caldrail

But what is there to make me believe that you know what you're talking about? Quoting the names of your favourite authors? Right. How much original research have you done? Because if all you do is rely on reading others works then you're effectively the same as me, an armchair historian who's opinion is based on what we read. So if my opinion is of no value then... erm... neither is yours.... The difference however, is that I'm not worried if one author or another doesn't meet intellectual criteria. It doesn't matter if that author writes the same old weary passages or covers the same familiar ground - its his bread and butter, his day job. Of course he's going to write about the stuff he knows. And if thats the case, how would you know that some clever speculation isn't a complete load of nonsense written by some guy who's bluffing, who doesn't actually understand everything but can write good enough prose to suggest he does? But being novel for the sake of it, or just to please one particular customer, is of no value except possibly to promote someones career if the guy can get enough media attention for his novel reconstruction. History is about what happened. What might of happened is fun to speculate about (the source of your pleasure, as you describe) but if all you want to read is a list of learned 'what-ifs' then you're not actually dealing in history. Speculation can be very misleading. The UFO genre is based on little else and do you seriously expect me to believe everything these people write? Or that they actually know anything concrete? Anyways, if novel reconstructions are your thing, there's plenty of novels out there.

If the film company had dragged me to one side and suggested that I write the script or get a day job, then what I'd do is tell a story around the historical events. I mentioned somewhere else an idea for an escape movie featuring a bunch of various characters getting away from bloodthirsty germanic tribesmen. But thats not good enough says the producer, slinging my first script away in front of me, pointing at me with a fat cigar, and making it clear they wanted shakespear for the masses, not some boys own adventure. Ok, lets think about it.... Firstly, as dramatic as it seems, the events of the varian disaster add up to around half an hour of screeplay unless you really want to drag it out. There isn't a lot of drama involved either, since the interplay of the plot revolves around Augustus sending varus to Germany, Arminius telling Varus there's a rebellion, Arminius telling the germans to ambush Varus, Varus gets ambushed, Augustus hears about the disaster, troops force march north, Augustus bangs head against wall. There's not enough for an entertaining film. Its too clear cutm, there's no suprise, there's little drama, it comes across as a dull costume epic. So, on my umpteenth rewrite, I would meddle with the actual events and rewrite history to make the film entertaining and thus save my career from turing into street cleaning. Augustus makes Varus his potential heir (a bit like the self-combusting drummer of Spinal Tap, you just don't survive) and jealous members of the senate hatch a plot. Germanicus is rising in popularity and wants to ensure Varus fails. he does a deal with Arminius for support of his new regime in germany. Varus is trapped, discovers he's been duped, sends away a messenger before he commits suicide (as an alternative to a blood sacrifice on a german altar), and the action turns to Rome - where the various players conduct a mafia style fight to the finish - leaving Augustus to bang his head against the wall at the end. Ok - thats my seventy eighth script.... Does this film get made or do I invest in sponges?

Watching a program for entertainment is not a problem at all. Entertainment masquerading as history is of dubious value, although as Terry Jones proves there's no reason why history can't be presented in an entertaining way, provided the content is factual. The film 'Caligula' (a sort of soft porno film) does something different. Its presents a stylised vision of Rome to tell its story and doesn't seem to take its depiction of roman times too seriously. Thats ok, because it doesn't pretend to visually accurate. Thing is though, neither could you use the film as any sort of historical reference, nor for that matter could any other feature film for the reasons I've outlined. As inspiration for further study - why not? Heck - thats why I study history at all. All those sword and sandals epics may have been gross distortions of the truth but they entertained and presented that popular image of power, decadence, and the inevitable comeuppance. But that ain't history. For that you have to find out what actually happened. Who was involved. Why they did it. When they did it.

