caldrail

The same could be said for any leader of any nationality with a strong power base and the usual streak of charisma and ruthlessness. However I would say that the opposite is true, that europe would have been more united had Arminius not succeeded and Rome continued to to colonise. I doubt Rome would have found this easy anyway - and lets remember the difficult campaigns of the german knights in the wilds of Prussia, yet on the other side of the arguement roman colonisation was developing under Augustus and surely would have become an increasingly prevalent method of imperialisation. As it was, europe was sort of divided between latinised and germanic culture. The result, as there always is between differing cultures and tribes rubbing shoulders, is territorial aggression. For instance, the modern conflict in Africa has been inflated by colonial divisions dating back to european control. All those artificial frontiers have litttle relevance to african tribes and is still the source of dispute today, since what the african tribes really want is tribal frontiers. Then again, we can't get too carried away with this analogy because tribes do fight for other reasons, such as blood fueds or contests over resources. To some extent that must have been the same for europe - and the recent wars in the balkans have shown how old divisions can rise out of nowhere.

Picture a busy day in the Warehouse. Sheets and sheets and sheets of orders are appearing in AD's hands as he emerges flustered from the offices. Our tame forklifter is depositing pallet after pallet from the racks. His quiet smile is very disturbing. Finally AD and his boss saunter off to their high level meeting. Time now to go into the offfice, sit down, and catch up with some of those tiny administrative duties that are such good excuses for an easy time. Close the door, shut the windows... Ahh what bliss... Relaxed and refreshed, I decide its time to go back out onto the floor and catch up with some of those pallets clogging our work area. The door is stuck. Ok, maybe there's a trick to this. Nope. The door is stuck, and I'm stuck inside the office. Everyone outside is flashing past on noisy forklifts, totally unaware of my predicament. There's no phone line yet, so no go there. Can't use the internet, we haven't got a connection. The fax is out for the same reason. I have a quick search for rescue flares, but no joy there either. Just as I was about to wave my shirt out the window with a handwritten plea for assistance in black marker pen, I remember my mobile phone. Except that AD is the only person in the warehouse I have a number for and he's switched his off because he's in a top level meeting. Nonetheless, I send him a text... He might read read it in a day or two. Remembering my survival training I look around to see what I can use to stay alive until rescued. There's a kettle, half full of water, tons of coffee granules, and some sugar in a strangely speckled white and brown colour. Everything I need to sustain myself for a couple of hours before I'm found! As luck would have it, our tame forklifter drives into our area with another pallet, looking a little confused as to why nothing has moved since his last visit. After some shouting and frantic waving of the arms, he realises I'm in need of assistance. He ambles to the window in curiosity whereupon I ask him to open the door. Please. Freedom! Eventually AD returns and I mention the one way door. He listened politely but you kind of get the impression he doesn't think I have any idea how doors function. Nonetheless, he assured me he'll look into it. I arrive for work the next morning. AD does the decent thing and admits that having tried the door, he couldn't get out either. Apparently he phoned for a locksmith shortly afterward who assured AD that doors don't stick like that. "Well try it yourself." AD suggested. He did. "Uhhh, lemme out will you?.." A muffled voice from inside the porta-palace could be heard. The door is now fixed. Headline of the Week The local newspaper had a headline to effect that obesity and poverty are linked. Not really sure how, since surely consuming more food requires a bigger wallet (or perhaps thats the reason in itself?), but don't you think this more reinforcement of social stereotypes? I'm not particulary wealthy these days, but obese? Rubbish. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to get an emperor-sized burger down the road...

Leeches? I'll have you know its the rising cost of leech supply thats brought our National Health Service to its knees. There's nothing like leeches, iodine, and the sight of a large saw to cure most ailments in our merry isles. You yanks have been mollycoddled by expensive private healthcare for too long. Now you know why we have such a stiff upper lip

And some areas of england too. I know of at least two llama farms.

The Middle Ages is sometimes seen as a period of incessant warfare because basically thats what they based their society on. For the chivalry and nobility of it (and most of that was period romantic fiction), the people who ran things in the middle ages were descended from warrior tribes. Sure, there were plenty of cultured people in that period, but fighting was a virtue and rule by the sword arm doesn't leave much room for cultural advancement. Those men who rose to rulership often did so because they were ambitious and ruthless characters, and generally speaking those sort of people have little regard for academic concerns. Further, since medieval society encouraged the use of mercenaries, there were always armed men looking for employment, and thats never good for a peaceful time. However, despite the political insecurity and occaisional epidemic, the middle ages saw the roman tradition preserved, it saw improvements in land management, exploration, trade, the first awkward use of gunpowder in western warfare, and not to mention some very astonishing building projects, usually connected with christianity.

