caldrail

Pardon? I was genuinely curious about your perception of classical culture given you live in a nation whose constitution is based on their ideals. Posturing wasn't my intent, I do apologise if you thought so.

No, seriously, I am a maverick. Honestly, you just can't take me anywhere....

Sejanus used his relationship with Tiberius to assume personal power via his own network of informers, and since he was the praetorian prefect, he had a ready made gang of heavies at his beck and call, not to mention using praetorians on duty as informers too. The popular assumption is that Sejanus was after removing Tiberius from power and assuming the role of Caesar himself. Suetonius suggests something along those lines for instance. However powerful Sejanus was, he wasn't all-powerful. There were still people loyal to Tiberius and so when it became apparent Sejanus was simply using Tiberius for his own ends (and up until that point Tiberius was more than happy to let him run administration for him), Tiberius moved to stop him. It was therefore a power politics in true roman fashion. Sejanus too a risk, gambled his future, and lost.

Thats the key element. Luxury does sap moral fibre, its warm, comfy, and doesn't involve hard work. You focus too closely on the eating of delicacies as a primary symptom of change, its simply one of many, an indicator tha people were becoming more engrossed in their own lives than the the community. As I've mentioned before, the earliest romans were intensly moral. One rape and a civil insurrection broke out resulting in a new republic and a seriously miffed rapist. Would a rape in the late republic produce sch a reaction? Before Caesar (and I'm only using him as a chronological marker) society would have been scandalised but no insurrection. After Caesar, they raised eyebrows and shook their heads. Once Augustus was running the show it didn't geany worse. For all his hypocrisy he was very keen on moralistic rulings, and you get the impression that he was attempting to halt the decay of roman morals any further - though he does seem to have excepted himself from consideration - typically roman. That was the problem. Roman morality had been decaying for a century or more bfore Augustus came to power. A culture doesn't change mindset instantly, people are naturally conservative as a whole (although there's always a minority pushing the boundary, the 'decay-leaders' if you will) so the process is never instant. Nor is it always a gentle measured change. As recent history shows, chamges in sciety emerge through fashions and scandal. Once someone does something considered immoral, and gets away with it, there's a risk that a group will adopt that behaviour as fashionable. Once that becomes ordinary, accepted in daily life, there's a temptation for ordinary people to adopt these ways in order to appear above the common ruck. In other words, something once considered unacceptable drifts in fits and starts toward something desirable. Even in the media-inspired fast-moving modern world, it took generations for the austere post war world of Britain to develop in the same way Rome had done. The thing is, you admire the republic. Actually I don't blame you, it had some good ideas and was intrinsically conservative. But this political ideal was becoming an impediment to peoples desires in the late republic as the world changed around them. They didn't want to conservative any more, they wanted a good time. They wanted cash to afford it. And yes, a few wanted to eat delicacies, but perhaps you you're only using that as a means to devalue my argument. As it happens, I highlighted certain aspects of Mommsens work because I noticed a parallel between his view of Rome and my view of modern Britain. Come to mention it, there's a fair few delicacies on offer at my local supermarket (and advertised on tv, so its fashionable too). You never saw sushi on sale in Britain in the fifties, and even if the economy had been able to sustain its sale, I doubt it would have been a best selling food item back then. Granted its not a stale part of diet now, but it is on sale, on the shelves. That same change from traditional ways to experiment and fashion happened over the last seventy years for us, and for the romans a shade longer. But then they always were a conservative people. The spread of luxury afflicts a society in insidious ways. To begin with, its expensive, it attracts unfavourable opinion, and most people would shy away from it to prevent public scorn. Those that do brave it make it acceptable, or even desirable, thus to adopt those luxuries allows you to identify with a fashionable group (even if you only play at it on the sidelines). Eventually you become scorned for not involving yourself in this movement. In roman times however the majority were poor. They remained poor despite the changes in society, thus they couldn't change even if they wanted too. Also, roman society being intensely class concious, would a senior roman look kindly upon a lowly member of his community 'aping' his manner and lifestyle? Your sample size is too small. Four individuals do not a society make.

You know what? You're spot on. Show any sign of being something other than ordinary and company bosses go into cardiac arrest. Its gotten me sacked before now and even at my age bosses still attempt to change me into a faceless company robot. Totally rificulous, why can't they accept I'm a maverick genius Quite. Thats why they don't show them, and we have to put up with endless repeats of lame Simpsons episodes. Family Guy is much bettr, but lacks the WW1 german ace and his dog.

