caldrail

Ok, but wasn't he dicussing gunpowder weapons? In which case, I agree with him. Such weapons were inaccurate, slow to operate, and unreliable in his day, not to mention potentially fatal to their crews.

As things stand perhaps. But the EU is working to an agenda of political union, and that means conformity. Also, if dissident groups threaten the stability of the new USofE, what can they do about it? Send in the troops and force the issue, which is pretty typical of empires everywhere. Sooner or later, Europe will enforce its ideals (and its rule) on all of us, because it will have no choice if it is to survive as a homogenous culture. This is a point already brought up. The new empire will not tolerate diverse cultures that seek self-determination. It will want executive power, and seek to force conformity across its member states. This means that national institutions will be rendered obselete and swept away by a new bureaucracy, a process already underway, and I have to say I view the attitude of our current government with some alarm. But europe has been working on this problem for some time. We've been introduced to european concepts, given european laws, and persuaded to conform to european standards. As for the break up of social cohesion in various places - that isn't always nationalism. Its more like social groups, a sort of 'tribal' phenomenon common to human beings. Some people rebel for natio nalsistic reasons, others do so because they feel their social group is denied certain things or is being unfairly targeted, others because they want a cause to fight for. In these cases, the underlying causes may even stretch back hundreds of years or longer, as folk sentiment persists for an incredibly long time. Also, the factional conflict that emerges was only kept in check by a strong central authority, and would have emerged at an earlier date with little provocation. Notice how the welsh and scottish are so keen to be independent now that governmental links are weaker in Britain, despite their dependence on english finance. Driving these sentiments are those very old attitudes that were 'settled' under english rule. But the sentiment still exists. The same is true of the places you mention, and ultimately, the same will occur within the USofE at some point. By creating a european empire, you are bequeathing internal strife to our descendants (if not ourselves if Prof Ferguson is correct). Is that worth a name in the history books? A united europe was sold on the concept of peaceful co-operation and has been built on the foundation of corrupt centralisation. As the EU is now, yes. But the Treaty of Lisbon gives Europe the basis of a common government. If thats thew case, do you really believe an EU president with real ruling power putting up with nations states saying 'No!'. Course they won't. The whole point of such a position is executive power. For that reason, national institutions will be disassembled and the populations national identity with it. The process is already underway, and has been for some time. You wait - eventually the old national borders will be obselete and new area boundaries imposed, along with new local representation.

Precisely. By calling it a Franco-German conspiracy you are underestimating (greatly) the other European countries (and their nationalism) and misrepresenting the decision making process within the EU institutions. These countries have had such a prominent place because they have a large population and political influence. I'm sure you know well the political weight of France can't be compared to that of Slovenia. However, if the UK had got more involved in the Messina Conference and the Treaty of Rome at the right time, maybe she could have shaped the EU from within and have the same resonance France and Germany have today, although at that time you were more concerned with the Commonwealth and the Empire, on which the sun had already set from a long time. Now I honestly don't think you can complain if the EU is more France and Germany oriented. On the other hand I don't think it would be wise for either Ireland or the UK to quit the EU, for you will find yourself crushed between the US, an incrisingly more powerful and strong EU and the emerging economic powers (China, India,etc.), which any long sighted politician would consider as a suicide. You say european nationalism cannot be underestimated. Spot on. Both France and Germany want a european empire (or at least their influential members do) and I can easily see some jostling between the two. As for Britain getting more involved - to what end? The result would be the same. Time and again Britain has stuck to agreements made in the EU and other nations pay lip service to them. In any case, if the european empire goes ahead - and sooner or later it will whether we want it - is Britain going to be allowed to remain an essentially independent nation state with its own identity? I very much doubt in the long run that national borders will matter much, nor whichever nation we once belonged to. The article by Prof. Ferguson has been heavily criticised but he is right about one thing - modern empires have been very keen to reconstruct society to fit in with their own control systems. The USofE will be no different. National institutions will not survive in the long run, because unification means exactly that - a unified empire. The british government are very keen to get into europe, and it took a private individual to take legal action to attempt to force the government to hold the promised referendum. Britains government doesn't want such a vote. It may well fail, it will embarress the politicans concerned, and spoil all those deals and agreements made behind doors. My main objection is that the creation of ever more powerful institutions is that - 1 - It removes the powerful even further from accountability 2 - It provides a ready made framework for a dictatorial and ambitious politician.

