creature that likes his food, and feeling a little peckish, I ventured into my diminutive pantry to determine what wonderful and exotic ingredients I had lurking in there. Ooh heck, this looks a bit sparse.... Uhhh... Any pot noodles left? Nope. Looks like another trip to the supermarket is in order. The weather of course was damp and miserable. There was a time when we used to get scorching summers, but now the green brigade have banned noxious gases and nearly everything that causes them, it stays cloudy and wet. I turned the corner into the square where Isambard Kingdom Brunels statue stands proud. Before he turned up Swindon was an isolated market town on the hilll. It's fair to say then that he foisted Swindon upon the world. Not his greatest achievement then. "Hello!" Called a voice in front of me. It was Miss R, a young lady I met some years ago during those heady days when I still had a job. Occaisionally I bump into her and we always have a little chat. Today was no exception. She was going to chat to me and that was that. In fact, there was only one occaision she ever went silent. It transpired that at the time she was living round the corner from me, and when her car was in for servicing, asked if I could give her a lift. No problem. This was in the era when I drove Bessy, my trusty Toyota MR2 (The Ferrari-esque one of course) and whilst I wasn't deliberately showing off, the look on the her face as she realised I wasn't slowing down for that tight left hander was something I shall treasure forever. The big suprise is that Miss R is now engaged to be married. Coming from a woman who describes herself as a dedicated 'Commitment-phobe', this was a shock equivalent to learning that Rambo's bandana was made of silk. Well congratulations R, hope it all works for you. Like women often do she enquired as to my marital status. Don't think I have one of those. Don't you need a license or something? We shared a few jokes about being chained up. As R left to go about her business (even she has to breathe in sometimes) she departed with a cryptic comment and a knowing smile. I wish women wouldn't do that. You walk away wondering if they know something. Dating Services I've noticed just recently that there's been a big increase in adverts for dating services. Television adverts proclaiming there's a shortage of 'hot new men' followed an advert advising us that there's lots of 'hot new men'. Yeah, well, personally I'd prefer lots of 'hot new women' but given my age and financial circumstances, it wouldn't make any difference if they were laying siege to my castle. Might be fun letting them try though. I'm reminded of those late night adverts for phone networking with... yes, you've guessed it, 'Hot New Women'. You get a thirty second glimpse of two young blondes making seductive glances at the camera whilst studying their mobile phone. I can't help feeling it's a tad dishonest because those two girls on screen aren't likely to be the women you talk you on the phone. Not that I've tried it you understand. Mobile phone charges are expensive enough without this sort of semi-*or* fantasy. Now along comes another service that proclaims they don't match people by any such means, but make careful comparisons of personality and mindset to produce the perfect match. Along with images of happy contented couples of course. I would be curious to know how many people of the hopefuls paying out money for these services actually do meet the partner of their dreams, or are they simply being sold false hopes? There's a part of me that thinks these customers are being sold an alternative to learning new confidence and social skills. It looks good on the wrapper, but there's really nothing in the box.

I don't watch a lot of television these days but today I came across a program detailing political events at the close of Second World War. It focused primarily on Poland, and whilst the allies had agreed at the Yalta Conference about the fate of that nation, Stalin had little intention of honouring his part of the bargain. Despite the grass roots comradeship Great Britain and Russia made uncomfortable allies. The Second World War had started over the question of Polish security and the Cold War began to rear its ugly head over Poland as well, as Stalin denied the Polish people self determination despite American pressure.and dramatically increased tension in post-war Europe. Churchill had always warned against the possibility of Russian expansion across Europe and on the 22nd May 1945, asked his military planners to prepare Operation Unthinkable - The British attack on Soviet Russia. In the opinion of one individual involved in planning this venture - it might take a very long time to win. Given the recent experience of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe units struggling with the climatic conditions and the vast demoralising open spaces of eastern Europe, one wonders what the British could actually do about it. It is ironic of course that the Russian people were convinced (largely by offical propaganda) that the West were about to launch a full scale invasion of the Soviet Union for something like forty or fifty years. Were the Russian government aware of Operation Unthinkable via the communist sympathisers lurking in Whitehall? Or was it merely the legacy of Stalins paranoia?

