caldrail

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.

Thats exactly the point. The people building this new superstate aren't interested in the welfare of the masses involved. They're just plebs. The 'bread and circuses' syndrome has already taken root in britain, where we see the government sponsoring public entertainment and going to such great lengths to bankrupt the country staging the olympics. Europe has functioned on a similar principle to the roman repubic - power is temporary, shared, and by consent. We now seem to be approaching a 'triumvirate' stage, where influential people are seeking personal power on a larger scale. You can smile if you wish - I hope you're right. The greatest disadvantage to national size and strength is that it provides a strong base for those who wish to exploit. Six million jews can't be wrong, and French/German ambition has always been for a european empire. Democracy is not a fully defined 'thing'. Its not that a country is either democratic or not. Its not a black or white issue, its shades of grey. How democratic is a country? Switzerland is a rarity but they'd be reasonably happy whatever their politics - its their mindset, their way of life, its just how switzerland is. The british are more bolshy and stubborn, quietly and sometimes intensely patriotic, and certainly less amenable to USofE. Its something much deeper in our psyche. Being an island, having fought off continental aggression, and so forth. Nonetheless, once the USofE is a reality, what can stop its president from personal ambition? At the moment, an individual leader who gets ideas above his station is held back by the others. Once he is in sole charge, that check is gone. People use to think Hitler was an ok guy. Yes. EU membership. Part of a co-operative group. But they don't want to lose their own self determination. They want to be irish. So they said No.

It has been said that the artificial borders the europeans foisted on africa in colonial days have caused conflict and misery after they left, and you can't help but think there's some truth in that. Nonetheless, I notice that conflict in africa is still taking place irrspective of boundaries, in that tribal issues and argumentsresult in antagonistic behaviour that sometimes boils over. These old tribal issues run deep in the african psyche - we see the hatreds bubble to the surface when conflict breaks out. Would things have been any different had we not been there? no, not really, although we gave them some extra arguments to fight over. However, what exacerbates the african situation is modern commercial and political pressures. There are ideological issues as power blocs seek third world allies, and indeed, the cold war was largely fought on neutral territory, but al;so because the third world has natural resources. China for instance has made huge inroads in african politics bcause they want oil. Badly. Gold and diamonds have also been the cause of miltary action. The abortive coup in Equatorial Guinea was for no other reason.

The French said No. The Dutch said No. Having rendered further progress on the Treaty of Lisbon illegal, the power brokers behind it then asked the Irish. The Irish said No. So the power brokers behind it are now telling us we must find a way around the obstacle. Pardon? Whats the point of a vote if its going to be ignored if the sponsors don't like it? The people of three countries have stated their wish to halt further european integration under the terms given. It hasn't gone unnoticed by me just how much of traditional english life has been dismantled already, and that by a socialist government that has already declared it will continue to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. A treaty that gives Brussels unprecedented powers over its contituent nations. We cast a critical eye on events in places like Zimbabwe thinking it could never happen here, yet something uncomfortably similar is growing under our noses. I've warned about this sort of thing in the past. If you don't defend your freedoms someone will take them away sooner or later. A government that doesn't listen - at all - is a tyranny. Its easy to say that such views are merely paranoia. Perhaps, but its also true that tyrannical governments thrive where people dismiss their intentions as harmless. It may well be that many things that have occured in Britain are nothing more than coincidence, but I can't help seeing some sort of gameplan here. British nationalism is well known - its an obstacle - so lets dilute it. We'll give Wales and Scotland the local government they want. We'll import large numbers of immigrant workers. We'll stop teaching 'proper' history in our schools. We'll use fears over climate change. We'll use fears over terrorism. We'll make the british people dependent on government aid. We'll encourage the british people to see themselves as european. There are men and women out there planning our futures. The only problem is, they're not the ones we voted into office. It would be a grim irony if the sacrifices made by our forebears to fight for freedom in Europe were pushed aside and a new reich put in place. Good News of the Week The crew of the space shuttle Discovery have been told that the floating debris and an unexplained bump are not dangerous. One certainly hopes so.

Well.. regarding my drag coefficient, it was a little obvious. Funny thing was I hadn't realised how much my fitness had declined. Believe me, I'm only too aware now! As for Zimbabwe - its all going to end in tears. Mug has already declared that if he's replaced in power his followers will take violent action. Think I said something like that was going to happen...

