caldrail

What a morning - it's all go at the Caldrail residence. This morning, at the ungodly hour of half past eight, I was dragged from my bed by a knock on the door. Before me were two suspicious characters who cheerfully said "All right mate? We're just gonna paint the house..." Well thats very kind of you. Just wait there will you?.... I'd not received a letter about this so I proceed to phone the letting agent who phoned the landlord who phoned the property maintenance firm who phoned the landlord who phoned the letting agent who phoned me but I was too slow picking up the phone so I phoned them to find out everything was ok. Right lads, you can paint the house. They cheerfully nodded and proceeded to give a very original vocal-only rendition of Perry Como's back catalogue of hit singles. Think I might be tempted to make another phone call... When the phone rang. It's the electrician who was supposed to inspect the flat on Sunday but couldn't so he came today instead. In order to acess my premises he discovered that I was in fact upstairs, so another problem resolved. The art of communication is not yet dead. Now of course I have to do all that domestic stuff like the shopping (I wonder if I should phone ahead... Maybe not) and asking the government to find me another job vacancy - which will require another phone call. Except I can't because the battery has run flat. So will mine if this pace carries on. Name of the Week The electrician, in a somewhat mischievious mood, showed me the name of one of my neighbours. How could anyone be cursed with a name that describes the function of an orifice in the lower abdomen used to deposit bodily waste. I kid you not.

Yes, but he was an indentured slave (or should that be 'undentured'?). I on the other hand am a pleb (since my UNRV seniority for some strange reason means nothing to the authorities, or anyone else for that matter, and protesting to people I meet that I am in fact a senator results in baffled expressions and raised eyebrows. Life can be so cruel....)

Now that the Bank Holiday weekend is over its time to go back to the search for gainful employment. A quick walk down to the newsagent to pick up my weekly local rag. It proudly states there

I can remember how it felt during the 1970's Munich Olympics. Is was as if the entire world had stopped and taken time out to show every single event. To some extent thats the case, because with limited tv channels and dire programming what else could compete with it? These days there's hundreds of tv channels with all sorts of specialised programming that wouldn't even consider showing olympic footage. Is that a good thing? I'm actually starting to wonder. The media hype about events like the olympics is however the usual baggage we have have to bear. There's so much money tied up in it now and the propaganda value isn't ignored by the nations involved. perhaps its this constant flag-waving that tires me out. Don't get me wrong, its great to see Team GB (isn't that a little comercialised for what is supposed to be amateur participation?) raking in the medals and getting fourth place in the national league, but notice this is only happening because Britain is funding these people to train full time with professional assistance in much the same way as the nations ahead of us in the table. There's been talk of drugs in sport and whether performance-enhancing chemicals will eventually see acceptability. I suspect the biggest drug of all will win out in the end. Its called Money. Film of the Week Already released in America is a feature film called Anti Social Behaviour, described as "Death Wish without guns". One man is spurred y conflict with out-of-control hoodlums to seek revenge against them dispensing vigilante 'justice'. As films go, its probably unremarkable apart from one small detail of interest to me. It was filmed in my own home town. Dull old rainy Swindon. Thats about as far away from the bright lights of Hollywood as you can get.

No, we don't agree. Its a distorted view written by people who admire the arts and hellenistic culture that the romans had adopted. They saw the stability of the city of Rome as opposed to its empire as of any real importance and because their own society held those cultural values as important they naturally interpreted the roman empire in that fashion. Taken as a whole, the empire was never as impressive as the city iteself, whose patrons and clients of this hellenistic culture were always going to be a wealthy minority anyway. The frontier of the empire was unstable and always had been, apart from some brief periods of respite, draining resources in rebuilding and security.

Yup. It is, but I'm not disputing the elevated standards of the roman core, just its success (or lack of) in relating with the rest of the world. My point is that the golden age refers to a period of sponsorship of the arts rather than any meaningful contribution to roman society, which apart from some reforms carried on as always. In terms of peace (surely the bit about Pax is relevant here) the period was short, fifty years of no conflict with external powers and certainly no lack of internal upsets. The border policies created by Hadrian were short term solutions to provide a peaceful reign, neither he nor subsequent emperors made any effort to provide any stable relationship (if indeed that was possible). It wasn't so much the lands around had little to offer, it had more to do with increasing lack of will to deal with barbarians. The very same artistic leanings meant that attitudes toward nations less disposed to such things were bound to suffer. The romans were getting a bit superior and stuffy - whereas they had once done business with external barbarians as a matter of realism, from Hadrian onward there is a shift away from this and they simply turned their noses up at it. Which describes also the general decay of the western empire. Remember the romans got to the point of deliberately inviting barbarian tribes to settle in roman territory with the express view of exploiting their combat capability to defend it.

