caldrail

Yep, you still don't understand what a legion is. The word means 'levy' and refers to the old citizen recruitment at every campaign or year of conflict. The legion is not a formal division of a structured army. Each legion was seperate, a self contained military entity that could operate as an army in its own right, although they could be grouped informally under a comman commander. Such groups were always temporary and for a specific military objective. If you continue to describe the roman legion in modern terms you will run into difficulty. They did things differently to us. Their organisation wasn't about fixed ranks with responibility attached, it was about responsibility, status, and role within the legion. They did not therefore have a pyramid structure nor required one. A man was promoted to a role within the legion, not to a higher rank, and his status was derived from the role he played, not because he had achieved stripes - which didn't exist then. Arguably the centurionate had ranks within its structure, both for seniority and to provide a career path for this long term permanent junior officers who really were the backbone of legionary operations. However, there was no guaranteed promotion path into or out of the centurionate - it was a class apart.

There is a parallel in modern britain to the western firearm. Until recent decades handguns were rigidly controlled but available if you went through the rigmarole. Then after a shooting incident by some nutter the government banned them. Result? Handguns became a black market commodity, and this meant they were now getting into the hands of dubious citizens. Youngsters in particular who now see their handguns as fashionable items, a label denoting manhood and superiority, a means to 'respect' as they see it, and in some cases, a means to defend yourself against those who also have guns. The actual condition of these weapons is possibly poor, as the great majority of the youngsters (or older crooks to be honest) have no actual knowledge of firearm maintenance, and in any case many gunsmiths went out of business following the ban. However, if confronted with some smiling young man with a pistol held sideways up, do you really inspect the gun for condition before doing what he wants? In general, children are much easier to impress with gun safety than adults, who generally think they know better. I was trained to use military firearms in my youth, and whilst I would hardly consider myself an expert, I do not wish to own real weapons for any purpose nor do I do stupid things with the inert guns I did own. I do admit to having owned collections of deactivated or replica weapons in the past but a gun nut I am not. I'm well aware of the nature of these things and whilst I collected them from a historical perpective and interest in military affairs, I wouldn't dream of pointing them at a bank teller. I once showed my collection to the brother of a girlfriend. He went glassy eyed, and staring at a real but deactivated Bren LMG asked me if I had the guts to raid a post office. I told it didn't matter if I did or I didn't, that was wrong and I wouldn't do it. He ignored my answer and me again if I had the guts. Lets close the cupboard eh? Seriously though GO, I really think you'd struggle to fly a B36 on your tod, evenif you knew how to fly at all, and something tells me that you'd fail completely to use the Missouri for similar reasons. Its easier to use a handgun isn't it? Especially when tv and film show how easy it is to use them and that its always the 'bad guys' who get hurt. A angry or greedy individual so armed is definitely going to see others as the bad guys, and so believes he can use this weapon to achieve his ends and does not consider the results of his actions, and in fact becomes more dangerous when he realises the gravity of his situation and becomes frightened/desperate.

Exactly. A federated state relied on fuedal loyalty and although this was similar to the roman client/patron relationship, at the top end of the scale a roman wanted it all, and wouldn't subordinate himself unless it was in his interest - and he'd still be waiting in the wings for chance of winning it all. Not so. Why else would constantine have to persuade wealthy romans to travel east. I understand what you mean though, because trade with the orient came through the middle east by three or four routes including byzantium, but then the wealth was widely distributed and due to continued miltary action distributed further, including into the hands of the parthians/persians. The authority of the imperial office required the support of the military. Even Auigustus knew that. Legitmacy and stability was dependent on the rulers ability to contain the threats against him. Rome really was an extrapolation of the lions pride. Nonsense. Rome could expand in all sorts of directions. Why did it never complete the conquest of scotland? Why did it not conquer ireland? Why did it not retain the middle east provinces conquered by Trajan? Why did it not expand southward along the african east coast? Why did it not expand its interests into the baltic area beyond a few trade expeditions? Augustus had the right idea - change from military conquest to colonial expansion - it was a little unfortunate that the germans were united under Arminius and fortunate that Arminius did not seek southward expansion. But this was all the earlier part of the empire. After Hadrian the empire did not expand and his policies reinforced the strategic view of consolidation and retention of primary territory. The romans were looking inward, they were not as dynamic as they had been, they were becoming entirely concerned with luxury, bread, and circuses, and were trying to keep the rest of the world out of their happy little empire. To all intents and purposes, the romans were becoming close to sticking their head in the sand, only dealing with threats defensively once they were a real danger, instead of an aggressive response that they might have once engaged in. Yet the army was not a unified organisation. It was a collection of autonomous self sufficient divisions that ultimately owed their loyalty to their commander, not the city of Rome. Further, after the civil wars that saw constantine come to power, the legions were much reduced in scale and although its easy to see that in terms of retrenchment, it was also a direct policy aimed at reducing the possibility of military rebellion. Because emperors saw value in men given careers without the influence to accrue power, whereas a career administrator from a senatorial background would eventually become dangerous. And he accepted didn't he? Where was his loyalty to the established order? Diocletians politics did not change roman character and ambition, nor the incessant under-the-table deals that ran it.

