caldrail

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.

Just around the corner from where I live is a nice little spot called Queens Park. Its the remnant of an abandoned railway tunnel entrance that was turned into a public park, now surrounded by housing developments that sprang up in the 20's and 30's. Its a lovely place with a natural patina thats difficult to achieve deliberately. The central lake is surrounded by thick bushes and trees, lots of overhanging willows and pines on small islands, and the local waterfowl use it as a hotel with free room service from generous bread-wielding pensioners. The old glasshouse has long since gone. I remember visiting it when I was young, admiring the desert and jungle foliage exhibitions and being amazed at the damp heat required for the lush vegetation to prosper. Now its a concrete frame with ivy decoration, an open space where an entrepeneur has recently had his cafe removed. Perhaps its just that I'm familiar with it as it is. I'm comfortable with it. Its a quiet haven of nature in the middle of town. But its under threat.... The council want to renovate it. They want wide open grass verges around the entire lake, to rid the park of the overhanging tree, to encourage families to wander around with somewhere to let their boisterous offspring off the leash. Thats all very well, but if you don't fit that category? The council did the same recently to Lydiard Park, a much larger public space. Whilst it genuinely looks clean and tidy it also looks empty, artificial, naked without the expected undergrowth and wooded paths. It looks awful not to put too fine a point on it, and after spending five million pounds ruining Lydiard some genius wants to spend more of our taxes ruining Queens Park. I've sent an email to them. I hope they read it, I also hope they understand that not everyone wants indentikit parks everywhere, that not everyone wants the same thing from public space. Somehow, you can't help feeling that with big money driving the project, my email won't go much further. More Uneasy Feelings With Queens Park under threat of being transformed into a boring grassy wilderness inhabited by three year old tribesmen, its as well to remember that another beauty spot is under threat too. Coate Water, a canal reservoir thats been a public place for a a hundred and fifty years, is known as Swindons Gateway To The Country. Not for much longer. The government has OK'd a development on the flood plain adjacent to the motorway that runs behind it. Coate Water - Swindons Gateway To Another Vandalised Housing Estate. Heartfelt Message of the Week Please please please will people stop seeing big bucks and realise that sometimes a valuable asset can be ruined by throwing cash at it. I might be just a lone voice in the soon to be renovated wilderness, but natural beauty can't be created with bulldozers.

Yes indeed... If the ultraviolet and water pollution doesn't get you, offialdom will!

No, but if you suddenly turn up with a suntan it means you've done something different, perhaps a holiday or a job outdoors. The claims advisors are quick to spot stuff like that.