Waiting outside the library for opening time has become something of a ritual for me. Its funny how its a daily ritual for a lot of others too, and the same faces keep on turning up. We pretty much arrive at our usual times, and line up in the same positions. The wonderful diversity of life hasn't quite colonised Swindon then. As was easily predicted, the same librarian unlocked the door (We'll call her Miss K) , a fidgety thin girl who rushes around like a housefly. There's a power operated door and she unlocks that first, which I think is a good idea because the revolving doors are not designed for human beings to use. I have to shuffle round in a somewhat undignified manner and there's some embarrasing squeaking noises followed by a loud 'pop' as I squeeze out the other side. Immediately the power door swung open the young man who's always there first turned and wandered in under his usual comatosed way, totally unaware Miss K had not given permission for him to do so. Oblivious and a little quicker off the mark than she expected, he plodded down the corridor before she could stop him. "Don't come in!" She gestured at us to stop, "The door might hit you..." Having already pressed the button to keep the door open, I looked at her a little increduously. She looked back at me and carried on talking "Well, you can come in now, its the door... sometimes..." Miss K gave a deflated sigh as we all strolled in. Poor girl, she tried so hard to be efficient. Old Friend of the Week When I was a young boy my mother sometimes took me to Swindon Museum for a wander around. Oh come on. This was the time when people still had black & white tv that turned off at night and computers were the sole preserve of mad scientists. Anyway, in one room was a stuffed crocodile, a gharial, a narrow-snouted fish-eating relic that survived from prehistoric times. I've no idea why, but I used to love that exotic beast forever reduced to gathering dust. Yesterday I was in my bedroom and happened to overhear my neighbours in the back yard chatting with their friends. A woman described how she often took her daughter to the museum to see the crocodile. "She loves that crocodile... Dunno why..." I could only smile. That old reptile has been charming kids for generations. Still going strong.

Possibly you do, I'm not concerned in the slightest. The 'height' of roman civilisation as the Pax Imperium is described was nothing more than an artisitic phase sponsored by emperors amenable to it, emperors who more or less shunned the outside world, and emperors who relied on a frontier system that was increasingly left to run itself to keep foreign aggression at bay. Sorry, but the this is a distorted view of roman success, one adhered to by convention, and one inspired by people whose sensibilities parallel those of this roman period. Its a surviving element of victorian thought, that concept that the roman empire was more or less comparable to european colonialism. Truth is, the Pax Imperium was a failure.

That is without doubt the most anal comment I've ever heard on this site. Just watch a bunch of kids. Sooner or later you'll see exactly what I'm talking about, assuming you don't get arrested first, given your inability to observe I doubt you'll take much care over it. Or is it because I haven't listed tons of links to statistical studies by researchers who reach conclusions you like? To be honest, I haven't the time. Unlike most people on this site I don't have access to the internet, so I have to do all my business including real-life stuff on the basis of one hour a day at my local library. Sorry if thats inconvenient for you, but I just don't believe its worth the effort of trying to point out the obvious to you. Or would you accept my own statistics? Its a smaller sample size and the data is a little old, buts real. No, of course you won't. You've no intention of accepting any arguement I make unless its someones elses. Which is what you do.

Interesting point of view. The problem is that these athletes come to public attention by media coverage of their physical exploits, not because of any superior personal traits, and therefore represent an ideal for competitive spirit rather than any inspirational virtue. Which is more important to the child? I suspect the image and the success that attracts a child to join 'with the winning team' is something that is countered in adolescence by an increasing individualism and natural desire to compete for status amongst his peers as opposed to an athlete they couldn't possibly compete with on any physical level.