The problem is that the benefits system is being exploited by professional claimants at too high a level. There are regular tv ads designed to persuade these people to stop claiming whilst secretly working, and also the government have introduced ways of checking unemployed people actually are, and what they're doing to stop being unemployed. One scruffy young manager at the job agency decided a few years back that I was one such professional claimant. I wasn't, but he was keen to get on and saw me as a potential victim. So he cheated me on some vacancies he'd thrown at me. He claimed there were ten vacancies, but he only gave me six, and because I hand't therefore applied to all ten, he was therefore 'justified' in stopping my payments. I had to make an official complaint about him before the payments were resumed, and I was lucky enough to find a job a few weeks afterward anyway.

Pleased to be of service

Being unemployed is a bit of a wierd situation. You get paid for doing nothing and investigated to make sure you are. Then they get impatient because you're not doing anything. In reality of course you sign a Job-Seekers Agreement. It's a contract. You have to fulfill certain obligations before they can pay you benefits. That way people don't enjoy being unemployed and subliminally get the message that looking for work is a good idea. Now someone has touted the idea of 'boot camps' for the jobless. So, as I step off the coach at Camp Hell there's a black guy in a slouch hat, hand on hips, sizing up our merry band of misfits in the blistering heat of Wiltshire, England. "Awright..." He growls, "Welcome to Camp Hell. In the next six weeks aah will teach you to fill application forms, to post letters, to knock on doors. Aah kid you not people, in six weeks you will become fully qualified job seekers. There is no room for failures in mah job queue..." Yeah right. "What was that? Did aah hear you squeak? Gimmee twenty, Job-Seeker!" He yells, pointing at the mud. But its muddy

Its a very windy day today, the threat of rain waiting in the wings. Unfortunately I'm not able to send it your way - we receive your left over weather more often than not. Don't worry about the Monty Python moment. We've all done it!

Browsing the net I came across an essay of foreign policy quite by chance. With the european union looking very much like a wannabe empire, I thought it might be useful sharing the work with you all. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3550 Anyone who's read my blog recently will know my misgivings about the franco-german desire for a european empire, something they've always aspired to. My main objection is that all such empires eventually crumble, and usually violently. History is happening right under our noses and its all been done before...

IMHO this would be an interesting event to attend - I wouldn't mind going but after our Hadrians Wall bash, I doubt my finances will bear it! As a focus for a UK meet? I'm not so sure. The great thing with these meets is the chance to socialise and share information. Sitting there all day listening to other people sort of deflates that, there's no real freedom to investigate and wander. Nice idea though.

What is it with all these tents? Is it 'Pitch a Tent' Week? Recently there

Our local paper ran an interesting story yesterday. A Swindon company has been given the contract to supply China with translated bibles whilst the olympic games are being held there. As a succesful commercial bid its praiseworthy, but I'm astonished that China is permitting their import. China is after all a communist regime which inherently regards religion as a rival for peoples loyalty. The olympics can be a thorny issue. The labour government went to some effort to get it held in London in 2012, with the usual political phrases about what a great opportunity it is for Britain. When it was announced, a lot of people said it was brilliant. I didn't. I pointed out that the cost of staging the games will increase well byond predictions and inevitably taxes would have to rise to cover the cost, never mind that the benefits of staging the games would be fleeting. Once the games are over, who cares? Well - I would say the people who would still be owed money. Already we've heard stories about rising costs, and a report in this mornings paper has unveiled that taxpayers will bail out the cost of the olympic village. Who would have thought it? Prediction of the Week The officials overseeing the Zimbabwe elections have said that its unlikely the election will fair. Who would have thought that? Still, its pleasing to see african leaders finally getting their act together and warning Mugabe over his efforts to stop people voting against him. Better late than never. But thats the trouble with democracy. If no-one enforces it, sooner or later it gets pushed aside. Like in Europe, where the EU have told the Irish leader that he has four months to find a way around the negative vote for the Treaty of Lisbon. Politicians aren't concerned with democracy anymore. They have an agenda that suits them, and if it doesn't suit us, tough. Welcome to the USofE.