The observance of respect in days of british yore is a hangover from earlier times, when lords were masters of their manor and part of a chain of fuedal loyalties. The commoners had rights, but knew their place. The manorial lord was potentially a mean SOB and could quickly punish them for their lack of respect. The commoners were banned from riding horses, regarded as a social and military privilege (not to mention advantage). Ordinary hand weapons were the preserve of professional soldiers - though I don't recall a medieval prohibition on swords, yet there were weapons encouraged by the upper classes. Archery practice was mandatory in the 14th century and football was banned for that reason. In later centuries, this developed into the traditional british class system, where those of higher status were regarded as superior (mostly by themselves). America offered something different. A new land, a new beginning. Although there was definitely more than a hint of the same cultural structure they had left behind, the classicly inspired new leaders attempted to create a better society. On the frontier however, things are less organised, more rough and ready. Violence was never far away and thus a macho protocol emerges amongst those who lived and worked there. Since a firearm made any man the equal of another, it became an inherent part of their society, something enshrined in american law, and deeply embedded in their psyche.

Exactly the scenario Diocletian was trying to avoid. Whilst he ran it, he succeeded, but his overall authority was the key. Once he retired, the empire was effectively anybodies. This was less of a problem than later, because Constantine decided Constnatinople ('City of Constantine') was to be his new capital and thus gave incentive to a movement of money eastward. No it didn't, but that doesn't mean the empire was stronger as a unified whole. The whole point of the tetrarchy was introduce a federated state instead of a monolithic empire. What Diocletian could not do was change the nature of roman politics. The question of weak political instutions is all very well but their day had long since passed. Even before the empire they had concerned themselves with their own privilege and business, and after the populist policies of Caesar had effectively been circumvented despite retaining their status. As a group of wealthy and influential individuals however they could still affect roman politics greatly, since emperors were obliged to seek their support and more than one leader found themselves condemned by their senate. No, it was the reliance of the roman state on past glory and booty. The city of Rome sat on its laurels apart from one or two emperors. Having spent countless sestercii on foreign luxuries and entertainment the wealth was dissipating - haven't you noticed how outrageously over the top the Julio-Claudians were compared to later rulers? Sure, there were a few characters to come, but does it really suprise you that the empire could no longer afford military expansion and turned to a defensive policy more often than not? The empire was no larger. The new posts were not necessarily effective and represent the increasing size of an increasingly inefficient government. But its also true the emperors were well aware that the fat cats of the senate were less suitable to government posts than the upwardly mobile equestrian class, which had developed from its humble roots to become something more of a roman middle class. It also undercut the power and influence of senators by excluding them from government, a trend that had been current in roman times since Augustus. Its difficult to say. An usurper often claims to be doing it for the people, or for the good of the nation, whilst actually wanting to lord it over everyone else. I doubt many of them were serious about restoring Rome as it was, and were more likely thinking of putting Rome back together to suit themselves.

We haven't been at war with Mugabe - he just uses us as a scapegoat to take attention away from the fact he's clueless about how to run the country. Further, his quest to remain in power has seen his country turn from being the breadbasket of Africa to just another chaotic and despotic african hell-hole. As it turns out, the only reason he wanted a recount of the votes was so he could track down those who hadn't voted for him. As for ordinary folk, I've no doubt there's a few who look back at how things were and wish it were so again - many don't, they prefer their independence at whatever cost, and there are plenty of people that think Mugabe is the best thing since sliced bread and is trying to save Zimbabwe from British invasion. Thank you for your faith in british rulership. Sadly, since George III has recovered from his madness some time ago, its unlikely we'll be back

Awareness of my environs? They found the body in a marshy area at the west side of the lake. there's a country road adjacent to it at a higher level and the undergrowth is fairly thick. Although the police haven't found evidence of foul play yet, you do have to wonder why this person was wandering around in a reedy swamp. Perhaps I'm more aware of my environs than he was?

But it was transitory. At soon as he retired, the whole system collapsed, so the only reason it worked was because his personality allowed it. As always, the roman need to compete and dominate worked against it, since there were always men who thought they were better or more deserving of power.

But surely diocletians four way split was intended to prevent such uprisings in the first place by localising government into regions instead of one man struggling with an over-extended empire with too many self interests pulling away? Therefore aren't the events you list another sympton of the roman struggle against ambition in a powerful and competitively minded state?