Thats because you're looking at the late empire as a whole. Unlike the early republic which was a latin city state, the late empire consisted of a variety of rural 'ghettoes' that may have called themselves roman, but who were insular and sought their own identity. The ability of Rome to maintain control over its provinces had withered. Also, the tax burden of the late empire was far worse than that of the early republic so the 'regenerative' factor was stifled before it began. Also, the level of warfare was different. The earlier 'raiding' warfare, as I mentioned, was sustainable as it was always going to be at a relatively low level. The legionary warfare that followed was a finite size - a certain number of troops was to be raised every year (I know Rome could raise more, but that was an emergency measure) and the troops provided their own kit - a citizen militia. The army of the late empire was paid and supplied by the state on a permanent basis with as many men as they could squeeze out of the local economies (by some duboius recruitment methods too), and supplemented by foreign mercenaries many of whom were hired directly by communities looking toward their own security for survival. This higher level of conflict, the tax burden, the fragmented state of the western empire - all of this prevented the positive features of competition from strengthening the roman state. Thats only the factors I'm aware of. I might also suggest weaker leadership as a factor but I don't know enough about the leading men of the time. Conquest states can grow rapidly but inevitably fall back at some point, or seperate into self governing regions by way of rebellion and such. Rome was not immune from those forces. I might also argue that the somewhat dubious loyalty of the legions was not helping. In describing the situation where a society develops due to competition you need to be aware of the balancing factor of the cost of that conflict. Ok, you might want to jump on me over that point, but the early republic had the advantage that it never had to spend as much on defence or security as the late empire. In the early republic we see a society that was very focused indeed. By tradition they threw out the kings because Tarquin the Proud had gone too far by raping Lucretia. A rape in the late empire would hardly raise any eyebrows would it? The early republic was a society ready for expansion. The late empire was already fragmented and a candidate for collapse, yet it survived for some time despite the migration of wealth to the eastern empire. Is that not some evidence of a latent military and moral arete? Or, given the changes I mentioned above, evidence of local military and moral arete? The late empire was after all home to tribal populations settling under the roman umbrella attracted by tax breaks designed to entice these people to the roman side. Many people would. The policies of Hadrian may have failed to generate the 'roman state' that Hadrian would have preferred and strove toward, but his successors lived within its wake. Antoninus Pius had nothing like the oversight of his provinces that Hadrian did, preferring to return to infeudated control rather than the direct inspection that saw Hadrian travel around his empire for half his reign. Marcus Aurelius would have done the same had not the dam burst, but then, without the inspections were the legions as battle-ready after prolongued peace? I think not. Armies are never as sharp in peace as in war, which is why modern states see foreign brush wars as so useful for experience and training of the forces sent to keep the peace, the only proviso there being that the war doesn't escalate to the level it becomes too costly or embarrasing. From a cultural point of view then perhaps the Pax Imperium was an apogee of hellenistic civilisation. Thats an acceptable standpoint, but it doesn't take into account peripheral factors. The failure of the roman world to spread its ideals and culture within its own empire was illustrated by Hadrians war with the Jews, a conflict that caused heavy casualties and caused Hadrian to omit the usual 'The legions are in good order' quote in his report to the senate. From a centralised view then the Pax Imperium was succesful - but it was living on borrowed time. Hadrian had placated his enemies and attempted to secure the boders with those he had no leverage over. Those external were nonetheless still there and hadn't been eliminated as security problems in the long term. Those external threats were gathering strength, becoming organised, leaving Marcus Aurelius to face a 'barbarian conspiracy' that saw deep incursions and wars lasting almost twenty years. In what way was that a success of the Pax Imperium?