There is a 'gladiator school' operating somewhere, and I understand that most people who take part are naturally cautious , blunt weapons notwithstanding. Except the Germans. They 'really go for it' apparently. You have been warned.

TV personalities often describe Swindon as dull and rainy. Well, nothing has happened in the last two days and today... Yes... It's raining. So I'm sat in the library typing this out desperately trying to think of something meaningful to write. Life, The Universe, And Everything You can tell I'm bored, right? In todays blog I address the most fundamental question of about everything. Douglas Adams attempted this and got the answer of 42. Can I do better? Lets start at the beginning. The Big Bang. Now this is odd, because the universe contains everything there was, is, and ever will be. Now the religious people among us will be already shrugging and claiming their particular god invented the core of energy that spawned our existence in the first palce with a flick of his pinkie. Let There Be Explosions? It seems so. The thing is, the universe is such a wierd place. If you go right down to the minimal level possible, it turns out that the universe has a frame rate. No really it does. For anyone who isn't a computer gamer that means that time is composed of lots of freeze frame moments, one after the other. God has a pretty good PC though because he gets frame rates something of the order of 1034 per second, and thats quite a lot. Smooth action. Then there's this feeling that whatever choice I make, there will always be obstructions. And eventually you have to face the Boss at the end of a level. There's no getting away from it. I'm living in a virtual computer game. Sims Swindon in 3D. When you consider that, 42 does seem a bit lame doesn't it? TV Advert of the Week In their end-of-series episode of Top Gear, the tem were tasked to come up with television adverts for the new diesel Golf Sciroocco. It was quite amusing, but if I were brutally honest, I actually preferred Jeremy Clarksons "It's Explosive!" ad, the one he did first. Simple, visually impressive, and none of that arty nonsense (though I confess I did like the "Berlin to Warsaw" joke too). Explosions. We love 'em don't we?

No. There was one 'major battle' and Spartacus lost it. Most of his victories were not great battles in any sense of the word. I've already answered your question about how Spartacus carried on for as long as he did, facts the Romans themselves observed even if you haven't. They were careless, fightimng with troops under par to say the least, and weren't used to dealing with people who thought outside the box. Of course Crassus used large numbers of troops. He wanted the man surrounded and finished off come what may. Always attack from at least three times their number is the old military axiom. And since the Romans were careless enough to allow Spartacus to get away with early on, he had accrued a fair number of followers, most of whom he precious little control over. You were right. The relevant facts are there. It's just that you prefer the fantasy.