The reign of Hadrian is usually described as a turning point of the Roman Empire. From the expansionist conquests of his predecessor Trajan to the withdrawal and consolidation for which Hadrian is known. Its entirely possible to see Hadrian as something less than the energetic administrator he is usually described as. He was quick to assume power and his claim to roman domination was not necessarily legimate. Anecdotes picture him as a somewhat distant, authoritarian, vain, obstinate, overly-liberal, self important intellectual, lacking charisma, restraint, or popularity, but it should not be forgotten that he spent half his reign visiting his provinces, that he applied humane laws to slavery, reformed finance, extended latin rights, and limited the excesses of gladiators bad behaviour. He was to be deified after died at the orders of Antoninus Pius, his succesor, despite the Senates deep reluctance to accord him the honour. At the start of his reign, Hadrian had many issues to deal with. Revolts in Northern Britain, Mauretania, Dacia, Judaea, and a suspected plot against him in Rome. He dealt with all them methodically, and in some respects, his decisions cost him popularity. The plot in Rome was merely a ruse to dispose of those loyal to Trajan. He certainly made use of spies to stay ahead of possible plots against him, co-opting the Frumentarii ('Corn Collectors') as his personal intelligence agency, a far greater step than the networks of informers previously encouraged by individuals in positions of influence. It is true that Hadrian withdrew from Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Assyria. He even considered abandoning Dacia, although the presence of gold mines meant that contnued occupation was profitable, and only a small portion was handed over to the Roxolani. The return of eastern territory and the Dacian solution won him no friends. The Trajanic conquests had been received well by the roman public, not to mention supplying the arena for games lasting 120 days - A third of a year in public entertainment. So, with the lack of public good will, and a desire to enjoy a comfortable life, its perhaps understandable that Hadrians policies were directed inwards. The reasons given are that these trajanic conquests were untenable, that the Roman Empire had overextended itself. This is very close to the truth, particularly in the east. It has been noted that in desert warfare, its easy to conquer large swathes of territory but very difficult to retain them. In time, Rome might have extended its roads and cultural influence in later years, but these frontiers were not secure, and for the most part, there was little to gain by keeping them. All this withdrawal is credited to Hadrians commonsense as a capable administrator, yet there are indications that Trajan would eventually have done something similar had not illness overtaken him. Mesopotamia for instance had risen in revolt before the war on Parthia had been completed. Also, two of the african limes ('Limits') intended to limit the nomadic intrusion in what is now southern Tunisia were built in Trajans time. Before Hadrian, the extent of roman territory relied on physical boundaries supplied by nature, such as rivers, hills, mountains, valleys, or whatever feature served the purpose. This unsophisticated demarcation nonetheless has the benefit of being readily understandable on both sides of the border. In some places it was deemed necessary to mark the border in a more finite fashion. The vallum, an earthen ditch and bank, had already been used sporadically and the first limes, a border fence, was constructed by Domitian in Germania Superior. The Principate was not a completely romanised entity. Like the layers of an onion, the extent of romanisation varied according to how far away it was from Rome. Its core was a small nucleus of solidly roman territory centered around Rome itself. Next was a layer around that of romanised provinces. Then a layer of regions less romanised, and so forth. Although the frontier was guarded by a system of watchtowers and roads, entry to the empire was not actually prevented. The roman legions were essentially an internal security force when not actively engaged in military operations abroad, and the suppression of enemy incursion was treated in the same manner. Therefore an enemy could enter roman territory at will, unimpeded by frontier defenses. The repulse of that enemy would take place further inside the empire. As the enemy advanced, they would inevitably meet a blocking force of roman soldiers. If the incursion was merely a border occupation that did not strike deep, then the roman legions would eventually arrive to send them back again. Inherent in this methodology is a need for time to organise a reaction to the enemy incursion. You could describe the legions acting in a similar way to anti-bodies converging on a virus. Hadrian changed this policy. Henceforth, the frontier would be actively protected as much as possible. Given the limitations of military support, a complete containment of the frontier was not a practical possibility. There is a suggestion made in recent years that Hadrian had intended that the empire would be a giant fort, a fenced-off boundary that physically prevented access. This is simply not the case. Although there were some widespread barriers constructed around the empire - Hadrians