caldrail

I was watching some episodes of 'Ancient Rome' (The with Sean Pertwee in it) last night and something struck me about their depiction of Rome. Its not that it wasn't entirely incongruous at all, it looked very good, but there are some aspects that I noticed had changed since the days of swords and sandals epics. Haircuts - The modern tv doesn't seem too concerned about hairstyles. Its a shame really, and does take some of the atmosphere away. I suppose its a lot of effort to go to (and thus expensive) plus the actors might not be too keen to have their style savaged by roman ideals! Or would that cost the producers more? Class - We all remember Laurence Olivier at his shakespearean best, portraying the senatorial Crassus. How many actors on modern tv even attempt to portray class? There's a distinct lack of social differentiation in the actors on screen apart from the amount of dirt on their faces. Rome was intensely concious of its class system and really that ouight to be addressed. Colour - Look how drab modern depictions are. To some extent thats just trying to be realistic - the Romans lived two thousand years ago and the garish colours we use now weren't available then. Nonetheless, the legionaries are shown in muddy brown tunics which we know isn't entirely accurate. Statues and tombstaones are left in bare stone when the originals were painted - even trajan's column was painted in its original condition. The houses are also left in natural brick and plaster when we know some effort was made to whitewash or apply colour, at least to the more well to do buildings. Behaviour - Has anyone noticed how 21st century the actors are? Now whilst I often draw parallels to the modern day it has to be said there must be many subtleties in behaviour that aren't addressed. Sometimes you see things that have been deliberately accentuated - like when Vespasian greets his son Titus with kisses on the cheek - which is probably closer to roman behaviour. But these are little set pieces designed to make the entire production seem roman. What about the senate? Almost always the senators sit there as a passive audience. We know from roman writers that senators weren't slow to make their opinions felt, and there's indications that speeches were conducted in a somewhat theatrical manner. I'm reminded of those tales of senators ripping open their togas to display war wounds in order to give their views more credibility. For an actor it must be difficult. Most haven't a clue about the roman period anyway and try as hard as they might, you get the impression the program makers aren't much more knowledgeable either, despite the advice given by experts. It is of course entertainment, and one arguement is that people watching the program will be better able to enjoy the program if the actors behave in familiar ways. But isn't that distorting the story they're trying to replicate?

Your corolla has an accelerator pedal? The UK spec ones don't, I think the government banned them!

I doubt she was in control of herself to begin with. You can just see her becoming a prostitute or an addict if her life hadn't gone into music. I wonder what will happen when she gets older? Can't really see her ever being happy.

What is it with german cars? These days it seems ownership of a product from Stuttgart is an essential qualification for success in life. That means I hate them already. I want choice. I want to select my dream car from a manufacturer who understands that not exeryone who likes a sporty car wears a suit and an expense account stomach. Mercedes, BMW, Porsche - they all want businessmen to drive their cars as status symbols. I once called into a porsche dealer to enquire as to whereabouts of another dealership, and I remember the rather wealthy businessman of a mature age looking disparagingly at me over the top of his Financial Times. All right mate? How yer doin'? He flicked the paper rigid and concerned himself with the finer points of economics. At least Porsche look like sports cars. At least Mercedes and BMW attempt to give their cars some sporty appeal. But Audi? For a start, they look horrible. You can't help feeling the styling was done by the same man who did those panzer tanks in 1945... All they need is a gun barrel protuding through the windscreen. Of course I exaggerate. The R8 seems to be an excellent budget supercar which just goes to prove that armoured fighting vehicles can be fun too. But this is all beside the point. Why do I think Audi's are naff? It was recently announced on Top Gear that all those brainless idiots who used to drive BMW M series cars are now driving Audi's. I think they're wrong. Brainless idiots have always driven Audi's. There I was, years ago, driving through Marlborough - sensibly - in a cheap Nissan 100NX. No, please don't laugh, people used to compliment me on my taste in cars. Well, they did in Swindon anyway. The white Audi pulled up to the mini-roundabout ahead from the road coming down the hill. The driver looked at me, my car, and decided I was unworthy of ordinary respect. So, flouting the Highway Code, good manners, and common sense, he simply pulled out in front of me when I had right of way. The gauntlet has been thrown....I know what you're thinking, but no, I didn't. Marlborough is a peaceful little market town where people live and do whatever market-townies do. I stayed driving sensibly.... until.... Yes, the audi is leaving Marlborough up Postern Hill. Its a double lane on that stretch, and seeing an opportunity for justice... Come on little Nissan, this is your moment of glory. I know you're just a tinnie little 1.6 litre but we can't let the Wehrmacht dictate who has right of way on British roads... YES! In your face Mr Audi Kommander! My little Nissan made short work of the heavy Audi uphill. I was in front, where I should have been, probably grinning madly and feeling very pleased with myself. I patted the dashboard. Well done that car. The Audi Kommander was not happy at all. Having been shown a clear set of wheels uphill, he switched into nether-region mode and decided to overtake me at the first opportunity. He drew up close, almost driving in the center of the road, getting more and more frustrated at the oncoming traffic. He was unable to blitzkrieg past me before the road got to the windy bits further on. There my manoeverable Nissan shook off the lumbering tank on my six. He wasn't going to give up. The Burbage Bypass was next - a wide and fast stretch of road. The oncoming traffic was still choc-a-bloc, and ahead - oh no! A tractor! A lumbering agricultural civilian blocking my escape.... As chance would have it, a gap in the oncoming traffic presented itself. So I timed my arrival at the gap just at the right moment to zip past the tractor, just before a long left hand bend, and the Audi was trapped. I had escaped! I so desperately wanted to do a victory roll... Maybe the insurers might not like that. A part of me says I was an idiot too, apart from choosing my moments to overtake a little more carefully than Hauptman Von Audi. But thats the trouble with businessmen. They buy these big powerful luxury saloons as status symbols and think that the accelerator is their divine right. And the companies that make these cars do feed their fantasies don't they? Canal Update of the Week Incredibly, some local councillors have forced the council to hold a local referendum before they rip up central Swindon to build a new canal. There you go, democracy can work. Since the money to build the canal comes from the EU, perhaps those councillors might try to persuade the EU to take notice of referendums after all...

