caldrail

Earlier this morning I opened my emails. As usual there was the usual collection of unsolicited and unwanted stuff from people I've never heard of and probably don't exist. Salvador Hale - Male Enhancement Hampus Showers - Arissa says I feel tight in her now Shan Spivey - Enter her with your throbbing manhood Grant Saunders - She loved my large manhood Abhijit Lukic - Non stop bedroom action And so on. Those were the polite titles too. Who sends all this rubbish? Does anyone seriously believe I want to look at *or*-mail like this? There's currently 156 emails unread in my bulk folder and its all stuff like this or worse. Whoever is sending this garbage - Give up. I'm not interested. There was a guy at the place I used to work for who regularly downloaded porno-images. Another chap had tons of jpegs on his work PC that showed women in various silly poses. Why do people enjoy this stuff? I just don't get it. Its a photograph, an image, and its not even real since its deliberately staged. I just cannot understand what there is to get excited about. Its an obsession with sex at the end of the day. These are people that boast about their sex lives but don't actually find anything fulfilling in it (if indeed their partners exist and actually bother with them). People who may well sneer at me slobber and grin over a few distasteful jpegs instead. You're way sadder than me, lads. Sorry, you just are.

I agree. Although greek/roman vessels travelled far into the indian ocean and indeed may have been travelling as far as china in some very isolated cases, this was happening much later than the period you suggest. The first real expansion of greek culture occured through the efforts of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, again much later. Akso, whilst there was a period of exploration in ancient china I don't think it was that long ago, and there's no record they ever sailed into the mediterranean. Is there any possibility of the symbols depicted being nothing more than a coincidential resemblance? It seems hugely unlikely that there's a common root to both scripts.

The problem with the conventional view of Vercingetorix is Caesar. He liked to exaggerate his achievements and they wouldn't have been so impressive had the gaulish leader not been such a noble and capable leader. To be honest, he may have been, after all he did defeat Caesar once - something which Caesar never forgot as it cast doubt on his reputation as an invincible general. The treatment that Vercingetorix got after capture wasn't just about him being a man who resisted Rome - it was about a man who had resisted Caesar.

Not entirely so I'm afraid., Only the external threat of roman aggression allowed Vercingetorix to unite some of the Gauls. Don't forget, there were gauls who were perfectly happy to assist Caesar in return for being left alone. Also, the alliance of gauls under vercingetorix only happened at the end of the campaign.

Cue upbeat theme music and close ups of scantily clad women between clips of Caldrail goofing Hi there, and welcome to Eye on Rushey Platt. I'm your host Caldrail. In todays entry - Did Miss L do that to her hair on purpose? Why has AM been banned from his favourite library PC? Does DS know I've heard her mocking me as she walks past my home on Friday night? Is there any truth to the rumour that SB is about to get his revenge? But first, a shocking new development down the road. There's a commercial building that used to be a music store, more recently an internet cafe, and left empty when its owner decided to sell the property for the outrageous price of

I'm saying nothing...

When you read these books, or any other source of such information, there is something important you need to understand. Warfare is not a game of chess. Whether on land, air, or sea there is no standard countermove to any action inititiated by the enemy. Sure, there are things that will probably work and certainly those that won't, but so much depends on circumstance. Generals who rely solely on detailed prepared plans are likely to come unstuck against those think on their feet. For an excellent overview of control anf the psychology of the ancient battlefield I recommend the following publication. Greek & Roman Warfare: Battles, Tactics, and Trickery by John Drogo Montagu.