Also, the roman mile was a little shorter than the modern one I believe?

Why bother? There's plenty left on the pavement on Sunday morning...

To some extent all religions are invented by someone, because someone had to start the ball rolling. If you credit christianity with an element of truth in its mythos you are therefore honour bound to do the same for other beliefs. I have always stated that God is a human concept, not an absolute truth. Its one depiction of the infinite in understandable terms, and notice that an established religion rapidly accumulates a sizeable body of lore - this is always deliberate, because then a man learned in this lore can be admired for this knowledge, and he can bamboozle or impress his peers so much the easier. Human nature being what it is, there are those who exploit the naive and innocent for their own purposes, and this belief system and its apparently complex depth, plus the psychological state of people with deep concerns for their safe future, means there is a ripe field to be harvested. It goes on today just like it always has, and I notice the christian churches of ancient Rome got a reputation for being wealthy very quickly. Indeed, you might argue that Paul, the main architect of the christian faith, had this in mind from the start. Whether Jseus did or not is harder to figure, since the story related in the bible is very distorted to portray him as the son of god.

Given how much the native species of plains animals nosedived when you guys got there, I suspect you didn't have camels for very long. The burger after all is an american invention is it not?

Its my understanding that prior to the first crusade, the christians and non-christians got along perfectly well. There's a remanant of this still existing. There's a christian church in Jerusalem whose caretakers are a moslem family who retain this job by tradition. I might not have been absolutely correct, but again, its my understanding that there were turks in Jerusalem at that time (friendly ones too). What caused all the upset was that Emperor Alexius of Byzantium was having trouble with turks on his borders. He wrote a letter to the pope (Urban II or Gregory, but both had a hand in what happened) asking for military assistance. The Popes of this time were busy creating a pan-european christian superstate. They had sidelined and excommunicated national leaders to this end, and the religious hold over common people in the late eleventh century was frightening. Now the pope decided that it would be a good thing, having been given this excuse by Alexius, to call for a crusade to free Jerusalem from non-christian domination (if indeed that was actually happening). Entire villages upped sticks and migrated east. The three main leaders of the first crusade had more worldly ideas about what to achieve in the holy lands, they in turn were using the pope as an excuse for grabbing wealth and land, plus the glory of leading the campaign to free the holy city. I'm not aware of any anti-christian activity in the holy lands at that time, although there would be (understandably given the atrocious behaviour of the crusaders).

IIRC crucified people were even denied proper burials, let alone expensive ones. This is actually an old chestnut. It has actually been pointed out in the past by people like Haim Cohn, etc. Crucifixion was meted out for sedition or armed rebellion and as such the victim was denied burial as a part of his punishment. That coupled with the absolute horror with which Jews regarded the handling of bodies "hanging on a tree" makes the likelihood that the tomb belongs to a crucified Jesus rather improbable. His disciples weren't arrested or punished either. If something as serious as sedition was suspected, you'd think a roman governor would want the lot dragged in to account for their behaviour. Clearly, if the crucifixion took place, Jesus was targeted deliberately and the reasons for his trial might have been merely an excuse.

Bear in mind that once the melee is in progress it was likely the maniple would become disordered and effective control becomes diffilcult if not impossible, thus the drill you envisage might not be practical. However, in cases where the front line retain formation (this would be a defensive stance rather than the result of a charge) then such a manoever becomes possible, if perhaps ill advised, and I say that because although there's a possibility of sending tired men back and replacing them with fresh troops, this would be done on uneven ground with possibly bodies lying there. The prospect of the manoever resulting in men tripping over isn't one to be relished. Nonetheless, the roman sources do state that something like this took place, its just that I've always took that to mean the men rotate within the maniple as opposed to swapping maniples entirely, which could be exploited by a quick witted enemy. Tired men don't necessarily rout. What matters more is their morale and situation. As to whether maniples were square or broad, they're usually described as the latter, although there must have been variations on command. Also there's a difference in the manner that roman soldiers fought melee over the centuries. Polybius describes roman soldiers as retaining a tight packed formation for maximum protection and support, using their gladius almost exlusively in a forward thrust between the shield, the classic roman swordplay. Livy says something different. By his time the romans used a shorter sword, and were as likely to swing the thing about as thrust with it. The development of this style of sword and swordplay went hand in hand with developments in gladiatorial combat, and its not certain whether legions or gladiators were the fashion leaders. Also, the use of a swinging attack with a gladius means the romans had adopted either an open order for the fight, or that the older, more disciplined stance was a thing of the past, and that roman soldiers would often get stuck in without regard to formation, much like their opponents. In this situation, rotating troops is impossible, because the unit is disordered. There was nothing to prevent a trumpeter sounding a withdrawal however, and fresh troops might 'pass through', thus effectively achieving the same end in a somewhat less tidy manner.