Wall, and the Limes in Europe and Africa, we must consider this as the evidence of a selective border control policy. Only those frontiers that were sensitive or a security risk were guarded in this manner. The security of the roman frontier did not rest entirely on walls and ditches. The watchtowers and military road patrols remained in place even in 'safe' border areas, but in addition, if it was considered necessary, the romans erected forts outside the empire, to act as forward bases. Hadrians Wall has two such forts to the north, constructed in Hadrians reign. These fortifications were effectively in hostile territory, and since the romans had little regard for barbarian sensibilities, having built them on their territory was of little consequence if border security was to be achieved. The roman provinces and territories once considered 'foreign' but under roman control were now embraced by a secure frontier. It seems that Hadrian had intended that the entire Roman Empire within this frontier system to become romanised. As a passionate sponsor of hellenistic art and literature his focus was on stabilising his empire and providing the background for a comfortable life. With the establishment of a secure border, the 'layered' empire could be replaced by a fully romanised empire, and development of outlying areas could be entertained to the extent that 'barbarian' culture could be brushed aside. This domestic policy was nearly a disaster. Hadrian had visited Judaea in AD130. A revolt had begun under Trajans reign and this was one of several that Hadrian had been forced to deal with early on. Jerusalem had been destroyed in the Jewish War and had remained a ruin since AD70. Hadrian promised the Jews that the city would be rebuilt. Unfortunately, he chose to rebuild it as a roman city, Aelia Capitolina, and this resulted in a second Jewish War. After three years of bitter fighting the Jews were defeated, and Judaea was named Syria-Palaestina thereafter. This event is significant, for whilst it represents a unique revolt against Hadrians otherwise adept rule, it also demonstrates his lack of regard for non-roman cultures, and indicates his desire for a truly roman world. Hadrian was an experienced soldier. He had served as tribune with the Legio II Adiutricis in Pannonia, Legion V Macedonia in Moesia, and the Legion XXII Primiginiae in Germania Superior. He had risen to the command of the Legio I Minerva, and although his war record doesn't seem particularly brilliant he nonetheless won awards from Trajan for his service.during the Dacian War. Having been a provincial governor in Syrua, he had direct experience of the frontier and especially that of the east. The most significant example of this is Parthia. Trajan had conquered a great deal of territory from the Parthians, and roman soldiers were bathing in the Caspian Sea for the first time. Unbeknown to him, Trajan had very nearly met a chinese delegation led by the exploratory general Pan Chao, and only parthian intervention had prevented it. Parthia was wealthy because it straddled the Silk Road, a major land trading route east and west, and it was this taxation of trade that was a major reason for Trajans war on Parthia. The Parthians themselves did not want to be squeezed by a chinese-roman alliance, hence their efforts to persuade Pan Chao to leave the romans alone, but there were personal reasons for Parthia to want Rome defeated. During his conquest, Trajan had captured the daughter of King Osroes I of Parthia. She had become a hostage, a guarantee of good behaviour. Nonetheless, Parthia, a kingdom of enough size to challenge roman supremacy, was preparing for war. Hadrian was told this when he dealt with the Mauretainian revolt, the other side of the Roman Empire, and he set out for the Euphrates border. That the hostilities did not take place is partly due to Hadrians superior political intelligence. His network of spies and contacts he had made in the east had served him well. However, Hadrian and Osroes made a settlement in which the parthian kings daughter was returned. There is an element of placation involved. Since Parthia was given much of what it wanted to fight for, the war was defused. There's no record I know of that mentions any settlement about the Silk Road and the tolls Parthia inflicted upon it, and its an important point, because this economic obstacle was one of the reasons for Trajans invasions of the east. There seems to be little or no effort made by Hadrian to improve foreign relations beyond defusing the conflict on his borders. He was almost isolationist in his stance. Certainly his actions regarding legionary discipline and standards imply an army retained in peacetime and kept busy in spite of it. Hadrian, as an experienced military officer, knew full well the hazards of an idle army. He never provoked his neighbouring states, and this reinforces the view that he was directing his efforts internally to provide secure frontiers for the first time in roman history. So what can we say about foreign policy in the Hadrianic world? Simply this - Hadrians foreign policy was to have as little to do with it as possible. A History of Rome - Le Glay, Voisin, Le Bohec Chronicle of the Roman Emperors - Chris Scarre Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire - Edward Luttwak Who's Who in the Roman World - John Hazel wikipedia.com