Probably not (I'm not acquainted with Billie Holliday) but then isn't this sort of publicity and hype an essential part of profiteering from the music business? I wonder if the pressure on Amy to perform at her best is part of the reason she wobbles. A lot of time and effort has been expended by her record company to put her in the public eye - and sometimes you have to wonder if her quirks are being quietly encouraged to make her newsworthy, thus a saleable commodity. When I got involved in the music business, I knew there were sharks in the water. What I didn't know was that they'd eaten all the fish.

World forever changed? Well, in a way perhaps. Its often quoted that without the Varian Disaster of AD9 the franco-german schism would not have happened in europe hence WWI and WW2 would not have occured. This is of course nonsense. There would have been wars with different circumstances, and since the roman empire could have substantially influenced Russia, an ideological struggle in the 20th century was inevitable, not forgetting Japanes imperialist (and industrial) expansion was going to force war in the pacific anyway. It must be said, the romans left us an interesting inheritance, but in previous ages people looked back at the roman age in wonder because they could not equal it. Now we can surpass it some ways there's an undercurrent of wanting to emulate the roman way. Is that because we regard their culture as superior? No. Its because human beings prefer to be part of a strong tribe - its a survival instinct - and the roman world was an example of strength, at least in popular legend.

Yes they did. They also squabbled amongst themselves thereafter. Be careful with this roman link thing, because its a lot more tenuous that you suggest. The vast majority of people know romans only as sword and sandal epics of the 50's and 60's, or perhaps some half remembered school lesson. More relevant is that many europeans are descendants of the people who lived in roman times under their sway. Folk memory persists for a long time in the form of attitudes and myth, but I'm not sure how much of that is still relevant in our own age. Whilst there may be commonalities there are tribal/national affiliations that are much stronger in our psyche. What is relevant is human behaviour, and being of the same 'family tree' we do tend to behave in similar ways to them. True, their rules were different to ours, but its the same game, right? Those same instincts of power and glory that the romans were known for are still buried deep inside us, and must be considered a primary motive for the creation of the european superstate in our time. That, I think, is a much stronger link than anything the romans left us.

My mistake!

Oh we did play to crowds sometimes As for Amy Winehouse, you can't help wondering how long she's going to be with us. Its sometimes said that the greatest stars are driven by internal demons. Maybe thats not rue across the board, but it certainly happens for some people. Amy Winehouse isn't quite that. She's a girl with some talent for singing whose life is out of control because she's too emotionally immature to handle the success.

