caldrail

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.

I doubt the australians needed the gallipoli campaign to establish a national identity. Winston Churchills scheme was typical of him. An outflanking campaign in a 'soft' backwater, but one that proved more troublesome than he expected. My grandfather was there, an underage naval reservist who was sent ashore to help storm the turkish trenches. He never told me much about it, the war was something that weighed heavily with him, but he certainly left me in no doubt of the daily privation and nastiness that war entails. No, it won't, because there will always be humans that survive it, and the threat of nuclear conflict tends to ensure it won't be used so readily. Remember, it only took two such bombs to bring the hard hearted and defiant japanes military junta to raise the white flag, after they had insisted that every japanese man, woman, and child was to fight the allies to the last blood. Arguably, warfare is an extension of animal social behaviour, and since in nature its a matter of survival of the fittest, there is a tendency for warfare to reinforce a society (assuming it doesn't lose and become swallowed up) in some ways. The modern 'total war' however is deeply damaging to our ability to survive as a complex industrial society which is a very specialised 'nest' we build for ourselves, a very vulnerable one, and therefore if its damaged too greatly the society is pushed back a notch. Not quite back to the stone age as if often quoted, but certainly to a level of barbarism we know is lurking under the surface of our comfortable lives. An example of the worst sort of collapse was the minoans after the destruction of Santorini by volcanic explosion and the resulting depression wave (a tsunami) that wrecked the ability of their culture to trade and communicate). The minoans essentially fragmented into small groups of cannablistic survivors.

Caldrail has hit the nail right on the head here. It's a point that has been well attested to throughout history; a civilisation that has no competition will atrophy. It's sort of like the saying "It's not the destination, but the journey that matters". Once Rome had no real rivals, the civilisation became blas

Well thats the problem. We don't big claws and sharp teeth, or poisonous barbs for that matter, so we compensate by being clever and making alternative pointy things to hurt each other (or perhaps threaten). Since this means we must defend ourselves, we want bigger and sharper and more threatening weapons... and you get an arms race. Nature has done that sort of thing before though. The fossil records show an interesting 'arms race' that went through cycles in prehistory.

On the tv news I saw an old woman despairing of having to face the consequences of another war again at her age. "Why can't we all live in peace?" she asks. Why indeed? Because human beings aren't a peaceful species. In order for us to survive, nature has developed us to be social animals, competing for resources, survival of the fittest, and so on. In the modern world, those instincts are still there. It isn't just politics and war though. We see the same instincts played out in business, or on street corners for that matter. The russian leaders are not happy with the current political setup. I don't know if this is the case, but I can well imagine they're not happy with effectively surrendering the Cold War and finding their former enemy expanding and encroaching on what they consider their own back yard. You can't help but wonder if the failure of the Warsaw Pact to intimidate the west has left the russian bear with sore feelings. There are many russians for instance who would be happier under a strict stalinist regime. The russians are however somewhat heavy handed, and in trying to impose control over their southern neighbour they end up killing a great many innocent civilians whilst ostensibly protecting others. War is a terrible thing, there's no doubt, but what would we do without it? Dunce of the Week On my way home from the sports centre I was walking beside a recreation ground (thats a grass field in urban areas for non brits) when I spotted a lady walking her dog. Nothing unusual about that at all, recreation grounds are commonly used for that purpose. She had her dog, a young black labrador, on a lead, one of those silly retractable ones with a plastic handle. She threw the ball for her dog to fetch, but inthe heat of the moment, threw it a little too far. The dog eagerly went afterit, and reached the end of the leads extension. The dog then lifted up in a graceful arc suspended by its neck. The woman on the other hand, fell flat on her face. You should never laugh at peoples misfortune. Sometimes you just can't help yourself.

Its not quite that simple. Russia doesn't want a neighbour and former member soviet state joining NATO. By hitting the pipeline it would force the west to negotiate from a placatory standpoint instead of throwing their weight around. Russia has been the guarantor of peace in the caucasus for a long time and doesn't want what they consider an enemy system next door. So they found an exuse and intervened with typical russian heavy-handedness. As for the claims of ethnic cleansing and genocide - its a bit difficult to swallow unless any real evidence is found, but with so many civilian deaths from the fighting so far, it wouldn't be hard to arrange for a media stunt. Russia isn't getting the good press it wanted. Perhaps they won't care about that, my guess is that they will try to justify their incursion.

I saw a gamebox when I was at shop near Hadrians Wall recently. I remember being curious about it, I wonder if that was the title?

