caldrail

To our eyes, but what is forgotten or coveniently overlooked is that during the lead up to that first crusade the christian church had embarked on a mission to create a religious super-state across europe, ruled by the pope from a new cathedral in Cluny, France. These people were playing on the general ignorance of the time and their hold over hearts and minds of the populace was frightening. The current pope had received a letter from Emperor Alexius asking for military aid. The byzantines were suffering raids from turkish tribes and wanted support from the west. The pope called for a meeting, eventually held outside in a field because too many people turned up, and proclaimed that it was their duty as christians to free the holy lands from pagan domination, using the letter as proof they were needed. Worse still, he made the step of declaring that it was less sinful to kill a pagan than a christian, and that going to war in gods name was a penance in its own right. So instead of a few hundred military volunteers, whole villages packed their bags and migrated eastward. Encountering jewish settlements, the religiously motivated warriors recalled that it was a jew, Judas, who had betrayed Jesus, and committed a mini-holocaust all of their own in various places along the way. I'm not sure if pathetic is the right word, but it is very morally and intellectually dubious.

The problem with mounting a sea-borne invasion of Italy is that it meant sailing right into the heart of roman waters. Although the romans were generally poor sailors early on, during the previous punic war they had reverse-engineered cartaginian galleys and created a navy virtually from scratch. The invention of the corvus had given the romans the advantage of being able to employ their motivated and trained soldiers as marines, fighting 'land' battles aboard ship. Hannibal was aware of this. He was also aware of the risks of transporting a large fleet in one go across open water for some distance. Could he risk a bad storm at sea? Were the ships available? Building a large fleet was vulnerable to roman action. Was it better to spend spanish silver on more ships or more mercenaries to complete his campaign? Hannibal chose the latter course, hoping that his excursion through the alps would suprise the romans and outflank their armies. It was a difficult course however, his men were starved and they lost a fair few assets in local hostilities or accidents, not to mention desertions. Was the crossing of the alps the right choice? Hannibal thought so.

A somewhat battered and bruised Robinson Caldrail crawls slowly up the beach of Washout Island, surrounded by the detritus that shipwrecks usually leave riding the surf. Alone and castaway, this is not the first time I've been marooned on this particular island. Right now I'm too devastated by what happened at the height of the storm. Captain AD, determined to brave the foul weather aboard his unseaworthy vessel, ordered me thrown over the side to stay afloat. I wasn't suprised. I'd considered abandoning ship already but the Admiralty at Head Office had asked me to man the pump for now. What will happen to the SS Portapalace without my navigation and rigging skills? Who can say? The ship is out there somewhere, heaving in gales and heavy seas. Will it sail toward safe anchorage in the Lands of Success or a watery grave in Davey Jones Receivership? Come the morning, I shall search whatever has survived the storm and found itself discarded on this beach along with me. The old cave will be there of course, and hopefully the sources of food and water remain constant if none too plentiful. Its not all temperate paradise however. The natives are far from friendly... But once my castaway lifestyle is in order, I shall ready myself to flag down a passing ship to rescue me from this lonely exile. Just one thing though. Not keen on the Man Friday thing, ok? Translation of the Week Yep - I've been made redundant - again.

Perhaps, but then thats what faith does for you. They want to find out their particular holy texts were right all aong and therefore that everyone elses is wrong - it justifies their beliefs in the face of criticism. Its no coincidence that so many archaeologists travel to the holy lands for no other reason than to find evidence for the bible stories. Is that good archaeology? I think not. Surely you need to come to conclusions from what you find, not fit the evidence to fondly held beliefs?