Roman legionaries were used for civil engineering projects in general because they were available and idleness was not desirable. Further, as a disciplined corps with civil engineering expertise available, it made a lot of sense to employ them in that way. Slaves were used for such labour at times - some ten thousand jewish slaves were used to build the ramp during the assault on Masada - but notice this was done as punishment as much as expedience. The slaves just happened to be available, so the romans made use of them. Under normal circumstances, the purchase of ten thousand slaves for a civil engineering project was no small issue, especially since they would have to be disposed of afterward. Also, although slaves were used in quarries and such, the conditions they worked in were ghastly, so their physical condition was dubious compared to fit and capable soldier. It must be said that the effort made by slaves for such work would not have compared to soldiers either - but don't forget, the soldiers were no more keen to work like coolies either, and many would have secured reasons for excused duty or as immunes. The reason the project succeeded is that the roman legions were well organised, and this impacted on their efforts in siegework and civil engineering.

Aaaargh! Not another 'equivalent'! Seriously, there's no equivalency at all. Roman organisation is different to ours. The romans wanted a very direct form of command and control on the battlefield. The military tribune of the scipionic era is a time share commander. There are six of them, two in command at any time, the others performing supporting roles when its not their time to command. In general, they would be behind the line in a sort of disciplinary role, ensuring the roman line stays firm. They might also assist in communication duties.

Woke early this morning to the sound of demolition next door, as it appears the old college building is finally being pulled down. The older vicorian block is to be preserved and redeveloped as luxury flats, but the 60's eyesore attached to it is coming down. I spent five years studying there and funny enough, I don't feel any sadness at its passing. I must admit, I would be sorry to see my old high school vanish. There have been plans to close it Thats happened a lot in Swindon over the years. So many older buildings have gone. Even the replacement market hall, a curious construction resembling a circus tent, has closed for business and is to be redeveloped. Swindon knows how to live with the future, but it just can't live with its past. Its railway town heyday always seems to be something the place is embarrased of. Swindon is a joke used by comedians and tv presenters. The old image of dirty run-down workshops and soot encrusted brick terrace houses endures, and modern Swindon is a horrible mish-mash of old and new. Recently a big screen television has been erected at our local shopping center. What on earth for? Why would I want to stop and watch Sky News on my way to the supermarket? I can't change channels. A part of me says Swindon really should stop all this hapless beautification and be true to itself, to give the town an image more comfortable with its past. Too late for my senior school though. It was flattened and turned into housing and a social center years ago, which saddens me because I do have very fond memories of that place. So do others as I found out during my recent reunion bash. Its a shame the place has gone. Just one more victorian pidgeon nest hit the dust. Another Brick Removed From Brittania The House of Lords in Britain has decided to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon, despite its failure to secure agreement and a last minute defence by conservative politicians, not to mention a group of protestors remonstrating at them. Where is the referendum we were promised? Why am I not suprised? Inflation Busting Pay Rise of the Week I see the tanker drivers have been given a 14% pay rise over two years, bringing their pay over

Given Geoffery of Monmouths entertaining vision of british history written in the 12th century AD, I hardly think the medieval hostories are any more accurate, although I do note his contemporaries derided his efforts as 'fiction'. Then again, the middle ages were very pro-christian and there was a huge market for iconic fakery. I suspect the victorian era was no different regarding their love of the classics. Not so much interpretation, more like gullibility, as I note there were some gifted historians in the period as well as hopelessly misguided. Are things any different today? Not really. Smuggling antiquities is big business and most artifacts are made in back rooms locally.

