caldrail

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.

And some roman heavy cavalry was primarily intended for ceremonial purposes rather than combat.

I strolled into work this morning expecting to have to clear everything away so our new portakabin can be inserted into place. My jaw dropped spellbound as I entered the warehouse. The old cabin, that looked like a refugee from an abandoned railway line, has gone. In its place was a huge palatial (and clean) cabin. I was so looking forward to watching another foul-up and writing it up in loving exacting detail, but I can't. International Portakabins have arrived in their green articulated truck (the one with a white '2' on the side), done the job, and gone back to their pacific depot. Our tame forklifter tells me that the old cabin broke another window when they lifted it out. Gerry Anderson usually gave us catastrophic explosions at the end of an episode, but I guess that will have to do. Shower of the Week Sunshine and showers the weather report said. It was raining when I walked to work. It was sunny when I was inside the warehouse. Yep, it rained this afternoon, and guess what? It rained on me as I trudged home. You just can't beat British weather!

1 - You have raised yourself in the saddle and therefore stand out as a missile target. 2 - The stirrups are not rigidly mounted and will lift if you fall sideways, thus do not help your balance in the standing position. Further, an enemy soldier might lift your foot as a means to unhorse you. 3 - By standing you have raised your sowrd level higher. The cavalry sword is the correct size(ish) for mounted combat when sat in the saddle. 4 - By standing you are no longer restrained by the saddle prongs and may be unhorsed easily in any direction. 5 - By standing your control over the horse in a stressful situation is lessened, and if the horse turns or bolts suddenly you will lose balance. 6 - By swinging the sword whilst standing in the saddle you are moving a weighty object at arms length, with any solid footing. Since being seated is more secure than standing on the stirrups, you are more likely to overbalance yourself in this way. The romans and their enemies rode without stirrups. They managed perfectly well to fight cavalry actions including some extremely skilled horse archers. A blow from above could well hurt, but then, no enemy soldier will forgo the use of a shield or a parry to prevent that happening. However, I will concede that in theory a higher attack has advantages, until you become too high when the use of a sword starts to be impractible. I didn't get that out of a book either. Yes, I'm english. We have horses over here too Oh never wrong! Yes, of course I've been put straight before, no-one can know everything and I certainly won't claim to. But the heavy horse arrived later than the roman period, as a result of needing larger horses to carry the increasing weight in combat. If such animals were available, then logically the cataphractii/clibanarii would have used them. They didn't, because they weren't available. As a result (and this is recorded in ancient sources) these heavy troops were unwilling to gallop their horses because they knew they would tire out before the enemies light cavalry. Further, there were no war horses at this time. The romans obtained whatever horses they could, although they did look for certain characteristics. Also, it isn't necessary to use a heavy horse to run people down (I assume you mean pursuance) since a smaller horse is perfectly capable of outrunning a tired frightened man. Beware of penetration. Roman cavalry didn't like this option because of the risk of being unhorsed. When engaged in melee, it was usually the case they would remain fighting on the edges, in order to use mobility whenever they required it. By penetrating, you become bogged down and retreat is all but impossible. The roman cavalry were good horsemen (many were auxillaries from lands well used to riding horses) and fought by using their wits, not by blind agression. They had a complex set of manoevers which they practised regularly, and the roman commanders did not regard cavalry as cowards if they pulled away from melee as long as they regrouped for another attack. No problem Sir, thats what a forum is for

A little while ago I was busy with my beloved PC (together now for nine years - we're such good friends). Now every so often real life intrudes on my happy relationship as nature calls, so up I got and headed for the bathroom. In doing so, I glanced out the window - fatal mistake... My neighbour across the street was busy with her boyfriend. I'm not sure how to be discrete about this... And I know you're dying to know what she was doing.... Let me assure you it was humanly possible (sort of), no furry animals were harmed, and that I won't require professional counselling to get over the experience of it. On the contrary, I was very amused. The silly girl hadn't realised that the opposite side of the street had a clear view of her leisure activities. Now I know what you're thinking - No, I didn't stand there grinning, I did the decent thing and answered natures call. After all, puddles on the carpet are usually associated with our canine companions and the ability to use a toilet is one of the signs of a culturally advanced species. So is drawing the blinds. Natures Musical Chairs There's a new series of documentaries on tv focusing on the increasingly nasty side of wildlife, the sort of behaviour that would destroy David Attenboroughs career and traumatise young girls who think wild animals speak english and have a fluffy texture. It doesn't suprise me at all. Nature is increasingly under pressure, from us, the climate, all sorts of reasons. Ok, its because of us. But the point is that nature is now starting to say No More Nice Mother Nature. There's only so much space, only so much food, only so many of the species still left to mate with. When the music stops, the last fluffy animal standing is a goner. So now they're snapping at each other for the last chair. Perhaps we should feel guilty. Then again, this isn't the first time nature has been under pressure and that pressure is nowhere near what its been in previous ages. My prediction is that this behaviour will get increasingly aggressive. So the next time that pidgeon stares at you... You know you've been targeted. Observation of the Week No, not girl across the street! Late last night I popped out for a kebab. For those foreigners who've never been outside Alabama, a kebab is a turkish dish similar in concept to a taco. Kebabs are very popular in Britain, and form the staple diet of late night drinkers. Anyhow, the turkish guy behind the counter was unusually chatty and asked "How has your weekend been?" It isn't over yet, I replied. "Yes, but I mean, how was your weekend, was it a good one, yes?" Wet, I replied. Well it has been raining a lot recently, and there's a risk of repeat flooding like we saw back in July. "That is the trouble with this country my friend. Too much water" No kidding.... Welcome to the British Isles.