Interesting notes about bears and rifles, though it occurs to me that the bears who do become acquainted with mans lethal devices generally don't have an opportunity to benefit from that knowledge! Mind you, here in Blighty we have reports of large cats roaming the wilds and occaisionally a 'competent' person steps forward claiming to have observed such a beastie. Back when I was helping a mate out driving delivery vans part-time, I made a delivery to Windsor Safari Park (now defunct). The security people told me where I needed to go to find the contractor and said I could go through the monkey enclosure if I wanted (who was he trying to kid? - those monkeys disaasemble motor vehicles for laughs). Anyhow, I found the contractors yard and asked some guy who said "Wait there - I'll fetch someone". Okeedokee. So there I was leaning against a chicken wire fence. Until I became aware of a lioness prowling the other side of it. She glanced up at me as if to say "You're not worth the effort sonny" and plodded past. Being within three feet of a big cat (albeit with a wire fence between) is something special. It gets better though. As a child I was visiting some country house safari park (I don't know which) and the stable at the back of the house was roped off. Looking into the gloomy interior I saw a black panther, suckling her cubs patiently. I have never forgotten the stare that cat gave me. "Thats ok, little human, you can look, but come in here and you're catfood..." Seeing nature up close and personal is fantastic. Once as a schoolkid I decided to sit out a cross country run and hid in a brake of trees beside the old railway line. Whilst I was there, about six feet away, a fox crept into view from my right obviously intent on some small morsel unaware of the danger it was in. Then the fox realised I was there, and froze in horror. For that brief moment we stared into each others eyes before the fox came to his senses and scarpered. It really is incredible how something like that makes you aware of what nature is - that these animals aren't just soft furry creatures in Disney films, that they're real live breathing animals going about survival as nature intended. All things considered, I'm not sure I want to get up close and personal to large dangerous predators in the wilds of some endless forest - but I do appreciate the thrill and challenge faced by those in previous ages who did this for their own survival.

I'd imagine the evidence is the same as any indian archaeology. The trouble with tv programs is that they don't go into this sort of detail.

I see in a recent v program that there's a debate about one of Jesus's followers, Thomas, wghse gospel is not included in the Bible. Apparently Thomas left Judaea in the mid 1st century AD to travel to India, where he began converting jews amongst the small communities in India that sprung up as a result of trade. Western scholars poo-poo the idea, claiming there's no evidence. Indian scholars say otherwise, that the indian king of the time has been confirmed and that the traces of these settlers and their descendants (There's a group of indians who claim direct descent from early christian converts) are documented. Also, we know the later portuguese explorers who found the Thomas Christians conducted a purge to bring them back to roman catholicism (the priests considered the Thomas Christians to be heretics). A fascinating footnote then to the early christian expanson.

Woodland is a different matter in England. Most of it is cultivated since medieval times. However, in savernake forest, some twelve miles from my home, you do find evidence of times past. There's a memorial column celebrating the return of George III to good mental health. There's a tree carving by a 'Mary' in 1938 nearby. Elsewhere a man from from Chicago left hs name on a tree in May 1944, when the forest was used as an ammo dump. The roads of the time are visible with some tank traps and bunkers still evident. Savernake was also on a roman road just south of Cunetio (now the village of Mildenhall near Marlborough). Both the GWR and MSWJR railways built railways aroun the westrn edge, and a spur line into the forest was built in WW1 to supply timber. The forest is much smaller than it once was, and inflated claims of its boundaries meant that Henry 8th employed a man to find a definitive area for it. Of course, the days when bears, wolves, wild pigs, beaver, and other such animals are long gone, though you do come across deer especially in the quieter southern half. There isn't much true wilderness left in Britain. There's pockets of it here and there,if you know where to look.

Religious fakery is nothing new. In common with fase antiquities the various relics of Jesus, his followers, and anything associated with him have been for sale ever since. It was big business in medieval times. There was one instance during the crusades (AD1098 I think) where the crusaders had laid siege to a town, gotten in, only to find themselves under siege in a town bereft of supplies by an arriving turkish amy. The crusaders were desperate. Then one Peter Bartholomew declared that he'd had a vision and that if thy dug in a certain spt, they would find theverylance tha had pierced te side of christ. Lo and behold a lance was recovered, and the delerious knights sallied forth sending the entire turkish army into full rout. Of couse, despite the experts declaring that the wound on the Shroud of Turin is correct for a rman lance, why was the centurion guarding the execution site not using a standard pilum? Perhaps he was a cavalry officer? But going back to the original point, how could anyone know whose bones are in the box? There's no makers inscription or any bacode available on 1st century, and you would have to view any convenient name on the side with some suspicion. Thre are penty of people out there that want physical evidence of their beliefs and will readily accpt any old rubbish if it fits the bill.

Here's to a chap in America, reunited with his stolen '67 Mustang after 38 years. I can only imagine how the guy felt. Something along the lines of another old gent invited to a reunion with his former 'office'. A genuine 1940 Battle of Britain Hawker Hurricane, found derelict in India and lovingly restored to flying condition last year. What a terrible shame he was unable to fly it again himself. There was a tv program not so long ago when another ex-RAF pilot of that era was given a chance to fly in a two-seat Spitfire. At the controls again after 60 years, the expression on his face said it all.