Ummm... lets see... shall I? Shan't I?...... No. I think in future I'll decide what I want to say

I would say it suggests the continued wealth and status of the senate membership, since they obviously still had some influence at that point. But since Rome did not vote for its emperor, how could it be a republic?

What on earth is happening at the library? The day care centre children are quiet, well behaved, not singing tunelessly nor pretending to be aeroplanes. Everyone else is quiet too. AM hasn't whinged all morning. Everyone else is staring slack jawed at their emails. Well I'm not going to be so stationery. I've recently begun to jog. You know, that keep fit nonsense, although I should point out I jog outside the library, not in. Well I had to really, I'm getting a little tubby and being this aerodynamic isn't something I'm proud of. Its time to reduce my drag coefficient. Also its my age. I've reached that point where instinctively I stare into the mirror and wonder what happened to the great looking guy I used to know. Don't get me wrong. I'm not depressed about ageing, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. So, in order to do something positive, I'm going to jog. Mind you, given the hospital waiting lists in our time of revamped National Health Service, perhaps I ought to book an appointment now? And start saving up for it. This free national health service isn't cheap you know. President of the Week This of course goes to Robert Mugabe, who is so desperate that he arrested the opposition leader twice for having the temerity to campaign before the second vote for his office takes place. Clearly Mugabe has no intention of giving up power, and no ruse is too low in the quest to have his moustache immortalised as Zimbabwe's leader permanently. But I suppose with inflation at 100,000% he can't afford a shaver. Ooops, my mistake, he simply orders someone to do that for him.

The Marian reforms appear to be more of a desire to improve the legion in the light of personal experience, not to mention take on board as standard certain trends existing in the roman military prior to his reforms. The reason I brought the subject up is that the Servian reforms are not usually described in connection with events. Don't know anything about 'Camillan' reforms. Any further info on that? Back on topic then. As a framework for the development of the legion, the Servian reforms introduced a 40 century legion will more than likely consisted only of class I soldiers. At some point (the jury is still out on when) two extra centuries were added of class II and III soldiers, making a sixty century legion some time around the end of the 5th century. Certainly by 400BC there was a single legion of 6000 men as Romes army, during a period when military tribunes were voted into office with consular powers. In 366BC the romans returned to the dual consul system, and its likely the single legion was split in two. By 311BC we see four legions, each of 3000 heavy infantry and 1200 light, making it 4800 strong. Importantly, there's no evidence that classes IV and V were ever organised into centuries at all.

There is some interesting debate about changes in the early roman military. Tradition claims that the tribal system was introduced by Romulus in the 8th century BC. But modern historians are unanimous in concluding this cannot be the case. The three tribal names (Tities, Ramnes, and Luceres) are clearly etruscan. Consequently the system of three tribes and thirty curiae was introduced under the direct influence of the etruscans, probably toward the end of the seventh century BC. This immediately raises the much larger problem of which method of warfare and equipment was used by three tribes. It is possible that hoplite tactics and equipment were introduced in Rome at the same time as the tribal system - ie a little before 600BC; but it is more probable that they were introduced some half-century later by Servius Tullius... ....The introduction of hoplite tactics to Rome is associated in roman historical tradition with the penultimate king of Rome, Servius Tullius (578BC-534BC).... ....The fact that the Servian system was entirely unsuitable for the recruitment of a manipular army confirms its predominantly hoplite character, and it is hardly suprising that in creating this system Servius Tullius is thought to have introduced hoplite tactics in Rome. Early Roman Armies - Nick Sekunda, Simon Northwood, Richard Hook In ancient times, when the romans used rectangular shields, the etruscans fought in phalanxes with bronze shields, but havinmg compelled the romans to adopt the same equipment they were themselves defeated Diodorus The Romans took close battle formation from the Etruscans, who used to attack in phalanx Athenaeus The Etruscans did not fight in maniples but made war on us armed with bronze shields in a phalanx; we were re-armed and adopting the equipment of the enemy we formed up against them, and in this way were able to conquereven those most accustomed to fighting in this way Ineditum Vaticanum So, the introduction of phalanxes to the romans had less to do with the Servian reforms and more to with having to compete with Etruscan armies?