A great general, unlike Garibaldi Karl Marx The description of Spartacus as a general emerges not from history, but his place in the marxist ideology. The question should be asked however why Karl Marx considered Spartacus a great general at all. It wasn't because of his military deeds, but rather that he committed them in an ancient class struggle, which of course was the political invention of the recent past. More importantly, Spartacus was viewed by Marx as a charismatic figure who could inspire the working classes of the Italian mainland to throw off their masters yoke. His military achievements were therefore beside the point. Marx wanted a leader. A hero. The two main accounts of Spartacus come from Appian and Plutarch, and they disagree to the extent to which Spartacus led the escape and the rebellion that followed. To Appian, he was the ringleader, the man who persuaded the gladiators to escape. To Plutarch, he was a man who became the leader as events pushed him to the fore. There is an element of doubt here. Are these descriptions decended from eye-witness accounts, or the literary devices of Roman historians seeking to establish a character? Since most of Spartacus's followers either died in battle or were crucified along the Appian Way, it's difficult to see how an accurate depiction of Spartacus could be made. At their head were two Celts, who are designated by their slave names Crixus and Oenomaus, and the Thracian Spartacus. The latter, perhaps a scion of the noble family of the Spartacids which attained even to royal honours in its Thracian home and in Panticapaeum, had served among the Thracian auxillaries in the Roman army, had deserted and gone as a brigand to the mountains, and had been there recaptured and destined for the gladiatorial games. A History Of Rome (Theodor Mommsen) Here lies the core of the problem with Spartacus. It's the romantic illusion of his story, the assumed nobility of the man in the popular imagination that people want, and for that reason, they ascribe virtues to him he never would have had in real life. It's much the same as the representation of King Arthur as a noble and chivralous knight in shing armour, when he was more likely a dark age warrior who is described by contemporary writers as something less than the hero of legend. Robin Hood is another example - turned by romance into a disposessed lord fighting against tyranny by noble revolution, instead of the medieval thief he would have been. Mommsen describes him as a scion of his people. To his mind, it was unthinkable that a common man would show the nobility and talent of leadership which in his day was considered the preserve of the upper classes. Mommsen compounds this romantic expression by stressing that the family of Spartacus might even have been royalty amongst his people. It seems unlikely that a prince would seek to fight for Rome as a common soldier in the Auxillaries, and Mommsen either ignores or isn't aware that Spartacus is his stage name - even though he mentions the two Celtic leaders as having slave names themselves. In the six hundred and seventy-eighth year of Rome, Marcus Licinius Lucullus, the cousin of that Lucullus who had carried on the war against Mithridates, obtained the province of Macedonia. A new war, too, suddenly sprung up in Italy; for eighty-four gladiators, led by Spartacus, Crixus, and Oenomaus, having broken out of a school at Capua, made their escape; and, wandering over Italy, kindled a war in it, not much less serious than that which Hannibal had raised; for, after defeating several generals and two consuls of the Romans, they collected an army of nearly sixty thousand men. They were, however, defeated in Apulia by the proconsul Marcus Licinius Crassus; and, after much calamity to Italy, the war was terminated in its third year. Historiae Romanae Breviarium (Eutropius) It seems then the legend of Spartacus was already established in the fourth century during the reign of Jovian. Eutropius of course wasn't writing from first hand experience or the word of witnesses. His sources were Suetonius, Livy, and an unknown history now lost to us. His assertion that Rome was in as great a danger as during the Hannabalic War is there for literary purposes. Eutropius gives Hannibal twenty three paragraphs compard to the single entry that mentions Spartacus. More pointedly, Hannibal was a days march from an undefended Rome after the defeat of Cannae, named the "Fourth and almost fatal wound" by the historian Florus, who completely ignores the Spartacus Revolt in his survey of the various conflicts of that period. Spartacus was at no time within reach of such a serious victory over the Roman Republic. If there prove to be any persons who take an interest in these books, let them remember to discriminate between "strategy" and "stratagems," which are by nature extremely similar. For everything achieved by a commander, be it characterized by foresight, advantage, enterprise, or resolution, will belong under the head of "strategy," while those things which fall under some special type of these will be "stratagems." The essential characteristic of the latter, resting, as it does, on skill and cleverness, is effective quite as much when the enemy is to be evaded as when he is to be crushed. Since in this field certain striking results have been produced by speeches, I have set down examples of these also, as well as of deeds. Strategems (Frontinus) Frontinus does indeed provide many examples of strategems (by which he means "tactics") and specifically we do see some of those attributed to Spartacus, who is not described as a general in the text. The historian isn't concerned with the "strategy" of Spartacus, merely the tactics he used to good effect, and the whole of Frontinus's work is to collect such anecdotes as examples for the commanders of his day to read as inspiration for their own efforts. It isn't just the personality of Spartacus that has been romanticised, or his military ability, but also his role in the pages of history. Worst still, he has been made a patron of the class struggle and representative of an idealistic view of the ephemeral fight against tyranny. Spartacus means the fire and spirit, heart and soul, the will and deed of the revolution of the proletariat... Spartacus means every hardship and every desire for happiness, all committment to the struggle of the class concious proletariat. Spartacus means socialism and world revolution... Gessamelte Reden Und Schriften (Karl Liebknecht) Inspiring words perhaps but the real Spartacus was not concerned with freedom for the common man. He lived in an age when slavery was nothing more than an accepted part of life. I doubt very much the real Spartacus shared the moral outrage we see expressed today on that subject. Certainly he wouldn't have cared for having been enslaved - who does? - but remember that this was done as punishment for his brigandage. Whether Spartacus saw that as just is another matter. His escape from the ludus of Lentulus Batiatus was not part of some noble plan to bring down Roman society. There's no doubt he had in mind to save his own life. He was apparently in training for an imminent spectacular, an event in which he may well have been killed for public entertainment. The usual interpretation is that Spartacus was trained as a gladiator, which would imply a professional fighter, and indeed his legend reinforces that view. However, we need to view this in terms of the period in which he was condemned Ad Ludum. In this period the popularity of gladiatorial games was soaring, and centered upon Campania, as the arenas of the later empire had yet - particularly under the Augustan franchise as cities vied with one another for civic achievements and the state sponsorship they could win by emulating Rome. It has become recognised that gladiators of that era were harshly treated. In fact, it was the revolt of Spartacus that was to spawn many changes in the imperial period to improve security and one that also saw the rise of the volunteer fighter, a trained and valuable athlete, a development that Spartacus never experienced. For him, his imminent death was something he chose not to accept. A coward he was not, but to die for public entertainment was more than he could bear. Again we run the risk of romanticising the man. Spartacus was at heart a non-conformist. His taste for adventure had seen him leave home and join the auxillaries whom he later deserted from. Another misinterpretation of the legend is to assume that the auxilaries were a coherent military unit much like the modern day. Study of the revolt demonstrates that the legions of the time were of poor quality. Many refused to fight, others ran in panic when suprised, a feature of poorly organised and ill-disciplined troops throughout the ages. Spartacus was one of those characters who find themselves unable to obey orders and run with the crowd - he was at heart a rebellious man. Whilst many prefer the noble hero (and general) of legend, it should be realised that Spartacus was of a larcenous nature, and the theft of wealth and resources from the people of Campania as he established a bandit camp on the slopes of Vesuvius was merely a return to his favourite lifestyle. Of course the locals were indignant and attempted to oust him without success, calling upon Rome to defend their security. The response was Clodius Glaber who blockaded the path leading down from the bandits mountain retreat. Spartacus famously had his men slide down the mountainside on vines and suprised the Roman sentries from an unexpected direction. There wasn't much of a fight to it. Startled and paniced, the Romans ran off. Publius Varinius arrived with reinforcements. His troops were suffering from the damp climate, disease, and according to Mommsen - cowardice and insubordination thinned the ranks. Such was the poor state of morale that when ordered to advance against the bandit camp which is recorded as being pitched down from the mountain at that point. Was Spartacus geting the hint it was time to move on? At any rate, his victory of Varinius was against troops in no better shape to fight than those of Glaber. Whilst considering the failings of the Roman legions and their carelessness and lack of foresight in dealing with a crafty adversary, it's worthing noting that there are clues about Spartacus as a leader. He was only one of three commanders voted by the escapees. Both Crixus and Oenomaus, the other two, argued with Spartacus and split away with their own followers and were defeated quite quickly. Further, Sallust reveals that Spartacus was unable to stop his men from raping and killing in the places he plundered. Indeed, he specifically describes him as 'powerless'. The followers of Spartacus and Crixus were not from the same country as their leaders, nor were they of the same nation, and only their common lot and their fate drew them together for the campaign. And this is only natural. For I believe every slave to be the enemy of his master when it appears possible to overpower him Synesius (5th Century) It is true the Romans had an uncomfortable relationship with their slaves, one bounded by practises designed to dissuade them from revolt. Such was the folk memory of Spartacus that it was considered necessary. If however, we accept that Spartacus was intent on military conquest of the Roman state and the elinination of slavery, what did Karl Marx's hero achieve? Nothing.