Manhood is a difficult quality to define, for no other reason than it means something different to everyone, and even then the definition can vary according to the situation you're in. In general, its defined by the various social groups by their own standards. I remember my school days. The 'lads', the dominant members of our youthful community, would always inhabit the toilet so as to smoke cigarettes in seclusion away from the disapproving gaze of irate teachers. They regarded smoking as symbolic of their manhood, it was a required activity of their exclusive tribe. I also remember how they used to panic when a teacher got curious and decided to enter the toilets in the hunt for misbehaving youths. Oooh look at me, I'm smoking, aren't I a man? Oh no, teacher! Quick, put it out! Muffled expletives and much foot stomping followed. Was I impressed with their manhood? No. I wasn't. To be honest, thats the major reason I never smoked. It all seemed a bit false, an act, and the people doing it really not as manly as they liked to portray themselves as, even if they could beat me up. All part of growing up I guess. Things have changed since I was young. Fewer adults smoke, attitudes toward smoking have changed, and it really isn't the desirable symbol of adulthood it once was. One thing about kids that hasn't changed is their quest for such symbols. These days the knife has taken its place. The problem with carrying potentially lethal weapons is that sometimes people are tempted to use them. A morbid curiosity perhaps. Or lashing out in a crisis that they're too emotionally immature to handle peacefully. Or simply to prove their manhood to their peers. It shouldn't suprise anyone that the majority of stabbing victims are youths. Young men compete amongst themselves for dominance according to the primeval instinct, testing themselves against each other. With each generation, you must recreate civilisation. Unless you educate and impose the values and morality of the civilised world you get little barbarians, whose only restriction on behaviour are what they believe they can get away with. The modern bully now has something much more threatening to dominate his victims with than a closed fist. It annoyed me a few days ago as I watched David Beckham giving a press conference telling kids not to use knives. Very commendable, but what makes anyone believe the kids are going to listen to a bunch of self-important footballers? They may be sporting heroes but that only matters when they score the goals on the pitch. Or as fashion dummies perhaps. But as role models? These people live outside of our reach, in secure privacy or exclusive and select social circles. Beyond the 'heroism' of the pitch (and I use the term extremely loosely) there's nothing for kids to identify with because they cannot see these players acting out their normal everyday lives. They cannot interact with them for any significant period and learn from them. Not that it matters, because their lives are just so beyond those of kids wielding knives on the street. So sporting heroes are not suitable as role models. The problem, they shouldn't need to be role models at all. The fathers of these youths are often missing and that certainly doesn't help. But even that isn't to blame entirely. The underlying problem is that whereas once a child was thrown into the deep end of adult life at a certain age, now he's allowed to become a teenager. A group with its own standards, its own tribal structures, learning behaviour from their peers in isolation of adult guidance. Thats where the solution will be found, otherwise boys will be boys all over again. Doomsday Moment of the Week No, not some apopalyptic prophecy - This one's sponsored by William the Conquerer. I was checking through the entires for my local area and very revealing it is, even with the terse and sparse nature of the descriptions. The king, Winchester Abbey, Glastonbury Abbey - all owned land around Swindon, itself on the edge of Savernake Forest. Forest of course meant something different back then, meaning kings land rather than large areas of trees. There's also a guy called Miles Crispin who appears to a major landowner, letting some of his holdings to his fuedal underlings. Alfred of Marlborough does something similar. Swindon itself, the old market town on the hill, was owned by Odo, Bishop of Bayeaux and a relative of King William. All thats very interesting, but when I looked the entry for Highworth, I did laugh. Stand up and take a bow, Ralph the Priest. Monty Python eat your heart out.

Not every human is a sadist; you would be surprised. No, I wouldn't. But the reality of warfare is that it brings out the best and worst in people, or have you never watched the evening news? As for sadism, the willingness to mete out physical pain to others is a human trait - sorry, it just is. Its an observable phenomenon that people become nasty in regimes that support that behaviour. Its an agressive form of bullying. Anyone who has the mentality to bully others is also psychology capable of torturing them if they believe it serves their purpose. Thats a facet of psychology that has been studied and I've seen it in everyday life. That said, the instinct to bully others is not necessarily sadism is it? Its animal instinct. By bullying others you become a dominant herd member. Chimpanzees bully each other too - thats a matter of record. And before you ask, there have been chimpanzee serial killers, thugs, rapists - all the vices we associate with humanity but prefer to sweep under the carpet. Those traits have always been there in human beings - even in ancient times. I'm absolutely sure you're no Nazi; when I quoted the III Reich victory over France as an example of the "survival of the fittest", I never thought you share such opinion. Even from the Neolithic, international politics have been based in much more than just personal instincts. Only closing my eyes and remaining within romantic epic sagas would I be able to show any enthusiasm for war per se, as modern free press and technological media make us painfully easy to constantly gaze out of our windows and check on the screamingly obvious consequences of war. Thats only your personal view of it. talk to young men - you'll find their only too keen to earn their spurs on the front line- despite the screamingly obvious consequences of war. No, I'm quoting what happened. No - it doesn't. You make no allowance whatsoever for patriotic sentiment - and please don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me that my grandfather, who signed up underage like a great many others for his chance to do his bit for king and country, was a rogue or criminal. The smallpox parallel is nonsense. Rome did not grow on peaceful development. It grew on competitive and aggressive policies. You said something different earlier. Don't you get it? Has it not sunk in yet? Your own personal view about the priority of war means diddly squat. The world revolves around conflict because human beings squabble. We're not a peaceful species and never will be. But conflict can have beneficial effects. The rate of progress in technology was extraordinary due to the incessant conflict and sabre rattling of the last century. Please don't try to tell me it didn't. The only reason - and I mean the only reason we landed on the moon was because of the prpaganda value to the US against its soviet rivals. In WW2 aircraft went - in five short years - from hardly more than simple biplanes to swept wing jets on the point of breaking the sound barrier. Please don't quote the arrival of the monoplane either - that resulted from the increasing belligerence of the nazi regime, or competition. Hand over your cash.

