caldrail

Why? He's a succesful music director in the film industry. He doesn't write music to be original or clever, he writes it to set the required mood and pace within the film (arguably harder because you don't have creative freedom). If you watch the DVD interview, he does actually mention being forced to resort to wagnerian symphonies during Commodus Triumphal return to Rome because nothing else would do. And its also thanks to him that the vocals and duduk addition to the soundtrack happened at all, which really does underpin the films tragic story. Long may he continue.

Oh come on Neph, what do all young ladies do at that age? She gossips with her friends Your point about the scandal is interesting, because being unmarrried at 18 is going to attract comment. Perhaps her family ought to try harder...

Evolutoion works, but there's something else lurking under there. Notice how there's an explosion of new species whenever disaster strikes the worlds continents and climates. Its like nature is primed to diverge rapidly under certain circumstances. PS - this post is not proof of God.

I've just watched a video about things alien. That image of the rock that looks suspiciously like sasquatch. An enthusiastic 'expert' getting exciting about meeting real live aliens from Out There (doesn't he have any real friends?). Film clips of a psychopathic alien smelling Sigourney Weaver, cute grey thingy waving at the assembled scientists on a mountain top, intergalactic hippie E.T. getting caught with no clothes on by a kid, and a gelatinous blob terrorising small town america. Quotes from Stephen Hawking inform us that in the infinity of space, there must be aliens out there (but not close, or we'd see their tv programs). I don't know about you, but if there's hyper-intelligent blobs out there bent on terrorising small town america by abducting innocent cannabis smokers and chopping up cows for laughs, then why would they waste their time watching soap operas? Can you imagine an alien soap opera? Female Alien Kghdj, I wish to submit an emotional report to you Male Alien Dnmdiu, I have already nested with Dgdjsd. Female Alien She cannot give you podlings like I can. Male Alien Affirmative Dnmdiu. However the Pod-Lord has dictated that we invade the next street tommorrow and I cannot have any distractions. Female Alien You are no longer light relief. I will now commit revenge. Male Alien I am registering suprise... blob repellent on my anti-weather equipment! Door opens and Male Aliens Mate (Third Gender) enters Male Aliens Mate (Third Gender) Huh? Whats is occuring here? Dnmdiu, are you engaged in an extra-pod-ical relationship with with my First Gender Mate? Aliens stand waiting for closing credits You would think that aliens could create superior television programs. I suspect the real reason we haven't seen any is because their soap operas are even worse than ours, and its too embarrasing to admit that the most hyper intillgent species in the galaxy is obsessed with who is replicating with who. I therefore submit that aliens did build the pyramids, but that human beings missed the whole point. It was an alien filmset ("Thanks humanity, that was a cool movie, but we don't need those pyramids now"). Perhaps the long journey from their planet to ours gets a little boring given the universe has an irritating speed limit (no speed cameras discovered yet - God hasn't thought of that one). So I'd imagine the real reason they pop up here to play catch me with jet fighters and ruin airline pilots careers is just for something to do, or is it they're looking for a compatible toilet facility?

To some extent, but he also failed because he couldn't land a killer blow. Thats not because he made a mistake (though it does seem so at first glance) but rather because he underestimated roman stubbornness. Notice that he does not attack the city of Rome, nor does he spend much time on territorial gain nor objective conquest. His whole campaign is about threat and intrusion. Without the ability to supply his troops for a long period in one place, he must must remain mobile, and therefore gambles that his victories against roman forces sent against him will bring the romans to a white flag. The romans were close to panic - in that he almost succeeded - but its that large manpower pool that brings in fresh troops after a short delay. Hannibal, reliant on the mercenaries that crossed the alps with him, could not replace his losses so easily.

here in Britain we get assailed with news reports, newspaper stories, and magazine articles all trying to convince us that the worlsd is about to change for the worse and we have to do something about it. Like what? Switching off my car engine isn't going to stop several acres of brazilian rainforest from being burned, it isn't going to stop bandits stealing young orangatangs from their mothers, it won't stop poachers shooting elephant or rhino, it won't stop bears being trapped, it won't stop the chinese killing every exotic animal they can lay their hands on to save their fading libidoes. Nor will it effectively stop climate change. We're being made to feel guilty about the enviroment to prevent any criticism of hare brained and expensive schemes. Fact is, the enviroment has become a new religion. We're all expected to join up, to believe we can save the earth if we all pull together. Anyone who doesn't repeat the same sensibilities is ostracised as a polluting monster. But can we preserve the earth as it is? Of course not. Climate change is a natural cycle and its powered by physical forces somewhat more powerful than us. I wrote something along these ones once before. http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic.php...p;sk=t&sd=a