The revolts in Mauretania and Egypt required a response. Neither was considered serious despite the movement of troops. The Dacian expedition remains a little mysterious - I've no idea why that was undertaken, but its likely it was a peacekeeping operation rather than a territorial advancement. The british question is a little different. Antoninus Pius was not a military man, he had no experience of warfare, and thus depended on those that did. Further, he did not rule with the same direct oversight as Hadrian had, preferring a quieter time in Rome, and he was the first emepror that hadn't left Italy at any time. The defense policies of his reign were established by Hadrian. Antoninus was therefore playing it safe and living in the peace generated by his predecessor, taking care not to upset the senate nor seek conquest. Which makes the british question all the more interesting. Who initiated the conflict? Where the brits rising in revolt? It had happened in Hadrians reign - or was this a miltary excursion designed to further roman interests abroad? Antoninus made a fuss of the advancement to the border line that bears his name and no doubt got the requisite kudos from it, which is why I suspect him of doing the same as Claudius had done. Given his natural temerity involving conflict, it isn't impossible to imagine Antoninius making that advance as something he considered 'safe', an easy victory, and the willingness of the romans to abandon the antonine wall despite their victory seems a little odd. It would in fact suggest the victory was not secure, and that the area remained hostile, thus the generals concerned were exaggerating - unless it was Antoninus himself who was doing so.

A typical example of statistics being used to prove a point. Hand to hand combat can be deadly - there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever - but morale features very heavily, and units being cut down display a tendency to run away. In the presence of cavalry that can be disastrous too. The warrior ethic of ancient times erodes this factor somewhat since people expected to fight and it was considered normal. However, Keeley ignores the different style of combat. Granted the attrition rate may seem much less in modern times at first glance, but remember the battlefield is dispersed over a considerably larger area, and does not necessarily cease in few hours. The dispersion of troops is necessary to prevent casualties and the availability of firearms makes this 'open' warfare possible since troops can engage each other in longer range. Granted that most firefights after WW1 took place at less than 300m, but thats because of the terrain and the natural desire of troops to remain out of sight of the enemy. Potentially modern warfare is vastly more fatal than ancient times - as Saddam Hussein proved by dropping gas on his kurdish enemies. The casualty rates from weapons of mass destruction are not likely to small either. Men fight. Its an extension of the social animal instinct. Why people think it was infrequent is beyond me. Warfare is endemic to humans as I've already said. But what Keeley fails to address is that animals often develop threat displays as a safer alternative to actual fighting. Humans do sometimes as well, resulting in strange ritualised confrontations that minimise the body count. This occurs insituations where cultures are isolated, since contact with others tends to generate territorial issues that become ever more serious. Again I'm mystified where this myth comes from. If you're part of a primitive society thats involved in fighting, its expected, and the fighting attains a consistent level of skill - an average if you like. However, there are demonstrations of primitive warfare in New Guinea that do show an astonishing amateurism despite the endemic nature of the violence. Perhaps Mr Keeley might like to study that. Be careful here. The ability of guerilla units varies enormously with respect to their training, motivation, situation, and support. Some are no more than bandits, a criminal nuisance. At times guerillas have been almost a formal army in their own right. However, modern guerilla tactics are now commonly available in literature so a guerilla army has a head start in training. It remains a fact that such units perform badly until enough experience is gathered, assuming they survive. In the ancient world, there was no-one to teach such methodology, and it required an imaginative leader such as Spartacus to confound the organised state. Keeleys assertion also ignores the abilty of some guerilla forces to hide within their communities - a considerable advantage over an army with uniforms and heraldry displayed.

But he did so on a strategic level, not a tactical one. In roman times, armies marched directly toward an objective or each other and the envelopment was rare. Even the entrapment of Spartacus doesn't fall into this category since his line of march was cut off by the other armies, not surrounded by them.

