caldrail

I was fascinated by a documentary aired a couple of nights ago. A teenager in 1997 discovered a fossil in North Dakota, which turned out to be an extremely important find, because the creature was mummified and soft tissue had survived. It was a hadrosaur, a common grazing animal living in wetlands (the area found was once a wide river near the inland sea that once split north america in two during the cretaceous period). The reamins were not complete, and a large portion had gone missing (eaten?), and a further suprise was the discovery of an unlucky crocodile lodged in the carcass. Unfortunately, the main body could not be succesfully scanned with x-rays because the rock was too dense, so work continues, but its noticeable that the amount of soft tissue meant that modern reconstructions of dinosaur skeletons are incorrect - the vertebrae need to be spaced out more and the length of these animals needs to be increased by around 5%. Colour does appear to important to dinosaurs - the relative sizes of scales on their bodies suggest different patches of colour as modern reptiles do. What annoyed me though was the typical modern documentary style. After every commercial break, the voice-over re-introduced the program saying exactly the same things - and we saw the same computer generated imagery repeatedly. Please - tell me something.... Anything.... I know the teenager found it, you said five times already.... Please... Aww no, not the 'falling over dead' sequence again.... I won't mind if you prove they smoked cigarettes and became extinct because of lung cancer.... Just for something original.... This program suffered from one major flaw - they didn't have enough to say to fill an hour.

Camel units are recorded as in use in Egypt in the 2nd century AD. The terrain had little impact on the expansion of cavalry, since cavalry became ever more important and the dominant arm in the late empire. Legionaries weren't always taught horsemanship. This is something written by Vegetius and therefore represents an ideal situation. It wasn't possible for instance to train post-marian legionaries to ride because the legions of that time had no cavalry contingent. Julius Caesar did so because he needed cavalry there and then, not because he instituted a training program for his men. Elephants, despite their size and strength, are not well suited to battle and panic easily, with a tendency to run between gaps in men no matter what the mahout has to say about it.

I haven't seen any evidence for the length of training, and even if true, this refers to contract professionals. The cannon-fodder POW's or criminals weren't trained at all. Training must have taken some time and not all gladiators got past it. Estimates reckon that up to a third of intakes were rejected for inability or injury over the months of training. Typically, yes, this was true. Each fight was a risk, and the professional gladiator was something analogous to a race-horse, a trained athlete, an expensive profit-making commodity you didn't want killed. There was a limit to the number of festivals these men wouild fight in, and for private shows, where a customer may well want a death to please his audience, a lesser man would be the obvious choice. It paid to be a good fighter. The arena combat was an event, a spectacle, something special. There is a tale of a playwright being decidedly miffed when his audience heard a gladiator fight was taking place elsewhere and everyone vanished. These fights weren't happening every day, someone had to foot the bill, and the arena was an expensive way to impress the citizens. It all depends on circumstance. I wasn't aware of a time restriction before a gladiator could be freed, and in imperial times freedom was at the whim of the emperor/editor, who was more concerned with crowd-pleasing than strict regulations. I think perhaps there's some distortion of fact here. A bought slave trained as a gladiator is an investment, so obviously the lanista isn't keen to free him. A gladiator however may keep a portion of his winnings, and can buy his freedom, which inevitably means he must remain a succesful gladiator some time. There are instances of men volunteering to pay off their debts, who obviously had no intention of stayiing in the arena longer than necessary. Volunteers signed contracts lasting between three and seven years and the last year or two (if they survive) may well be spent working as a doctores, a trainer. As a guide, survivng inscriptions left by gladiators infer many of them were survivng fifteen to twenty-five fights. Also, the average expected life-span of a gladiator is reckoned at four years, so as the men condemned ad gladius by the courts were enslaved for five years as their punishment, their survival chances were not good. If the games editor gave them the rudis practice sword they were free men, whether the lanista wanted that or not. Also, since many gladiators were contracted fighters, the lanista had no choice to let the man go if he reached the end of his contract. Its also true that some freed fighters eventually returned to the arena as volunteers, either because they failed in life afterward, or because they wanted to return to the live they knew and understood. As a gladiator, he was cheered on by the crowds. As an ordinary citizen, his popularity faded and many must have felt has-beens.

"One moment senator, the president is in conference with the First lady right now and doesn't..." (THUMP!) "....Want to disturbed..." (SMASH! tinkle...) "Perhaps you could call back in fifteen minutes Sir?"

