caldrail

Caligula dying peacefully? Well, assuming he wasn't a nutcase and realistically, that as true - he had a perverse sense of humour - you have to realise that now there was autocratic power available people were going to want it. There is almost an inevitability that power struggles would take place. Whatever he may have been, Caligula was prone to personal excess and therefore would have pursued his own enjoyment. This means he would be dependent on guardians and assocites to remain politically safe. Make no mitake, although the early principate was relatively peaceful it remained a bear-pit in higher circles. 1 - The new emperor would have been the man in the strongest position. There's no certainty that Caligulas offspring would succeed him, there was no precedent for this until Commodus. As Caligula approached old age and infirmity, the wolves would be jostling amongst themselves and intrigue rife, people forming factionsto secure their place with the 'winning team'. There is noway of assuming who would emerge from this political turmoil, and there may have been intervention from the provinces as ambitious generals with armies behind them see a Rome becoming weaker with that old Caligula about to kick the bucket. 2 - Since a successful long term rule in Rome would almost certainly indicate ruthless rulership, many of the rivals would have been dealt with. Of the personalities you mention, some would have been executed, exiled, or simply stuck in sidelines. 3 - Generally speaking, the fate of the empire wouldn't have been much different. 4 - That would depend on who invented the technology.

Impressive deeds which were a triumph of leadership. Under capable commanders, the men were motivated and it should be noted these deeds were not lasting. This is typical of armies. Its a mistake to assume that an army that achieves a victory is automatically at a high standard all the time because of it, and it also fails to address the circumstances in which that victor was won. More than one ancient victory was achieved by a ruse, not by great deeds. It was also due to the over-extension of the current roman capability. Justinians reforms allowed the roman army to become motivated again - to become ready for war. Thats typical of able and strong leadership but not a lasting one. Its noticeable that his army remained unwilling to campaign abroad for any length of time, nor were keen to retain that terrritory. Links to home life were much stronger in the late empires armies, the early byantines similarly so, and the use of territorial troops strengthened these links. A logical conclusion which would be correct if the situation was clear-cut. It wasn't. There was even a bizzrre situation in the late empire when the Western Empire was defended by Goths against an army of Romans. You also assume the resistance to external threat was organised and resisted in such a manner, again, this isn't entirely true. The fragmentation of the late empires defence made this difficult, the lack of authoritive governmental control made it doubly so. In your defence, we must consider a facet of human demography dealing with warrior cultures. In some circumstances where tribes become involved in violent competyition, we see a warrior ethic emerging. They hone their skills and begin to violence as a desirable end in itself, that it allows rites of manhood, glory, status, and some measure of material gain when victorious. In cases where the violence is turned inward this culture would tend to remain contained, unable to expand because of distrust and vulnerability. Eventually though, a strong leader emerges and units the tribes. Their warlike instincts are now prevented from attacking each other, and inevitably the culture expands aggressively at a high peak of effectiveness through practice and atttude. It happened a few times during the ancient period. What must be noted however is that te culture is temporarily united under one mans rule, and that once he dies or victory ius achieved, the pressure to cmpete is much lessened by the extra territory and the society goes off the boil very quickly. They 'lose the sword' very readily. As arminius proved, it only required clever and able leadership. A bugbear of the professional period from the beginning. It was however largely driven by personal ambition of individual leaders. Britain was a special place in roman eyes. Not especially valuable in itself - its resources never matched those of mainland europe and much of the island remained troublesome - but it represented the furthest extent of roman control. Agreed. Notice however the legions did not return. Notice also that the withdrawal of the legions from britain across the channel was the last of such movements. Roman withdrawals had been going on for some time. Durocornovium for instance, a town grown out of a vicus along ermine street, was abandoned nearly a century before the Groan of the Britons simply because the army had left. The local markets had no buyers. No, not quite. I understand the connection but the opposition at Adrianopolis was not from Goths involved in roman society. Possibly there elements amongst the gothic horde that had crossed over - the reverse may also have been true, but the leadership of this particular threat was not from roman society.