to some extent warfare has remained a constant factor in human relationships. The reasons we go to war haven't changed in any major respect. The methods we use depend on fashion and current technology, and generally speaking have been fought between combatants of equivalent style, although capability and size varied considerably. In the rare situations where two completely different systems fought, the stronger and more aggressive won out, with cultures who have developed a ritualised method of fighting finding themselves flummoxed by an adversary that simply doesn't understand their rules. Of course this is because human beings haven't changed since ancient times. We tend to organise ourselves and relate to others within limited parameters. That said, differences in cultures between ancient and modern are restricted to the same enviroments regarding combat. Forests, mountains, rivers, plains - none of these are any different. In desert areas for instance its easy to conquer large areas but difficult to retain them. The offensives of romans and parthians in Mesopotamia has some very interesting parallels to the much faster moving conditions experienced in the western deserts of WW2. What has changed is the nature of urban warfare. In ancient times a siege or an assault was sufficient, but since the increase in urban centers the invasion of these areas has now developed into almost a campaign in itself. The specialisation of such warfare is not really a factor - modern armies know very little about siege warfare though I suspect it wouldn't take them very long to learn. Tha brings up an important factor - the ability of human beings to adapt. What is significantly different between ancient and modern troops however is mobility and armour. Whole armies can be transferred to combat zones in very short periods of time, cover long distances, and outflank entire dispersed armies. You might argue the equivalence of the horse, and to a small degree, this is so, but it must be accepted that the horse was limited in numbers in the ancient world and sometimes a mark of status as much as utility. The development of air warfare has opened up a new enviroment for combat entirely, with the ability to strike the enemy at his rear - or his home and industry - with increasing precision as technology advances. The scale of warfare is of course radically larger than before. Human populations are much larger, and the increased efficiency of communications and logistics mean that armies can be numbered in millions as opposed to thousands dependent on foraging and verbal communication. There is now a directness about offensive campaigns that was not usually apparent in ancient times. The romans did however undertake some measure of amphibious warfare. Landings on the coast to attack Carthage, Caesars two landings in Britain (including fighting on the beachhead), the river invasions of Germanica by romans in the reign of Augustus, and the small unit raids made by romans on border settlements against german villages in the late empire come to mind. What remains the same is infantry. The need to occupy ground is no different today than it was then. The way this is carried out has changed. Whereas in the past much of the territory captured had no strategic value nor any inherent threat, in todays world securing areas is of prime importance, since small-unit tactics made possible by the development of the firearm has meant that any habitation can harbour enemy units capable of interdicting your lines of supply. So whereas in the ancient world the focus was on besieging and capturing cities as strategic and political targets, now its much more conerned with area denial. There are some parallels in troop deployment with the romans. From Hadrian onward, the use of secure frontier zones increased enormously, very reminiscent in scope to the Korean border perhaps, or the cold war borders. The action of Pompey against the cilician pirates has the same overtones as the american air raid on Libya, or the israeli raids on foreign power stations. Single heavy attacks to constrain or discontinue enemy threat. So what parallels are there between us and them? Ancient and modern? Well... people. We haven't changed.

Its Friday night in Newcastle. Having spent the day travelling there by train and then searching the city center for historical relics, we were in the mood to relax. Drinks all round then. The barman in the hotel suggested we might want to try a certain game played with dice in a box, and that kept us entertained for a few hours. Inevitably we were getting tired, so it was good night and off to my hotel room. It was hot. Even with the window open I was gasping for breath. Are the radiators on? Apparently not. Getting to sleep wasn't going to be easy, and I lay there in a semi-comatosed state. Then it started. People running up and down the corridor. Irate hotel staff banging on doors and threatening eviction. Just what I wanted in the middle of the night. Eventually Mr Angry got bored and wandered away. Now can I get some sleep? The room next door proceeded to give me a muffled demonstration of sexual endurance. I heard the steady squeak, the woman whimpering. Please lady, just make him happy. Pretend. Just fake it, please, I want some sleep. I suppose in theory I could bang on the wall, but the truth was I was too hot and tired. Eventually so was he, and at last peace and quiet was restored to Newcastle. I started to drift off.... BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!! Its time for breakfast. Oh joy.... Keeping of the Grass Just wandered into the local sports centre to use the library PC there, and in front of the main entrance is a council employee, walking back and forth across the paving stones and cobbles, pushing a lawnmower with its little motor buzzing away merrily. Keep off the grass mate.

Possibly, but the council are concerned with the leaf litter in the water being a maintenance problem. In any case, whoever is responsible for Swindons parks doesn't seem concerned with anything except social engineering. They want parks filled with happy families wandering around in the sunshine, having picnics, playing ball games, and generally looking like a community at peace with itself. Truth is, most families haven't got time for such easy-going living and these days I doubt the average family can be dragged away from its tv and playstations. Certainly the families I saw at Lydiard just wandered aimlessly around the paths and certainly didn't spend their social quality time the way the park-keepers intended. Nonetheless, these people have a wooly-headed vision about how Queens Park will look. Without the wooded hillside at the back, the natural vista will be lost, and the whole thing will resemble a grassy crater - which is pretty much what it is under all that foliage. I don't blame them for wanting rid of the japanese knotweed though - that stuff is unstoppable. What you say about biodiversity is correct. There a wonderful collection of ducks, geese, swans, gulls, and smaller waterfowl who use Queens Park as a home - but they only do so because there's enough foliage and islands to make it possible.