Raiding actions (stealing for living instead of working) will always be sustainable, at least as long as you're in the winning side. You're assuming the objective of the raid was to steal, though I agree it usually is. It might also be to destroy or to kill. The iron age brits built a vast network of hillforts (there's four or five in my local area) for the purpose of defending themselves against such violence, since these places were inevitably located near the resources the people lived off and were therefore desirable locations for attack. Since the british at this time weren't able to mount sustained warfare, raiding, however violent, was the only means of achieving their ends. If you want to begin a war, you will always find morality relative. Actually, if you want to start a war morality doesn't come into it. War doesn't require a society acting as a whole; you can just kill the opposition. Examples are myriad. Not quite correct. In the ancient world, war was often all or nothing in its result. If you failed to defend your homes and family, there was always a possibility your civilisation was over, homes and farms destroyed, populations led away in chains. War is fought on a scale of objective, and victory measured by that. You might simply want to enforce your reputation, or capture a single objective, or simply wipe out the tribe next door for having different shaped noses. Take your pick. However, the industrialisation of modern warfare has required the whole-scale enlistment of the population for the war effort which is something the ancients could never dream of. The un-industrialized total warfare comes at least from the Assyrians; their far less effective killing methods simply meant it took them longer to utterly annihilate their enemies. No. Cruelty and violence are deeply imbedded in the human psyche, and its an observable feature of human behaviour that we enjoy inflicting harm on others when the situation makes this socially acceptable. Humans derive a sense of power from their ability to inflict harm. With the assyrians, we see a leader and his society amenable to 'total' war. They were not an influence on later cultures in that respect since there was no direct cukltural inheritance, it was merely the mindset of the time and this mindset re-emerges occaisionally. I think we don't need to quote the overwhelming evidence of such fact on the Roman side. Strong, expansive culture, with ambitious leadership. Can't argue there, although I do note the senate had Galba hauled in front them for a prosecution after he conned the lusitanii of their freedom, not to mention putting thousands to death after they volunteered for cease-fire and disarmament. There's simply no real animal parallel for human warfare, not even among the ant colonies, much less in herds' competition; the Natural Selection is Darwin, not Nietzsche. Oh? The border patrols and battles fought between rival chimpanzee tribes mean nothing? Sorry, but the parallel is staring you in the face. Only the most fanatical Nazi could have considered the German victory at 1940 as the biological "survival of the fittest". I'm not a nazi. Come on A, open your eyes. Human behaviour is not artificial or manufactured. Its based on instinctual behaviour that all animals share. Its screamingly obvious if you look up from your books and gaze out the window for a while. BTW, the III Reich and the Soviet Union were de facto allies at 1939-1940 (first Soviet-Finnish War); the F

Its all quiet on the western front. There's nothing moving in no-mans land, and here in my trench, eating ration packs and latrine duty are the norm. The weather is typically british. Its sunny one moment, raining the next. The skill of dodging rainshowers and going about your daily business without getting soaked is something picked up from years of practice, and right now its proving very useful in keeping dry. The noisy young lads don't seem to going to the library anymore, or perhaps they've decided to avoid me and go later - who knows? Anyway its better without the rows of baseball caps noddding up and down and yelling 'check this out'. Come to mention it, there's none of the usual crowd of children wailing, screaming, or turning the aisles into combat zones or race tracks either. Its a much more library-like atmosphere now I don't like it. Its too quiet. They're up to something, I can smell it.... Noisy Moment of the Week The garage across the yard has ceased playing its radio as soon they open. It was like an alarm clock, going off at 8:00am precisely. I didn't complain, but it wouldn't suprise me if my neighbours had. So now the garage has decided to fit a telephone annunciator so every time someone phones them, the loud trilling noise can be heard within a mile radius. They'll be getting a phone call from me if that carries on.