At last. An island of stability in an ever-changing world

Since the decline of the legion is linked to the decline of the west as a whole, the continuation of the eastern army in some semblance of its former glory isn't suprising. Nonetheless, despite the continued organisation of the succesful byzantines, we must note that the peak fine edge achieved by the empire had been lost. The Byazantine armies were not able nor inclined to conduct the civil and military engineering so fundamental to classic roman activity, and whilst they retained a high standard overall, the pre-eminence of the cavalry had arrived and that inevtiably affected the importance of infantry in eastern armies. It cannot be denied that infantry was still important per se, this is attested to in more than one work on the subject, but again it cannot be denied that the Byzantine army, for all its links and traditions inherited from the west, had little more than a resemblance to the legions of old. The Byzantines themselves thought themselves rightly or wrongly as roman and the true inheritors of their tradition, perhaps a reason why their armies are seen as such more than they deserve. Thats not to decry their efforts - they maintained Byzantine security for some considerable time. In the west, the failure of government was characterised by an increasing attempt to spend wealth in displays to impress rather than to underpin efficient government. Indicative of organisational failure? I would say so, and the increasing reluctance of communities to suffer their rule, pay the rising taxes, and rely on western roman security must be seen as a decay of control. This inevitably afflicted the military since the roman army and government had been two sides of the same coin since early times. The late empires reorganisation into mobile and territorial troops did not meet its needs. There was a trend toward conflict on a wider front for which the new organisation was intended to meet, an attempt to revise roman response to changing conditions in military strategy. There is also concurrently a sense of desperation too. We see the empire moving its capital to Ravenna, a city surrounded by swamp with an escape route to sea. We see emperors decreeing that two men without thumbs are as good as one man fully able to hold a sword. We see press gangs enforcing recruitment by violence and ruse. We see families bereft of support by the unprecedented recruitment of all male family members. In equipment too, the sense of desperation continues. Vegetius complains about many things, the lack of training for one thing, one reason why he wrote his treatise on the subject. Also, he complains that roman troops are unprotected. He exaggerates of course, since any soldier seeks self-protection where he can, but since the government had taken responsibility for the equipping of troops with the fabricae system, it was therefore a drain on governmental resources they could ill afford in the less tax-efficient regime of the late empire. There has also been comment on the decline of roman population. This is difficult to quantify. It is true that disease was far more prevalent in the late empire, that the risk of death and injury from violence more accentuated, and that records of the time less accurate for the lack of reliable accounting if nothing else, but in the wake of decreased security, perhaps the main reason might be a decline in agriculture to support it, given the western empires demand for military labour. In other words, the western empire was propping up its declining armies with recruits less than willing to perform, taking them away from the 'producing' industries, and in effect, reducing the level of tax income by occupational redistribution. Not enough for a total economoc collapse, but certainly, it introduced an extra burden on the financing of military endeavour. To some extent them, the western empire was cutting its own throat. Given they were under pressure and the demands of defence required they recruit foreigners to enforce it with giftys of money, tax breaks, and land, you can see the seeds of a terminal decline in their armed forces.

There's always been a certain amount of sexual cross-over in human societies. Most cultures have stories of woman who take on mens roles. We read of a female samurai, capable and deadly. We read of women hiding amongst the ranks of redcoats pretending to be boys. The native americans, of the plains tribes at least, tended to accept that not all men wanted to be warriors, and if a man wanted to stay in the camp and do womens work that was his choice. And so on. Today we see all sorts of manifestations of this behaviour. I watched a program about a jail in Costa Rica where two men dressed as women to entertain fellow prisoners and amuse themselves. There's all sorts of categories of cross-dressers such as american 'Shims', or a caste of men in India who dress and behave as women completely. Man Has Second Child said the headline. It depends how you look at it. A woman has chosen to have a sex change and despite being married to a woman, has decided to forgo 'his' hormone treatment and have children. One wonders how 'he' became pregnant at all, and what 'his' wife thinks of this. It seems to me that the person involved really doesn't want to be a man as much as he claims, and that despite the sex change and hormone treatment, female instincts rose to the surface. In fact, far from being a satisfied and stable person it rather sounds like this individual is a hugely mixed up hermaphrodite. I have to be honest - we don't get much of this sort of thing in rainy old Swindon. I doubt Swindoners have the imagination nor the will to consider it. Perhaps thats why I tolerate the place. I must be honest, whilst I accept people aren't always cardboard cut-outs and stereotypes, I'm comfortable with men being men and women being women. Smile of the Week Goes to the young lady of a bookstore in town. Sometimes people come across as genuinely pleasant and she did. Now only if I could find out what sex she was....