.... Help abandoned Kitten.... Ok, thats in my Book of Excuses. Cheers A

Suetonius porttrayed him as others described him. Tiberius wasn't a popular figure at all, but although it was standard practive to ridicule your rivals reputation and standing in the community, you can't help but feel there is an element of decadence in Tiberius. He was after all a misanthrope - he didn't like people - and in Capri had surrounded himself in his own private world. Quite how far gone he was is anybodies guess, but I'd have to describe him as a disturbed and odd personality to some degree. Incidentially, the emperors were not hereditary rulers. naturally they would have preferred their offspring to continue the families tradition of power, but augustus was thwarted there and not until Commodus was 'an emperor born to the purple'

Every centurion had an Optio - a 'chosen man', not quite a junior commander but more of a henchman. Centurions were responsible for maintaining discipline which was notoriously harsh in times of war (sometimes a little corrupt and lax in peacetime though) and inevitably if the men mutined the centurion was going to be first in line for retribution. For that reason, the centurion needed someone he could trust to back him up, to be his eyes and ears when he wasn't around, and the roman legions formalised what was a very basic human organisation. In normal duties a centurion would lead from the front, the optio bringing up the rear, both in combat and on the march. Regarding the double century though - its important to realise that the century was chosen as a command unit because 80-100 men was about all a single man could comfortably control in the chaos of the battlefield. Therefore you would expect extra command personnel involved, although thats a modern perspective. The romans wanted as direct a line of command as possible - hence there were no 'middle-class' officers at all in the legions, and cohort leadership, although the cohort formed the standard battle formation within the legion, was not given a designated command rank. Adrian Goldsworthy suggests the senior centurion took command of the cohort. Others disagree, pointing at the lack of any evidence for cohortal command and the absence of cohort 'spirit', as religion played an important part of roman military life. My personal feeling (thats all it is) is that senior centurions may have commanded cohorts on an administrative level, but the co-operative cohort remained in place. Its difficult to see how this functioned - re-enactors don't congregate in sufficient numbers for practical research, but the disintergration of the legions at Cannae is useful in this respect. The centuries on the fringes of the roman advance, having been taught to observe local initiative and face the enemy where-ever possible, did so, and the formation withered away from the sides.

Antoninus Pius, despite being regarded as emperor over the most peaceful period of roman history, still had to deal with yet another revolt in Mauretania - which required the movement of troops from the Rhine/Danube border, and put down a peasants revolt in Egypt, possibly caused by economical concerns. He also authorised a military expedition into Dacia although its not clear if that was Roman Dacia or the small portion given back to the Roxolani. Coins minted in AD154-155 indicate a victory against the britons, coinciding with the Antonine Wall. Since Antoninus Pius had no military experience he may have needed to make a gesture toward military conquest rather like Claudius did, and thus the Antonine Wall and the 'victory' surrounding it appears to be little more than a propaganda exercise, especially since the wall was abandoned soon afterward.

Rome was a society that grew on the back of military conquest. Sure, there was plenty of trade and diplomacy too, but warfare was deeply imbedded in roman culture and had been right from the start. The problem with cultures that expand rapidly due to conquest is that they struggle to retain the initial propserity gained from additional territory. The administration costs escalate, and the wealth in booty is frittered away. Also, the romans spent a huge amount of money on entertainement and luxury from the late republic onward. The cost of staging animal hunts in arenas around the empire was simply humungous, and this was an industry that was depleting its source of animals without any concern for the enviroment where cash was available to reward it. The trade networks that aided Rome began to atrophe too. The Silk Road was cut, banditry increased, and increasing piracy in the late empire reduced prosperity. Also, since the increasing taxes and threat of barabarian incursion meant that whole communities were beginning to opt out of roman control, leading to an ungovernable chaos, especially since the burden of administration has increased to the point where sole emperors were no longer able to effectively control an empire the size of Rome. The change from Republic to Empire (as we describe it) did not in itself doom Rome. It was a symptom, not a cause. However, it should be noted that the Republics inability to restrain individual ambition was not a good sign.