Balkanisation is common to human societies, not just the balkans/caucasus. Britain is becoming increasingly balkanised as regions demand self-determination. Its a sign of political failure in that central government has failed to address local issues. Eventually a strong leader and culture will absorb the smaller states into a larger whole, as might easily happen with the European Union for instance.

But it depends on the nature of warfare. The romans in their earliest days fought raiding actions, a sustainable form of conflict that many primitive societies (and some modern ones) still persist with. Its easy to forget the romans didn't fight wars quite the way we do. The industrialised total warfare of modern times did not occur, and most people simply got on with their lives as if nothing was happening unless an army came over the hill. This was true even in the most advanced and professional format of the roman legions. Military cobnflict is endemic. As a result of human social behaviour, not to mention animal instinct, two herds dislike having to share the same resources, thus one attempts to oust the other. Our modern warfare is derived from that natural premis. As a moral concern perhaps war should be regarded as a last resort - but then morality is relative. Hitler was furious with Russia for attacking Finland (because Finland supplied vital raw material) but that hardly stopped him from expanding into europe and claiming he had a right to do so (lebensraum) did it? Regarding my epic previous post, I apologise but I was in a hurry - you can sort of tell can't you? Anyhow, the synopsis is that competition is 'beneficial' to a society though it requires a society working as a whole. A fragmented society, such as the late empire where various disparate groups were sheltering under a roman umbrella and not really taking part in the roman whole, does not progress under competition, but simply fragments further.

The degeneration of Rome occurs for a number of reasons. Foreign influence for instance. Although foreigners were quick to adopt roman customs if they wanted social acceptance (and people generally do) they also introduced their own slant on things to the extent that influential people deliberately adopted foreign customs and manners in the search of individualism (a factor in increased prosperity) and relative sophistication. There is also a decline in standards over time. Civic duty in republican times was considered important, but by the late empire it was undesirable - an obstruction to getting on wit things considered more important. The wealth of earlier times had been frittered away, spent on spices, silks, animals, and riotous living, not to mention a legion or two. We see the emperors of the later empire adopting an oriental stance (ie - the Dominate) to impress their subjects with their magnificence, which suggests the magnificence was not by that time something considered normal. So instead of the display of wealth in a secondary sense (lifestyle, property, generosity) it had become importat to impress people directly, with opulence in their face. This indicates a change in social strucutre thats very important. The leaders of the roman world no longer had the sort of respect that they once commanded from their ublic, and resorted to displays of exclusivity, to effectively distance themselves from their public, and therefore the all-important client-patron relationship upon which roman society functioned had been weakened. The bonds of loyalty and obligation were not being reinforced by the great and good, becoming ever more dependent on symbolic representation. Given that the empire had to pay for its armed forces, which in itself had become unreliable and open to bribery, almost a necessity for imperial longevity, the increasing pay scales to ensure military loyalty shouldn't be suprising. But that wealth had to come from somewhere, and that meant tax. Higher taxes to support the military and the displays of opulence at Rome had weakened the bond with the rural population, who no longer saw the roman legions as a desirable career choice and who went to some lengths to avoid it in the late empire. Indeed, the ruaral population of the late empire was beginning to find ways to avoid the onerous taxation they had to suffer. So, although the pressures of external competition should have in theory brought the roman world together and provided that regenerating factor, it was out-balanced by the diminishing sources of finance, diminishment of roman culture, and the dimiminshment of roman military readiness. The romans were victims of 'victory disease', and at the height of their empire, the pax Imperium, remained essentially an inward-looking state bound by a haughty disregard for alien societies and concern for their own lifestyles. True, there were campaigns conducted in later times, but these were more often 'security' issues rather than simple conquest, the idea being to protect roman terrritory against incursion rather than to extend it. Trajans conquest of Parthia was more to do with trade issues and preventing Parthian incursion than any grandiose motive, and even he was sensible enough to withdraw when the impossibility of securing these new territories became obvious. To do so would have required more legions - who was going to pay for those? Where were the troops to come from? In the late empire, its apparent that the romans increasingly used foreign tribes as mercenaries to provide security and military capability rather than the time-honoured legions, who were themsleves (as Vegetius hints at) not the legions they once were. peace had made the roman army lazy, its structure had been changed to compensate for the weakened conditions following the civil wars that brought Constantine to power. The roman administration had become bloated with inefficient bureacracy. Where once Augustus was able to rule an entire empire comfortably, Diocletian was forced to subdivide his authority to provide a more local control, only to fall prey to the usual roman ambition for power in his successors which did nothing to reinforce imperial authority beyond the capitals. Whereas in the earlier republic the nation was smaller, focused, intensely proud of its defiant republicnism and military virtue, the later empire was bloated, inefficient, over-extended, and had lost that sense of community. That I think is the most important factor. For national competition to have a positive regnerating effect, it requires a community with a sense of purpose. The dilution of latin culture and breakdown of social bonds that once made the empire a force to reckoned with and even a desirable entity to be part of was to become exactly what the romans had originally sneered at, a weak 'effeminate' oriental potentate, but one dependent on foreigners for its own security and ultimately those same foreigners were the ones who exploited that weakness to gain their own prosperity from an empire unable to prevent it.