The weather has been great these last two days. Clear skies and balmy sunshine. Not bad for February in England where benign climates are something you spend hundreds of pounds to escape to every summer holiday. Nature is having a sunbathe too, trees are and flowers looking very much like they should in spring. Woodpeckers have colonised one of local parks, making it sound like a construction site as they burrow into trees. Squirrels and rabbits at large, doing squirrelly and rabbity things (surely you don't need that explained?) But is this good? Apparently not, for the countless tv interviews with experts and initiatives (not to mention new taxes, plus some heavier older ones) from politicians, its clear that the blossoming flowers are in fact a harbinger of doom, a warning of apocalyptic disasters of biblical proportions to come. Don't smell the flowers They're an evil drug To make you lose your mind Don't Talk To Strangers - Ronnie James Dio Its all about global warming and its domination of politics today. As if the politicians have any real idea about what to do, they're just listening to every screwball with charts and zealous belief that the world is about to end. Not that they actually understand what the guy has said, its justification for more tax. So if the local florist is doing well, you know the end is nigh. Farce of the Week "Send all parcels by Speedy Logistics" says AD, who claims its cheaper. "Send all parcels by Slick Parcels" say Head Office, because they claim its cheaper. "No, we're cheaper" say Supersonic Transport. "No they're not" say Speedy Logistics, because they deliver economy. "No they don't" say Head Office, who insist on Slick Parcels, who in turn insist on doing things their way and now Supersonic Transport are turning up for Slick's collections... Our tame forklifter is looking very bemused and a little browbeaten by van drivers.

How often did it occur? very rarely as it happens. Commanders were well aware of the possible risks to morale and mutiny if it was over-used, and only applied this punishment in cases of extreme dishonour. It also represented the hard edge of a very austere regime that survived from earlier times, when discipline was rigid and infexible in order to maintain order in the phalanx. As we enter the empire, the occurence becomes less and less (Crassus and Caesar made the headlines for reviving this old punishment) and later authors don't mention it at all (at least I haven't come across it yet). Wouldn't its usage have been counterproductive for recruitment? You would think so but this seems not to be the case. Young men usually have this sense of invulnerability and in any case, if they thought it was going to happen to them then they wouldn't join up for any reason - some didn't. The practice of cutting off a thumb and making it impossible to hold a sword is mentioned in the early empire (it became a serious issue in the late empire too) and some men were known to hide in rural slave barracks pretending to be slaves in order to escape being drafted. Nonetheless, for many the legions were a source of income, a steady(ish) job, and something that carried a measure of civic reward and sense of pride at the end of service, not to mention the promise of citizenship. For others, military service was a chance to win respect and political credibility. The possibility that they would serve with dishonour and be punished fatally isn't usually the sort of thing I'd expect anyone to spend too much considering, particularly since there was a 90% probability of survival. But wouldn't its usage have made for better more dedicated recruits? Thats the entire point! Imagine how you'd feel if your commander thought you were a bunch of wussy boys who'd turn tail and run at the first excuse and ordered you to club your best mate to death because of it. The officer would be sure to tell you that it was your own fault. Did its usage decline during the Empire with more 'mercenary' types? It did anyway, as the discipline of the legions was beginning to wane a little and notice how often troops mutiny in the early empire. When did its usage end? As far as I'm aware, it was never officially abandoned. What replaced it in later military culture? Difficult to say, since the use of decimation was down to the initiative of the commander and if he felt he couldn't take that sort of risk with discipline, then there's all sorts of alternatives he might have tried. Its an interesting question because I haven't read of punishments for similar military misdemeanours. Does it have a Modern equivalency in military services? No. There is no army in the world that orders the death of one in ten soldiers to punish poor performance - though on the spur of the moment anger from third world dictators comes close, but thats often politically inspired rather than any attempt to enforce honour and performance, and in any case, is usually directed at individuals rather than a random quota.