But then the people who actually did the capturing weren't the sort of people who were ever likely to afford delicacies anyway. The 'decadence' pointed at by Mommsen and his contemporaries inevitably reflects the tastes of the upper classes. But then again, without that conquest and redistibrution of land, coinage, and resources, where would the cash come from to enjoy those luxuries? The two went hand in hand in the late republic. Further, the romans were always a culture given to conflict, that had been endemic even it its very earliest days. For them conquest was no more than their natural superiority, and if it was necessary to conquer to enjoy the fruits of it, surely that conquest underpins the arrogance that luxury breeds? Roman virtue had indeed waned. Would a character like Julius Caesar been allowed to dominate roman politics in earlier times? I think not. The romans in the early republic were staunchly moralistic and traditional, Caesar was (allegedly) less than moral and most certainly untraditional in his approach to politics by flagrantly ignoring cultural taboos and creating new precedents, not only by crossing the Rubicon but also such simple things as political campaigning amongst the plebs.

I saw a mention earlier that there's been a call to ban 'cartoon' villains. Pardon? Which idiot thought that one up? No doubt they're concerned that our little offspring will be irrevocably harmed by exposure to images of bad guys and grow up as adult Dick Dastardly's. Children are not blank slates. However primitive and limited their experience of the world might be, they are born with a character of their own. Nature does this as a survival strategy. By including a diverse set of primal behaviour instincts, then a portion of the human herd will thrive in whatever enviroment they find themselves. So if killing, stealing, or helping old ladies across the road works best, then those instincts allow the herd to cope with policemen, irate householders, and modern traffic. Of course it also allows you to exploit any enviroment effectively and is one of the primary influences of evolution. So why are cartoon villains so bad for us? They were after all dreamt up by adult humans, and are intended as a parody of real baddies in order to laugh at their inept villainy and enjoy their miserable or painful fate. many cartoons actually have a moralistic underlay, despite the penchant for extraordinary violence. So is it the violence thats wrong? I used to enjoy thiose Roadrunner and Tom & Jerry cartoons in my younger days. You never see those any more do you? Well, strangely enough, I haven't grown up to be a violent villain who regularly receives explosives in the post courtesy of Acme Inc. The problem then lies not with cartoons or the imagery they present, but our own guidance of our children and the failure of society to instill moral behaviour in our young. My belongings are vibrating and bouncing to the throb of the stereo downstairs, so if you'll excuse me, I'll just go down there and knock his block off. You may laugh and say the cartoons did affect me. I would argue I'm simply angry and following my aggressive instinct is nothing more than everyday human behaviour. Or should we ban the evening news too, for fear that a terrorist will shown to our kids? Question of the Week Well the surveyor visited my home to decide how energy efficient it is. He asked me whether it gets cold. I looked at him straight and answered that it did, every winter, regularly as clockwork. I don't think he understood the joke.

As a male of the species, I'm naturally drawn to the larger saliva producing eating machines. Poodles are fluffy toys aren't they? Not suitable for ordinary blokes. Or is that simply because we use pets as social indicators? In which case, I know my place.

Its all gone very quiet. Now the main library is hut while they move premises, I walk down to the sports centre and use their facilities. Strangely, it all seems very empty. The creche isn't huddled in a group by the window chanting nursery ryhmnes tunelessly. Kids aren't re-enacting the Battle of Britain. I know whats wrong. Its AM. Its been so long since I've seen him have a good whinge or stop the world because he can't send his emails. Good grief - don't tell me he's actually done what he said he was going to and leave our shores for South Africa? Careful AM - those zulus are tough hombres.... Oh... No, I was wrong. There he is, buyng stuff at Sainsbury's supermarket. He seems very downtrodden these days. I wonder if one of those librarians finally had enough of him? Poodle of the Week Goes to that gentle natured animal that approached me wagging its tail and almost smiling in its canine warmth. You know, dogs have personalities too, and this little one was just fun. It looked up, wagged its tail even faster, I gave it a pet and I guess we were both happy. The owner apologised for the dogs intrusion into my world and I answered that I wasn't bothered, then I noticed the expression on the owners face change. The next thing I noticed was a warm wetness on my trouser leg. Fido was here.

What Mommsen was suggesting was that the change of diet from something basic and mundane to one requiring a sophisticated or demonstrative mindset indicated a change in mindset. He was pointing at the change toward 'appearances', that the dinner becomes an arena for personal status rather than a functional and social event. Obviously eating delicacies did not inspire Caeaar to cross the Rubicon. Thats a ridiculous assertion and one that indicates a failure to observe a sublety in roman culture. The change of diet was a long lasting phenomenon, one resulting from propserity and and the desire to achieve status through the display of wealth. Crossing the Rubicon was a desire for status, political advancement, and personal survival. However, Caesar (although a dominant personality to begin with) was a product of his time. The possibility of wealth, which was undivisible from status in roman eyes, led him to pursue a certain lifestyle and choice of action. Although Caears march on Rome was not the result of what he ate, he was nonetheless a symptom of the same social change that saw people viewing the pursuit of luxury as desirable in its own right. In Mommsens view, that was an indication of the decadence the 19th century wa so fond of describing.