The pilot of the jet is being hailed as something of a hero - his stricken plane had to be nursed away from a hospital and a playing field. Without knowing what the air accident people will make of the accident, it begins to look as if the pilot tried to extend the glide as much as possible to avoid a collision with a built up area - and ironically that made the aircraft prone to a stall/spin situation that caused it to dive in. That certainly happened in the Thruxton incident, where the loss of power on one side caused the aircraft to roll over and turn without enough control authority to prevent it. There was another incident some years ago when a training flight in a light aeroplane got into difficulty on approach. It isn't known who had the controls - I suspect the instructor took over at the last moment - but the aeroplane attempted to glide over houses to reach a runway and sadly it too stalled and spun in. Its an automatic reaction. Your aeroplane is over peoples property and selves, and you don't have enough power to fly to the runway ahead. The instinct to attempt to keep aircraft flying at minimum speed in an effort to cover distance must be very strong. Its also potentially fatal. Even if its physically possible, the margin of safe airspeed is so low that any change in wind might precipitate a bad situation. Strange thing is, I was once flying a Piper Tomahawk on a training flight with an instructor. He asked me to conduct a practice engine failure. Once I'd settled into the glide, he asked which field I was heading for. I pointed at a grass meadow of some large house. The instructor looked at me as if I was crazy. But I got there. I was over the field with plenty of height. So much of this accident risk is perception. The pilot of the jet weighed up what he thought he could do in his situation and tragically it went wrong for him (assuming there were no mechanical/hydraulic control failures). Its easy then to say that the pilot was guilty of pilot error, but he was in a difficult situation - a stressful situation - and having to make decisions with options running out. One of my instructors said the first decision in the event of trouble is where you want to be when you reach the ground. He was spot on.

Novel reconstructions? Thats speculation, not history. And in mentioning these historians you reinforce your view that the only historians worth reading are the ones that agree with your own opinions. Thats not good history. Also what you fail to observe is that Adrian Goldsworthy is a specialist - he writes about military history - and since he tends to leave out all the politics you enjoy then understandably there isn't much for you to read. The trouble with those clever and intellectual historians you so admire is that they often construct these cultural theories from first principles and forget the romans were human beings. There's nothing new about human behaviour, nor was roman politics particularly novel.

A curved blade that comes into contact with an enemies soft parts tends to present an edge against it as it the blow draws across him - it therefore cuts as long the blade is in contact and since the curve faciltates a swinging action, the blade itself doesn't present much resistance to completing the slice and so may well cut deeper. A straight blade used the same way cannot present a cutting edge during the entire swing, since the the point will begin to 'lift' the edge away from the victim as it moves across. You could argue the point itself will cut - this is true - however its effectively a much smaller cutting edge that will not slice as effectively as a curved blade.

But since heretics are defying Jesus's authority and worse, pretending they have it, is that really a step up? Persecutions against christian sects that don't toe the line aren't so rare in history. Wars have been fought over which version of the bible should be read.

I apologise. I have just seen an artists impression of the new Swindon Library on the wall as I popped down to log on this morning, and the carbuncles are indeed shown. The colours used by the artist played down the visual effect and therefore I hadn't noticed them. Plane Crash In Kent A tragic accident in Farnborough, Kent, where a Cessna Citation business jet ran into engine trouble after take off and attempted to return to Biggin Hill, only to lose control and crash into a housing estate. Two pilots and three passengers killed (one was David Leslie, a car racing commentator) but mercifully no casualties amongst the householders. The occupants of the destroyed house were on holiday. I've come across this sort of accident before. I spoke to a chap at Thruxton Airfield once or twice, a man who ferried jockies between race meets in a Beech Baron twin. I never saw his accident, but after take off on a flight to france (just like the bizz jet crash too) a door hadn't been closed properly, and although this wasn't life threatening, the pilot decided to return, land, close the door, and continue. In the circuit he had no choice but to fly low due to prevailing weather, and in respect of the village he was flying over, decided to reduce noise. He accidentally pulled the wrong lever and shut down one engine at low speed. The baron winged over and plunged nose first into a field from 400' with four people on board. I was an active pilot for something like eight years. I never had anything serious go wrong (one or two causes for concern however) but the sky is an unforgiving enviroment. When it goes wrong, it gets very serious very quickly. Sincere condolences to the friends and families of the victims.

Possibly... But without actually knowing the answer, I would suggest it was under Augustus that such a ban took place. He had finalised the transition of the legions from citizen army to professional state forces, and notice that he is the first ruler to refer to his men as 'soldiers' rather than 'comrades'. Having given this status to his legions it seems logical he denied it to his citizenry, especially since he wouldn't have wanted a rebellion. You might make similar arguements for the earlier 'Spartacus' era. I would be interested in knowing when the ban made too.. Anyone?...