As I write this I'm watching the Glastonbury Festival on the box. Its amazing that a cow shed in a muddy field can be such an important event. Its been a long long time since I hit the stage at such an event - I certainly never got to play Glastonbury itself - but I remember one of our gigs on the bill of a folk festival in the west country. The stage was a lorry flatbed. No expense spared obviously. It was a cold and dark november evening when we went on. You could almost see the frost forming on the grass. You certainly couldn't see an audience. Oh hang on, there's one... over there... By the time we finished our set I was bare chested and sweating profusely. Stage performance in rock bands can be tiring on an athletic level, and since I was the drummer, I was giving the most physically intensive contribution of the band. Luckily DD, the frontman and band manager, isn't on this blog to claim his performance was the most effort. I doubt there's enough disk space. RH, our guitarist, came last in the exciting performance stakes. He so wanted to be a serious musician.... To be honest, I so wanted a reaction from the crowd. Playing to a muted response is hard work, a test of your resolve and morale. At least we weren't booed. Funny thing is, DD was in the crowd later and had a conversation with him. "Great gig man" The audience told him. Oh? Then why the heck didn't you clap? We were dying up there.... "You try clapping wearing gloves with a pint in one hand and a burger in the other". Said the audience, who noticeably hadn't brought a girlfriend with him. We never did spot clues like that... A Pimp Too Far Pimp My Ride is a tv program where poor people let the specialists do a makeover on their old bangers. Usually the result is a tasteless and garish eyesore even worse than the original flaking paint, but I suppose if thats what shakes your tree... Anyhow, the Michael Eavis, the farmer behind the Glastonbury Festival, gave the team a sixty year old tractor to be pimped and turned into a desirable street machine. At least they tried. "What does 'Pimping' mean?" Asked Mr Eavis with a look of innocent curiosity. Election Result of the Week Mugabe has won. The rerun of his presidential vote has taken place and Mugabe beat his opponents. You know what I mean. Thing is, since there weren't any competing politicians after Morgan Tsvangarai pulled out, you have to wonder why he only got 85% of the vote.

To some extent, yes. However, if a creature is comfortable in its enviroment, the pressure to change and try new things such as food, feeding habits, behaviour etc simply aren't there, so the change is very small. Also, the creature has adapted toward a certain niche and it exploits that. When nature provides new enviroments - such as after extinctions when old niches become available - the creature sees opportunities and attempts to exploit it. In these cases even a small mutation may make a particular individual better able to exploit the new enviroment, and life rapidly evolves. In nature there is always competition. To my recollection there was only one example of mass domination, during the early triassic period after the great extinction at the end of the Permian. 95% of species died out, and its not entirely certain why. Various theories - a sudden ice age, rapid spread of arid enviroment, meterorite impact - nobody has mentioned disease or irradiation - but one species - The lystrasaur, a herbivore/scavenger the size of a pig, made up 50% of life on land. In the deserts of Pangaea, they were the only species there. Thing is, life is a jungle out there. A hungry creature will try to eat your next meal before you do. Thats why creatures are often territorially concious and willing to be violent to defend it. Human beings are still evolving. But because we live in a 'safe' and resource rich enviroment (at least in the modern west anyway) the rate of change has slowed. Eyesight has declined in human beings for the last two hundred years for instance. It simply isn't necessary for human beings to have sharp eyes anymore. Perhaps as the enviroment warms up in our current interglacial, we might see some small adaptions as those unsuitable for the new conditions die out. Make no mistake - humanity is lucky to be here. The massive volcanic explosion of Lake Toba in Africa 75,000 years ago nearly wiped us out.

Indeed, and as such were aimed at a colonial power. What Orwell (and I!) were on about is popular uprising or revolution within a society, by its own citizens - although again, Kosmo might want to comment on that regarding the events in his country in 1989? You might want to consider the Winter of Discontent as the beginnings such an uprising. At what point do demonstrations of discontent become rebellions? I recall irate victorians threatening to storm Buckingham Palace and held at bay with bayonets. At what point would that have been an uprising?

