caldrail

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.

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.