Although in this case the damaged face belongs to Geta, whose memory was erased in true roman fashion by his brother once he became top dog. This painting was vandalised soon after its creation and has actually withstood the ravages of time very well.

Jerusalem was a tough nut to crack. The walls were tall, strong, and well made, resisting efforts to bring them down. The romans tried tunnelling underneath to collapse them and even that didn't work! Therefore it shouldn't come as a suprise that some of the largest siege engines built by roman legions were used there. The missiles were carved from a light coloured stone, easily visible, and when these large rocks were fired the defenders got into the habit of shouting "Here comes another baby!" as a warning to lie flat. Clearly the aiming point of the stones was the top of the wall, which means - as always - the romans weren't so much concerned with breaking the wall down by that method, but rather to break down resistance by either forcing the defenders to either take cover or die horribly. Collateral damage within the city wasn't the main concern but I doubt the romans cared too much. Eventually the romans took to painting the missiles black to make them less visible, or so the story goes, which I find a little odd, since the terrain is mostly lightly coloured (at least today anyway) and surely a black missile was more obvious? Apparently not.

The republic was a very staunch regime in its early days, as it was formed in response to public outrage against the actions of the kings. After the punic wars, this patriotism began to wane and for the last two hundred years of the republic there is a gradual decline, brought to a head by the civil wars that ushered in the principate. The military salute is probably not far from the truth, since the legions had evolved a very strong esprit-de-corps (which was further improved by the Marian & Augustan refiorms). That said, roman soldiers were often problem cases. Many were far from honourable. Virtues are something of an ideal, and few people meet those standards. Also, the great men of the past are seen with rose tinted glasses, as legends and stories gloss over the reality of what these people were. Spartacus for instance. Today he's thought of as a working class hero, a man who fought for freedom against slavery. The truth is he was nothing of the sort. He was a rogue, a deserter, a bandit, and eventually a rebel whose objectives may have been freedom at the beginning but turned to something more selfish later. The romans themselves didn't think too well of him and they never regarded as a hero - and even some of the roman accounts romanticise his rebellion, so perhaps this was because it was better to fight a noble enemy than a bandit, especially when that bandit runs rings around the legions sent to stop him.

I still think you underestimate the difficulty of crossing rivers. This is why fords are so important. I'm also thinking of the campaigns in Germania led by Germanicus, when roman soldiers had to route march in flooded terrain. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7350 Also, its notable that the biggest migration of germans into roman territory happened when the Rhine froze over, making the crossing somewhat easier. Further, although it may be easier to cross in some places than others, if you have to travel to another area to do so you may well run into a territorial dispute with the locals, who might not appreciate armed men roaming across their lands on the excuse of finding a crossing point. Another interesting restriction is religion. Now I don't know if this affected the germans at all (I somehow doubt it) but certainly the romans were very superstitious about crossing rivers. The reason of course is that it angered the local gods if crossed without the proper observances, and the river would claim lives in payment of that offence. That of course highlights the risk of men weighed down with equipment getting swept away. Finally, notice that in the accounts of battles the river is always a constriction to movement. We don't read of troops crossing rivers during the action (apart from those crossing bridges, using boats, or simply too scared to care whether the gods would get annoyed). Even cavalry doesn't generally take to the water either. You've highlighted the easier travel by water than dry land. Agreed. But the placement of fortresses was made for other reasons too, and roman policy of ortress placement was either behind the frontier as a support base or well across the frontier, as a forward stronghold.

Lighter ballistae could have been placed on such a wall, for direct fire at the defenders to persuade them to duck at the very least. Whilst ducked they don't shoot back or push objects down on the attackers below. This was done at Masada for instance, where stone piers in the earthen ramp built by slaves supported such weapons. The larger catapultae are too heavy for such placement, besides being a little unwieldy to move around. Instead, bearing in mind the effect of such a roman wall in front of the obejective, these would have been employed to bring down indirect fire on the defenders, firing over the heads of the romans manning the wall. The purpose of this is too make life hell for the defenders since they would be always in fear of being crushed by stones (even by night too, so harder to sleep?) plus the actual damage caused.