You sure about that? What other early Mediterranean cultures had human sacrifice as part of a funeral rite? Not human sacrifice - blood sacrifice. Minoans, greeks, etruscans - they had all sacrificed animals at some point (and the etruscans did so to humans I note, by employing blood sports) but the romans had an eye to being 'civilised'. Also, given their penchant for violence, the act of spilling blood via mortal combat to honour the dead was a relevant method of funeral rites for the romans. We are talking about a period before the first recorded gladiatorial bout in a cattle market in 264BC, a delibrately staged public event rather than the private funeral rite. No, strangling was unacceptable and very un-roman, not a manly way to end a swordfight. What is the evidence that the percentage of deaths decreased? What was the % decrease? Strictly speaking, the earliest rites had a 50% casualty rate (unrecorded) although I suspect some injured men did survive for one reason or another. The statistics I work from are those generated from accounts, tombstones, and so forth. Whereas these early contestants probably weren't trained intensively if at all, the later 'entertainers' were, and some people suggest that up to a third were dropped because of injuries received during training or simply they couldn't cut it. Republican gladiators may have been professional fighters but this was before volunteers were signing up in large numbers. After all, the primary motivatio of Spartacus was to avoid becoming a spectacle, and he was not short of fellow escapees. Compare that to the later genre, during the early empire, where volunteers were being constrained by legal restrictions (Augustus limited the numbers of nobles who were entitled to volunteer) and gladiators - at times - might even be allowed R&R outside the barracks. There is record of Hadrians restrictions on gladiatorial bad behaviour. So then, by the principate we have a somewhat different atmosphere regarding the munera. By the late empire, its believed that volunteer contract fighters made up half the number of available men for the one-on-one professional bouts. The spectacles involving large numbers were not usually composed of professional gladiators, more likely criminals and prisoners of war, although its difficult to tell because roman commentators would describe any fighter in the arena as a gladiator if he wasn't a criminal receiving punishment. Anyway, the stats are a fighter making his first appearance stood a 33% chance of getting killed. He's trained, but inexperienced, and may well be facing a veteran fighter. Although the romans liked a fair fight, the lanista had a vested interest in seeing that his veteran gladiators survived. As the fighter gained experience and reputation, his chances of survival increase to around 89%. Typically a gladiator on average could expect to survive for four years, given the relatively few appearances he made every year. What skews this stats is that the one-on-one fight which ended with an exhausted or defeated man asking mercy isn't necessarily the style employed. Augustus for instance banned fights sine missione, in which the loser was killed whether he asked for mercy or not. We can assume then that many fights prior to that had become bloody affairs, and that a certain 'humanisation' and ritualising tendency was working against that. Also, during the middle empire, gladiatorial fights were once again becoming bloody. The desire to boost rating and to provide a jaded crowd with entertainment meant that weapons designed to wound rather than kill outright were being introduced. Fights were no longer straight swordfights with a possible clean kill, it had beome a slogging match with fighters wearing each other down with injuries. So, although the actual desire for a bloody end had increased, the means to do so was diluted, and given the increasing influence of christianity toward the late empire the number of events was reducing.

No, he doesn't. Thats a christian ritual and Brutus Brittanicus Thrax does not subscribe to christianity About gladiators - whilst many of the roman people regarded it as thrilling entertainment (or deathly dull, depending on circumstance) - its origins as part of funeral rites were as a blood sacrifice to honour the dead, a common theme in early mediterranean cultures. At the beginning of such contests, it was literally two men commanded to fight to the death in order that blood is spilled. Later, as the entertainment value became more important, so did the value of gladiators specially trained to entertain, and the percentage of deaths decreased accordingly.

There's been a four-day tanker driver strike in Britain this last week. You probably saw that on the news, or searched around for an active petrol station if you're living in Britain. The cost of fuel is rising steadily, and people are complaining. But the strike wasn't about that. The tanker drivers earn something like

Pro-european arguments carry no weight with me I'm afraid. I've told you what my nationalism is - there's no point questioning or attempting to redefine it. All those opinions about europe being a vehicle for national identity aren't going to matter one jot. You know the saying - power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why do you think people say that? Because thats how people are. The EU is known to be fundamentally corrupt in its business dealings and just because you pwersonally haven't encountered anything you resent, that doesn't mean the EU is innocent of all charges. The fact is the EU is offering nothing more than we already have. All its doing is generating a new empire without the consent of its new citizens. It wants its own leader, its own army, all the structures of nationhood. Once they've achieved that, how will they secure the loyalty of their citizens? By reducing their national identity, or making it something quaint and containable. Our current government is pro-Lisbon Treaty and notice the lengths they've gone to to erode public opinion. On the news last night I saw a mention that the Treaty of Lisbon is to be revived, despite three negative votes for an treaty that requires full agreement from all concerned. These people aren't interested in what we think. They just don't care. They want a european empire because it represents power and status, something larger they can control. Some want their name in the history books for creating it, some want to be boss, others simply want our cash. What they don't want is anyone stopping them.

Not with a vorpal blade, I'd wager. You've gone up in my estimations MPC

But thats just it. Politicians loved the Treaty of Lisbon because it gave them a higher level of power of attain, a new arena, not to mention whatever promises, deals, or agreements had been made behind closed doors - you can't tell me that politicians don't do that. The people however are nationalistic. We like being whatever nationality we are, and after all the struggles of the past to achieve the peace we have in europe, why should we be willing to sit there with fingers in our ears, eyes closed, while politicians take away our national identity? Sorry, I just can't accept it. And if giovernments have a mandate from the people, why was it necessary to hold a referendum at all? I notice that the promised referendum in britain is being swept under the carpet and forgotten. Someone wants me to forget I'm british. Sorry, no, no politician has the right to do that unless he asks me for my permission. Thats my my view on it.