In battle, no, but soldiers weren't dressed in combat gear 24/7. Some of them may well have enjoyed the notoriety of their violent reputation and tattoos would enhance the threat display. Thats if they actually did this sort of thing.

The difference with Boudicca is that she led from the front, which necessitates involvement in combat. I notice that Zenobia was willing to lead her syrian/rebel roman army from the front too, and that she wore armour and practised with swords. As to whether she actually got stuck in in any of her battles isn't recorded - I suspect she didn't, but remained a figure of inspiration at the rear - I may be wrong about that. The absence of women in the armies of the ancient world was for both reasons. The gender specialisation and the relative upper body strength. There are always exceptions of course. For instance, 'Black Mary', a woman in the american frontier who scared the macho cowboys witless with her rough behaviour. Female gladiators only fought each other, or perhaps animals. They were not allowed to fight men. The romans considered that contest as unfair.

Shock value is all about attempted penetration of a body of men. You're absolutely spot on about the intimidation of enemy cavalry - thats why the only real defence is to close ranks and put up a shield or 'sharp' wall, to deter the horses from pushing into melee. However, the tactical disadvantage is that your infantry are now effectively immobile, and a canny commanfer may well use this to good effect. You're wrong about the significance of the stirrup. The rider braces himself with his thighs, both with the roman pronged saddle and with a later stirrup(ed) saddle. Since the spatha was a longsword, there wasn't any need to support the weight on the stirrup. Also, standing in the stirrups renders you more vulnerable to overbalaning attacks. The average height for a roman soldier may have been 5'6"-5'7", the average for romans as a whole was about two inches shorter than that. As for large horses, they simply didn't exist back then. People used animals like donkeys and oxen for pulling weight (camels were used in africa). Horses were expensive to keep, and since they were usually employed as riding animals (or pulling chariots, usually very lightweight ones), there wasn't any need to breed larger horses for what might be considered coarse work. In warfare, the arrival of the larger horse was a direct result of the need for the horse to carry more weight. The armour of a rider and horse are not inconsiderable, and the inability of the roman horse to deal with it was a major factor in the mediocre performance of armoured roman cavalry.

A while ago I mentioned AM. he's that geriatric New Zealander who just won't keep quiet. Well, as a young man he was in the East African Rifles in Tanganyika - I assume he is actually telling the truth about that although it would suprise me if its all bluster, he does tend to.. - and regards himself as an expert on all things african. This morning, as we waited for the library to open, he commented at length on his opnions of the regretable violence that has escalated in Kenya. His opnion was that once the zulu's let loose there's going to trouble. Never mind that the Zulu's are in south africa and aren't involved in Kenya's politics, but we'll leave that point for now. The jaw dropper was his statement about the the colonial wars of which the British Empire often found itself entangled. "The British couldn't defeat the Zulu's" He said loudly, making sure I was in earshot, "The British Empire didn't know how to fight them!" Just a small point, but didn't a contigent of british troops stand their ground at Rorke's Drift in 1879 and saw off an attack by an army of four thousand zulu's? That one action saw more victoria crosses (the highest award for bravery in the british armed forces) awarded than any other before or since. As for not knowing how to deal with the Zulu's, I remember the quote from the 60's film about this fight, when Lt Chard corrects the man about the zulu retreat as a miracle, crediting the rifle bullet instead. "And a bayonet Sir" Says the Colour Sergeant, "With a lot of guts behind it". Honour restored. We'll just not mention the previous defeat at Isandlhwana at the hands of the zulu's... Whinge of the Week Yes, its AM again, who has still not mastered the intricacies of emails. Getting quite irate at being unable to make the computer do what he expected it it to do he fulminated at the poor woman whose task it was to instruct in him the simple task of pressing a button on the screen. Stick to african politics, AM, at least you can convince people you know something about that, at least those people who haven't seen you bullying people off your favourite PC and know what load of nonsense you talk.

I'm a little uncomfortable with these sorts of comparisons. I take your point, but then Mesopotamia was a veritable paradise compared with sub-arctic europe. Are the numbers comparable? Not really. There were different enviroments, different social structures, and different styles of organising whatever armed forces existed back then. The main point you raise however is that the size of combatant groups was small. I agree totally. The ability to field thousands on the field of battle requires a more sophisticated culture that can organise such numbers, plus the availability of men to go to war in the first place. Any actions between neanderthal and cro-magnon were therefore of a very small size, numbering in tens perhaps, mostly incidential given that not all of them were settled in one place.