Why? Because it suits your sensibilities? You're using the phrase as a label and thus risking using the quote out of context. Vegetius after all wasn't a military man nor was his work an accurate commentary on legionary activity.

Not disputed at all. However, what is important is that the Romans saw associations about these fights, religious sigificance sometimes, that we don't see in modern hindsight. It does sound a bit hypocritical considering how much money was involved in the genre, but there you go. Anyhow, my point is that a femal venator represented Diane, Goddess of the Hunt, and I really can't see the Romans ignoring or passing scorn on such a re-enactment. On the other hand, Bestarii, since they actually fought animals close up and dirty as it were, were guilty by association of being en par with animals, whereas the venators displayed Roman mastery over nature by 'hunting' the animals at a distance using bows and spears (or whatever else - you may know more about that). This question makes it clear that you have not read my article in which I summarize e.g. the article by Stephen Brunet in which he points out that it is a misinterpretation that women faught against dwarfs. Before I repeat here my article I strongly recommend you to check out the link given by Viggen in the first post of this thread, there you will find the answer. Fair enough, although I did mean the comedy aspect. It wasn't a 'fight' in the same way as professional bouts at all. The reason I mentioned that was the hope you would react in a certain way (I nearly achieved that - thanks for the reference anyway ). You see, professional fighters such as existed from the Principate onward must have had a great deal of pride in what they did - there is of course the mention that "Gladiators love nothing more than to provide pleasure to their owners" by fighting well and in an entertaining manner. I was wondering if any of that attitude had worn off onto you. The difference of course is that you're not owned by anyone ( I hope not anyway!) which provides a difference before we begin the comparison of mindset, and that you perform for public display as opposed to actually fighting to the death. In one respect you have something very much in common with those arena contestants two thousand years ago - you are performing these mock fights for public entertainment. It's very easy to get wrapped up in the violent aspects of this, and to my eyes at least, hugely disturbing that people would flock to watch two individuals fight for real, but the thrill of watching a sword fight taking place must have have been palpable and the entire reason for gladiatorial popularity. I wonder - how does the modern audience react to your displays?