That suprises me, since the constitution of the states is based on classical principles more than our own. Or is it that our own country has diverted from these influences thus they seem more apparent? Or that your own experience of your home culture is too similar to the ancient influences for the differences to make themselves felt?

I think the rotten little cloud that usually drenches me has gotten bored. Don't swear it at it, it'll only drench you again, the mischievious cumulus knows no mercy

Autumn is here all of a sudden. The weathergirl apologised last night and told us so. Very nice of her, but to be honest I was expecting it. The air is a little colder than a few weeks ago, the leaves a bit yellow, a and sure enough, its starting to get windy. Not quite as windy as the hurricanes that hit Taiwan recently, nor those of any other areas such as southeast america, but I remember a time when we didn't get this high winds as a matter of course every year. I suppose I could blame global warming, but then, if trees are still shedding leaves in autumn its a sign we're still going to get cold in winter. Which means I shall have to pay my heating bill. It arrives with a thud on the floor and its very polite, telling us how sorry they are for charging me two or three times as much as before, and that they're always willing to listen to customers who get into debt. That makes me feel so much better. Inspection of the Week Goes to a surveyors office who want to inspect my flat for 'energy efficiency'. They apologised to me for the inconvenience over the phone but could they break down the door in the next five minutes please? Somehow, I think this government initiative is taking the mick just a little, since its fairly obvious they want the data to establish another tax. I wonder how energy efficient an unemployed person can be?

I think not. The division in roman class is apparent right to the end, and the only reason it got muddied was because the older patrician families tended to die out. Even the late romans speculated that the senate was filled with the descendants of slaves. The romans were after all very class concious, and although by the Principate they liked to appear egalitarian and generous toward the poor, privilege was still a desirable motive in roman society. In fact, in the legions the division between upper and lower classes was far stronger during the empire after the professional army was instituted, and the older militia style armies dispensed with. Augustus reinforced the cnage in the manner with which he addressed his legions, a change which Suetonius notes was precedental. Regarding an earlier post - the romans didn't really invent patrician-plebian classes since this division is merely a manifestation of typical human social order. All human societies develop pecking orders.

You strengthen the opposing argument by confirming that this is happening all over the world. Temperature fluctuations have of course come and gone, but we are talking here of the rapid shrinkage of glaciers which have been around for tens of thousands of years, in the space of a few decades. Warm and cold periods recorded by people interested enough to notice over the past 2000 years have not had any marked effects either way on these glaciers - but global warming over the last 50 years has. My point is that 'global warming' isn't necessarily human sponsored (though I do think we haven't helped, buts because there's too many of us, not because we like V8's) but that the change is predominantly a natural event. Such rapid changes aren't unusual in earths history. The end of the last ice age saw a rise of seven degrees in fifteen years - and thats not messing around is it? To the bst of my knowledge, ice age man wasn't driving 4x4's nor had the polluting industry to build them. It was a wobble, a change in the earths orbit, something that caused the freeze in the irst place and something that driving a Gee-Wizz is't going to influence in any way at all, whatever the lobby groups and governments tell you. ActuallyI don't like being influenced by one person - its inevitable I suppose - but to do so risks ignoring evidence from other sources.

According to Suetonius, Caesar owned a strange horse only he could ride, its hooves strangely like those of mans hand.

Today I decided to wander down to the sports center. Not by my usual route along the main road, by the back trail, an old abandoned railway line. This railway runs through a cutting near the old town station site (now an industrial estate) which is composed of Jurassic rocks - I've mentioned it before. So, in the spirit of optimism, I climbed the muddy bank to have a look at the rock face. The imprint of a barnacle shell. Large too, about three times the size of those I picked off the beach at Whitley Bay recently. Over there, a mussel shell, no bigger than modern specimens. Belemnites they're called, typically found in seashore deposits of this time. Hang on a moment.... Wow! There, in the overhang of rocks dating from the late Jurassic era, was a definite series of footprints. A small creature, no bigger than two or three high, had stepped across the wet sand of a bay in this place a hundred and sixty million years ago. The prints were close together, so it wasn't travelling. Perhaps it was a scavenger, sifting through whatever the sea washed up for food, or perhaps a small carnivore, approaching slowly and ready to rush in. Maybe a small herbivore, cautious of its situation and ready to flee if things turned ugly. That made the morning worthwhile. Thought For The Week Different people walk differently. Yesterday I walked behind a rotund woman whose pace was quick for her, but insufferably sl;ow for me. Trouble was, she was swinging her arms outward, and trying to get by risked a solid blow to my sensitive regions. There's that old guy, who literally marches everywhere with a straight back. A group of youngster amble around each other swaying their shoulders from sie to side. A young woman pushes her babychair at breakneck speed, swerving in and out of pedestrian traffic leaning forward. I wonder what future paleotologists will make of footprints we've made?

