caldrail

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.

Thank you good sirs. Now if you'll excuse me, I have the wretched task of visiting the local chief and begging for cash. Remember that scene in the film The Great Escape when Bartlett is dragged in front of his gestapo nemesis? "Aaaahhhhhhhh...... Mr 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.