How can we discuss if we keep saying exactly the same? Because we're not. You're looking at the roman legionary army of the professional period and considering the whole thing as composed of units fighting on equal terms. Not so. If you investigate operational formations and battlefield descriptions, the battle is conducted with the legions as the main arm, the other troop types support their efforts and prevent them from coming to harm. Noticeably, although there are obviously accounts of auxillary action, the auxillaries themselves are not given any 'starring' role. They are technically lesser troops in roman eyes, a necessary evil, one composed of non-citizens that happen to be useful to some degree. I daresay some commanders were more enlightened than others concerning that - Caesar was one, though he remained disappointed with his Aedui allies and had his own men trained as cavalry to replace them. In the late empire, the emphasis changes. Legions are not as 'elite' as they had once been, and their battlefield role was no different to any other unit in that they simply took their place in the line and fought as directed. They were no longer the 'elite' or the 'heavy hitters', and although some of the former organisation survived the late imperial armies were beginning to resemble everyone elses. This is due to the organisational changes that had seen the end of the old-style legions (the ability to organise these professional units had withered along with the loss of military and governmental expertise) but also because the late empire was using units that consisted of tribes fighting without any roman influence, as independent allies. The homogenous quality of the professional era had been lost. Units were no longer uniformly equipped, smaller, probably more adaptable, but certainly no better overall and lacking the esprit-de-corps of earlier times.

The reputation of Faustina the Younger stems from gossip of her contemporaries. Commodus was so unlike his father in build and temperament, never mind his inclination to fight as a gladiator, who were after all social scumbags by custom. Emperors posturing in the arena was nothing new. Caligula had done so, and had reportedly deliberately killed a helpless sparring partner with considerable glee. Claudius, did not, but was known for his fascination with gladiators, having the swords of fallen men retrieved and turned into pocket knives. Nero of course was not so inclined toward combat, but he did srut his stuff in a chariot for nothing else than self-aggrandisement. Commodus took this to an entirely new level. The public were hugely interested in the arena in this period, it was big business, and the sight of an emperor who reputedly fought 735 times (mostly beast hunts) was to roman eyes extraordinary. Commodus of course understood the entertainment value, and it suited his personality to portray himself as a virile hero despite any social mores to the contrary. Roman superstitions also arose with gladiators (as claudius demonstrated) in that association with them was supposed to be beneficial. A woman being married should have her hair parted with a gladiators spear for instance. Good luck charms and so forth. So when Commodus appears frequently in the arena it naturally gives rise to speculation. Surely the philosophical Marcus Aurelius could not have sired such a violent man? It was not unusual for women of quality to attend the training schools, usually covertly, in order to meet their favourite fighter or indulge themselves at the palus playing the role. It isn't so suprising them that gossip about Faustina's activities - and in Rome, nothing escapes somebodies notice - linked Commodus as the bastard son of an unnamed gladiator. Is Faustina guilty? I don't know. Nor did any roman with any certainty (except perhaps that forgotten fighter). What is clear is that her behaviour invited such comment. Since her husband and his civic duties seem to have bored her, never mind his absences dealing with foreign incursions and such, it might not be so far-fetched.