Marius removed the contigent of 120 cavalry from standard legionary organisation as part of his rationalisation program, which was re-introduced by Augustus later. Marius had decided it was better to keep cavalry seperate, but the experience of Caesar and Augustus's decision does illustrate that seperate cavalry units aren't necessarily available at any given time, thus the small horse contingent within a standard legion (intended as a self contained 'army') had uses such as reconnaissance and pursuance - exactly what was required.

Disagree completely. Barbarian swords were invariably longer than the gladius which indicates slashing attacks, a form of attack that fits in well with the warrior mindset, given many of these barbarian tribes had a culture of individual ferocity which in itself doesn't make much room for disciplined thrusting. Let me quantify that. A thrusting attack is aimed. It requires a cool head and some technique. You see this in fencing and after the legions were very keen to make their men practice until perfect. The loss of this discipline was one reason for the adoption of the cavalry spatha by rank and file soldiers in the 3rd century AD. That doesn't mean the barbarians couldn't thrust with their swords (obviously it was possible given the sharp point) but holding a sword out ahead of you requires you lift the weight of the blade - its not a featherweight - and since the barbarian sword is longer the moment of bending is stronger and therefore requires more muscle to keep the blade level than the shoter and more usable Gladius. Why else are barbarian swords thinner than a gladius? Its to save weight. The gladius can get away with being heavier (as short as it is) and also notice the very long point of the old gladius. This means the weight is balanced further back and therefore the sword is easier to thrust with. As we reach the principate, the gladius straigtens and the point atrophies, which indicates an increasing reliance on slashing as well as thrusting attacks, a point confirmed by roman commentators who metion that a legionary of the principate era swings his sword around as much as thrusts with it. As the pax imperia makes itself felt, fewer roman soldiers are actually involved in combat and in common with gladiatorial combat (a notable fashion influence due to its popularity) the gladius becomes shorter and used in a more florid style in common with arena practice. Gladiators are known to have been hired as swordplay trainers by the legions occcaisionally. Once the discipline and nerve of experienced soldiers is lost in the 3rd century, the fresh recruits decide that a gladius is a bit too up close and personal, adopting the spatha instead - which since it resembled a barbarian sword in format, it was familiar to poorly trained recruits of barbarian origin. Further, the design of a barbarian sword is for slashing attacks. It doesn't generally have a curved blade so there's no slicing action, but the barbarians developed their swords for fighting amongst each other - not the romans - and since many of their cultures eschewed the use of armour a sharpened crowbar was all they needed. That said, the quality of barbarian swords ranges from crude mass produced stuff to some very fine examples of the swordsmiths work, depending on who made the sword and for whom it was made. There's little subtlety in celtic warfare. These barbarians are all show, they shout, they gesture, they swing swords about aggressively to frighten their opponents. That doesn't mean they can't fight, nor does it mean that some of their men aren't capable sword fighters, but it does reflect their culture of status derived from personal courage.

In the case of the new Swindon Library, it isn't so much that the building is ugly (it fits into Swindon very neatly), its that the original artists impression looked quite classy and those carbuncles on the roof weren't depicted. Is this going to happen with the Old College site, due by be replaced with a pedestrian shopping mall? Or the burned out Locarno in Old Town, due to be turned into an italianate square? Or the Graville Street Car park redevlopment, a new pedestrian way linking the Brunel Center with the Old College site? Surel an artists impression should depict the finished article, not some rosey eyed vision of cultural bliss? You might argue they need to sell the design. Ok, I accept that, but if you fail to impress the buyers do they want you to build another?

I have been moved by Nepheles story. I think we need to open a center for victims of wombat rape. These poor people need our help...

The trouble with films made about historical personalities is that they're often so fundamentally naff. We all this mental image of what these people were like, and seeing some actor play if different jars somewhat, especially if he hasn't a clue who the character as or what he did. A film about the Varian Disaster would be dire if it was filmed from the perspective of the movers and shakers. Films are entertainment, and should tell a story. A film that does nothing but repeat a history lesson is a documentary and it just doesn't work. I do often savage films for inaccuracy but thats just tough. If you want to depict real events, then depict them. otherwise all you do is rewrite history. I'm thinking about a recent tv documentary about a gladiator and his training for the colosseum. Vespasian and Titus were featured but not overly stressed. The central character was an enslaved moesian and the program followed his story right to his final fight in the colosseum opening games. All the actors spoke latin, the commentary was from his perspective, he was a total unknown in a larger scheme of things, and the program was excellent. The film Gladiator worked because it used a historical setting to tell a story, the revenge of a honourable man dispossessed by his emperor. The fact it paid lip service to real events is ok because real events weren't the focus - what was important was the drama between individuals. I suppose you could film something featuring Augustus/Varus/Germanicus/Arminius and whoever else, but the screenplay, direction, and acting would have to be first rate to give the production that certain something that makes it watchable at all.