There's a romantic element to Spartacus that some people seem remarkably unwilling to dispense with. Firstly, the 'battles' and 'consistently crushing victories'. Spartacus outwitted the enemy commanders often enough and did fight off the legions from time to time, but the word 'battle' here is misleading. In the context of romanticism it conjures up an image of ranks of soldiers lining up against each other and a tactical chessboard confrontation ensuing. Battles of this nature are common enough in the ancient world but care needs to be taken. The parade ground formations of the flintlock era are inappropriate, and even the Roman legions with all their much vaunted organisation tended to employ simplistic formations due to the relative lack of sophisticated communication and the manner in which ancient battles were fought. It's wrong to assume that generals of that time always stood behind the lines directing efforts. Often the commanders were in the thick of battle, trying to rally or exort their men directly. Instead, the tactics to be used against the enemy were more usually decided the night before. Further, the word 'battle' may be misconstrued. To Roman eyes, that simply meant a confrontation with lots of armed men. It didn't necessarily mean a text book set piece battle as we understand the term, and given the level of chicanery used by generals in ancient times it's remarkable how many ancient armies were overcome by a simple ruse, not just Roman ones either. Noticeably, the battles Spartacus fought were forced upon him. He did not seek out confrontations with the legions. He did not attempt to 'defeat' Rome, and indeed, was more content to thumb his nose at it. He did not attempt to conquer territory and establish zones of control, rather he did no more than intrude upon the Roman. In all cases, his motivation was top ensure he could leave the area safely and pursue his aim of plundering the neighbourhood. In what way was his strategy military? Not at all, because he had none. His 'battles' were fought merely to stay at large. As to the question of whether Spartacus would be allowed to escape north over the Alps, one should remember by that time he was an established bandit. Once encamped on the sklopes of Vesuvius (not the crater - that wasn't there at the time) he was raiding the local area repeatedly, a lifestyle he had already once become accustomed to. Had he simply escaped north, then I doubt the Romans would have worried too much about him and a hundred gladiators (although they would have been escaped slaves from that point on). However, he was actively employed in brigandage and that changed everything. So I agree, even if he had escaped to the north, the Romans wouldn't have forgotten him. That said, he didn't. He turned south and remained a bandit at large, plundering towns and cities and making good use of the numbers of followers attracted by his rebellious attitude. Even in his own day, he must have seemed a romantic figure. Despite the repeated assurances on this thread that Spartacus was indeed a general, it's useful to compare him to Tacfarinas, a similar figure althoiugh one more obscure. Tacfarinas of course was in Africa, not the Italian mainland, thus his threat seemed far away. In any event, he fought three campaigns against the Romans and was only defeated on the third. The important point was that despite training his forces to fight in the Roman model and successfully conducting more identifiably military campaigns, he was never described as a general. Not once. The question of where the recruits Spartacus gathered had come from is nio great mystery. The economic situation of the time involved considerable hardship, and it it's known that the huge numbers of slaves were not well treated in this period. In fact, with the slave revolts in Sicily very much in mind, is it any wonder Spartacus attempted to reach that island? To him, it was a ready source of recruits and potential safe haven. In effect, Spartacus gathered recruits for the same reasons that other more modern revolts have become popular. They saw in him a hope of something better. Although Spartacus had no intention of the marxist inspired ideal of freeing the downtrodden masses, it did provide him with both men that could be employed defensively and also too considerable baggage that must have slowed him him down.