I remember there was a hullabaloo some years back when some young man killed himself listening to suicide solution by Ozzy Osbourne. The tragedy is one thing, the association is perhaps a little strained because if you pay attention to the lyrics you discover the song is actually about alcohol abuse. There was a publicised court case when Judas Priest were prosecuted over someones elses death, the idea being that the lyrics contained reversed messages. Ridiculous. Who bothers to listen to music backwards? Why would a band go to the enormous trouble of ensuring that their lyrics sound like an intelligible message the wrong way round? Now its happened again. Simon Cowell, never a man to charm a crowd, lambasted a fan of Paula Abdul for her lack of star quality in 2006. The fan I mean, not Ms Abdul. It seems the woman was a stalker too. She's now been found dead. Mr Cowell is going to get some bad press over this but I can't help feeling that it wouldn't have mattered. This woman, like all those other stalkers, suffer from a lack of self-worth and seem to compensate by an almost religious quest to associate themselves with their chosen star. They are, frankly, deluded. Since their self-esteem is based on fantasy is it any wonder that this woman couldn't deal with the reality of her lot? Is Simon Cowell to blame? Pinning blame, finding scapegoats, pointing fingers... Human beings have been burning people at the stake for petty reasons for thousands of years. Actually I doubt Mr Cowell can really be blamed for the womans demise, she was emotionally weak to begin with and any disappointment would have set off her action. In any case, if she couldn't handle disappointment, the entertainment business was not the place for her. Sorry, but it wasn't. Its a tough arena and I know from my own experience how soul-destroying it can be. Fantasy is something we all indulge in in some way or other. Its about control in a way. In your own fantasy world everything occurs as you desire. In the real world, everything occurs because others decide to make it so, and your ability to control your own life is down to your own influence or willingness to buck the system and suffer the consequences. Fate is the sum of all decisions and natural forces. This womans fate is as much her own as Simon Cowells comments. Somehow though, I doubt I'll invite Simon Cowell to my christmas bash. I'm sure he wouldn't dirty himself with a response anyway, but then perhaps I'm not so deluded. Thank You of the Week I used to have fans. No, I'm serious. There was a buch of guys from Bristol who used to travel around just to see me play a drum kit on stage. I always to used to chat to them after the gig, and there was always a pint for my trouble. Actually, given how physically demanding a performance was and the lack of audience response we sometimes got, their support was worth a great deal. Funny thing is, even now, twenty years after I strutted my stuff in pubs, clubs and venues all over England, I still get the occaisional handshake. I waited at an Indian takeaway for my curry, only to be accosted by a wild-eyed straggly haired guy, grinning at me like a cheshire cat. "Great gig man, great gig. Wow that was great...." Glad you enjoyed it Sir. At least someone did. Maybe inviting Simon Cowell to parties isn't the thing. Perhaps we should have invited him to a gig? Sure he would have lambasted us. Why not? Everyone else did. No fantasy about that at all.

Not quite. The heavy infantry of the professional period was the primary arm. The auxillaries were there to support their work. The late imperial infantry were little different from the auxillia.

A gaulish legion. Just one? As I said, it was always likely that a unit might be as effective as in previous times, but the whole roman army was not by any means. Also, this notable example of morale is not necessarily esprit-de-corps. It certainly is evdence that this unit had a high degree of morale and motivation - so congratulations to its commander for a job well done. Esprit-de-corps is something that exists on a permanent basis once established, to a greater or lesser degree. Morale is circumstantial, and even troops in bad situations have been motivated to acquit themselves beyond expectation. Roman commentators aren't entirely objective. Some are worse than others - Marcellinus comes across as one of the better - but because he highlights the commendable attitude of one unit doesn't mean that entire army was so motivated, even if he means to communicate that. Also, Does Marcellinus have experience of Principatal legions? No, of course he doesn't. The old methods were well known to romans. Vegetius records them but he does so because no-one else has. His training schedules are based on what occured in earlier times, not his contemporary soldiery of which he himself had little experience.

The growth of the republican army wasn't exactly continuous, but expansive due to political situation. They mushroomed in size during Caesars time purely because of the need to counter the rivals forces and even gain some strategic advantage in numbers during the civil war. Marc Antony alone had more than than thirty legions plus naval forces amounting to more than 150,000 men. Thats a colossal size to command for the period and it wasn't sustainable at that time - one reason why Augustus disbanded so many. I think not. The peak was during the Principate, although the effects of peacetime cannot be ignored. Once the civil wars that brought Constantine into power had ruined what was left of legionary structure, he reduced the size of the units. The other changes, the supremacy of cavalry, the mix of mobile, territorial, and foreign troops did absolutely nothing to maintain roman military efficiency. Quite possibly. Given the extent of the recruiting efforts the romans clearly needed more troops than were conveniently available. From a largely voluntary force in the Principate, it became something the average person did not find desirable at all. That cannot be ignored. False assumption. The need for auxillaries was to compensate for skills the romans didn't have, and to retain tactical flexibility. The main arm of the legions up until the late empire was heavy infantry in an offensive posture. But the two periods have distinct qualitative differences. The same as other commentators. Whereas the infantry was the primary arm in earlier periods, it certainly wasn't toward the end. It had reduced in scale, in effectiveness, in equipment, in training, in capability, and status. That isn't conducive to esprit-de-corps.