I notice that these alternative histories always assume the Rome was victorious and conquers all. That doesn't work. No culture has ever been able to complete such a victory although there's been plenty of ambitious or megalomaniac leaders who tried. Any culture has a finite number of population from which it can draw its military personnel. The more people it uses to fight, the fewer people there are to support them. In other words, you reach a point where further conquest becomes too difficult or expensive. Rome expanded quickly during the republic partly because it was stronger than its rivals, but also because those rivals had an existing infrastructure that Rome could absorb. A wilderness does not, as Augustus found out. Also, without modern communications, it becomes increasingly difficult to control armies at the frontier of your conquest, and also increasingly difficult to support their efforts. Its like blowing up a balloon. At first it will expand rapidly then slow down as the volume increases and your breath runs out. Furthermore there's a human trait that reappears time and again in expanding cultures. They seem to run out of the urge to conquer further. Particularly noticeable with 'barbaric' tribes such as gauls, huns, vikings, or any others I can't recall at the moment, it also afflicts more civilised cultures. Macedonia conquered territory as far east as the Indus valley but had to stop, even with the charismatic Alexander urging them on. Trajan pushed into the middle east and conquered territory as far as the Caspian Sea, but Rome was unwilling to retain its conquest under the less militaristic Hadrian. Clearly, the expansion of cultures is partly dependent on the leader who sets it in motion. Conquest does not occur by itself - it must be set in motion, and there is a balance between the power and leadership of the individual responsible and mass of soldiers or civilians that enact it. For Rome to conquer the whole world is assuming that roman culture remains essentially unchanged. No culture is static - it evolves - it changes from something often young and fresh to something older and more tired, as if waiting to be replaced by another in a sort of analog with natural life. Rome in 2005? They never stood a chance. You might argue it was possible because say... Egypt had a coherent civilisation for something like 3,000 years. Thats true, but notice also that egypt as a nation was gobbled up by Rome and therefore afflicted by its fate, and also that - importantly - the early coptic christians destroyed the religious life of egypt that had helped preserve their national identity for so long. There's a temple on an island along the Nile with a stone plaque commerating the efforts of those who had vandalised the pagan images on the walls. Rome on the other hand did not base its culture on the bounty of a large river (Yes, I do know about the Tiber!), but turned from agriculture to conquest and in doing so ensured their empire would eventually wear out. Throughout the Pax Imperia, Rome was living off the fat of conquest and as such was economically doomed in the long run. Their economy was unsustainable because it was not developed enough to sustain more conquest, thus the roman legions were increasingly turned toward a defensive stance, further encouraged by the pressure of barabarian incursions. As for America, I've said similar things in that their nation is based on classic principles and ideals. But its not Rome. Its a nation with some parallel development, inspired by the ancient world in some respects.

As with any frontier, some romans made a living trading with germanic tribes. Furs and animals for the arena for instance come to mind - I'm sure there were other resources the germans could sell or barter. However, the germans lived in a totally different enviroment to that of the typical roman pleb. "Fearful forest and stinking bog" according to Tacitus. These were large men, much closer to the average height of modern europeans today than the romans who averaged 5'4". Size matters. In the reign of Julian the Apostate there's a documented raid on german settlements living on islands along the Rhine. There was no provocation for these raids, it was purely a speculative action. Roman troops sneaked in, even swimming aboard their shields at one point, slaughtering the inhabitants and making off with their valuables. Clearly there's an element of contempt here. The germans, although apparently peaceful at that time, are regarded as legitimate targets. Conversely, the german tribes look southward at the roman empire and want their riches for themselves. Some tribes take a legal route and offer services as allies, receiving roman pay for what they enjoy doing. Such men were billetted with their families amongst roman families, and you can imagine the friction that might result in households because of it. These german tribesmen were aggressive warriors. In the time of Caesar his Aedui cavalry were sent packing by a smaller group of german horsemen who threw stones at them. An elite guard is of germans is formed to protect the emperor from the praetorian guard. Varus found out first hand how they could be. I don't think you can assume that the lower classes had a coherent opinion of the germans. Many only knew of them by reputation which often exaggerates things. I can imagine there were some romans who got along with germans like a house on fire - and others who wouldn't touch a smelly barbaric tribesmen if you paid them. They weren't roman, nor did they adopt roman ways (at least not until they overran the place), and therefore in the roman mind - lower class or not - they were typically viewed with either disdain or distrust.

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=T1842

You were castigated? You were lucky. I got sacked from my last job because I worked faster than anyone else. No great physical effort involved (apart from going up and down stairs all day), it was just that one other worker (GH) wanted to sit on his backside drinking coffee all day. His boss (DS in my blog) supported his efforts because they were good mates, and wanted him promoted so he could sit on his bum drinking coffee all day etc etc just like she did, whilst she played games and practical jokes with her favourite companion buddy worker who would have sat on his rear like the others had he not done her share of the work for her. Unfortunately, she couldn't do that while my scanning rate was twice that of GH. He even used a program on a laptop to download the files and reload them as his results, and I still did better than he did! Finally, she sacked me for undressing in the office and being rude. No comment. Fact is, most people like sitting on their bums drinking coffee all day and don't people who work hard in their midst.