The french are upset. Their entry for this years Eurovision Song Contest is to be sung in... wait for it... English! No, surely not.... The French are proud of their language, once the language of diplomacy. It seems that a nation whose quest to eradicate english words in their conversational language has now reached the ultimate irony. French politicians are dismayed - but good grief people, are you really taking the Eurovision Song Contest seriously? Worsening Situation of the Week This accolade definitely goes to Zimbabwe. Mugabe is determined to hold on to power and wants the vote recounted. Outbreaks of civil violence are reported. Armed chinese soldiers are reported in the country. A shipload of chinese armaments for Zimbabwe is refused permission to unload its cargo. The opposition claim a state of undeclared war exists. Robert Mugabe blames Britain for everything. Its all getting very predictable isn't it? But have you seen his moustache? What is it with dictators and moustaches? Are moustaches a symptom of megalomania? If his facial hair gets any worse, expect bad things to happen in Zimbabwe. New Arrivals of the Week The British National Space Centre, an organisation that co-ordinates civil space activities across government departments, is leaving London for a new home in Swindon. I welcome our cockney visitors and would happily take them to our leader. If any organisation is qualified to move to Swindon, its the BNSC. Lets face it, Swindon is full of aliens these days...

Live fast, die drunk....

Because he wanted to please the people he dedicated his work too and basically wanted to exercise his literary ambitions. Well he suceeded. There's 148 surviving complete latin manuscripts of his history and three fragments dating from the twelfth century. Geoffery was a best selling author of his day and indirectly inspired a whole genre which included notable writers such as Chretien Des Troyes and Thomas Mallory during the medieval period.

Bureaucracy - don't you just love it? The problem with being poor in Britain is that you have to prove it. Seriously, its no good turning up to a dole office unshaven, haggard, dressed in rags. You need documented proof that an agent of the government can photocopy and study in every detail. Even if you give them the proof, you can guarantee you'll be getting a letter four weeks later asking for the proof you submitted originally. Oh and it must have your name and address on it. My bank is fed up with me asking for two month statements. They used to accomodate my requests but now its a big deal - so far they haven't charged me for it despite several threats to do so. And letters of termination from my ex-employer? I got my last job through an agency, and their policy is not to send letters. They simply stop paying you when the vacancy is finished. The authorities simply do not understand this. So I trudge back and forth from office to desk to office to desk.... Well, you get the idea. There are people who live quite well on benefits in Britain How? Is there a secret handshake? Or do I need to be a refugee from eastern europe? Or should I spawn several screaming kids so the government can pay for their upbringing? Time to reassert my presidency of the Independent Peanut Republic of Rushey Platt and approach the UN for recognition... Canal Update of the Week Birmingham say Do It. Build the canal. The people of Swindon say no - don't do it - it'll only cost us money. Two local councillors say No, Don't Do It. Somehow you get the impression that some messianic person in authority will nonetheless order the construction of a new canal through Swindon (something Birmingham doesn't have to contend with, they simply reopened their existing ones). Whats the big deal? It'll be finished by 2025...

Hmmm... but surely if the earthquake shakes the cans about, isn't there a risk of damage to your fridge and therefore starvation due to food spoil? Its no good popping down to the supermarket afterward, theyve got more beer and fizzy drinks in one place than anyone. i suggest that for complete earthquake readiness, your own dairy cow and a chicken coup are absolutely essential. PS - dont forget your rambo survival knife, a bandana, some string, and a tarpaulin....

So the big question is - do you keep fizzy drinks in the fridge?

The impression I get is of a moderately talented commander who lacked the verve and daring of a greater man. Against pirates who were unlikey to be greatly organised (such geurilla/insurgent units rarely are, and only after protracted conflict do they learn the art of warfare by necessity and out of experience) he was able to conduct a great victory. Perhaps then it might be that Pompey was a thoughtful man, a general who tended toward contests of logic and approached warfare as we might a game of chess? Certainly against those who aren't on that intellectual level there is a chance of success, but against Caesar, a talented commander (if careless on campaign), a man who acted on his wits and had a better grasp of the dynamics of the battlefield, he would actually have been at a disadvantage. Lets not forget the pirates were raiding at will - its likely they were careless and contemptuous of roman defence, something that Pompey was able to exploit.

Coate Water is a local beauty spot. Built as a reservoir for the convenience of the 18th century canals that passed through the valley, its now a nature reserve and a pleasant walk. In the local paper however I discover that a weekend walker had discovered a body there. Apparently it had been there for months, almost reduced to a skeleton, hidden in a stagnant pond near the lake itself. As yet no-one knows who he is or how he met his fate, but the disturbing thing for me is that I've walked past him two or three times. Along with hundreds of early morning dog-walkers and afternoon strollers.