Today I decided to journey down to the local sports center. At last there's a break in the inclement weather so I thought I'd forgo my usual survival outfits and make the expedition in something resembling a reasonable appearance. Beige trousers no less. Now if thats not a challenging fashion statement, what is? On my way down there I stepped on the wrong leaf. Its autumn of course and there's plenty of them littering the pavement. Worse still, it rained last night and with this yellow vegetation spread about it gets a little slippery... Yep, I did. Step... slide... WEEE!!!!!! Splash. Flat on my back in a muddy puddle. Right in front of a group of council workmen. They looked down at me then at each other. Its a little known fact that council workers are telepathic. You could see the amusing jokes being passed between them wordlessly. I took the route through the local shopping center. A young child prodded his mother as I strode by. "Look... He's fallen over on his bum." Thanks kid. I know. Financial Plan of the Week Gordon Brown is incredible. He actually believes we're all going to believe this drivel he comes out with. Now that Obama has been voted into office, and finding that they do get along, he's straight in there with a call for a 'New World order'. After his failure to achieve a mandate at the polls its rather like Gordon Browntrousers becoming Gordon Browntongue. The man has no shame. Gordon, just shut it. You are after all the bloke who's taxed our economy to the point of collapse. And incidentially, what is the point of announcing tax cuts now we're all going down the pan? Especially since you plan to borrow to pay for them. Please excuse me for not being a financial expert, but aren't we going to have to pay it all back?

You have my sympathies.

Aren't they too busy clearing up the mess left by british holidaymakers?

Some challenging points then. Okeedokee... - Even if it was integrated by smaller units, the army described by the Notitia Dignitatum was actually far bigger than during the Principate. Only if you accept the Notitia Dignitatum as accurate. Some of the units listed are no more than ceremonial. Nor can you assume every unit listed was ready for battle or actually existing at all. - Why would the developement of larger cavalry and archery units have implied decadence instead of evolution against new enemies? Decadence? Whats decadence got to do with it? Certainly there was an evolution to meet the demands of campaigning (even for the ultra-conservative Romans) but that does not imply it worked. What you fail to grasp is that the late empire was finding it harder to pay for all this stuff. Men need pay to remain loyal, never mind donatives to bribe them, and horses are not cheap at all. By increasing the emphasis on cavalry the costs rise. Also, since this emphasis inevitably means less on infantry, it would imply they would slip in standards. Military formations do if they lose their status. - Why is it so clear that heavy infantry must have been superior? For one, that's not what the battle experience of any nation against central Asia nomad warriors (eg, Huns and Mongols) tell us. Groan. The romans emphasised heavy infantry because it worked for them. But thats not why it was superior. The actual troop type is only part of the answer. It was the roman organisation, methodology, and relentlessness of warfare that made them superior - provided the leadership capability was present. However, there is an 'elite' quality during the Principate, an esprit-de-corps, that isn't usually seen in the ancient world. They believed they were better. Thats a priceless commodity in warfare. - Why would the use of "barbarian" swords have implied lack of discipline. (BTW, virtually all Roman weapons were unavoidably "barbarian" previous to being adopted from other nations). Because of the style of swordplay and amount of training required to perform it. With the shorter sword, you need to get close in, requiring more practice and nerve. With a longer sword, the temptation is to 'hack' in exactly the same manner as the barbarian enemy. It meant the roman soldiers were no longer stabbing in close formation, but engaging in open melee. Thats not a disciplined approach. In this context I'm not interested in the origin of the roman swords, only how they used them. - How can Luttwak objectively compare the Roman soldiers training level at different periods? Presumably he's researched it. Vegetius may have written his manual on legionary practises to impress somebody, but it also carries with it a message that this was what the legions ought to be doing, not waht was taking place. He constantly refers to traditional training methods which we know were never always carried out in full as described by him. - Even more; why would the Decius' defeats of 251 be explained by the ND (no earlier than 395)? Why is there any connection? I can perfectly understand that a "weakened army" might help us explain why battles were lost and I actually think that was probably the case; now I would like to see some hard evidence of such assertion, and not just circular argumentation (ie, the defeats were a proof of the army weakness that caused such defeats) Aha. I see the problem. What you're doing is making a simplistic assessment of the roman legions purely in terms of victory or defeat, which is often circumstantial anyway. As for hard evidence, you seem far better able to find that than me. I have limited sources as you're well aware. As for the circular argument, thats yours, not mine. I would point out that if the roman armies were still as effective as in earlier times, why did they dissipate? We know they did. The answer is that they weren't receiving the same level of funding they once had. Warfare had become too expensive. I've no doubt there were roman units in the late empire that remained effective, but then, why were communities seeking their own defence? Its all part of the general malaise affecting the western empire. No, they weren't. The level of civil engineering by the military almost evaporates in the late empire. And its worth remembering that a roman described the legionaries as "Desiring any fate than to stare Persians in the face".