It would be awesome, but no downloads to merry england! We english are most put out. It just isn't cricket. Gentlemen, its time to throw a tantrum

There aren't any mass graves but then the population distribution didn't lend itself to large scale actions. It might simply be we haven't found any - my thoughts are that conflict between celtic and germanic tribes were small scale. This is borne out by evidence from my own area. During the mid 5th century a saxon warlord named Bera pushed westward into Wiltshire - Barbury Castle (an iron age hillfort) is named after him - along the Ridgeway, one of those important pre-roman trails. Locally the site of the Battle of Beranburgh (Beranburgh means hill-top fort of Bera) has been known for a long time, its on the plateau next to Wroughton Airfield (but on MOD land!), and even used to be marked on ordnance survey maps. Back then, it was asumed the battle was sgnificant and relics of the fight have indeed been found. However, recently its become clear the battle was nowhere near as big as originally assumed. Nor were most of the battles of this time. A hundred years before the situation was different. Aella landed at Pevensey in Kent in AD477 and trashed the place, slaughtering the inhabitants. I understand he did this in other places nearby too. He was invading, taking advantage of the roman withdrawal and quite possibly well aware of the collapse of english government soon afterward since traders would have been active across the english channel at that time. The point is that whilst saxons settled in england - gaulish/germanic tribes can be seen gravitating toward an agricultural existence as opposed to their former warrior cultures during the roman period regardless of roman influene - they don't appear to have been good neighbours. This is exactly the sort of thing that happened in Wiltshire. Bera wasn't content to rule the land he already controlled, and gathered men to push westward. His men discovered an neolithic tomb on the Ridgeway and assumd it was a place of the gods, naming it Waylands Smithy. Now the battle that followed may not have been big, but neither was the resistance to his advance, and its entirely possible that southwest england was opened up to saxon incursion because the local inhabitants couldn't prevent it. Since the saxons had the upper hand, like many conquerors, they may simply have said we're in charge now, dominating local life as the new regime so to speak. All this is all very well, but it remains specific to the area in which these events took place. As to events in the midlands or northern england, I have absolutely no idea.

This is part of the problem. The Byzantine empire managed to achieve some stability, and although it wasn't entirely continuous until 1453 I concede that it represented the roman empire - they certainly thought of themselves as such. However, the price of cultural stability is a certain amount of stagnation. Without change, a society loses its dynamic qualities. It also builds ettiquette and ritual. The Byzantines weren't alone in that, Egypt did so too - so did medieval europe and japan - increasingly burdened with complex patterns of behaviour and traditions that in some cases become parodies of romantic illusion. I'm not sure how far the Byzantines went in that direction, but I notice the bafflement and alarm they suffered in dealing with the crusades.

Pretty much all of the above.