Do I have to admit that in public? yes. Never really liked Little Britain though.

Undoubtedly, but their views influenced their clients and so forth. Its entirely possible that scruffy plebs had different ideas, but I find difficult to see how different they would be. In any case, they generally didn't write books so its difficult to find what they thought as opposed to their better educated social superiors. Elements of germanic dress were adopted for fashion or practical reasons. Whats so unusual? Romans always adopted cultural ideas they thought worthwhile. That doesn't mean they were best mates with germans, it means they saw things the liked and copied them. Incidentially, its worth readng Tacitus's account of the germans. You find a very unroman culture and whilst Tacitus is as objective as roman wrters could be, he clearly looks askance at them and sees them as a curiosity. Obviously he had few, if any, dealings with germans himself, but would lower class people belonging to a strong dynamic conquest state see them as instrincally equal? No, but I will accept that romans who dealt with germans on a daily basis had different views as happens on any such frontier. Good or bad, according to circumstance and experience.

The DNA evidence needs to properly interpreted. The anglo-saxons were very keen on britain for a some time, hence the roman shore forts. Pevensey for instead was attacked by saxons in the mid fifth century and it appears the locals were slaughtered. Raids like this were uncommon however. The saxons were coming across to bag new farming land (which britain had in abundance, and the saxons were keen farmers), but also because rising sea levels were flooding theirs. The supposed conquest of britain was hotly contested by the local warlords (it may even have spawned the King Arthur legend) who had quickly taken over the collapsed roman administration with petty kingdoms. Had the british been united, such raids might possibly have been contained in much the same way as the later viking incursions - but that wasn't so. Saxons captured land in fits and starts rather than a prolonged military campaign. The Battle of Beranburgh above Wroughton in Wiltshire has been downgraded from its previous depiction of a mass battle to something far more modest, but this central/western england area wasn't subject to saxon incursions n this scale and aggression until the sixth century, perhaps a hundred years after Pevensey on the southeast coast. The numbers of invaders was certainly less than native populations and therefore the idea of a saxon minority dominating the rest isn't so wrong, and its likely that when a saxon chief wanted expansion, he would gather and concentrate his supply of willing warriors for this end, rather than have lots of raids by small numbers everywhere. Also, the effect of these battle, even if on a small scale, was to open up territory for this intended expansion. The locals had already found out that the saxons were a race 'hateful to God' and either evacuated or accepted their presence.

If you've wondered why I don't say much about fun things at work, its because work isn't fun right now. AD, the guy I've been trained to replace, has decided not to retire after all. Orders are small and right now I spend about ten minutes every morning labelling goods for transport. Job done. I know there are people who would give their right arm for a laid back existence like that, but isn't an inactive workplace the worst possible place to be stuck in? The clocks move backward, everyone else vanishes, the radio plays the same songs as yesterday. Our emails are due to connected in the next couple of days, so at least I can console myself with the need to wait by the phone for the IT man to call. Have you ever noticed how slow IT people are to react? You make a call, and wait forever for someone to pick up your case. I do not lie. Recently I bought some expensive software - it took nine hours to install - and I discover I can't register it the normal way, so its effectively useless. I emailed their customer support, and their suggestions bore no relation to what I saw on the screen. So, after much huffing and puffing, I told the vendor I wanted my money back and threatened legal action if they didn't do so. Then I get a phone call from their customer support telling me that registration is only a ten minute process and would I like to register my product? The real question is would I like to do business with a company that takes three months to get around to a ten minute job? Car Accident of the Week Some of you might have heard of a car accident in Gloucestershire. Some guy previously banned for drink-driving drove head on into a car coming the other way. Its all very tragic and horrific, my sincere condolences to those who have lost. But you have to wonder what difference a government sponsored safety camera would have made. None whatsoever. I remember driving round a corner once and finding a car overtaking a landrover and horsebox coming right at me. I was luckier - I had time to brake hard and avoid a collision. What difference would a government sponsored safety camera have made? None whatsoever. No, I've changed my mind. The safety cameras would have made a difference. The speed limits would have been reduced and drivers fined or banned for exceeding it. Except the people liable to actually have an accident already have. Talk about closing a stable door. And profiting from it. Jesus Moment Of The Week The Jesus Shop has reopened for business. You have to admire the mans persistence, he's gone out business at least once. The window currently has Jesus ads posted up, including the classic Jesus was born as a baby because he loves you. Can't quite see the logic in that, but then religion was never about logic in the first place. A Dogs Life A Dogs brain is more like a Mans brain than a Cats brain. Heard this piece of wisdom on the radio just now. Its so true. Who's ever heard of cat biscuits? Prove me wrong.