Given the multiple military disaster that ensued after the defeat of Decius in 251, we may presume that by then the legions had lost their legendary efficiency. This must remain no more than a presumption, however, since we have no evidence of the magnitude of the threat, which may well have been far greater than that to which second-century legions and their predecessors had been exposed. As we have seen, the qualitative change in the threat had certainly been most adverse... ...More than a century after Diocletian, 188 "legions" of all types are listed in the Notitia Dignitatum, but this bureaucratic survival is deceptive. The large combat units of the Principate had ceased to exist. The "legions" of the late empire consisted of perhaps 1000 men in the mobile field armies, and 3000 or so in the territorial legions, perhaps fewer. Moreover, their men were not the select and highly trained heavy infantry that the original legionnaires had been, and they did not have the equipment, training, or discipline to function as combat engineers - by far the most succesful role of the legions of the Principate. Nor was artillery any longer organic. In other words, these were not legions. Instead, the units were essentially light infantry formations, equipped as the auxillia had been, with spears, bows, slings, darts, and above all, the spatha, the barbarian longsword suited for undisciplined open-order fighting. Clearly, such forces were not the superior troops that the legionary forces of the Principate had been. This decline did not occur suddenly during the fourth century, though most of our evidence dates from that time. The legions that survived the deluge of the third century must have done so in form rather than content. Depleted through the succesive withdrawal of vexillationes that never returned to their parent units, weakened by breakdowns in supply and command, repeatedly over-run along with adjacent tracts of the limes (and sometimes destroyed in the process), the legions must have been drastically diminished and greatly weakened by the time of Diocletian. Aditionally, many of the auxillary units, both alae and cohortes, either disappeared or survived only as limitani, that is, purely territorial forces incapable of mobile field operations The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire - Edward Luttwak The Roman legions are often thought of as a relentless military machine, composed of ruthlessly disciplined and organised troops. In their day, it certainly would have seemed that way to their enemies, and I've no doubt the Romans were happy to let their soldiers be thought of in that way. Also, its partly a modern perspective, looking back at past glories with admiration for their achievements. The truth is that the enemies of Rome kept on coming. The legions, for all their effectiveness in their heyday, remained dependent on their infrastructure to retain their efficient occupation. It was precisely for that reason, aside from keeping idle soldiers busy, that the Roman legions were tasked with civil engineering. They were literally creating a suitable enviroment to wage war where-ever they went, from formal marching camps built at the end of a days march to the roads and facilities that were part of Roman military organisation. During the late empire the evaporation of this ability coincided with the general decline. The oriental influence in cavalry tactics was also making itself felt with the arrival of cataphracts and clibanarii, although the roman horses were not well suited to their extra load and their heavy cavalry were not well-disposed to charging for fear of wearing out their mounts. What must be stressed is that these heavy cavalry formations were never as numerous as the standard light horsemen the Romans had always employed. Nonetheless, cavalry was playing an ever more important role in warfare. A medieval source credits the military reforms of Gallienus (253-268) for the creation of cavalry units - clearly not the case - yet these reforms, which remain somewhat obscure, do indicate a formal recognition of the importance of cavalry. Up until the these changes horsemen had been used primarily to support the infantry in battle, by scouting, harassing, and pursuing. From Gallienus onward a new emphasis on cavalry tactics was taking place. In short, the infantry were beginning to be seen as 'lower status' troops as opposed to the all-important heavy infantry of former times. The adoption of the spatha, the roman cavalry sword, underlines this change in emphasis. Sword lengths had shortened during the Principate, and along with a shorter point, indicated that the regimented stabbing swordplay of the republican armies had been replaced by a closer, demanding, more flexible style that ultimately had led to the common adoption of open-order fighting. Livy records that swords were swung about as much as thrusted, so by his time, these changes were already happening. The weakening of training, caused by centurional casualties as much as style, not to mention the influence of gladiatorial contests (which mirrored the shortening of sword lengths during the Principate), resulted in a situation where it became desirable to keep an enemy at a longer reach. Armour too had begun to change. Vegetius complains of the risks unprotected men had to take in battle. He overstates this, and archaeological evidence clearly shows the common use of chainmail. The famous banded cuirass, the lorica segmentatae, was falling into disuse. There is here a possible indicator of the state of teamwork within the legions. In their heyday, as these banded cuirasses were difficult, if not impossible, to don without the assistance of another soldier, the conterburnii system ensured such help was readily available. The foreign influence of barbarian recruitment in the late empire has often been quoted as another factor in legionary decline. In The Complete Roman Army Adrian Goldsworthy has pointed that foreign recruits were absorbed into roman military units much as they always had, so they hadn't influended the decline as much as is popularly stated. The existence of the Federatii, the allied formations which operated without roman conversion, are another matter. These men were not neccesarily loyal to Rome, but rather to its pay, and they had earned themselves a poor reputation having been billeted amongst the civilian population. What matter more is the decline in roman government. Increasingly unable to control provincial regions, increasingly unable to pay for defence, whole communities began opting out and organising their own defence which inevitably involved the use of foreign mercenaries. The successes of former times were largely due to the roman ability to organise, and as that withered, so did their military capability.