Had the romans lost, it wouldn't have been a total disaster for them, other than a political reverse for those whose career depended on success. This battle was fought at the close of the campaigning season. Although its possible that Antiochus could have marched on Rome afterward he'd already retreated to lick his wounds after Thermopylae. My guess is that both sides would have regrouped for the next year, with perhaps some small territorial shuffling along the boundaries of their influence. As to whether the romans thought the seleucids were weak I can't say, but they knew they were weakened after their previous defeat (Antiochus had retreated a long way) and perhaps hoped to land a killer blow by attacking at Magnesia. Antiochus had at least enough savvy to reinforce his army in anticipation of roman attack.

Seriously though, its occured to me that the romans, whilst not the greatest sailors in the world, did get their feet wet beyond the mediterranean. They were sailing around north west europe and risking the english channel and north sea, plus venturing deep into the Indian Ocean. If I remember right, they also rounded the top of scotland in an attempt to discover the boundaries of the british coastline and thus also strayed into the Atlantic and Irish Sea. We also know they traded northward, so were crossing the Baltic too. Now some of these votyages were done by local seamen hired by roman traders, others were done by roman agents or military crews. Its not that the romans couldn't sail as such, since they'd picked up a lot of knowledge from other peoples beside their own experience of nautical matters. What limited them more was the seaworthiness of the vessels they operated.

In pre-marius organisation the maniple was the basic combat unit - at that time the century was an administrative unit and the reason it became the base unit instead of the maniple in later times was because it was found that it was more convenient. Now Marius didn't introduce these changes off the top of his head, he formalised across the board certain trends that were already appearing in the roman military. So therefore, against normal procedures, commanders must have been increasingly using centuries instead of the more unwieldy maniple. The reason why troops in the legions formed up in blocks is that it allows for support and 'impact' value in melee. A thin line is fine for missile fire but hopeless under attack and extremely vulnerable to cavalry action. A block has the advantage of being able to turn or reverse direction easily with disrupting the formation, something almost impossible with a thin line to all practical purposes. Caesar refused his flanks more than once, he was forced to do so against a gaulish attack. So the Rhine isn't a barrier? Lets get real. Drop by the biggest river in your neighbourhood. Notice the width of water you have to cross, the unknown depth, the strength of the current. The Rhine is a big river and yes, it is a formidable barrier unless you can build boats or bridges. If you doubt me, try crossing it without the aid of modern infrastructure. My guess is that you'll think twice.

The weather was nasty. Strong cold winds, heavy showers - it felt like I was walking home along the deck of a ship in the midst of an Atlantic squall. The car salesman stood leaning in the doorway smoking as I stumbled past. You could see his mind working. I felt an unsteady red dot land on my wallet. That salesman is starting to spook me a little. I wonder if he's a cannibal on the quiet? Another thing is starting to spook me a little too. Why is it that drivers of brand new shiney Subaru Impreza's (bedecked in rally style paintwork) always floor the pedal when they pass me? Whats the point? I'm not envious - I hate those silly cars anyway - but I can't afford one even if I thought they were the best thing since Thrust SSC. But why don't they do that with any other pedestrians? Is this some sort of conspiracy by a network of Subaru owners? Is there a secret society for drivers of hyped up steroidal versions of family cars? Perhaps I haven't learned the correct handshake yet. Eco-Friendly Move of the Week It appears that vehicles are now to be subjected to enviromental testing on entering inner london. heavy lorries are the first to be targeted, requiring that fleets of goods vehicles must now be modified to bring them up to standard. Which of course means that on top of heavy fuel duties (non-brits might be shocked at how much tax we pay on petrol - its about 75% on top, plus we get taxed on that) hauliers must now pay for this work to be done, and for fines if they don't to [pay for the army of snoopers employed to enforce this new law. Which makes transport more expensive, which hurts the economy, which puts people out of work, which means there are fewer customers and less need for lorries in the first place. Excellent. Lets improve the enviroment by dismantling the british infrastructure. No noise, no pollution, no leering lorry drivers, no blocked roads..... and no food in the shops. But hey, since our roads are now blocked by floods caused by lorries melting the polar ice caps, perhaps this is to be expected? I don't know about you, but I think these enviromental rulings are just excuses to extract cash.