A - Take a nap. Chill out. I'm being conversational. Sorry if that doesn't appeal to you, but I don't care. Most of what you've posted in response to my answers is an attempt to look clever. Fine, I really don't care. You might have the luxury of time to spend finding all sorts of distantly related info on one thing or another, I have more important thingsd to do. It would help if you were able to phrase a coherent arguement, links or not.

Excellent. Briliiant. Correct. The same influences in human behaviour reoccur given similar circumstances. But why make this point? The point I'm making is that the increasing need to keep up with the Jonesii in the presence of increasing affluence is a corrupting influence, and one that hand in hand with increasing hedonism took the republic from an enviroment of public duty to one of selfish gratification. Other than that your arguement seems to be about one of linguistic sophistication and has no relevance to the original thread. Sorry, it just doesn't. Why not try to phrase a positive arguement instead of trying to disassemble mine? After all, you've just posted four times and gotten nowhere.

Do you actually suggest the Venusian gases are occasionally being dumped on Earth, across at least some 26 million miles (more than 3,000 times the Earth's diameter) of open space? And that such phenomenon contributes to the ongoing terrestrial global warming? Really? Strictly speaking yes it does. When the earth is in line behind Venus, the solar wind is delivering the gas it strips away in our direction. The amount is open to question - I would expect it to be somewhat small but perhap there's some expert opinion somewhere that might confirm that. The venusian atmosphere is composed of greenhouse gases and therefore makes a contribution to our own woes, but again, I'm being a lttle tongue in cheek and I wouldn't expect it to make a huge difference - perhaps I'm wrong about that? It would be interesting to note how often the planets are aligned in this manner. As for th distance, so what? Space is a vacuum - it contains next to nothing, and if the solar wind, a stream of particles emiited by the sun during the normal course of its existence, is pointed the right wy the gas will cross the gap effortlessly. Planets do share material sometimes. We have found lunar and martian rocks (well, tektites and pebbles really) on earth, sent here almost as shrapnel from the bombardment of significant meteorite strikes. The reverse will be true. Somehere on Mars it might be possible to find a remnant of the K/T Event for instance. Mars is the best example of atmosphere loss. Unable to protect its collection of gas molecules, the solar wnd stripped it away long ago. You might also like to know that earth loses atmosphere in this way, although the loss is minimised by the magnetic field that forces the solar wind around us.

I see. So a narrow definition of a word is fine when it suits you? Arguably any society is corrupted by the criminal element within it because there is a danger that such behaviour is accepted as normal in spite of the laws made by that state to stifle it. I vehemently disagree with MPC. He sees luxury in absolute terms when in fact it should be viewed as relative. A few coins is a luxury to a beggar. It takes a great deal more than that to seem luxurious to a wealthy man. In the roman world, society was graded according to wealth. The size of your purse dictated which social class you could aspire to, and since domination of the herd is a primal human instinct the romans could dominate by the application of wealth, since that was the fundamental principle on which their social status revolved upon. In effect, the republic was operating as a form of organised gang, like the mafia, with loyalty and obligation between social classes based on the exchange of wealth (favours and protection too for that matter). This brings up the question of what money is good for. As we have seen, it marks roman status and influence, since a wealthy man can be generous to those below him or bribe his peers if need be. Beyond that, how does roman demonstrate his wealth? If he simply shouts aloud how wealthy he is, he's either a braggart or a liar. So instead, the purchase of luxury provides a visible signal of your wealth. A man with finer houses and contents obviously has more money to spend, and so must be considered someone of higher status. This results in a situation where there is competition for visible signs of wealth, the evidence of luxury. I'm reminded of a roman who committed suicide because his lavish banquets had bankrupted him. We see Crassus becoming extremely wealthy by very dodgy real estate deals for instance. The vast majority of Dacia was kept not because Trajan conquered it, not because the conquest was popular and celebrated, but because it had gold mines. Caesar stepped ashore in Britain not only to gain the kudos of being the first to do so, not only to disrupt foreign support for the conquered gauls, but to seek the valuable metals he had heard were there. Augustus had begun colonising Germania not for imperial reasons, but for tax. He had sent a man known to be greedy to collect it. True, these men often had larger financial obligations, but more often the cash was used to fund their own personal objectives. You might argue that Augustus for instance always made a point of wearing ordinary tunics (despite the fuss he made over wearing toga's). True, he did not display the extravagance that many emperors would. In his case, he did not want to seem superior. He wanted to be seen as Princeps, First Citizen, and whilst he had every intention of retaining control he did not want to alienate the senate by the displays of majesty his great-uncle had. Caesar of course had no such qualms, and since he wanted to be dictator he felt it his right to adopt finery that senators would not consider for fear of being thought pompous. This brings up another side to the arguement. Whereas a man who makes a public display of grandeur will be sneered at by his peers, out of envy or disrespect, it is the private growth of luxury that marks the status of the roman, his ability to conduct financial deals in his own atrium. This private wealth and luxury becomes a desirable asset in its own right. Sulla, during his proscriptions, made sure his followers were rewarded by the 'redistribution' of such luxury, and such redistributions weren't unknown in other periods of roman history either. Men were gotten rid of simply because he had luxury that someone else coveted. Paul said of the romans that "The love of money is the root of all evil" - and that is a definition of corruption at its most basic, for with the accumultion of wealth comes the ability and desire to accumulate luxury. In Rome, as in any other culture, such luxury was bought by the exploitation of others. As for the modern definitions you listed, please find above another one that disagrees.