caldrail

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.

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.