The romans were actually very intelligent in their use of cavalry. The days of mad headlong charges at the enemy had to arrive, and its as well to remeber that roman horses weren't as readily available as in later eras, expensive, and thus valuable commodities that you wouldn't want to risk unduly. That said, we shouldn't underestimate how potentially effective they could be. Hannibals returning cavalry sealed up the roman army which in theory outnumbered the horsemen by a considerable degree. That also shows the value of tight coherent defense (which you correctly point out) and how effective cavalry is at fighting at the edge of a formation, using height, weight, mobility, and picking off stragglers seperated from their fellows. Interesting point about the light infantry. Given such men were better able to keep some sort of pace with horses it allowed support. This does indicate that cavalry alone in these times weren't so capable of the decisive victories we see later (again, another point you raised). The cavalry are therefore a distraction to the enemy, to conceal the approach of this support, or a defensive measure for the light infantry in keeping enemy cavalry off their backs (a primary task for roman cavalry). However, whilst this all sounds very flexible and strategically sound, the ability of ancient generals was not always so inspiring, and unlike the flexible tactics we're discussing here, it was more probable that without the command structures available in later era's the ancient armies relied on battle plans arranged before the start, and any advantage was to be gained by luring the enemy army into a worse situation. Cavalry and infantry interaction for support was in the ancient world dependent on situation, the observational skills of those involved, and whether the commanders involved had anything between their ears.

His understanding of roman organisation is also way short of the mark, because he consistently refers to it in modern terms. I actually think he's bluffing. His system of ranks is nothing like that quoted by recognised experts, and please note he refuses to answer if you challenge him on his sources. If he genuinely is a wargamer, then its likely he's used to blustering to sound clever, I've seen characters like that before in wargaming circles. In fact, RW could receive an apology in public from me without hesitation if only he'd actually be a little more honest about his research. Notice that he never ever admits to being wrong no matter what he posts.

You hit the nail on the head - it is for show. Its the visual appearance as an exotic weapon that mattered more in the late empire. Such exotic weaponry wasn't entirely new - from the mid empire at least they were using a peculiar sword, with four steel 'knitting needles' as sharp pointy bits arranged in a 2x2 box layout (I believe it was called the quadrent, and had some religious significance?). By the late empire the old style professional bout had gone out of fashion. A straightforward no-nonsense sword-fight was no longer considered enough to please an audience, so the use of these strange and sometimes awkward weapons was both the visual interest and also the inability of the combatants to land a fatal blow. This served two purposes. Firstly, it meant that lanistii didn't lose a well trained and profitable commodity, but also because it dragged the fight out. This last point means in turn that fewer gladiators were required. In the late empire fighters were becoming viewed as heathen murderers by the increasing christian influence in society, and there less of them available, so for a full fun-packed day at the arena it was necessary to stretch the combats out as much as possible. Notice that after Trajan the huge celebratory games were scaled down considerably. In the late empire, there's very little emphasis on them in roman commentary too compared to what we read of during the Julio-claudian era. There wasn't the same money involved anymore, fights were much more expensive to stage, so instead of staging huge combats and mass spectacles, the professional bouts arranged for games had been reduced to a bloody pantomime involving these peculiar fantasy weapons.

Are you allowed to post pornographic images like that?

Ah but you see he wsn't a cook at all, but really the King of Weesex in hiding having been caught by suprise by his danish foes. Following this incident, he resolved not to let himself become preoccupied with failure. So, after being well and truly put in his place by the woman whose home he was staying in, he went on to restore Wessex to greatness, become King of England, and set England on its path to greatness which so upset the americans they felt it necessary to create their own 'kingdom'. Of course, since america was more dependent on Hershey bars than cakes for desert, it was impossible to upset the lady of the house and thus no american president has been whacked over the head by old women. Not that the security detail would ever allow the women close to the president until that broom had been checked for bugs.

Think about it. You're fighting an opponent in a professional bout, one on one, to strict rules whilst the referee looks on. You're not playing about - it might be entertainment but this is a real sword fight. Your opponent thrusts - you parry - he thrusts again - you have to use your shield to deflect it - and then while you're effectively blinded by your own shield and concentrating on the whereabouts of his sword....... Thats just an example, and I know it sort of suggests swordfighting is a bit like a game of tennis, but understand that combat is all about being quicker, stronger, sneakier than the other guy. Try it. Pick a fight with an experienced fighter. For him its easy because he doesn't need to think about it. He's practised his skill and acts instinctively, so if a gap presents itself he will exploit it. The same principle applies to the scissores.