Yes I believe so, and the emergence of the central american land bridge meant that northern species (including us) could migrate southward and force the local quirky animals into retirement. There's a point to this that hasn't been highlighted. The landbridge across the Bering Strait was useful for us to occupy the north american continent, but I notice that horses and camels left by the same route. I wonder why?

At that size and weight, this was one rodent that probably ate whatever it wanted.

I don't know, but the tradition is very old and may well date from those times. I would actually like to see some research on this, because if there's any truth to it, it really does put a great deal in perspective.

Oh dear.... The floor of the warehouse is crumbling under the weight of the forklifts trundling back and forth. The builders are in, cutting gaping holes in the floor, filling them with concrete, and getting miffed when they discover lumps of cement nearby or a forklifter knocking plastic cones aside. The guy who fixed the electrics in our porta-palace finally finished wiring up our area today, and slowly (expertly) manoevered his cherry-picker out onto the main aisle, whereupon his platform got wedged thirty feet up on top of a stack of car parts. Oh we had such fun. Pass the beer mates... The car manufacturer that we share this warehouse with has appropriated a section of floor next to ours (and had armco barriers put in - thats fightin' talk mister...). Thats all very well, but now there's a huge stack of metal and plastic stillages containing car parts right next to a manual work area. Not quite acceptable to health and safety that... For now they're ignoring me jumping up and down, waving my arms and pointing. You can laugh, but you'll be sorry... You will.... Promise of the Week AD, my mentor and boss (I base my entire life on his teachings) is aware of my interest in roman history, and mentioned a dig that took place near his home at a building site. The roman walls present were only twelve inches down! He's promised to bring me back a Roman tomorrow. I'm waiting AD.

Exception noted GO. I'll inform Mr McKenna to leave you alone, he's on his way to America at the moment.

Well... My luck hasn't been too good lately, but you never know, it might get better.

Yes I'm sure - I had a clear view of what they were doing. She had a clear of me watching too, and got quite irate a few days later. What does she expect?...

The question is already answered technically. There's a tomb in northern India that has been 'the last resting place of Jesus' for some considerable time. The local legends state that Jesus travelled to India as a young man (well, he does disappear for a while, and the other legends have him travelling to Britain... Your choice I guess until anyone has any real proof). Now this story has him adopting an version of buddhism which he preaches in Judaea on his return. In a way, it makes sense, because his message in Judaea isn't necessarily the one the bible relates, since the bible is an evolution of a censored version of stories written decades after his death. Paul was preaching as a career after Jesus's death (they never met), and took two years out before travelling to Rome to get his religious concepts together. What I believe Paul did was take bits of Jesus's preachings, which might well have been odd to mediterranean ears, and rebranded them in a more acceptable style, with added spice from other older existing religions, and basically created a faith that went on to greater things. Now the crucifixion isn't proven so I understand (don't quote me on that, I don't know the arguements for and against), and the story in India is that he returned having failed to convert his countrymen. He settled down, had children, and was buried in this particular tomb.

No, the quincunx would not close the gaps - to do so is ridiculous, forcing the legion to close ranks before getting to grips with the enemy, it then means they cannot effectively manoever without becoming disordered, and in some circumstances makes it easier for the enemy line to outflank and envelop them. The gaps weren't huge, but don't forget, if the romans are attacked, the enemy will not attack the gaps - they will attack the nearest roman line instead. In any case, the gaps aren't as vulnerable as you might think, because in order to exploit the enemy must expose themselves to the action of the line behind, and in many cases, this would mean a side attack as the enemy soldiers turn to outflank the roman front line. The quincunx as a whole wouldn't charge - to do so means the whole formation becomes disordered and in any case, only the front line is effectively in combat. This then is the get-out clause. Where a charge takes place, it is the first line of maniples that do so, leaving the remainder to march in support or charge themselves if the first line falters. I believe Adrian Goldsworthy dicsusses maniple formation (and quincunxii) in his The Complete Roman Army.