Then there'd be cults telling us the end of the world is nigh and non-believers will be bonked to death by naughty angels. Cool.

What is often forgotten by people these days is that Mobility/Protection/Firepower equation isn't just true today, its always been true. There was a class of fighters known as Crupellarii ("crustaceans") who wore extremely heavy armour during the late republic/principate. Some rebel gladiators so equipped were cornered and the legionaries fighting them could not penetrate their protection with the gladius. Ok... So they knocked them over - the gladiators could not easily get to their feet - and hacked open their armour with pickaxes. The Cataphractii/Clibanarii (Heavy cavalry) are often thought of in the same way as the medieval knight, but no. Their horses were small - the same size as the usual light cavalry of the day - and the cataphracts wouldn't usually gallop for fear of wearing out their mounts too quickly under the weight of armour and so forth. The heavier the armour, the more tiring it is to wear. So if you don't actually need that level of protection, then the typical soldier will simply drop what he thinks he can get away with by the roadside - its less tiring on the march. On the other hand, if your enemy has better protection, then the average soldier wants more offensive capability. He chooses a heavier longer weapon. If your enemy is weighed down with heavy gear, then stay mobile. Make sure the enemy can't come into contact on his terms -something he parthians/persians understood well. If equipment is chosen or changed, there's a reason. Warfare is a serious business and soldiers like advatages - they also hate dragging stuff they don't need.

Our local councillor, SP, is a man with a mission, and he's talking rubbish. Yes, I said rubbish. His five point plan on waste issues in our area is now posted through everybodies door - he means business. Well good luck SP. I know you mean well, but lets be honest, if you want to cure fly tipping what difference are adverts, thicker bags, and busibodies telling you to recycle a bottle going to do? Not a lot. Old mattresses, discarded clothes, and an endless supply of black plastic bags will still mysteriously appear overnight. You can only enforce a law if you catch the law-breakers. So if you can rustle up some civil servants to lurk in dark alleyways at night to catch fly-tippers, why couldn't you rustle up a few to catch the moron who disabled my car? Ooops... Too late. New Library Update They promised us a new library. A new purpose built custom designed enviroment for community learning. No really, I've seen the artists impressions. Actually, it didn't look too bad on the painting. But.. aaah... what exactly are those big green compost bins along the roofline? They weren't on the artists impression. Lets see... It could be a defensive ring of machinegun turrets to ward off new zealand pensioners who won't shut up.... It could be an early warning radar system to give advance notice of my arrival... Or is our new library the spearhead of an alien plot to study human beings? Or did someone forget to tell the artist just what an ugly building it was really going to be? Old College Site Update The demolition of my old college has begun. Typically for Swindon College, nothing seems to be happening yet. Wooah, hang on a minute... workmen spotted.... standing around talking.... deciding whose turn it is to make the tea... Hey, its a start isn't it? Canal Project Update A straw poll for the local paper asked 1,000 people whether they wanted a canal through Swindon. They said NO! Good grief, are these people serious? Where else are they going to leave their shopping trolleys?

This was at the beginning of the usage of such armour and it may not have been widespread. For instance the 1st cohort or theextraordinarii may have been equipped with it, or perhaps only one legion of the three involved - we don't know. The origin of the lorica segmentatae may well have been during the civil wars in small numbers, or was the origin as display armour adopted for the field? There is no known date for the empire-wide adoption of such armour and I think it may have been part of Augustus's military reforms.

Probably, but I suspect from later times than the romans.

Equites needed a certain amount of cash to achieve their status I believe, much the same way as senators, but that doesn't mean they could all afford a horse. Fortunes rise and fall, and there are mentions of such people who fall on hard times, one reason for volunteering for the arena. Since 120 horses were needed by a marian legion, is it not possible they could pay for them by stoppages in pay much as the rank and file did? I've no idea if they did, its just speculation.