Good grief Doc, if you want o post photos of cars at least post an interesting one... feeling sleepy... mondeo.... dull.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Exactly. Thats what the games organisers wanted - lots of minor wounds to heighten the drama of the fight. I do actually think this was counter-productive, because there added visual variety of these new weapons was useful for theatrical purposes, collecting wounds is going to slow the fight down. The scissores has a practical use, in that it forms a sort of 'arm-shield' for defence, and one that can catch an opponent unaware by virtue of the blade at the end. other than that I agree with your opinion.

Agreed. But his work is therefore a collection of stuff he'd heard of and approved. It isn't necessarily accurate and represents an idealistic view of the roman classic legions. Further, Vegetius never had any military experience himself if I remember right.

I like cars. Especially the fast ones. No, thats not right... I like fast cars. Especially the very fast ones. Yep, thats right. But not all of them. For various reasons, either the aesthetics, personal experience, or the revealing reviews of driving journalists, there are bound to be those I don't regard as worthy. Take the Lamborghini Gallardo for instance. Now italian supercars fire my blood yet last year one trundled past me in town. A white convertible owned by a local man and it looked simply awful. Certainly you noticed it - you couldn't fail to do that - but it looked cheap and boxy, there was none of the lamborghini WWOWWWWWWWW!!!! factor. I decided I didn't like it. As for driving one, erm, that might not happen tomorrow anyway.... A couple of days ago I wandered through a car park on my way to the local supermarket. And there it was. A slate grey (or perhaps unwashed black) Lamborghini Gallardo convertible and it looked sensational. WWOWWWWWWWW!!! Ok, for a moment I was twelve years old again. But isn't that what these cars are supposed to be about? And isn't it strange what a difference the colour made. White is currently a fashionable colour for sports cars (my rusting Eunos is, by strange coincidence), yet it just wasn't the colour for that Lambo. In dark paint, it looked menacing and evil and covered in saliva... oops, sorry about that, hope no-one noticed.... Such italianate pornography is what fires my blood. For me, driving a Ford Mondeo has got to be such a mind numbing experience. Even the name bores me, I mean, its the Ford Monday. Car names are daft aren't they? Vauxhall use names ending in 'ra'. Vectra.. Tigra... Makes them sound eciting doesn't it? At least Ford are more honest about their model names. Well, since ordinary cars are just too ordinary to bare, I shall wait until Ford produce the Frideo and hopefully that'll be worth driving. Rear wheel drive please Mr Ford. Don't like those silly hatchback things. This Weeks Red tape Another letter in the post... More proofs required... Oh good grief I've submitted this stuff twice already. Off to the bank, persuade them to copy the information - again - and represent it at the benefits office. "Ahhh... Mr Caldrail... We do need the previous months as well.." WHAT?!! Back to the bank then... I wonder if you can get free footwear from the government if you're unemployed. Or headache pills...

It gets worse doesn't it? Now the burmese government is turning the whole thing into a propaganda exercise and photo opportunities, whilst appropriating the aid that has got through. Its worse than Africa.

No, its not being bypassed, I'm pointing it out to you. Incidentially, could you please inform us where you're getting these lists of command titles and procedures? There are people out there using this site for study and wouldn't like to see them marked down because they read duff information.

Possibly so, but so what? You're assuming every commander has read it? You're assuming every commander is therefore inspired to conduct warfare in the same way as Rome? I can assure you they don't. Nor for that matter, is Vegetius's work an exact description of what went on. He was writing about legions that had come and gone long before his time, and was describing the ideal example of how legionary warfare was conducted. The reality, as always, fell short of that. Furthermore, whilst it apparently provided inspiration for some commanders, thats still no guarantee they ordered their troops the same way, since they were far more likely to follow the fashions and tactics of the time. The people inspired by this work didn't simply adopt everything they read, they studied and used what they thought was appropriate to their day. If you care to look, you will find warfare has changed considerably since Vegetius's time, and troops are not ordered and used the same way anymore. They liked it did they? Thats nice. Well, perhaps that might also be because there simply wasn't any other document of this sort available to them. Today there is, and even at bargain prices you can pick up titles in the bookstore equally as erudite as Vegetius's efforts. Because his work survived. Plenty of other peoples didn't, and the fact his work was a best seller for a long time doesn't mean it was accurate nor erudite.