Those greeks are so clever. Why do they keep on inventing things?....

Greek and Armenian monks in Jerusalem have always argued over petty issues. Such is the religious significance of the site. A monk need only stand in the wrong place to incite a confrontation. the only difference this time is that it came to blows. The sight of monks and priests lashing out at one another in a holy riot isn't something we've seen since the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expected that. Christianity, in all its forms, likes the moral high ground. It presents a set of absolute rules and values to live by. The problem there of course is that human values are relative. Yesterday, human values got relatively violent. They forgot the Eleventh Commandment - "Thou Shalt Not Make Media Gaffs". Roll on the Male Voice Hail Mary Choir. Getting serious about cars For anyone who believes my taste in cars infers I've been spoon fed Top Gear for too long, I can assure you Jeremy Clarkson failed utterly to impress me last night with the latest Fiat 500 Abarth SS. I don't care if its got a 160 BHP turbo engine in a car the size of a shoe. I don't care if he reckons "Its a pretty serious racer". Shame it looks like a Fiat 500 then.

I'm probably being a bit thick here, but what is the evidence for a decline in quality? The older style legions were strained to breaking point by the civil wars that saw Constantine placed in power, and the military reforms of that time reduced the size of legions to around 1,000 men, one sixth of it former capacity. From this point forward (roughly speaking) armour was less standardised, the banded cuirass becoming rarer, longer swords were adopted as standard (indicating less inclination and skill in swordfighting), less emphasis on offensive or siege warfare, increased incidents of ill-disciplined attacks (raids on german villages for personal gain), and the ever increasing use of foreign tribal units used without conversion to the roman system, indicating recruitment issues and a failure to maintain organisation and standards, and lastly, the increasing (and probably necessary) defensive policy of communities looking to their own protection rather than relying on the state.