The word legion refers to 'levy' of men, and it means that Romulus had raised a city army for his campaign. The composition of these early armies was however not significantly different from their enemies, and this was also before the greek inspired phalanx was adopted. Therefore a legion in romulus's time was nothing more than a warband of large size.

I do apologise A., I missed your post amongst the descriptions of this that and the other. Well now, jumping in with both feet - you say that equating ranks with the modern aids your understanding, yet you also say your understanding of modern organisation is little better, so how can you claim this equation helps you in any way? What we have here is a system that was used two thousand years ago and doesn't resemble the modern one, although the modern one to you has familiar words and meanings even if you don't understand the significance. As I've pointed out, thats not understanding at all, its simply putting a convenient label on roman things. The role of the centurion is disimilar to a RSM. A centurion was a commander of a century (and senior centurions had administrative control of cohorts?) but his role was more visceral than modern commanders. The obedience of modern troops ws not apparent then, so the centurion needed to be a functional leader in every sense of the word. he was more like a formalised tribal leader, a man who would lead his men into battle from the front, who disciplined them, who inspired them. The central role of the centurion in the legions cannot be understated. Further, a centurionate might be given control of territory in occupation duties, so his role far exceeds that of modern ranks in that respect. Thats just a number-juggling. No, his authority was proportionately higher. Centurions were given orders for their units directly by the legionary legate himself. I did? I hope not, because thats exactly what I'm arguing against. There is no direct equivalence between roman and modern ranks. There are two seperate and disimilar systems of command and control being compared. A commisioned officer under the regimental system receives a commision from the national authority to command a unit. He is given permission by the state. A non-commisioned officer receives his command internally, and the state does not need to be involved. Although its technically possible for an individual to rise through the ranks into officer-hood, the class system still exists in a rudimentary form and its difficult for such a man to be accepted by the officer class. Thats not roman influence as such, its simply a reflection of history since the 16th century and normal human behaviour. Something similar occured with centurions. Although they were influential and important commanders, it was unlikely that they'd progress beyond the centurionate, and thats why the centurions were organised in titles of status. However, a long serving senior centurion toward the end of his career might be given the role of Praefectus Castrorum - 'Camp Prefect' - as a reward and mark of respect. That would make him in the third level of authority of a legion, beneath the tribunes. I'm not aware of any one case of a centurion becoming a general (I would be interested to find one) and if it happened it certainly wasn't common practice. Roman generals were political appointees more often that not rather than career officers.

It doesn't suprise me that Memhet assumed the role of bizantine emperor after Constantinople fell. It isn't that he thought the title was worth anything, its simply an assumption of overlordship over a subjugated territory. It was little more than a formality since he was already a powerful ruler and it was just another title to add to the list.

Mind you, I did watch a tv prog last night about how US government sponsored individuals made an absolute fortune from the Iraq war by false accounting and other such dodgy means. For instance, borrowing iraqi airport forklifts, painting them blue, and charging the US government $20,000 a month lease each. Thats a little more than 100 times the industry rate!

Far from disdain, Nero comes across in his story as something as a less than heroic. For instance, although he raced chariots, in one race he was recorded as falling off twice and didn't finish, yet was still declared the winner. Further, when the senate had declared him an enemy of the state and sent troops to deal with him, Nero panicked and fled, eventually asking his servant to kill him because he didn't have the necessary courage to do that himself. Nero's early reign does show signs of good management, but at that time he was still being advised by people somewhat more capable in administration than he was. After Agrippina was assassinated and his advisors pushed aside, Nero asserted his himself and followed art, performance, and partying as his chosen vocation. Which of course meant he wasn't so interested in overseeing politics. Complex? Yes he was, but its hard to like him. For all his outrageousness and style, he was essentially a very selfish man whose insecurities led to to a path of self-aggrandisment.

More like Mr Sulk...

Doc.. no... don't do it! Please! Resist, you must resist. In any case, it appears that a decent diesel hatchback will get better fuel economy.