According to the Daily Express, Aug 16th.... Teeth Clue To Roman Burial A coffin opened yesterday fter 1,700 years revealed the decayed remains of a middle-aged person who lived in Britain at the end of the roman occupation. Water had seeped into the sandstone coffin over the years and only the teeth were intact under a lyaer of sludge. It is believed the remains were that of the father or mother of a six-year old child found in a scond coffin unearthed in building site in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. Richard Annis, of Durham University said "They would certainly have had to belong to a wealthy family of high status in the community, perhaps at fort commander level or at a senior level in the roman army manning Hadrians Wall. Very few people could have afforded to bury their dead in such a grand fashion."

Yes, because Rome had little to gain from those conflicts, and the booty that was obtained was dispersed by the soldiers in a very rapid time frame. However, the earlier expansive conquests were more focused, they annexed territory that was more developed with available infrastructure, so the romans were simply adding another organised province to their list. Trajan expanded hugely during his reign but was unable to maintain any grip, especially in the east. Mesopotamia rebelled immediately after conquest, Dacia was not exactly co-operative. Although Hadrian is given the creit for the withdrawal this was actually begun under Trajans rule, and one reason for Hadrians 'non-interference' policies is that he'd already seen the great cost of war. Things were of course a little different in the empire. Troops were no longer citizen militia raised every year, they were permanent troops trained and equipped by the state (Yes, I know the troops paid for gear by stoppages in pay, but the intial cost was borne by the state) with increasing pay scales as time went by, not to mention some generous donatives to keep their loyalty. The whole military sphere from Marius onward had become so much more expensive.

On a hike through the countryside yesterday I came across a group of horses in the field I was crossing. I've always got time for animals, and whilst I know absolutely nothing about horses in particular, I always stop for some quality time if I can. The horse gave me a sniff - they all do that - and for a moment let me stroke it. Then it reared its head and bared its teeth at me. The funny thing was, I knew exactly what that horse was saying. "Ok, you've said hello, now get lost". I took the hint. Communication with animals isn't so difficult if you remember they don't talk. We humans depend on verbal communication, its a learned ability, something we use without any thought all too often. Animals don't talk. They can't, but they do try to let us know what they want in other ways if you read the signals. It comes as a suprise to discover that you're not always welcome by the animal kingdom though... Or is that just human arrogance? Wolf Whistle of the Week She came out of the canal footpath behind the petrol station on a bicycle. A blonde girl, perhaps early twenties, and judging from the hi-vis tabard she wore, a working girl on her way home. One of the simple pleasures a man of my age enjoys is appreciating the beauty of young women - we have to really, since most of them wouldn't dream of a relationship unless our wallet is fat enough. Most young working girls of that age can be a little tarty, something I personally find unappealing. This woman was different. She looked great, she really did. Our eyes met briefly. Its often said that eyes are the windiow to the soul. I've no doubt she noticed my appreciation of her finer qualities. Well, if I were younger... As I walked on down the road I heard her make a discrete wolf whistle. Lady, you made my day. Please have my babies. If you want a relationship, contact me at this website for thrills, spills, and pushing wheelchairs round the park.