They get exiled, like Abba

This is another, if older, example of neo-pagnism. I really do doubt it has any connection with pre-christian beliefs as such. Far from it, its more likely a cult put together by those who want an alternative to christianity - something we see today. They needed to keep their rites under wraps because back then it was more risky. These days you just get flamed or moaned at on the internet, pamphlets through your door, visits from smiling caring salespeople - the usual treatment. I had one guy performing exrcisms at the back of my flat on sunday mornings a few years back. Didn't he know its Ozzy Osbourne who's the Prince of Evil?

YES!!!! At last, a truly civilised person who understands the higher points of 1970's comedy!

I see most people focus on slavery, but surely that was a side-issue back then? The americans of the day regarded afro-carribeans as second-class, even in the north they were segregated and continued to be until after WWII. The south was diverging from the union on economy and to some degree political self determination. Sure, there were people who thought slavery was terrible, but there were still plenty who wanted blacks slaving away for a pittance in order to make profit.

Oh no, not my home towns own newspaper... How could you do this to me?.... Seriously though, Stonehenge is now generally regarded as a religious site connected with rites concerning death (as opposed to nearby Woodhenge, now believed to be associated with 'life'). The fact that skeletons have been found is nether here nor there without the correct context, and a burial site isn't necessarily where the person fell in combat. I remember a recent thread where someone was putting forward the theory that the place was a miltary defensible construction (erm... no), and any battle ought at the site back then would have been a very small scale affair. I'm not discounting the possibility of violence there, but at the same time you cannot discount the possibility of sacrifiial burial. Further study needed I think.

Traditionally the german allies had been prizd for their physique and loyalty. They were definitely bigger than the average roman, and an elite bodyguard was used during the early empire to offset any risk posed by the praetorians. As a culture the germans would be considered inferior. The romans were entirely convinced theirs was best, the most civilised way to be and to be honest, it certainly attracted german people into their service. Disregarding Arminius and so forth, by the later empire I understand there was a lot of conflict on the german border. I remember seeing a depiction of a roman raid on a german settlement for nstance. It might also be true that the later romans were wary of their german neighbours. A large number had been allowed to settle further south. An important point about the late empire is that armies were no longer purely roman. Foreigners, whole tribes of them them, were employed wholesale as army units and no longer expected to fall under the command of roman officers. There arealso indiations that such allies billetted in private homes weren't entirely well behaved, so you migt well imagie the friction that could result locally. I know there's some source on this - I will delve further.