Philip Zimbardo, an american university psychologist, has been interviewed on BBC News 24. I've never heard of the guy before, but apparently his research shows that 'good' people become 'bad' people in certain circumstances. Now his work has been controversial - a 1971 experiment with students being given roles as guards and prisoners had to be closed down early when it became apparent that mental and physical abuse was getting out of hand. Why are we so suprised at this? The most glaring example of this situation was finally shut down after six million victims were gassed in nazi-occupied europe. There have been others in recent times too. The Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Ethnic Cleansing of the Balkans, violence in Rwanda etc. Zimbardo is criticised on the grounds that he does not make allowances for individual personality, that perhaps some people are more likely to go bad than others. But Zimbardo says no. He says we all have the propensity to commit 'evil' and that side of our nature is encouraged by our situation. The arguement is that human social behaviour dictates that the majority will simply comply and obey orders, committing terrible inhumane acts because the situation that person is in no longer provides any restraint on such behaviour. My own view is that both sides of the argument are correct. We can all do terrible things whatever our sensibilities or inclinations. We all rationalise those actions if we commit them, to make the consequences more acceptable to our self esteem. The perverse side of our nature might find pleasure in these acts, as it makes us feel powerful. And yes, some individuals are predisposed to 'evil' behaviour because their psychological state sees personal gain or reward in behaving badly much sooner. These people are often the ones who command the others, who then obey because to do otherwise is to rebel against the regime that supports them. Why else do people look the other way, or simply join in? After all, if we choose to reject the group behaviour of our peers we risk social exclusion (or worse) - and for humans, thats usually a higher price to pay than the suppressed guilt of something they might later regret. Then again, guilt isn't always apparent. Having done these things a person might believe they were right to do them. For many years now I've described humanity as a nasty animal. Our bad behaviour is reflected in nature, where we see packs of chimpanzees (our closest genetic relative) engaged in random violence and organised raiding. It isn't generally realised just how dangerous older chimpanzees can be - they have a deserved reputation for unpredictable behaviour. But surely humans are better than that? Surely we are intelligent enough and sufficiently spiritually aware to choose a more humane path? It must be said the evidence says otherwise. Humans are social animals and those instincts dictate our behaviour far more than we know or care. It isn't just the tv news either, it isn't just Guantanamo Bay, or Russian prisons. I witnessed (and suffered) such behaviour in a warehouse as groups of young men began seeking status by bullying and agressive behaviour, not to mention some very disagreeable vandalism. Nonetheless, sometimes, just sometimes, a human being decides to rebel, to say no. Is that noble? Perhaps, but that would depend on our perspective. The solitary former SS guard who'd refused to take part in genocide was lucky to be transferred and like anyone else, I would praise him for the courage of his humanitarian convictions. A US soldier refused to go to Iraq and was pilloried. I applaud that man for standing up for what he believed in, but I do condemn him for breaking his oath of service to his country. I once made a stand against bullying and ten years on, I am still condemned for it. I remember a film clip on tv news of a US soldier entering a building after action against iraqi gunmen. His teammate saw some movement and asked "Is that guy dead?". The soldier shot him saying "He is now...". He too was pilloried in the media. His actions were viewed as inhumane. What else could he do? He was a trained soldier, a man employed to commit violence for his country regardless of personal risk, if required. The fallen gunman was a potential threat, a man who may still have a grenade, firearm, or sharp blade with which to cause death and injury, a man too groggy to think clearly and attempt surrender even if he wanted to. In that light, was the soldier wrong? Pop Star Moment of the Week No not me - my rock star days are over (no laughing at the back...). Seriously though, I've happened on a newspaper story mentioning that pop superstar Robbie Williams has spotted a UFO, and now wants to be Ufologist. Stay off the pills Robbie.

And the evidence of conflict is there. That doesn't mean there weren't peaceful immigrants as well. less peaceful immigrants were invited by Vortigern to support his conquest of the petty kingdoms, and unfortunately, they wouldn't go home, leaving Vortigern as a despised ruler in the southeast. Britain before the romans arrived had belgic tribes settling here with close links across the channel to Gaul. The original celts were already pressed westward. Englishness is technically post-Norman Invasion, as this was the last large scale invasion/settlement by a foreign peoples. Unless you include the modern day of course.

Thats the problem with What If situations, you can ignore how the world actually is and end up with an episode of Star Trek. Allegorical, and entertaining up to a point, but without any sense of reality the whole story is no more than a fairy tale. Possibly my views are different to most peoples, but the story is actually intended to depict a 'real' alternative history then human dynamics cannot be ignored. People act in certain ways, cultures come and go, and when the limits of society are exceeded it fragments. Of course, if you prefer science fiction, then be my guest, as long as the story is honest about what it is.

They had a certain style of combat on the battlefield depending on technology, fashion, and availability. There were things that were desirable - a good position on the battlefield, keeping your cavalry on the wings to utilise their mobility and counter enemy outflanking moves, keeping infantry in groups to allow them to support each other etc. Thats all very well, but if the enemy does something you're not expecting they have the initiiative. Ancient warfare is sometimes expressed as a competition between equipment much like modern warfare can be. Not so. Whilst it does make a difference, in the ancient world a man with a sword is often as godd as any other, including your enemy. So what advantage can you find? Position, timing, ambush, ruse, feint - any sort of trick to lull the enemy into a bad situation. Remember Lake Trasimene, with Hannibal tying torches to cattle to make the romans think they were leaving?

No, the problem with Jaguar is that they lost their way in the 70's. Up until that point, they built proper sports cars like the SS, C Type, D type, XKSS, E Type etc alongside their luxury models. You might even include the unsuccessful XJ13. When they got to the XJ12, everything went wrong. Instead of finishing it as the mid-eingined supercar rival to lamborghini it was initially intended to be, it was turned into a budget luxury saloon and boy was it bad. Instead of selling cars to sports car enthusiasts, Jaguar sat back and sold cars to the golf club. They still do, and somehow those Aston Martin clones they build just lack conviction. AD is of course a paid up member of the golfing set and therefore finds the less sporty Jaguars as desirable. Actually, it isn't really the car. AD is trying to pee me off for reasons known only to him. I don't get introduced to anyone, I don't get asked to attend meetings, I'm not involved in anything remotely resembling management - Lets be honest (because he isn't) - He had no intention of training me to replace him. Perhaps I should sue him for loss of earnings? Enjoy your Jagwah AD.