Thats the standard view of the dark ages. I do agree that within fifty years of the roman withdrawal the system of government in britain had essentially collapsed, and its recorded that britain was split into a large number of petty kingdoms ruled by whoever had the loudest voice and strongest sword arm. Saxon incursions in the long run did britain a lot of good, becoming a stabilising factor although the methods they used to appropriate the good farmland they wanted left something to be desired. Viking incursions were more about wealth and slaves than territorial conquest (though they did that too later). However, its known that people did travel to and from britain and whilst a postal service was no longer available, messages could be sent. English and continental rulers were in contact with each other during the period for instance, there was that chap collecting christian documents to return to York, and with the saxon settlement of the southeast coast came a vast improvement in trade and communication.

My previous boss couldn't either. She knew I was into roman stuff and questioned the point of it all. My answer was... A man once said that to know nothing of history is to remain forever a child. You know who said that? A guy called Cicero, a roman, who lived two thousand years ago. If you don't learn from the past you just make the same mistakes all over again. How can you know where you're going if you don't know where you've been? I don't think I turned her into a historian, but she didn't question it again!

A temporary anti-siege wall built by the romans to bring missile fire down on the defenders and allow the siege towers to be brought up with the minimum of resostance. Josephus indicates that sometimes the romans built towers for this purpose, even right up against a wall in some cases. Yes, they did lose casualties in building them - something the roman commanders accepted as a necessary evil in assaulting an objective.

The romans are credited with all sorts of clever sword moves, but the fact is, with a legionary trying to stand shoulder to shoulder with his mates, a large heavy shield in one hand restricting his movements, there really isn't an awful lot you can do that is anything as fancy as claimed. Most of the classic roman swordplay is very direct and unfussy - you see a gap - you stab it. However, once the sword begins to change during the principate there is an increasing emphasis on more florid styles of swordplay (at least in training). By the early 3rd century the gladius has become a different sword to those used in Caesars time. Shorter, straighter, and a less pronounced point, indicating a move away from stabbing as the primary attack. However, the skill required to use a short sword like this in a duelling style of melee requires practice, not to mention the nerve to toe to toe up close, so much so that the gladius begins to be abandoned in favour of a longer spatha, the cavalry sword, a weapon which the barbarian recruits would be more familar with and one that can be used with less training (and you keep further away from your opponent - a definite advantage to a newbie legionary)

Because everyone else was sailing for them

trouble is, there are people who like to make money out of outlandish theories about ancient science. We know the egyptians at some point invented a primitive battery, which they used for simple things like plating ornaments, but that - whilst astonishing enough - is not proof they flew gliders, generated strange energy fields, built huge monuments with anti-gravity, colonised the world, and invited space aliens to tea. Its all about marketing ignorance. In fact, the people who do well out of this genre use the same techniques as religious preachers, by asking questions in such a way as to provoke 'revelations' in the mind of the reader. For instance.... A stone has been uncovered in the egyptian desert, dated to around 3500BC, which has an external groove carved into it. This groove could not have been cut by the human technology of the day. Could it be possible, therefore, that the egyptians had access to superior stone cutting technology? How could these simple peoples achieve these technologies without assistance from alien visitors? See what I mean?

I know what you mean. We're getting foreign lorry drivers bringing in loads from the continent (not for us, but we happen to have the only office-like structure in plain view) asking for all sorts of things in languages I couldn't even begin to understand. Half past ten mate.

The romans would sneer at a lot of our sensibilities I think. Equal rights for women? Good grief, we've even got women in the front line! Are our armies now so effeminate? I notice soldiers now have instructions on how not to upset people, and that they are bound by laws of conduct? How do you fight wars like this? Societies for the protection of animals? Folly! Romans are masters of the known world and therefore we must master nature too. Besides, what does it matter if a few beasts die in the arena? It entertains the masses and demonstrates how skillful and courageous our venatorii can be, for if such slaves can be brave and skillful, what then can a true roman do? Oh and by the way, your sportsmen are definitely faking some of those injuries. Give them swords I say, and lets see what men they really are! I notice entertainers are treated like royalty these days, some more wealthy than their social betters. It isn't right you know. Look, if you do things properly - like romans do - then you'll get more respect.