A man on the same social level as a pimp once described himself as a Negotiator Familiae Gladiatoriae - the Business Manager of a Gladiatorial Troupe - an attempt to give himself some respectability. He was a Lanista, an owner/trainer of gladiators, a man who profited from death without risk to himself. The truth is that the gladiators were stock in trade for a lanista. If possible, he would prefer to avoid any of his possessions dying. His investment in time and effort with his slaves was considerable. Men who had volunteered, been bought, or been condemned to the arena needed to be housed, fed, equipped, trained. The cost of this was often too much. There are references to 'hack troupes' of gladiators wandering from town to town performing much the same way as the circus of recent times. The lanista of a hack troupe had no permanent premises. However, the more affluent lanista did. Yet it wasn't until the time of Caesar that the schools were becoming purpose built with professional facilities for its inmates, although the region of Campania may well have had such facilities earlier, especially since we know that in 73BC Spartacus and his band escaped from the school of Lentulus Batiatus in Capua, a noted center of such activity. Its also worth mentioning that despite the desperate origin of many of the trainees, perhaps as many as a hundred, the security of his school is dubious. One escape attempt had already occurred and yet another was succesful - leaving one wondering about the possible carelessness demonstrated. Following the two year campaign of Spartacus, things were to change in the gladiatorial world. Lanistas stepped up security and discipline by several notches. Men speaking similar languages were seperated for instance, and facilities included prisons for the recalcitrant few (as if the dark and damp quarters weren't prison enough). These security arrangements were to remain in place until the decline of arena combat. The success of this system is also illustrated by the fact that gladiators wanted to please their owners. An esprit-de-corps all of its own, and there are indications that the familiae were indeed close knit groups of men, despite the fact that they usually fought between themselves and at times would have to execute a friend. There was a difference in treatment between enforced and volunteer gladiators. Volunteers under contract, although technically enslaved too, were often allowed to leave the ludum (Gladiator School) for rest and relaxation - something denied to those bought or condemned. There was also the relative status of gladiators to consider. A lanista would allow succesful fighters better quarters as a reward for his service, besides the profit he brought in, and during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD may well also need to provide quarters for female fighters. Recent evidence shows that Hadrian found it necessary to restrict the bad behaviour of socialising gladiators. Its worth reminding ourselves that although a popular fighter had celebrity status, he belonged to a class of men officially regarded as scum. Despite this, there were roman women hoplessly attracted to these men as examples of fearless masculinity, so perhaps the lanista also profitted from regulating visits from the public. There is also references to some women who practised as gladiators without signing on as fighters. Is this evidence that lanistae offered training at a price to the public? If the women were so entranced by gladiatorial combat, its a fair bet that there were men who did so too. Its believed the number of volunteers for the arena reached as many as 50% of gladiators present by the 2nd century AD. It isn't clear when the lanista first emerges. The first known gladiatorial bout took place in a cattle market in 264BC to mark the funeral of Brutus Pera. Three pairs fought simultaneously. It is fairly obvious that such bloodletting had been going on discreetly already - the tradition of honouring the dead with blood sacrifices had been a feature of the greek/etruscan world. Nonetheless, at this time the lanista wasn't the independent entrepeneur he was to become. He would have been an expert hired or bought by a wealthy man for the purpose of ensuring his slaves put up an exciting fight for the well-wishers at a funeral, if indeed the wealthy man hadn't trained his slaves himself. Things were to change. There was a change of emphasis over the late republic from a funeral combat sacrifice to strictly controlled contests of skill and corage for public entertainment. By 174BC a funeral munus displayed seventy-four pairs on a three day event. As the desire to impress began to inflate the gladiatorial world it naturally spawned men who wanted to profit from it. Thus the lanista makes himself known, a man who has bought and trained men purely for hire to those requiring fighters. Not necessarily for munera, but also as bodyguards or even as army units on rare occaisions. He is also a man who deals with a dangerous trade without personal risk, a source of contempt in the mindset of romans who valued personal courage. The excitement of these fights was such that in 165BC the playwright Terence was dismayed to see the audience of his popular play disappear when news of a gladiator fight spread. This is precisely the enviroment in which entrepeneurs can flourish. During Caesars earlier political career, he was able to summon as many as five thousand gladiators for a performance that was hastily restricted by a worried senate. In the reign of Tiberius a dead centurion was held 'hostage' by townsfolk of Pollentia until the family of the deceased had paid for funeral games - the army was called in to settle the dispute. Apart from the occaisional funeral, gladiators were displayed during the Saturnalia festivities in late December. As the popularity of arena combat escalates even further more festivals attracted games, and emperors were later to stage events to please the crowd. Caligula for instance was in a procession through Rome and heard an onlooker cry out for a day of games. He got his wish. Compare that with the celebrations staged by Trajan lasting four months, in which its believed ten thousand men fought, many of them prisoners of war. Inevitably, lanistas must have been called upon to supply men for such events. In fact, these itinerant trainers were the last remnant of the gladiatorial world as it became offically banned and in decline early in the fifth century AD. However, during the reign of Augustus, changes taken place. Government officials (Procuratores) took over the duties of the lanista in the imperial sponsored ludii in Rome, and under the franchise system of Augustus, no doubt towns operated similarly on a smaller scale. There must have been independent troupe leaders still around picking up smaller contracts, perhaps for wealthy men seeking social diversions or protection, whilst the provinces saw same itinerant troupes earning a speculative living. As an independent entrepeneur, the lanista was able to hire experts to train on his behalf. Indeed, given the increase in trade and the sizeable school populations it was necessary to do so. The lanista himself was often an ex-gladiator, a successful fighter who already knew his business. He might promote experienced men as doctores, expert fighter/trainers. With the rapid increase in volunteer gladiators by the reign of Augustus, the doctorii were often chosen from men within a year or two of completing their contract. After all, they were successful fighters and their experience was a valuable asset to a lanista - totally lost if the gladiator should receive a bad review from the crowd. It probably should suprise you to learn that a death in the arena brought healthy compensation for his owner. Not so for gladiators set free by the games editor. Since many gladiators returned to the ludii after freedom because they either failed to make their way in the world or they simply preferred the life they knew, a lanista would accept his former charges back within his fold. The list of staff he employed goes further. He may have personal slaves, masseurs for the fighters, cooks, medics, even craftsmen. Those lanistae training arena huntsmen and women may well have needed provision for animal handlers too. Some of these people might even have been gladiators permanently injured in training and unable to compete, if they had not been sold off. Its worth noting thats there's apparently no record of gladiators deliberately causing themselves permanent injury to escape fighting for real - and we do know that novice gladiators were sometimes so desperate as to commit suicide. Was this a success of security? The average lanista must have created a very harsh regime to enforce behaviour and prevent undesirable activity. The regime is best illustrated by the traditional gladiator oath to his owner, sworn by all men entering the ludum as fighters regardless of origin. Uri, vinciri, uerbarari, feroqque necari - To endure burning with fire, shackling with chains, to be whipped with rods and killed with steel - This was the world run by the Lanista.