Darwin made observations about the natural wold. he observed that animals tend toward specialisation in their enviroment and therefore those better suited stod a better chance of passing on their characteristics to their young, thus species specialise and diverge. Those observations are correct - 3 billion years of life on earth has essentially provided the evidence. You, for instance, aren't actually likely to be gods handiwork as described in the bible. Why would god give you a stunted tail? The bones for one are atrophied compared to our ancestors but they're still there. But why has this anything to do with ancient cultures? True, civilisations are a crude analgue of natural life. They grow, flourish, wither, or get consumed by bigger stronger cultures, and eventually die of old age anyway. I just don't unerstand why Darwin is being blamed for peoples opinions of ancient cultures. We can actually emulate very easily their achievements - if you want to spend the money doing so. I don't recall the greeks or romans making any serious effort to put a man on the moon. Their emphasis was different. They had whatever technological level and we have ours. the romans were intensely proud of themselves for their culture and would sneer at ours as effiminate. The reason people once liked to see themselves as inheritors of the romans are psychological. Rome stood for power and glory, something buried deep in the human psyche, and there have been cultures that deliberately imitate romanesque aggrandisement. I'm reminded of the german newsreel showing a model of Hitlers 'new' Berlin, as if Hitler had found Berlin in brick and would leave it in marble. Why else is europe hell-bent on creating another franco-german facsimile? Leave Darwin alone. He was an intelligent man who made a clear observation that was socially unacceptable in his day and even now he gets sneered at for suggesting humans and animals are essentially no different. What view could be more roman?

As Orwell stated in 1984, common people never cause uprisings or revolutions - middle class people do, in the name of the common people, and using the common people as a means of changing place with the upper classes, who then become the new middle. The common people (as a group) always stay where they are. I think that applied then as now. Rebellions in the third and fourth century were military coups. No, thats not entirely true. The issue is one of leadership. If there's a personality amongst them who can lead effectively, then the possibility exists. I'm also thinking of the various resistance groups in occupied europe, who conducted some astonishing campaigns against the nazi's. True, some of them got help from the allies, but those in eastern europe didn't, and their campaigns were the most impressive. The rebellions in britain against Rome were not gnerally led by middle class romans for instance.

In your opinion. Thats not a terrorist act at all. Terrorism by definition is the threat of violence. Its supposed to work by creating fear of an attack that causes you death or injury, personally. Unlike a soldier, who is paid to risk his life, the ordinary urban citizen is more fearful of violence and doesn't like being put into the firing line. Just because they set fire to Ostia? Rome was set fire to in AD64, but the accusations of terrorism are pushed aside aren't they? Its no good saying the acts are known - the causes are still in dispute. had the pirates repeatedly set fire to roman towns or such then I might agree with you. The whole thing was a stunt to give themselves credibility. Bravado. They'd become a modest naval threat, they wanted to flex their muscles, and they thought if they made this attack they stood to gain prestige and security. Cilician pirates. The ones that sunk the roman fleet? Tough hombres. better pay them the money they want. That isn't terrorism - thats extortion. You underestimate the extent of of criminal organisation. Also, you're forgetting the possibility of bribes. By attacking Ostia, by making the romans look weak and ineffective, what rich and easy target is going to refuse protection money? The pirates would have sat on their rears earning tons of dosh just by sending a couple of heavies to collect it. No good asking Rome for help, they got well and truly whipped at ostia. There's no honour among individual thieves. What you find is that thieves who create familia adopt an honour system of their own. Its also the kind of organised criminal activity and behaviour that you see in mafia and for that matter modern pirates, and the only reason they don't attack in paramilitary fashion is that they cannot compete with modern naval force, whereas the cilician pirates could. Ransom is just an earner, not a political statement or demand. South american 'terrorists' are notorious for funding their political activities with cash earned by kidnapping. Its not a coincidence at all - its just cash - thats the business the pirates were in.