Ahh.. well... if the american revolution is so significant, then... 1 - The burning of the cakes by Alfred the Great - a significant moment in his career which subsequently led to the domination of Wessex, then to the kingdom of England, which developed into an empire controlling 25% of the world, which also led to the creation of one of the great current empires in america. 2 - The invention of the sailing ship, which made the american empire possible. 3 - The discovery that smoking tobacco turned you into a macho gun slinging hero, and thus underpinned the american empire. 4 - Coca-cola, without which the american empire would have died of thirst 5 - Great Britain, without whom America would have nothing to fight for. Oh boy... Am I going to regret this post...

Well, the demand for performance means that eventually hybrids will include sports models, and in theory the performance potential from an electric motor will ouitclass that of an internal combustion engine - its just that so far once you've done the quarter mile in six seconds you run out of juice... Will people ever learn? No. The burmese government didn't listen because it lives with its head in the sand and is too concerned with enforcing its rule. In any case, living smart is only smart in someones opinion. I could buy a hybrid and feel very smug, yet still die when a tree falls on it in strong winds.

There's some variation in interpretation, and the scissores was one of a number of gladiatorial classes (I don't know any of the others) introduced toward the late empire when arena combat was in decline. It was therefore an effort to breathe life into a dying genre (pun intended). Notice that these late gladiatorial classes were intended for show. The purpose was no longer for two men to entor into a professional bout and fight until one man surrendered, collapsed, or died. It was now entirely spectacle, and the general idea was for two men to slug it out causing each small wounds rather than a quick clean thrust to end it. Personally, I suspect the increased visible bloodiness of later times did little to preserve the industry, since by that time fewer people were interested - the old excitement of gladiatorial combat was gone - and in any case the influence of christianity was making itself felt which introduced the idea that shedding blood was wrong.

my time line in reference to my reply to PP was early republic. before Rome possess any province PP - The habits of discipline and drill were already present. The 'militia' form of army worked because it was the accepted roman way, that they all needed to be ready to defend Rome. From childhood men would have been raised with this idea, and no doubt older men were only too keen to instill this attitude and some practice with weapons to prepare them for manhood. RW - The hoplite formations are not the same as the hastatii/principes/triarii formation of the consular legions. Consular legions did not form as phalanxes and instead formed as traditional three manipular line which you described. You seem to be confused between the two.

Uninformed? RW, the quote above is from someone who knew a great deal more than you. Sneering will get you nowhere. Yes, Caesar commanded a number of legions. Yes, so did Antony. Yes, so did Augustus. So whats your objection? Shall I tell you? You see the romans as a formal army in the modern fashion. You are unable to divorce yourself from what you know and understand, which is modern practice. The roman way of doing things was different. Caesar, Antony, and Augustus may have commanded large armies, but those armies were nothing more than a gathering of independent legions. There were absolutely no umbrella formations - no defined armies, no corps, divisions, or brigades, nothing of that sort in any way whatsoever. The modern regimental system uses umbrella formations to control a number of regiments which are specialist, a factor more important in modern mechanised warfare than ever before. In Caesars time a legion was a one-size-fits-all military formation for the purpose of conducting a campaign. They were all pretty much identical, could operate independently, and the troops were loyal to their commander rather than the nation state. Further, the quote refers largely to a period of history before the Caesars time, including the hoplite army which as you've so carefully detailed yourself, was composed of troops raised in the greek hoplite fashion. Those hoplites weren't professional soldiers at all. There was no formal training or requirement to serve in peacetime. They were simply ordinary citizens called up to fight when necessary, using arms and armour they could affford or obtain. So why can't you provide references or documentary evidence for your assertions?

The problem these days is that our awareness of the enviroment has almost religious overtones, that if you speak against the enviromental gospel you get burned at the stake, whether the gospel is correct or not. Our own government has jumped on the enviromental bandwagon eagerly in its quest to redistribute everybodies wealth into public servants mortgages. The simple fact is the earth is a dynamic system far more powerful than we are, and as much as caring for the enviroment is laudable, its highly unlikely that driving hybrid bubble cars is going to suddenly prevent any changes in climate. Its already happening - and like any other species on earth, we either adapt or perish when the changes hit us. Incidentially, last nights news carried a report that as many as 100,000 people have been killed in that cyclone. Its getting difficult to visualise what it must have been like.

A startling reminder that roman cleanliness wasn't enough to defeat the usual unhealthiness of urban life in former times.