Hey wait a second here. Just because the wombat was attempting to prevent some horrific inter-species offspring doesn't mean it's not guilty of rape. The consequences of not practicing safe sex with wombats... -- Nephele Please Neph, not in public.... Cute looking creature isn't he? A bit like some of those old guys you see in flat caps and raincoats riding mobility buggies around corners in supermarkets very slowly. Or have I stumbled onto something? You've got some explaining to do Nephele....

Entering the office of New Deal, the agency that handles the unemployed in Britain, I notice the young security guard at reception looking at me in that 'Don't I know you?' way. "Have you claimed in the last three months Sir?" I truthfully reply I that I hadn't. He looks me in the eye and clearly doesn't believe me. This does not bode well. What worries even more is that the familiar faces of the dole office aren't there... Uh-oh... Fossil of the Week Goes to a chap in america who recovered the tooth of a Megalodon. These were big sharks, up to sixty feet long with jaws large enough for a grown man to walk through, and believed to have become extinct as little as two million years ago. When you look at the fossil record, its clear that size is an important survival advantage. You can be too big to be attacked and eaten. Its also clear that since mankind started walking around, the large species have gone. Megalania, a giant komodo dragon from Australia - vanished. A two ton marsupial grazer from the same period - gone. Deinotherium, a truly massive african elephant - gone. Gigantopithecus, a king kong version of african gorilla - gone. Mammoths, mastodons, woolly rhinos, ground sloths, flightless birds, huge bears and cave lions - all gone. You could argue that most of these died because of climate change, loss of natural enviroments, and so forth. There is however an uncomfortable feeling that human beings have burned, stampeded, hunted, and chased out these animals either because they were a threat or because they were tasty. Whilst some primitve peoples are extraordinary survivors and very aware of the ebb and flow of resources, it takes a long time for a species to fit in with the locals and become part of the ecology proper. Our ancient forebears may also have unwittingly spread disease via our faithful friend, the domesticated wolf. Destructive little beggars aren't we? Somehow though, I doubt we had much to do with the demise of a sea-going monster of a shark!

But then arian christians were looked on as heretics surely?

One thing to be said about british woodland is the lack of anything really harmful (unless you're dumb enough to eat mushrooms and toadstools without knowing what they are!) In all the years I've been hiking around the area between Swindon and Devizes, only once have I encountered a poisonous snake (the adder, the only such reptile in britain). The little beastie was sunning itself in a rut along a path and I nearly trod on it! None too suprisingly, it was a little alarmed as well and hissed at me - thanks for the warning matey... I'll just step around like this.... Go back to sleep.... I have heard it said that in britain you never find spider webs larger than six feet across. Rubbish. I've seen webs across the footpaths of Savernake Forest at least twice that, with mean looking spiders in tiger stripe camo I've never seen elsewhere. Flies and mosquitoes do occur in britian (obviously) but never a real problem, although once or twice I've felt something on my hand and realised some noxious insect was sucking blood. One such horse-fly refused to let go even after I swatted it, but interestingly that wasn't in the wilds, that was on a footpath between a housing development and an urban small holding. Dragonflies you only find near waterways - they're no bother. Wasps are none too common either - I've never come across a nest in the country. The only nests I've experienced were a bird-box in our back garden, and once before in our garage, both dealt with by the friendly neighborhood pest people. Come to think of it, even in our built up area, you get wildlife scavenging off our waste which I guess is easier than making a living in rural areas. At night I've seen badgers and weasels stalking around, and I remember a startled security guard walking past a vixen and her cubs within a few feet on a grass verge of a company carpark. It has occured to me though that a lot of british wildlife simply goes unnoticed. Walking in West Woods near Marlborough I spotted a deer on the crest of a cleared hillside beside some fir trees. I marvelled at how close the colour of its fur was to the bark of wet trees. Then the other deer beside it that had been looking at me head on (and thus looking exactly like a small tree trunk at that distance) moved and for confirmed just how good simple plain colour can be for hiding.

Off hand I don't know the dates, but this was taking place during the first punic war. A carthaginian galley was beached after rough seas on roman territory and in exactly the same way as modern technological warfare, the romans studied this vessel, learned from it, and decided to create their own navy based on its principles. Contrary to popular belief, oarsmen were not slaves, and there is a mention somewhere of slaves being made freedmen so they could row ships like these (but I think that happened later - the civil wars?). The romans had their new crews practising rowing on dry land whilst the ships were being built. Its easy to laugh - lets remember they gave the carthaginian ships a bloody nose.