I take issue on this point. Bestiarii were 'beast fighters' and as such considered the lowest of the low of the gladiatorial kind (ignoring the Noxii but as intended victims they were never trained). Venatorii were 'beast hunters', athletes who didn't fight animals per se but attacked from a distance (though inevitably there must have been times when it all went horribly wrong for them). It is interesting though that you dismiss animal fighters as non-gladiators. Strictly speaking that's the case and I suspect the Romans had views along those lines, since an animal hunt (of whatever variety) was an added spectacle and not part of the formal one-on-one professional bouts. Incidentially (and this is a little crass), do you re-enact the comedy bouts with dwarf males? That was common entertainment before and during the period of female gladiatorial matches.

The problem is one of perception. The image of Spartacus as a general is very enticing but one that gives him air and graces he never had. Spartacus after all had no overall strategy other than to plunder and stay one step ahead of the Romans, nor was he attempting to win 'victory' or 'conquest' over the Roman state. Nor for that matter did he have any formal army whatsoever, rather a band of escaped gladiators (although most of these were no more than ill-trained cannon-fodder anyway - there was a spectacle planned in Capua and Spartacus armed his followers with weapons intended for the performance, found on a wagon approaching outside ot town) and an increasingly large retinue of disaffected individuals. Spartacus may have had military credentials though. One story describes him as a deserter from the auxillaries, which is in keeping with the nature of the man. His main claim to fame is that he stayed at large for so long and embarrased Roman generals by outwitting them. That in itself doesn't make him a general, and that's why I prefer to describe him as a guerilla leader. His campaign was based on banditry, not miltary conquest of territory or other strategic objectives. In fact, there's a strong possibility that he thought he could get away weith his bandit lifestyle. Although he'd been caught and sentenced once already, his ability to outwit the legions sent against him persuaded him (or if not, most of his followers) to turn south and begin plundering instead of making for the Alps and freedom 'over the border'. He was therefore conducting his campaign for personal gain - though I must also point out that he was described as being scrupulously fair in dividing the spoils. Notice also that in the Kirk Douglas film there's a scene where Spartacus stops a fight hastily arranged between senators, with Spartacus demanding to know whether they had become animals (humanity is a theme visited by the film regularly), when in fact the historical Spartacus was only too ken to see his social betters fight each other as they had intended him to.

Over the years I've met people on internet forums. We all say that. The truth is we haven't met them at all. They're just little icons and text messages from people far far away. How well can you know someone on a website? That's difficult to say. If there's one thing the internet allows, and indeed one of it's greatest dangers, is the anonymity of it. You can invent a persona and people do exactly that. Time and again I hear stories of 'women' being unmasked as male teenagers (Good grief, the world is full of wannabe transvestites!) or the cute friendly boy your daugter chatted to via the web turns out to be a middle aged paedophile who wants an adventure away from home. You can never be fully certain who you're communicating with. This has been brought into focus again by the Roman Catholic Church, something I find coldly amusing considering the numbers of dodgy individuals that organised religion hides in its ranks, but there you go. Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster has warned that networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace are encouraging teenagers to create 'transient' friendships. It could leave them traumatised or suicidal he says. I think that's a little off the mark. You see, most relationships are transient. How many people do you meet find long lasting relationships or friendships with you? Precious few. That's simply how life is. The problem then isn't the site, but the learning experience of a teenager who puts too much trust in someone they've never met. Teenagers usually want friendships and to be honest they make the same mistakes dealing with people face to face. Or does the ranks of unmarried teenage mothers mean nothing? The fault isn't the internet, but the lack of guidance for young people in learning about life and how dangerous or disappointing it can be. So, Mr Nichols, why not try doing something positive instead of finding a scapegoat? You are in the business of guidance, are you not? Or is the internet too difficult to burn? Job Offer of the Week A few weeks ago I looked up a business address on the internet and sent a CV on the off chance thy might have a suitable vacancy, or perhaps keep my details on file for future consideration. Standard job searching practice really. Usually you don't hear any more, but this company very kindly responded. They apologised that they didn't have anything to offer me in their sales office in Swindon, Wiltshire, southern England, but their manufacturing facility is in Aberdeen Scotland and would I like my details forwarded? Not really. Bit far to walk every day.