The roman pater had the right to bed his slaves for instance, but then, surely this was something that required a little more discretion? At least before the principate anyway. Domitian was said to keep a deformed man as his companion, and was overheard asking him his opinions on the games in progress, but is this really for 'showing off'? No, it was an amusing diversion for Domitian, who did not apparently allow his companion any real airs and graces. There was a need in roman males to establish their public image, especially those in the public eye, but generally this was a white-wash image of generosity, decency, military credibility, and good humour, besides any any real talent for something. Its much like modern american politicians who seem obsessed with a clean cut image. With emperors, the need for showing off increases since much of their reputation revolves around being able to dazzle the public with their magnificence, something which a few emperors got well carried away with. The thing is, a 'boy-toy' is a novelty for such personalities, someting they display for a short period to achieve compliments then discard when it all gets boring. I think too that many romans had to be careful with displaying trophies and ornaments, many of which were personalised and sometimes with political significance. It seems to me that roman patricians in particular made efforts to impress their visitors from both ends of the social scale, and I recall a long corrdor of a villa in sicily with a extravagant mosaic displaying the lengths the owner had gone to to put on a display of beast-hunting. So, roman 'boy-toys' are certainly there, but they're either personal pleasures which remain in the background, or devices for making statements about the owner and therefore with a definite purpose in mind.

I don't know about you, but I think I've discovered the truth about american policy in the middle east. Forget terrorism, forget oil. What the americans really want is their camels back. Now if you'll excuse me, there's several men in black combat gear abseiling down from helicopters outside my house and I think they want to have a word with me....

There is another side to this. Since the dark ages, the ability of landowners to effectively manage their output had improved no end as time wore on. Now its true I'm discussing Britain, and that I assume the same situation existed in europe as a whole, but this factor means that there was more leisure time. Fewer people were struggling with subsistence and with free time (besides the more frivolous activities) comes a chance to learn and study. The groundwork for this had been made much earlier. During the dark ages in britan there was plenty of monasteries who maintained learning, despite the deprivations of the vikings. Alfred the Great for instance was one monarch who made great efforts to improve such learning. Also, I notice that toward the end of the medieval period the monasteries in britain were developing small scale industries as a prmary source of income. This was possible because of the increasing stability of the realm, the increasing skill in working the land, and because the monasteries were centers of education in the first place. I would say therefore that the rennaisance was going to happen at some point anyway. Now the question is whether Henry 8ths dissolution of the monasteries in 1536 aided or held back the rennaisance. On the one hand, hundreds of educated men had been turfed out of their cloistered existence into the wide world, but on the other hand, these centers of education were closed for business.

Its occured to me that my description of roman initiative could be a little misleading. I'm actually discussing the state of affairs Post-Marius, in the era of the professional army. The question ofwhy this roman system sometimes failed is an important one, as it figures in some of their worst defeats, including Cannae. The flip side to initiative is obedience. Any army must balance the two to arrive at what they consider is best. Now Rome had formed a citizen army in the greek hoplite style before the punic wars. The phalanx has some pros and cons (which I won't go into here), but what is fundamental is the need for discipline. In order to maintain the advance strict obedience is required. No soldier can act on his own in this sort of formation. Therefore with the phalanx the initiative required is minimal. Its brute force in a controlled manner, something very dear to the roman heart. Later on the roman army was reorganised into the familar 'polybian' style, with legions consisting of the Hastatii, Princips, and Triarii. However, the culture of obedience was still in existence then. Soldiers were punished for breaking ranks, so that even if a man committed an act of outstanding bravery and saved the day, he may well still find himself executed for disobeying orders. The romans considered that such brutal discipline was necessary to maintain control of men in the heat of battle. So how does this impinge on Cannae? The roman army at Cannae was ordered to advance in a giant quincunx formation. No subtlety at all, just steamroller the much smaller cathaginian army aside. Clearly, when it became apparent to the men involved that they were in danger of being surrounded, they did not react. They showed no initiative. They had been ordered to advance in a certain manner and were doing so. Once Hannibal closed the trap the romans became hopelessly disordered and command must of been all but impossible at that stage. Any chance of retaining the initiative had been well and truly lost. Compare this performance to the legions of Caesar in his campaigns in Gaul. His troops respond to enemy threats very quickly, using local initiative, and in fact junior officers are commanding the army in some situations whilst Caesar is too busy fighting in the front line with his men. You might argue that his individual leadership had made all the difference (you would be right), yet the emergence of initiative against the culture of obedience is an important one.