Regarding Geoffery of Monmouth, I discovered this criticism of his work... It is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his successors, or indeed about his predecessors from Vortigern onwards, was made up, partly by himself and partly by others, either from an inordinate love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Britons Woah! Strong stuff. Now get this - that paragraph was written by one William of Newburgh in AD1190! Having had a chance to browse through a translation of Geoffery's book, its quite a piece of work. He starts the story with Brutus, the great grandson of Aeneas (yes, the same Aeneas who started the romans off), and the arrival of this man in Albion, a land empty of people bar a few giants, something like 1200BC. Within a chapter or two Brutus names the island after himself, and his three sons divide the island between themselves. Not without problems. Giants need to be wrestled, and Humber, King of the Huns, arrives to conquer Scotland. The new capital city of Britain is named Troia Nova (New Troy) and then.... Well.... I think you guess where this is all heading. Geoffery used information from Gildas, Nennius, the Venerable Bede, and some unknown work handed to him by his friend Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, a man described as an authority in history. So its not as if he was getting it wrong at all. His history is the ancestor of the modern arthurian legend, and creates a whole mythology concerning the early history of Britain. Geoffery, you're a fraud.

Isn't that a bit like living with a six pack of grenades in your fridge?

I've wondered about the smell too. Surely though the use of water could offset that to some degree, and in any case, I doubt living in a roman town was all that agreeable to thei sense of smell.

Ok, but then astrolgy has its roots in syrian cults adopted by members of the roman world and survives to this day, which suggests that whilst christianity dominated proceedings after acceptance by the roman empire, it never won that total victory it wanted - though it did come close.

My tip is not to keep fizzy drinks at home.

It is remarkable the romans never thought of something better to use. However, they used urine for practical purposes - it was a cheap resource and had a bleaching action. To our sensibilities of course its all a bit smelly and unhealthy, yet they used this method for century after century with no apparent problem. Fulleries were commonplace and reasonably successful commercially, since everyone needed clean toga's and tunics and the raw material was cheap, plus it wasn't a skilled job so any old slave could be employed to wash clothes.

This morning I popped into Lydiard Park. What a difference! After a five million pound restoration job the park is looking manicured and tidy. But.... Its also lost that rustic charm. I was young when I first starting going to Lydiard - it was a country park a few miles out of town back then. Now its on the edge of Swindon, a public open space, and the old untouched woodland has gone, undergrowth cleared, replaced by wide grassy meadows amongst the trees. The old lake has been cleaned up but despite promises its still smaller than its 18th century origin, the water level some 4 or 5 feet lower than the water line still clearly visible. The dam has been repaired and cleaned up, but it no longer serves as a scenic wier but rather an ornamental raised footpath. Five million quids worth. I don't like it. Earthquake Warning of the Week Be careful california, scientists expect an earthquake of 6.7 on the richter scale (thats Big But Not The Big One) somewhere before 2037. Inevitable they say, all the signs are pointing to an increase in gelogical tension. As an earthquake survivor myself - Yes, the earth really did move for me that night - I feel fully justified in putting on the sandwich board and wandering down the road shouting "The end is nigh!". Of course the americans won't listen but one day they'll be sorry.... Yes officer, I'll move along now....

Not an opinion really; just more questions. I've long thought of the Arthurian legends as so much romantic nonsense, never even considering any substance. But as I've read more of the history of Britain, while extending my interest in Roman civilization, I've been more persuaded of the authenticity of an Arthurian figure. Is the area you are referring to Caerwent/Venta Silurium? Not quite. According to legend Arthur originates from the west country (and welsh princes were ruling southwest england as far as somerset until conquered by Ecbert in the 9th century, a wessex king and later the first king of England). His uncle was Ambrosius Aurelianus, a man who apparently strove to recover dark age britain and return it to roman rule somewhat unsuccessfully. Thats all very well, but the battles that Arthur fought all seem to be in the north of England or Scotland, except possibly Mount Badon, his tremendous victory over the Saxons. Its not known which saxon group were defeated, nor where Mount Badon was, and some people have decided it was a victory against Wessex since they were militarily active in that period. This after all is what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle suggests. I did a piece on Arthur a while back.... http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showto...t=0&start=0 Part of the problem is the human need for stories. Do-gooders may be people with higher purposes but ye gods are they dull to write about. The medieval period was a bit different, in that the do-gooders were military men striving for purity in a world of temptation, examples of what christian fighting men should be, and escapism from the gritty reality of life in manorial europe. This brings us neatly to Geoffery of Monmouth, who wrote an influential history of britain, and the first case of Arthur being credited with being a King. Geoffery was not the most enlightened of historians, and whilst he probably tried to do a good job, there are instances of him making some very odd conclusions. As an example, in relating the tale of West Saxon military expansion in the 6th century, he refers to african allies from Ireland. This obviously wasn