Something strange is afoot in the Independent Peanut Republic of Rushey Platt. Up until now I've only been dimly aware of it, but yesterday something clicked into place. Somebody wants me to conform. To be the same as everyone else. To be ordinary. To relinquish my individualism. To accept mundanehood. Most people do. They choose a stereotype in order to fit in and avoid attention. They adopt the uniform, the manner, and the language of their chosen tribe. Thats ordinary social behaviour for our species. But perhaps there's another way of looking at it. One might consider it a lack of personality, in that they imitate someones elses, without any real self-expression. One might consider it a form of cowardice, in that the person is too afraid of public ridicule or ostracisement. Or perghaps more appropriately, one might consider this confotmity a form of slavery, in that they accept the wishes of a dominant member of the tribe concerning their appearance and behaviour. The Romans understood slavery better than we do. Thats understandable, because it was a feature of their everyday lives. What I notice about roman slavery is that time and again, an enslaved man is held to have died. A legionary captured and enslved by the enemy was considered dead, and a funeral held in his honour. Most importantly, the romans therefore valued freedom. So perhaps you could say that life without freedom is simply another form of death. A man who is not prepared to die for something is not fit to live Martin Luther King Strong stuff, from a man in the forefront of the abolition of the american apartheid, a social offspring of the slavery outlawed a century before. In romanesque fashion, MLK believes a man should be able to choose his cause, that he has that freedom, and that freedom must be defended. I've already said elsewhere that if you don't defend your freedom, eventually someone will take it from you. Mine is now under threat. Why? Thats more difficult. As is often the case, manipulative people prefer not to confront. Is it about my lack of motor transport? Employers have been stressing that just lately, and thats unusual. My lack of motor transport is because my last two cars were deliberately ruined. Why then would I waste money on another, especially for a class of car I loathe with every fibre of my being? I also notice that employers are stressing the need for me to consider second place to someone less capable than I am. Is it my 'independent republic', my declared independence of the British government? Whilst I cast scorn on our dear government, I did nonetheless once make an oath to the Crown in my younger days - I never reneged on that. Or is it my religious beliefs? Of what value are they if I simply discard them on demand? Of what value are beliefs adopted in their place without passion or piety? So, MLK, in a small way, it appears I too have to face a struggle for freedom. The possible death I face is an abstract one. Not actually fatal, just a lingering exclusion. Is it therefore worth denying myself my hopes, dreams, and aspirations? What an empty and false existence that would be. To give up is to conform, to enslave myself to a stereotype of someone elses choosing, to lose my individuality, to put on a public face, to live a lie. I have chosen my battlefield. My eneny stays in the shadows. Another Mans Fight What am I to make of Morgan Tsvangarai, Robert Mugabe's electoral opponent? He campaigns for positive change as opposed to the negative change enforced by Mugabe's thugs. In that I cannot help but support him. Yet somehow I fail to really understand the man. Is that a failing of the media reporting, or simply a success of Mugabe's suppression of it? For sure MT is treading a difficult path, and clearly he risks an unpleasant fate. But what does MT actually want? Is it really a new beginning or does he have a more personal motive? Its very difficult to tell, and he doesn't quite have the presence of his opponent on screen. We shall see.

Their attack on Ostia was no mere monetary target: there were plenty of easier and richer targets. The attack, splendid in its theatricality, was an act to terrify Rome into leaving them alone. Possibly, but given the mindset of pirate culture, tending toward organisation and even mini-statehood in some cases, that it was merely bravado. "We're not afraid of the romans, are we lads?" or something similar. I doubt they intended to terrify Rome - they certainly handed over no demands, and since terrorism is technically blackmail, the pirates are not guilty of it. As you say, they saw a rich target, and believed (or convinced each other) like criminals do that they were going to get away with it.

Modern life is suprisingly cossetting isn't it? I see people wandering around at night in shirtsleeves, even in winter. To some extent, its down to age, because these young lads are behaving a bit macho and a jacket is a sweaty encumbrance in a nightclub, and in any case, being young they're better able to shrug off the cold. But its not just that. Radiation heat from asphalt and whatever other source in urban areas makes cold weather that much more bearable. Thing is, that evening showed me a startling difference in temperature gradient, plus what amounted to wind chill. Its summer for crying out loud, and there I was, pulling out a padded jacket from my rucksack to keep warm. I suspect a country dwelling person would have ensured his comfort instinctively - such concerns would be natural to him, since thats the enviroment he's familiar with. I'm a visitor to the countryside, so I need to think ahead a little more carefully. But, as they say, you can get used to anything.

The supply of bread was an immediate concern of emperors - I seem to remember Claudius was pelted with stale crusts when grain shortages were apparent. Nonetheless, I'm not aware of a popular uprising in Rome by the common people, but then if the plebs were kept in place by social class and custom, and lets face it, the roman class system wasn't easily ignored, then without a suitable leader why would they revolt? Now you could quote the name Spartacus, but in his case he had his own motives for rebellion and people latched onto him nonetheless, so you can't really class him as a typical rebel leader defending peoples freedom.