Walking toward the supermarket I spotted D a little way off. He's a tall guy, very individual, a sort of happy go lucky bloke who doesn't let life get him down in any way. I used to work at the same warehouse as him when I was employed by DS, but more to the point, where's his mate? "He's in there.." Says D smiling, "But he's not my mate" Thanks for the warning. D's mate is MS. He's another jovial chap, shaven head, but someone with a more direct way of achieving his ends. Years ago he was jailed for soccer violence. Now he says he's a reformed character, so he only spars for fun. Actually, joking aside, the man has a confidence about violence that is very impressive. For him, fighting is automatic, something he can do without thinking, so he's very calm and quick, and given his mischievious nature, you need eyes in the back of your head! He was in there, but I didn't spot him. Once though I saw a side of him that was even more interesting. In a mischievious mood myself, I yelled across the warehouse in a typical sergeant-major fashion... S! Get your hair cut!!! He looked around in a state of horror. He admitted later that for that moment, he thought one of his old prison warders was in the warehouse. Its a very telling moment. Years ago I did some part time delivery driving. Once I had to drop some parcels off at a prison. From the main road, you couldn't see it, but eventually someone kindly pointed out the lane I needed to go down. Whilst I was there, I caught a glimpse of a barbed wire stockade towering over the surrounding administration blocks. Don't think I want to stay there..... More Floods... South China gets hit again. The upper mississippee suffers severe flooding too. It must be devastating to have your home indundated like that, and I do have sincere sympathy for those affected, not to mention people who've lost friends and family. Britains rainy season is soon to be upon us...

If you let politicians make 'important' decisions, just wait and see how many decisions become 'important'. In no way whatsoever do you let a politician make decisions without accountability. Thats the whole point of democracy. The people have a part (at whatever level) in the decision making process. It seems the europeans are more amenable to dictatorial government. I certainly don't want some arrogant idiot in London telling me my country doesn't exist anymore, that would I please carry an ID card at all times, and could I explain why I'm so unhappy about our glorious leader.

Now this is interesting. The christians are accused of recruiting from people who lack the intellect to criticise. Nothing new there then - the christian church has always relied on peoples belief and those who think for themselves are not usually prone to blind faith. Its odd the romans should criticise the sacrificial element of christianity, since sacrifice was nothing unusual and an inherent part of roman society - the entire basis for gladiatorial combat for instance. Disdain for non-christian religion is entirely possible. One of the major selling points pf christianity is that their choice is correct and the only choice. There is only one god, Jesus his son, etc etc. So naturally they feel a little clever and there's bound to be a level of conspiritorial well-being, in that they are members of a select group who have made the 'right' choice. As for the killing of infants in initiation Well, that does bend credibility a little. Killing is against christian law after all. Granted that infants were readily available, having been left to die as unwanted or unacknowledged offspring, but even I have to raise my eyebrows at accusations of blood sacrifices. The 'shocking embraces'? Well, modern christianity has plenty of examples of communal hugs and so forth, designed to give the worshipper that feel-good factor, so I suspect something similar went on back then. But why are they shocking? Is it bending roman social rules of interaction between classes? Is it because of a 'public' display of friednship? I always thought the ancient romans were more used to everyday physical contact than we consider acceptable today, so I'm left wondering what the basis of this criticism can be. As for private meetings, thats to avoid any self-conciousness amongst their followers. An embarrased acolyte might not turn up next week for fear of ridicule from his peers. Christian rites were different to the roman norm, and public ridicule certainly not unknown in roman society. The romans seem to be adding two and two together and making seven. They interpreted the christians in the light of the social rules and mythology they understood, since the average roman hadn't experienced christianity themelves. The christians however are acting in ways that don't quite follow the normal roman pattern then, and so prefer to remain exclusive, which does nothing to improve their image.

The phalanx system was junked by the end of the 4th century BC. No-one knows the eact date, and the work of Livy quoted by MPC is a reconstruction, as is many of the descriptions of earlier roman history bequeathed to us, so we do need to be wary about its accuracy.