caldrail

Yes I thought someone would say that. But that was WWI - not the modern day. Nonetheless the point you raise reinforces the view that the romans weren't so unusual in their behaviour, and that the exploitation of status and wealth is purely a reflection of human social behaviour. We are discussing established and relatively stable nations too, not the mercurial third world for whom bribery is a way of life, and in any case, most of those have little if any connection with a roman past. Social status is a primary instinct in human beings - thats why we covet certain cars, larger homes, places in the country, certain hairstyles and fashions. In every human endeavour, your 'place' in society dictates your treatment and limits. In the modern west, these limits are now somewhat blurred and diluted. Still there, of course, but the old respect for status has gone. In roman times, its noticeable that more often than not these temporary officers failed to produce the required victory, and only then did the romans search for a potential officer who could avoid a disaster. Social status was more important than merit, and it must be remembered too that the romans may well assign someone to lead the entire army because of their status, something that does not occur in recent times. The entire concept of the roman army is different from ours. Today we have a highly strutured military hierarchy that can pass an order down from the highest rank to the lowest. A squad of infantry has more firepower than entire battalions of of men in the flintlock musket era. In fact, the concetration of men on the ground is nothing like what is was - to have too many men on the ground in one place is Not A Good Thing. The romans fought en masse. They gathered together in cohorts on the field to take on their adversaries. It was not necessary to organise thier squads (conterbernium for the purposes of combat, although these groups of 'close companions' had certain administrative and morale bonuses. The cohort would not ordinarily subdivide to fight. In charge of this cohort is a centurion. Its easy to see him as simply a man with a certain level of authority, but thats a modern perspective. The centurion was expected to lead, inspire, and discipline his men. He was the head of the cohort, the motivation and punisher of it. His second in command was the Optio, the 'Chosen Man'. With these points in mind, it can be said that the cohort is the formalised evolution of the roman warband of its earliest days. The centurion is therefore evolved from the role of a tribal chief, the bold warrior leading his tribe to war. After all, the centurion was expected to lead from the front, to engage in melee with his men, to provide an example of courage and skill in battle beside wielding the vine staff. And wield them they did. Centurions were notorious as hard taskmasters. The cohort was His. But what about the lesser ranks? In most cases, these were specific roles within legionary organisation and not simply levels of authority as we see today. However, these junior ranks also performed a useful service. They might for instance resolve many of the minor issues arising from eighty men living in close and claustrophobic campsites and forts. The centurion wouldn't want to deal with every petty issue, and in any case, from the mens perspective it was better that the centurion didn't hear about it until after it was solved - Once the centurion got involved, it was official, and action to resolve the issue would take place, often painfully. The centurionate is unusual in that it had specified ranks within its order. This reflects the professional status of career officers. It was important to give these men an avenue of advancement. Centurions did not retire as other legionaries did, they could carry on serving as long as they were capable. This was to preserve their command and battle experience, to maintain the standards of discipline within the legion. The legion is therefore a union of stylised warbands under the command of their social superiors.

Celts - Belgae - Gauls etc... Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Germans etc... Not descriptive or informative but generally the two groups are linked by common culture amongst each other.

You need to careful with latin terms. For instance - Gregarii were gladiators who fought as a team. That doesn't mean they were equipped in any special way or received special training, nor does it mean they were a seperate class. It was just a name applied those told to take part in a spectacular event aside from the standard and regulated individual contests. The name Soldurii may therefore not mean it was a particular type of unit, rather than it was a unit in a certain circumstance. In the case mentioned above, it appears that certain warriors were used as some sort of elite bodyguard and given a special name, even if they didn't look or behave any different on or off the field.

I notice from time to time that people compare modern day army organisation with that of ancient Rome - thats understandable given the image of the legions as an organised miltary machine. The comparisons are most accurate when based on the post-Marian army, which established the professional status of roman soldiers. However, such comparisons are misleading - here's why. Modern Day Modern armies rely on a pyramid structure - orders are passed down the chain of command to whichever subdivision is capable or intended of handling the task. In the modern army, a soldier is promoted within a pyramid structure to a certain rank. This automatically gives him a defined level of responsibility and authority. He is then assigned a task commensurate with his status, which can be reassigned on requirement. Senior command officers are promoted into their roles within the normal army organisation. Ancient Rome Legions are autonomous fighting organisations which may be assigned to an overall commander. Orders are passed down to the centurions, commanders of the cohort (the basic fighting unit of post-marian armies). Junior ranks may assume command in the place of centurions according to circumstance. In the Roman Legion, a soldier is promoted to a duty, a task, a responsibility already defined by legionary organisation. He is then given enough authority to complete his duties. Although his actual duties can change, they fall within a narrow band of possibilities allowed by his status. Senior command officers are often political appointees and receive their assignments as a result of status in civilian life and the need for military credibility in their careers. Notice however that Augustus makes a compromise between these two alternatives. He introduces the Tribunes Augusticlavii, five executive officers that can be assigned any role in the modern fashion within the legion, a move toward a more flexible command structure that was not carried any further, although it must also be pointed out that senior legionary posts were defined more rigidly in his reforms.

There's no direct equivalent of the modern NCO. The Principal was effectively a sort of team leader, a senior man of the group, the man who answers for the barrack-room. The Immunis, Tesserarius, & Signifer had different responsibilities and the authority that went with them.

Yeah ok, but ultimately, how original is any historians work? To some extent its going to be derivative, because their basing their efforts on what they've already learned which is pretty much the same as the rest of us since they're looking up the same original texts and tramping around the same sites. Personally I'm not interested whether a particular author is 'clever' or 'run-of-the-mill'. From my perspective, there's every possibility that the author has uncovered some fact I wasn't aware of, and their opinion is as valid as anyones. Naturally I have my opinion, and it may not agree. So? I know I don't know everything, I know their are people even on this site who can run rings around me on some subjects, but does that bother me? Not a lot. You can learn a subject but understand nothing. Understanding requires you ask questions. If we aren't challenged, then we stagnate, we sit on our laurels. That in my view is a failure, because people who sit on laurels generally become obstructive to those who want to llearn and understand more and surely the whole point of this site is enlighten? Having said all that, I must confess I come across books I won't bother with. There are those pitched at people of a younger age or people entirely ignorant of things roman. Its not that I discount such works, they do have some value but its likely I've passed that point, and therefore I tend to conserve my funds for something deeper. As long as there's something I can learn from its pages, thats ok with me. Even if I feel the authors conclusions are hopelessly incorrect it doesn't actually matter because to understand the subject I have to discover why he reached those conclusions. It might just be I'm wrong, and there's been occaisions on this site where other people have changed my mind entirely. Then there's the sort of book that masquerades as history. Caligula: Divine Wrath for instance, where *or* disguises itself as intelligent commentary on the vices of emperors past. Please don't bother with it, it really is a smutty book that teaches nothing. Why? Because the book is relying on its readers not knowing too much about roman history and accentuates every sexual reference to draw some conclusions that are in some cases physically impossible. Its a fantasy. And therefore not history.

Its more likely that one guy took the plunge and plucked up the will to do the deed, the others following in less than orderly fashion both because of adrenaline and also to show their peers that they too were a solid member of the conspiracy... Oh dear... I'm speculating....

The Principal, a sort of NCO of the conterbernium, the eight man squad of 'close companions'.

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?