Quite, but then the the priority of cavalry at the beginning of a 'generic' battle was to prevent enemy cavalry from outflanking the line. Therefore there was usually a cavalry vs cavalry action to take the initiative. This wasn't so easy - there are accounts of such actions where both sides are riding back and forth until the horses of one side tire out. In fact, one of the reasons the cataphractii/clibanarii weren't used to charge as you might expect was that the riders were wary of tiring out their horses with all that added armour and such, and would normally attack at a trot, the idea of the armour being that their survivability in melee was improved. The added shock value from momentum was not generally appreciated back then. This wasn't standard practice for roman troops at any period, and notice that Caesar records the germans as utilising this practise to mount speedy penetration raids. Do you have a source for this tactic? True, yet there wasn't any established logisitcs for the procurement of horses. They would simply acquire horses locally according to availability (perhaps one reason for the long lasting dependence on infantry?) The stirrup did not arrive in the west until the 7th century AD, the byzantines used them marginally before that. In fact, cavalry tactics did not change much with the introduction of the stirrup, although the main advantage of them is to make horse riding more comfortable. Contrary to some beliefs, the stirrup does not allow any superiority in combat. A rider does not achieve any great increase in footing because the stirrup isn't rigidly mounted - there's some give when pressure is placed upon one side. Cavalry tactics evolved in tune with equipment. With improved protection and heavier weapons to counter this armour, larger horses were needed to carry the weight, which led to a more onfident style of cavalryman. It was also the warlike spirit of the western rider, descended from former 'barbarians', that gave rise to the aggressive mounted warrior of the medieval period which is where the cavalryman came into his own.

Me no understandee...

This might make sense. Body decoration is used by people almost everywhere in the world, much the same way as beards or hairstyles are used for fashion or to denote tribal affiliation. Thats animal instinct coming to the fore - its a display, intended to communicate something to others of the species. Now it appears the brits were influential toward the romans in more than one sense. Firstly, they noticed the british prediliction for narcotic substances used by them to help whip up a battle fury - there is a possibility that the romans legionaries adopted the same practice after seeing the battle frenzy of british warriors (Pertinax might be able to offer more info on that). Secondly, the body decoration of british celts must have seemed impressive to the romans, barbarian style or not. It was after all intended for that purpose. A tattooed man always appears more aggresive and dangerous than one who hasn't decorated his body, something the average roman soldier may well have found desirable. Its also interesting that the roman commanders did not stamp this practice out given their desire for uniformity. If there's any ancient source on this, I would really like to know.

Agreed. My information was out of date. Apparently the neanderthals were residents in the colder ice-age regions, where their adaptions to the cold no doubt made them a little more comfortable with the temperatures. The cro-magnons were seasonal migrants who travelled north to take advantage of the grasslands. That would have course have taken them through neanderthal territory. As to whether there was any real conflict between the two groups is uncertain. Given how humans argue about territory its inevitable they sometimes did, and some researchers believe that such conflict was widespread. On the other hand, as previously mentioned, there is also evidence of co-habitation.

I've been shouted at by a woman as I left work yesterday. Don't know why - she just started on me and gave her opinions as to my capability. Yeah whatever lady, just keep taking the pills. No doubt she's bragging to her friends and family about how she saw me off, but could my lookalike please stop upsetting everyone? Advert of the Week The banner hung on the front of the church I passed on the way to work said - 'Join the Alpha Course - Discover the meaning of life'. Isn't that typical of christian marketing? Attract all those unhappy and depressed individuals passing by and tempt them with optimism, hopes, dreams, and finally try to sell them a ticket to paradise (redeemable on death). A shop a few doors down had another sign - 'Jesus is King of Kings, Lord of Lords'. Obviously someone has done the Alpha Course. Shame he didn't finish the masters degree in business really, since then he wouldn't have been depressed by his 'closed for business' sign last year.

We don't see many eagles in Britain either these days. I've certainly never seen one in the wild. Most of our birds of prey are small and often seen hovering into wind above a likely target area. Not too long ago I saw a falcon flying in formation with a pair of seagulls... What would our roman ancestors thought of that?

The civic achievments of augustus are notable. His personal life of course was as lusty as any man and he certainly took advantage of his status to bed women. I disagree that he formed a line of succession. He tried to, but his choices met early deaths. Tiberius got the job by default, not by choice. Furthermore, the line of succession was not hereditary - it was more to do with status, popularity, position in the roman court, and in later years, the amount of muscle behind you. Augustus had the advantage of being Caesars adoptive heir - that counted for a great deal, and he also had the backing of capable and influential men around him. I do notice that Augustus had a tendency to panic when under pressure, and there is a mention of his running away in battle, and also when a troupe of enemy gladiators chased after him at the siege of Perugia. His administrative skills are mentioned as his saving grace, they may well have been, but I wonder how much of this was down to able people doing the work for him?