caldrail

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.

What is important here is whether someone is deliberately lying, or genuinely mistaken, or being hoodwinked, or is intuitively looking for a self-excuse. Liars have inhabitated every walk of human life from the start - thats one of the downsides of human intelligence and communication and lets face it, most of us fall short of moral perfection in some way or other. In many cases this 'falseness' is intended for financial reward. there have always been preachers convincing people they're onto a good thing provided they part with some cash. Being genuinely mistaken is something else. Human perception isn't faultless and in some circumstances we can perceive some very strange things. After all, our brains interpret what we perceive from our sensory organs and sometimes we tend to see something different than actually occured. It has to be said though, that that this facet of human perception is exploited by those who lie, which leads to... ...Being hoodwinked. We know this sort of thing goes on today. Charismatic fakers have existed in religion since the idea was thought up. I read once of a cave in roman times that was used as a sort of 'Underworld Experience', for a donation of course. Christianity is fundamentally a manufactured faith, having been cobbled together from myths of various religions existing in the ancient world. lastly, there is 'God Made Me Do It'. St Augustine decided that since people could not be perfect, it was ok to go astray as long as you prayed for forgiveness and obeyed the priests. I see that as a dangerous philosophy, since you could justify any horror as acting in your gods name - and lets be honest, thats usually what happens. A british monk named Pelagius decided this attitude was wrong. He stated that if you wanted to call yourself a christian, then you must be a christian. He disappeared in suspicious circumstances afterward.

Last night I discovered that camels are americans. Seriously. They originated in the grassy plains of the american continent twenty million years ago, becoming extinct there during the ice ages. It seems a bit ironic that an animal so important to moslem nations over the centuries was american in origin. So camels were americas first export. Our first export to america was a bunch of religious malcontents seeking a new paradise to colonise, who discovered tobacco. Now its a strange coincidence that in 1913 an american began exporting Camel Cigrattes.... Its a further oddity of life that apparently camels are the only mammals other than hominoids who enjoy a smoke, since sometimes the owners of these animals give their beasts a puff or two.

I wasn't actually comparing the style of campaign, and I've no arguement with the points you raise. What I was comparing was the experience of the soldiers of both campaigns. Forgetting for a moment the scale of Barbarossa, which was intentionally massive both to occupy territory and 'kick over the whole rotten edifice' of the russian defence, we see similarities in the weather and conditions experienced by both eras. Naturally Napoleon did not have access to the men and materiel that Hitler was able to assemble, and yes, conducted his campaign according to the fashion and capability of the time. The advance on Moscow was natural since this was the primary strategic target. Hitler had other targets commensurate with the requirements of a modern industrial society in an expansive period. Stalin had no choice but to retreat, it wasn't a simple decision as such. The russian army had been purged of supposed dissent a few years before, with huge swathes of senior officers (and many junior ones) executed out of political paranoia. The red army was therefore nowhere near as able to defend its soil as it might have been. Further, the crude aircraft of the opening campaign available to the russians weren't able to stem the german advance nor achieve air superiority, although it must be said the russian airmen made gallant efforts to do so. There is however a difference in tactics employed by the russians in these campaigns. In 1812, the russians deliberately refused to attack the invasion and allowed them to wear themselves out on the long march to Moscow whilst keeping them busy with nuisance raids by cavalry. In 1941, the russians were attempting to stem german advance over a wide front by every means at their disposal. They simply could not do that because the germans were employing blitzkrieg tactics with full air support. I might also point out that Hitler ordered one group to turn north toward moscow as the campaign drew toward the infamous russian winter rather than continuing its advance eastward in support of other objectives. He did this to ensure that Moscow fell before winter set in (an impossibility as it turned out) and thus achieve a potential surrender of russian forces, much the same way as Napoloen had intended. Lets not forget how hard pressed the russians were. The arctic warfare divisions were rushed back from siberia to defend Moscow leaving their japanese frontier dangerously unprotected. The whole population of Moscow was employed to dig defences, and interestingly, churches were reopened for business to maintain morale amongst the populace. As regards the speed of advance, the modern technology and strategic thinking that made the blitzkrieg possible obviously meant the advance was rapid, and when the breakthroughs were made, german forces swept into russia very quickly. Then again, with so much territory to defend, those russians who stood in their positions were enveloped (they were not ordered to retreat). However, the important point is that the autumn rains turned russian roads into muddy quagmires, which effectively reduced the advance to walking pace. When the tempertaure plunged later in the year, the german equipment was woefully unable to cope and in fact the germans were obtaining horses and donkeys from civilians just to get around. For Napolen, the occupation of territory as such served no useful purpose. He wanted a political victory by capturing Moscow and therefore persuading the russians to admit defeat. The russians however had intended all along to mass their forces at Moscow for an all out counter attack which is pretty much what they did. Another point of comparison is the 1812 retreat from Moscow and the horrors experienced, as opposed to the fighting withdrawal of the 1943-45 era.