Here in Britain we realise that taste buds are an impediment to enjoying a good curry. As for rat meat, I can't say, although about seven years ago there was a takeaway down the road busted for cooking cats.

Last night I popped across the road to the kebab shop for a burger. I don't do this frequently, though I have to say I'm not particularly worried about horror stories of whats in it. Now I doubt their burgers are actually wholesome. My mother once gave me some she'd ordered along with other produce from Scotland and I have to say those were in a different league altogether. But I fancied some minced moggie, ash, and other undesirable stuff and they say a little of what you fancy does you good. "Hi Boss" said the old guy behind the counter. These turks call everyone Boss. "Yes?" I'll have... a cheesburger and chips please. "Ok Boss. You wanna sauce with that?" Chilli please. "You wanna salad?" Oh just onions. "You wanna cheese with your burger?" Don't your cheeseburgers normally come with cheese? "Yes. But do you wanna cheese?" Yes. Yes I do . Please put cheese on my cheeseburger. I would like mature cheddar freshly sliced straight from a refrigator. "Yes Boss. This cheese ok?". Is that mature cheddar frreshly sliced from a refrigerator? The young man with cross-eyes yells something turkish to the old man. "Yes Boss. Sliced cheese. Cheese ok?.. Huh?" Oh go on then. 'Bill Oddie' Moment of the Week Those who don't know who Bill Oddie is, he's a tv presenter (once a comedian) who does a lot of nature programs, enthusing about small furry mammals and casting scorn on Swindon. Well, Mr Oddie, here's something you might appreciate. My parents maintain resteraunt and hotel facilities for local wildlife, and to be fair, they do get a wide variety of birds dropping in (and sometimes dropping on us). A sparrowhawk was there, patiently waiting on the fence for the blue tits in the nesting box to come out to play. The blue tits of course were more sensible. There was that blackbird that likes to wet its feathers in the faux watercourse feature on the back wall. Then, with spectacular powers of intellect, a big fat pidgeon decided that was a cool idea and copied the blackbird, choosing instead a plastic seedbox full of rainwater. He dipped head, shook his wings. You could see him thinking 'Hey, this isn't bad', and he got more enthusiastic. Then he slipped and fell in. The soggy pidgeon flapped and fumbled its way out of the water, flopping onto the paving stones whilst family and I burst into hysterics. It sat there looking thoroughly embarrased. I guess you had to be there.

Certainly would have cured any constipation