I must admit, I've never seen any reference to archery being a 'cowardly' way to fight from roman eyes. What is true is that as a society they had no tradition of it, and lacked the skill in construction and use. Rather than learn it themselves, why not simply hire in people who do? The fact they did that show there was value in it. Far from being ineffective, archery was the bane of the legions as the Parthians/Persians realised, and as Crassus found out. The testudo formation after all was used to approach walls under arrow fire with a minimum of casualties.

About six months ago my boss, AD, threw me over the side and sailed away into stormy waters. Well, he just rang me. Again. Apparently he's under the illusion that I work for one of the companies he deals with. No, AD, I'm unemployed. "Oh... Ah.... So.... How are you?" Unemployed. I think the old guy is slowly losing it. Apart from the fact he's still employed beyond retirement and driving around in expensive luxury saloons. It does make you wonder how the old ship is doing.... Library News of the Week The new library is almost finished. At the end of this week, the temporary library will close for three weeks while they move, leaving me largely stranded in terms of internet use. Thats going to look good at my quarterly claims interview.... I think my liferaft is taking on water. Got any shark repellent?

Perhaps it was because the turks were too tough a nut to crack? The arabs would have known of any reputation they had.

The roman social class and military rank were almost indivisible. People seem to look at the roman legions as operating in the same way as a modern army. It didn't, although there are many similarities. I understand that centurions wore greaves too, but thats for the Professional era after marius - I don't know what happened about greaves before his reforms. The armour and equipment used by an officer in the legions would generally be of finer manufacture as a symbol of his status - this is a common theme in military uniforms that has only recently faded from use - due largely to snipers picking off the easily observed senior men. An officer might well have have his equipment made to order, and if we're discussing the republican period before Marius, he would have had to. During the 'Phalanx period' the men all bought their own gear, which identified your ability to buy it and therefore how wealthy you were, establishing which social class you could belong to. The reality was probably more blurred than that, since soldiers being what they were I seriously do beleieve that less well-equipped soldiers would have appropriated extra gear they thought desirable from the battlefield. Plebian javelin throwers were part of the reformed army before Marius, so yes. Archers? No. The romans had no great skill in archery and needed foreign mercenaries/allies to fill that gap.

Thats interesting, but how sugnificant are these figures? Well, firstly, as you rightly state it represents the returns for a certain period of time in a certain region, one we know was not representative of the roman empire as a whole in view of the much higher proportion of free peasant labour available. So to follow my 'coffee' analogy, what it does is taste the cup and gauge the proportions of the various ingredients from that one sip. It doesn't tell you everything about that cup, nor anything at all about the others. If you want to discuss slavery in Egypt - thats different - its relevant, although drawing conclusions from these figures alone I would say is fundamentally risky. What it does it present information, evidence, but not answers.

Why? All this 'post-imperialist guilt' you mention is a myth. Am I guilty about british history? I think not. I agree with Mattingly that the benefits of empire favour the imperial power, which is the whole point of it surely? But why would anyone need to feel guilty about the actions of individuals who died in the last two centuries? Ok, there must have been people who did 'bad' things - there always is with any nation or culture - but isn't that a matter of history rather than personal shame? Quite frankly, 'post-imperial guilt' is an invented concept by people who want us to join their way of thinking, and that generally means socialist rather than capitalist (the principle behind our own empire that was) because socialism doesn't have an empire, and whilst I believe that as a movement it genuinely desires one, all it can do is sneer at its political rivals achievements and persuade us that we need to feel guilty that it ever happened. I don't feel guilty about it all. There is no shame in success. What we might feel guitly about are the actions of the few reprehensible members of our previous generations, if indeed most people actually care about it. But then, since members of our current generation behave shamefully as a matter of course in foreign countries, perhaps we ought to be more guilty of our contemporary binge culture? Go for it.

:D Nothing puzzling about democracy at all. Its still about what you can get, only in democracies you have have to ask.