Many so-called terrorist movements are little more than bandits anyway. They have to be, in order to fund their operations. There's a certain status in the word terrorist - it implies a professional status, when most insurgency groups are incredibly amateur in their early years and with increasing expertise, evolve toward a better organised para-miltary. The problem is the modern world has given the 'terrorist' status he does not deserve. Computer games and hollywood have created a professional (and fictional) image of very organised and motivated covert groups. A lot of so-called 'terrorist' outrages are little more than local action inspired by sponsors who remain otherwise uninvolved. Even the 9/11 event falls into this category. Therefore, since the pirates were not acting against the roman state but concerned with brigandage on the Mare Internum, the word 'terrorist' is incorrectly applied. But since the activities of these groups are essentially similar, the action of Pompey against them is correctly classed as counter-insurgency, since the pirates did maintain a modest level of naval threat.

On the one hand comparisons between past times and ours are awkward, because circumstances were obviously different. However, its also true that as human beings we're not different from the romans apart from certain social customs and technology. There are some extraordinary parallels in the history of our civilisations - I've written posts on that very point - and this reflects human behaviour. So is there an analogy between us and the romans? Oh yes.

Yesterday evening the weather was warm and sunny, tempered by a cool westerly breeze. I enjoy a hike into the country now and then, and in order to try for an atmospheric or dramatic sunset photograph, I climbed the torturous footpath up to Burderop Ridge. Getting photographs like that isn't as easy as it sounds because nature invariably displays its best when you're least prepared, but lets try nonetheless. So I found a comfortable grassy spot overlooking the local countryside. The first event was a mechanical rushing noise behind me. At first I thought it was a lorry on the back road, then realising it couldn't be, I turned around as two army helicopters flew by a few hundred yards away at treetop height, turning to overfly wroughton airfield before I lost sight of them. Well that was certainly dramatic, but my cantankerous camera refused to switch on. Typical. After that helicopter flypast, I wondered if nature was going to able to better it. I waited for the sun to go down. There were birds flying around, mostly pidgeons, but then one hawk flew over the top of me slowly, very low, beating its wings powerfully against the wind. My jaw dropped in suprise at being so close to a bird of prey in the wild. Its less than ten feet away! Quick! Get a shot! (fumble) Oh no, I don't believe it, the camera is playing up again! I sat and watched helplessly as the bird of prey swung right and swooped down the incline out of sight. To be honest, the photos I did get were lacklustre. Compared to the ones I should have got, they were rubbish. Nature had done what it always does - displayed its best when I wasn't ready. UFO Incident of the Week Mind you, that helicopter flypast might have been a top secret mission to intercept UFO's. Don't laugh, the army have been reporting them just lately. Well, in order to save the government several million pounds worth of investigation, it was only me and the camera... Must have been the flashlight... Sorry guys... Talking About Nature... Shame about the photo's but never mind. It was a lovely evening, watching the cropfields ripple in the wind, clouds drifting by, birds wheeling overhead. At least it was until the sun went down. Up on the ridge, without shelter from the wind, it got very chilly, very quickly. Once I was back down amongst the hedgerows and trees, it was noticeably warmer. Just a reminder how harsh the climate can be in exposed places, even in summer.

Rebellions record of the Roman Empire tells us another story; even if most legions were primarily located over the Imperial borders, Roman viae were there to guarantee a quick access to punishment when required, and vexillationes were distributed up to the last place. I think it was far more fear than comfort which discouraged the potential rebels. Comfort? What comfort? Most people in the roman empire hardly had two sestercii to rub together. NN is quite correct, panem et circuses was a deliberate policy pioneered in the republic to keep the public sweet. Caligula, Nero, Didius Julianus, Commodus - even emperors pranced around in front of the public to project an image as much as enjoy themselves. Trajan gave 120 days of games to celebrate his victories. Thats a third of the year watching chariots, animal hunts, and swordfights. Its an astonishing display, and one intended to glorify Trajans reign by entertaining the public. It wasn't a profit making enterprise either remember - entry to the audience was free. It was projected as an act of generosity, a gift from the ruler to his people, and one that had become expected by those people. The lack of public entertainment was one reason why Tiberius was so unpopular. Rebellions in the roman empire occured whether people were comfortable or not. That was because such rebellions were sponsored by ambitious individuals who wanted power, or by individuals persuaded to seek power by their legions.

Your joking, right? No joke. You want an example of military suppression of civil disorder? Northern Ireland. There. That wasn't funny was it?

No, I said its the basis for a common government, and only one step toward one. There will be others. As for sending troops, do you really believe that a future USofE would sit there while any local dissent grows in strength and confidence? No, I think the troops wouild eventually be used. In order for the empire to function, it needs loyalty and control. If people can't be persuaded to do that voluntarily, you need more persuasive methods, especially if your empire was founded whether the people voted against it or not.