I came across a quaint little tale recently and I'm curious to know if there's any truth to it. The story goes like this... Back in the closing days of the Ottoman Empire, there was a palace fire and a french embassy official happened to see a looter carrying off a thick volume entitled 'History of Rome', supposedly written by Titus Livius and thought lost for centuries. He haggled with the man but since he didn't have the asking price, he made an agreement with the turk to meet and buy the book. The turk never showed up. Quite how the sharp eyed official recognised the book for what it was supposed to be is anyones guess, particularly since this was during civil disorder, but I'd like to know if there's some basis to this tale. Anyone know anything?

Walking along an old railway cutting near where I live, I noticed the rocks had fallen away. Now I know the rocks of that particular place were once the sandy floor of a shallow sub-tropical sea during the Jurassic Age, so out of curiosity I clambered up to where the rock face has come away and examined those rocks for any sign of fossils. As much as I'd like to find something special, it wasn't likely. This area was an archipelago back then, a coral reef to the northwest, and right here a seaside paradise like the ones we spend loads of money to get drunk beside every year. As I look underneath the broken surface, my eyes open wide. The impression of an ammonite shell is clearly visible. These 'squids in spiral shells' are extinct, and if you look carefully, fairly common in the fossil record, though the vast majority are no more than an inch or two across. Not this one. At least twelve inches across - a very impressive specimen. And very missing. I looked around the rubble but no sign of it. Gone. Sold at a carboot sale and propped up beside someones fireplace in all likeliehood. No-one else will see it. It makes me wonder how many historical artifacts, so vital to our understanding of times past, have been hidden away for the pleasure of the selfish collector. The modern trade in Egyptian antiquities is well known, although I suspect the great majority are fakes sold to the gullible. About three years ago I ventured into the pub up the hill. That pub has a reputation for violence, not entirely undeserved, but on this particular night I got talking to some old chap. He mentioned he knew a secret, and I casually enquired further. "I know where to find the tomb... of the..." He had to think about this bit.. "Ancestress." Now this was way cool. Sensing this chap was out of his depth, I pressed him for information. Where is this tomb? "I can't tell you, its too dangerous." So you're an adventurer then? You're one of those blokes who smuggles stuff from Egypt? "Yes, Egypt." He agreed, unable to think of something more original, "I rescue stuff from Egypt, I'm the Del Boy of the Desert, crossing the sand dunes." In your Reliant Robin? "Yes." But you've got no suntan? "I go at night." You do meet interesting people in pubs... My Week at Work My boss has finally given up trying to sell his BMW to me. Why he thought it would give me managerial credibility I don't know, I'd look more like a drug dealer. So now he's trading it in for a Jagwah. I know because he tells me. On the hour, every hour. Worse still, we've dscovered that a major contract has been lost and that means our client-specific stock has to be relabelled. Literally thousands of labels to be applied. Plenty of opportunity then for AD to discuss the merits of Jagwahs. I'm in Hell....

It does make me wonder about people sometimes. Over here in Blighty there's a 'newspaper' called the Daily Sport (invent your own puns and witticisms). Its full of adverts by women seeking sex. Also you sometimes get a page full of grannies trying to find young men for romps and good times, one 77 year old claiming that these lads will discover her experience. There's an advert by a middle aged woman saying she likes to dominate and any respondees must be respectable and call her mistress. Now I don't buy this paper (wouldn't want to be called a hypocrite) but our tame forklifter does. What on earth for? There's no news in it, and the sport pages are the last five or six. I look askance at our workmate and wonder....

63%. I lost a few men but I think I got away with it....

I've just come across an interesting snippet. The Gauls had developed their own coinage by caesars time inspired by greek coins they encountered during their expansive phase in the 4th century BC. Vercingetorix doesn't appear on very many many of them at all. Granted this might be the restricted sample found, but it does also suggest he wasn't as powerful or popular as generally believed.

There is of course the view connected with that concerning human mental processes. Since we're all pretty similar there's bound to be a tendency to think of the same things. I don't know how true that is, but I remember a game I once set up for sci-fi players. They all had the same map and were told to go out and colonise the nearby systems (and hopefully argue a lot about territory - the whole point of the game). Each player without exception went exactly the same way! The way they perceived the map unconciously suggested to them all that a certain route would be best.