caldrail

Agreed, but then careless talk costs lives to borrow a catchphrase, and events show that a persons conversations (or those purported to have taken place) were enough to have him hauled away to some nasty fate. The personality cult of emperors, and their own self-importance, wasn't going to sit well with criticism, never mind outright dissent. There's a totalitarian edge to roman society emerging in the late republic and certainly something we see going on in Tiberius' reign. That seems to be balanced before imperial times by a certain amount of commonsense and love of free speech, in that a free man should be able to speak his mind and that criticism was nothing unusual nor grounds for harsh punishment. This sense of freedom erodes in the late republic with Sulla using any excuse to enforce his 'new order', but interestingly, I don't read of Caesar being overly prone to this sort of activity, or have I missed something?

There was a film on release some years ago called Ronin, a tale of skulduggery as mercenaries are hired to retrieve a package. In one memorable scene, Robert De Niro finally loses his patience with Sean Bean whose character had made a big deal of having been an SAS soldier. "What colour is the boat-house at Hereford?" He yells at him. Sean Bean becomes flustered and cannot answer, exposed as an imposter. De Niro later admits to a witness that he doesn't know anything about a 'boat-house at Hereford'. Many years ago I was working diligently in a warehouse which regularly employed temporary staff. One young man was on my section and I noticed a certain wildness about him. Plenty of energy, cheerful personality, and, dare I say it, somewhat full of himself. Some time later we got talking and I asked what he'd done before he came here. "Oh... I was a mercenary" That raised my eyebrows. It wasn't just the uniqueness of his past experience (we didn't get many mercenaries working for us) but also his demeanour, which just wasn't military in any way. Now I'm no expert in that field but I simply could not see him in some foreign country earning his paycheck fighting private wars or guarding principals. So I asked a few questions and he sort of gave the right answers. Still not convinced. It so happens that last night I bumped into a guy I knew at school thirty years ago. It transpires he'd gone into the services and now worked as a bodyguard for celebrities and such, and was due to return to Iraq shortly. I mentioned that youngster I'd met back then and he shook his head, dismissing him as a fraud with typical military bluntness. Too young in his opinion. So we carried on talking and I enquired about his military career, and sure enough, he mentioned his association with 'that bunch at Hereford'. I groaned inwardly. This was hardly the first time an ex-squaddie had claimed affiliation with british special forces to me. Why do soldiers always claim to have been in the SAS? For all I know, he might have been, but it seems 'the regiment' is a necessary qualification these days. Whether you have the certificate or not. Expose of the Week Swindon is hardly a hotbed of mercenary activity. Its actually hard to think of Swindon as a hotbed at all. But even here the all-pervasive world of privatised military commerce reared its ugly head. On a door of an upstairs office located in our local high street (and above a bank) was an advertisement for tank transporter drivers, foreign contracts, good rates of pay. Forget your Rambo's or Arnie's, this was the real deal. No questions about boat-houses asked.

Its almost impossible to escape the news that the global banking system is wobbling. Governments are stepping in and in some cases, falling out (I refer to Britain freezing Icelandic assets over concerns about the amount of british money held there). One chap contacted the news team and said that forty years ago he needed an interview with his bank manager for a loan of

I seem to remember somewhere that a letter from one family member to another travelled across the mediterranean by the hand of a courier paid to deliver it. Given the romans had no sytem of adresses his task wasn't as easy as might be imagined, since he might only know the general area where they lived.

Tiberius was something of a misanthrope - he just didn't like people, and being somewhat disgruntled by undertaking public duty when he really wasn't that keen to do so, he was only too glad of the opportunity to retire in comfort and let someone he trusted take the strain of daily administration. Thats the key. Tiberius had come to trust Sejanus, and for that matter, Sejanus had gone to some trouble to earn it. What this means is that Sejanus wanted personal power and prestige. Whether or not he actually intended taking the throne is one thing, but while Tiberius was lolling on a couch in Capri, Sejanus could pretty well do as he liked and with a crowd of loyal heavies behind him, who could argue? Any dissent was silenced, and since Sejanus had the ear of Tiberius, he could tell the old man anything. Sejanus was therefore licking his rear for all he was worth.

Interesting view of a persian chariot there....

It had to happen. I've watched news reports and read the papers about how one company after another has raised energy prices enormously, and felt very smug that mine hadn't. Until now.... Usually I get pamphlets from them telling me about various offers and schemes (which cost money of course) but this time I got the letter that said sorry, but you're going to have to pay more. They're raising my electricity and gas prices by a third. Ouch! But then the prices they pay are nearly 200% higher, so can I complain? Well... Yes. Because I'm currently on benefits and I doubt they'll give me any more to cover the costs. The government have said they want to help those struggling to meet bills. Go on then. Or shall I vote for someone else? Tell you what, a few less holidays, plush apartments, and kitchen upgrades at the tax-payers expense might help me through the winter this year. Interview of the Week My quarterly benefits interview took place yesterday, and the young lady did her best to come across as professional and knowledgable. She told me with some bureaucratic enthusiasm about a scheme to get people to interviews at long distances. Great I said. But once I get the job, who pays for the travel? You won't. She didn't like that. I spoiled her moment of glory there with a dose of practicality, something these job agency people really don't consider since they never have to deal with it. They talk about public transport as if its a free service door to door. It isn't. So I'll stick to local employers thank you, and save some money by making a few less journeys like that.

What we have here are two different mindsets. On the one hand, a woman from alaska who thinks nothing of a dead bear, since the things are everywhere in that country and no small risk to communities - and they are expanding into human settlements as scavengers, so the risk is increasing. Its also little removed from frontier country thus the shooting of animals means little to them. On the other hand we have the modern western view that any intereference in fluffy bears lives is an offence en par with serial killing. Here in comfortable WIltshire we don't get bears nosing through our rubbish. (We only have one poisonous snake - and its a shy little thing I've only seen in the wild once). Cruelty for the sake of it I disagree with, but life and death is a natural part of our world. You see, if someone soots a bear because its dangerous to people around, I can understand it. If they shoot it to survive, for meat or furs, I can accept that. If its shot to advertise the shooters body parts, then I would have to say thats wrong. The fact there's a bearskin behind Ms Palin is inconsequential in my view, since I doubt the bear was killed to provide a backdrop in this pic, and she comes from a part of the world where they have a more practical view of these things. In any case, however stupid her views about the enviroment might be, there's plenty of idiots spouting there opinions of it on tv these days, so I guess its only a matter of which idiot you want to believe.

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.