Equites as equestrians? That depends on the period. In the older citizen army (the greek based hoplite style) the top band of soldiery were the only ones with enough cash to equip themselves as cavalry, given the expense of purchasing and keeping a horse, and this carried over to civilian life in the Comitia Centuriata, where the top band were the 'cavalry' of society because of there wealth and so became known as equestrians. Later of course horses were sometimes privided by circumstance or necessity, and Caesar for instance simply told a number of his troops that they were now cavalry. Auxillary cavalry weren't even citizens of Rome anyway so they could hardly be described as equestrian. So no, equites are not always equestrians, but it does depend on which period.

Don't you just love large corporations? They can afford the glossy ads with happy smiling people, promising all manner of wondrous success with their economically priced and desirable goods. The reality of course is that they're in business, and really their only oncern is how much cash they can extract from your pocket. So when things don't go to plan, and the badly designed product doesn't meet expectations, naturally you get miffed and raise objections, and perhaps unsuprisingly, the large faceless corporation suddenly becomes larger and more faceless as they play pass the parcel with your complaint hoping the fuss will either hit someone else or simply go away. Its that herd instinct isn't it? Yep, I'm in that situation, having to find someone in a world-wide multi-national corporation who actually has enough pride in their work to take a complaint seriously. So far, they've closed ranks and sent me back to GO (Do not collect

The problem with descriptions like that is that its easy to get carried away and imagine the romans conducted all sorts of disciplined manoevers on the battlefield with robotic precision. The reality of course is that in a stressful situation like that, on what is probably uneven ground, with all the noise, action, and the usual emotions running through the soldiers heads, is that organised manoevers become much more difficult. This is why the armed forces over the centuries have insisted on practice, practice, and more practice, until a manoever becomes instinctive. Nonetheless, there are practical limits to the precision that can be achieved, and since the manoever is usually carried out in situations that don't resemble the real thing, there is going to be a margin of error in carrying it out. However, its also true that the romans understood this, and for that reason they would sometimes stage mock 'battles' or other confrontations during training to accustom their soldiers to the enviroment they would be facing. Now whether the tv show is actually an accurate depiction of what happened I can't say. Almost certainly, a centurion wouldn't have shouted a command, but instead relied on the louder and clearer signal of a horn. He would give the nod, so to speak, or perhaps an optio or even a principal might take the initiative - the romans were very keen to ensure the command structure remained able to cope with dynamic situations without having to find someone senior to ask permission, and in any case, it was often the case that during melee a centurion was too busy to command the unit. So much of the roman methodology of warfare has been lost to us. Ok, we know how they were organised, we know details of their equipment, we have these sources that give hints on the way things were done. Soldiers are practical people. They have to be. Its life or death on the battlefield and a bad decision can be fatal. Also, the romans were very realistic about how to organise their troops and train them, something that remains almost unique at fiirst sight, yet there are glimpses in ancient sources that expert knowledge was put to good use. There was, for instance, that spartan mercenary who trained the army of the Carthage and prevented them from an imminent defeat. We know the greeks were organised in warfare. The persians too. Although our conception of these things is sometimes romanticised we must remember that when you get to the point of drawing swords against someone else, it gets very real. Roman soldiers were trained to conduct themselves on the battlefield in the light of hard earned experience, and wouldn't have wasted much time with stupid or pointless drills that caused chaos in action. That after all was one of the reasons for the centurion system - in that you had a body of junior officers who had usually been promoted from the ranks, who knew how the legions functioned, and perhaps more importantly, how men functioned in these situations. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the centurianate was one primary cause for the success of the roman legions in warfare. The romans had devised a a stratified but flexible command system that served them well for centuries - No pun intended.

Apparently this scenario could happen any day now according to the end-timers. For those unaware, these are christians who believe the day of judgement is imminent and that those who worship Jesus will instantly vanish in the Great Something Or Other. The rest of course go through hell and high water for our sins - doesn't this sound like a familiar message? Religious arguements aside, the abandonment of Chernobyl is interesting. The area was quickly reclaimed by nature and it seems the latent radioactivity isn't harming the local wildlife at all.

Appian mentions rotating troops but I think the point of this has been misunderstood. As mentioned above, it probably isn't practical to rotate an entire line. The sources refer to individual soldiers, and then done because the soldier is no longer able to continue fighting. So in other words, if a legionary is wounded or too exhausted then the soldier behind him either alerts him, or physically removes him, in order to take his place in the line. This is therefore an ad hoc activity the legionary is trained for (and expected to undertake) that does not require formal orders from a centurion, who in all likeliehood is leading the attack from the front and is too busy to take care of individual soldiers welfare in this manner.

I always get a little scornful when a group of experts announce that at last the puzzle has been solved. Almost always they haven't, they either believe they have or want us to believe they have, and the dooubt will persist despite all their evidence. I've also noticed that in these circumstances the evidence is drawn from some of the strangest connections that can defy commonsense. Perhaps I'm wrong, and these german experts are spot on correct. I'm just not sure I believe it.