No, you can sleep safe at night, AW was british. Fairly typical of a working class moron I'm afraid. Incidentially, have you not heard of the british 'Baby Elephant' impression? Its a real wow at parties

This is a common factor in ancient warfare. Much is said about the ability of roman legions (mostly its a little exaggerated) but the same reliance on commanders is apparent even from the earliest days of the roman republic. This isn't anything peculiar to the romans, its just a facet of human social behaviour. Organising groups of men, inspiring them to fight, keeping hold of the reins, coping with enemy initiative and the chaos of war - all this requires some ability and individuals vary in capability. No army can be effective without able leadership no matter what training or discipline they suffer. One thing that comes across from studies of ancient warfare (and I'm thinking of Greek & Roman Warfare: Battles, Tactics, and Trickery by John Drogo Montagu - recommended) is just how vital original thinking, clear organisation, and clever subterfuge can be to secure victory. It might be worth mentioning the smaller size of late empire legions and that their quality had declined measurably by that period.

I remember seeing a mention of crossbow-armed troops in roman times, either the late empire or byzantine era's. Not a common weapon. Although its true the crossbow is a slow loading weapon, and therefore suffers in utility against the ordinary bow, the potential power of a bolt impact is not to be underestimated. That is after all why crossbows were adopted in preference to the bow anyway, except perhaps for a more natural aiming method.

Something unusual made the headlines in the local paper recently. It seems our new library has given state-of-the-art facilities. 'Green' toilets - as if that means anything to me. Now I don't usually spend much time in public toilets (although I understand that is one way to get your name in the news - thanks for the tip George) and I haven't seen these new facilities. However, just like the previous locations, the locals have been creative in using them and so the after a few weeks the toilets have been closed 'Due to misuse'. Given what I used to see in warehouses, I can just imagine. I am so tempted to recall the tale of AW and his 'flappy paddle appendage', but I suspect I've said enough. Let your imagination run riot. You're not wrong. Driver of the Week Goes to the gentleman who quietly and gently turned the wrong way down a one way high street in Swindon and seemed completely unpeturbed, albeit somewhat mystified, by the rows of traffic coming straight at him gesticulating angrily. I have a suspicion he's not from around here...

He makes a fundamental mistake in assuming the territory south of the wall was secure territory. It wasn't. Northern england was never fully romanised and remained turbulent politically. In effect, the Wall was a thin line of roman-controlled border operated in a very modern style. The forts to the south (and north of the wall for that matter) were frontier security posts with operational links to the border, not simply barracks. I should also add that the britons and scots had links across the border, and since the romans had decided that was where their empire would have a defined edge, it was necessary to hamper any possible uprisings by controlling the passage of goods and people across it. Further, the extent of fortifications was over the top - the original wall was scaled down during construction both for cost and practical reasons. The southern moat does not actually protect the wall itself. Its there to protect the road running alongside it, the idea being to give shelter and tactical advantage to troops attacked when they were marching along it. Were milecastles any use? Its a mistake to see them as siegeworks or defensive constructions primarily. They were fortified crossing points. Hadrian had insisted that one was built every mile, even they open onto a precipice as at least one does. Its usefulness depended on where it was. A busy crossing made it worthwhile. Unused out in the sticks? You decide. AC is our resident expert on the wall. He might be able to provide a more sophisticated answer.

Sometimes I watch tv. No really. I don't often indulge (other than Top Gear, BBC News, and the odd Star Trek episode - Boy do I live fast and dangerous) but last night, no-one could stop me. Anyhow, it was quite late when I pointed the remote at a black box and to my suprise, the normally innocuous channel was showing a sex program. Sex? On british tv? Thats a suprise.... The american program revolved around a holiday resort for sado-masochistic women. It was styled after a british stately home (Oh now come on...) and the holidaymakers must become servants for the duration of their visit, in which they perform domestic duties, step and fetch, get generally demeaned and gently whipped in a dungeon for failing to be sufficiently servile. Now let me get this straight. Women are paying tons of money to be treated worse for doing doing the same drudgery they moan about at home? Why? Does this mean they secretly enjoy this treatment? Is the reason for increasing divorce rates simply that british men are failing to take the hint? Is this where I've gone wrong over the years? Perhaps then a great new chat-up line to woo the ladies would be "Hi Babe. I got a whole load of broken crockery. You're very naughty and must be punished".... How could it possibly fail? The Mouse That Wrote A Cheque The title of this section refers to a british B&W film of the early 60's - The Mouse That Roared - about a quixotic little nation. It seems the Isle of Man - a small independent island with its own government off the coast of Britain now used as a tax haven for wealthy individuals - has hired NASA to build a space buggy to land on the moon and claim a