June is becoming an all-or-nothing month for british weather in our new globally warmed climate. Last week it rained incessantly. I got soaked in the downpour. This week the sun is out with a veangeance and I got soaked with sweat. You just can't beat the british weather can you? You get soaked no matter what happens.. Puppies For Sale Ther's a fashion for 'handbag dogs' going on, and perhaps not too suprisingly, unscrupulous east european traders are selling puppies reared in very dubious conditions. I must admit, I do get tired of the animal welfare lobby and its extremist idiots who are more interested in being eco-terrorists than actually helping animals, but there are times when I cannot disagree. Now of course the traders are at fault and should be stopped from treated these animals cruelly, but then aren't they just responding to market opportunities? The real idiots here are the celebrities who treat an animal as a fashion accessory. A dog is not just for handbags. Comeback of the Week This definitely goes to Edwyn Collins, a succesful singer/songwriter (Never met a girl like you before) who suffered two serious brain haemorhages. Despite being unable to use his right arm to play guitar properly, and having difficulty in speaking clearly, he's fighting back and releasing a new single. Its good news, but whats even better is that he's so self effacing about it all. If anyone deserves a comeback he does. I wish him well.

Recruitment in the late empire was a thorny issue. The practice of cutting off thumbs and rendering yourself incapable of holding a sword was increasing, to the extent that one emperor declared that two men wthout thumbs were as good as one. Press gangs were employed to forcibly recruit people, and this was necessary since entire communities were opting out of roman control. However, the late romans made up their numbers by recruiting entire barbarian tribes to fight for them.

Agreed.

Once the intial roman advance had fragmented and been surrounded, the battle was nothing more than a hack and slash slaughter. This sort of thing did happen in ancient times, and at the siege of alesia for instance Caesars defensive works included some spiked pits and abatis (defoliated trees used as obstructions). It does require a fair amount of work though and you would need to be in command of the battlefield site for enough time to prepare the suprise and conceal it from enemy reconnaisance. I would say such traps on the field were very rare. The romans might use artillery if it was available and could be placed in a useful position on the battlefield, but you have to wonder how effective it was. In siegecraft it was useful - not for killing enemies as such, but for keeping their heads down. All ancient armies would use missile troops to attack an enemy at a distance - that was why the romans used such troops in their auxillaries. They didn't have the requisite skills so employed foreigners who did. However, to say such weapons would kill off most of the enemy isn't entirely correct. The enemy might have protection - armour, shields, or even formations like the roman testudo. Caesar complained that gauls evaded the volleys of pila thrown at them by sidestepping, and even threw them back. Whilst the actual casualty count is one thing, its worth mentioning that the effect on morale can be just as telling.

The Toyota Prius. Heard of it? Its that fashionable eco-car that celebrities buy to look like they actually care about the enviroment. Its the car that Top Gear entered in its Comedy Handling Competition. That Jeremy Clarkson gave to a cowboy to shoot with a .50cal heavy machine gun. Its slow, ugly, the seats are uncomfortable, and never does achieve the fuel economy that Toyota claim. Its also the car my father bought. My father wants me to buy his Prius. A couple of years ago I threw his offer of a Corolla back in face - dies he really think the Prius is going to be any more desirable? Road tax is only

What? Gordon Brown? Mr Family Man and your neighbourhood caring sharing Prime Minister with an ear for the needs of his adoring low paid public? You've got to be joking. As soon as he discovers people enjoy themselves he'll slap a tax on laughter.

Elite status was more to do with cultural bias in roman armies. There were legions with a higher status than others, because of their fighting record etc, but elite status as such no, because the whole point of the marian reforms was to create a 'standard' legion. As to what the enemy thought, they may have admired or feared roman legions but I don't recall anyone thinking of the roman legionary as an elite soldier. The roman soldier of that period generally considered himself a better soldier than his adversaries and was encouraged to believe so. Were romans the best fighters? No. Of course they weren't. Sometimes they faced soldiers who were better or better led. This image of an unbeatable roman army is something that lurks in our conciousness and comes from people who could not defeat them passing these stories down. The roman legions however were variable in quality and a legion of hardened veterans led by a capable commander was indeed a formidable foe. All ancient armies might gain an advantage by picking the battlefield, and it required a capable leader to choose the best site and encourage his enemy to arrive there. The Varian Disaster of AD9 is an example of how a roman army was lured into a massive ambush stretching for miles and utterly defeated. Incidentially, you shouldn't call the roman soldiery legionaires. Thats a french word. The correct name is legionaries.

Not that often. Centurions had a high mortality rate because they were always at the front and thus in a dangerous position (and it must be said, they were usually the first authority figure that rebellious men would take of). The tribune had the advantage of being in the rear, so was keenly aware of his situation and so had a head start should disaster occur.