It was a tough campaign, there's no doubt. I suspect though that the australians highlight it because they were there - its national pride - thats understandable, and I'm not demeaning their efforts in any way. I think you have to realise though that it was a tough war for most combatants, given the privations of trench warfare and the life expectantcy of 'going over the top'.

Heck, I just look out the window. Don't need a scientific analysiis by a university professor to the animal life out there.

Seven months after he vanished from his Gloucester home Murphy the Gnome was found alive and well on his owners doorstep, along with a photographic record of his travels around the world. This heart-warming tale just goes to show there's more to gnomes than meets the eye. Usually these quiet citizens of our front gardens don't travel at all. They lead a static existence, holding fishing rods and sitting there even in the worst inclement weather. They're good neighbours. They never get angry or hold loud parties into the small hours. They never complain to the council when dogs lift their legs and wee over them. They just keep on smiling. Why? Why do they smile? Well, I asked that question to the gnome I met in a Swindon pub one night a few years ago. I knew he wasn't human - he smiled benignly even when the pub DJ played Kylie Minogue at full volume. Under intense questioning, I finally got him to admit he was a gnome. It was quite a shock. Up until that moment I'd never realised that gnomes have a full and varied social life. As to my question on why they smile, his answer was that gnomes were planning to take over the world. I therefore drifted away to congregate with friends, leaving him sat there with his pint in hand, blissfully happy. Storm of the Week Occaisonally we get thunderstorms over England. No, really. Mostly shortlived and somehow more polite than the aggressive excesses of foreign storms. Not yesterday. English weather was in a mean mood and although the lightning was none too impressive, the sound effects were extraordinary for our rainy homeland. Crackles and deep bass explosive booms echoed and shook the windows. I thought of the gnome army, gathering its strength in gardens all over england, getting drenched in their thousands. Sorry guys. I hope your paint is waterproof. But hey - keep on smiling.

No; almost seven years of war, more than two million casualties, the utter havoc of Japan by conventional bombs, the unbreakable Chinese resistance, the opportunist Soviet attack and two nukes were required for that. Even so, the most radical Japanese leaders and soldiers had to been reduced by force or driven to suicide by their more rational fellow compatriots, their sacred Emperor included. No - the japanese junta were determined their country would fight to the death, typical of their militaristic psuedo-samurai code. The landings at Okinawa had already shown the japanese were willing to entertain that idea, especially since the grip of the junta on their minds was still very strong at that point. Although civilians did surrender, they had been told the american were animals hell bent on atrocity. There is a memorable film sequence of a woman throwing herself off a cliff rather than give herself up to the americans. The russian declaration of war barely had time to make itself felt, and in any case, since the japanese were determined to make a heroic last stand of their islands, it really wasn't going to convince them. What did make a deep impression was two cities being flattened. No. If you check any etology ("animal psychology") study on violence, you will confirm the universal development of deterrence biological mechanisms that mostly prevents intra-species lethal injury under almost any conceivable natural condition. Arguably, we humans haven't had enough biological time to develop analogous mechanisms in evolutionary terms. In Biology the "survival of the fittest" implies obtaining the best net profit from the available resources, not the physical destruction of the "enemy". No. The ritual displays are there to prevent harm, and human beings already have those. Its called shouting your mouth off. Sometimes its called politics. But since we're an aggressive creature with strong territorial instincts its often necessary to bare our fangs and claws. If that doesn't work, we use them. Human beings play brinkmanship in confrontations. If the other side won't back off, we sometimes get infuriated, and that results in the danger of the situation being stepped up. We see this in 'street' confrontations, where the willingness to carry a knife as a 'warning' symbol is soon replaced by a willingness to use it for real, as the various young males competing for status and dominance become enmeshed in an arms race. The reason for this variability of human response is our lack of defined weaponry. Because our ability to damage others varies according to what we carry, its not possible for the rituals to replace the real thing. Oh and by the way, if another herd is eating your food, 'survival of the fittest' definitely means getting rid of them. I would have thought that was obvious. I think you rely too much on self-professed experts. You do need to evaluate your sources.