caldrail

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?

Historically there have always been women who went to war. Boudicca is an exception in that she did so openly, she was after all the leader of the revolt. Women have consistently, in very small numbers, disguised themselves as boys and shouldered their burden. Funny thing is, there's very little information on what happened when they got found out (and interestingly, very few did). The effectiveness of some of these women in combat is notable. I remember a female native american who became renowned for her skill as a warrior. There was a female samurai for instance whose skills were legendary. Notice that in her case the adoption of a sword as the major weapon that required speed and skill rather than brute strength is the factor that allowed her to function en par with the men. The same effect occurs with firearms (but not, according to the US military, with grenades!). In theory, bows or slings might also allow the same equality, provided the draw strength wasn't too heavy. The restrictions of the roman army have been mentioned above. Physical strength was desired and deliberately improved by training. Indeed, the physical requirements of the roman military were every bit as tough as modern armies - but with one important exception - they weren't expected to shoulder huge loads in battle. Instead, that strength and endurance was to come to the for in hand to hand combat with swords and shield. In roman legions, the recruits were given a medical examination, and I cannot believe a roman medic wouldn't notice the effiminacy of this recruit. Assuming he didn't, and could convince the recruitment officer that her upbringing was from a suitably physical background, then we reach the next problem. The roman equivalent of the quartermaster stores, where the recruit gets outfitted for her tunic and armour etc. One wonders what would happen when sublagaria were handed over.... Then again, roman soldiers got almost no privacy. They were billeted in eight man groups (conteburnium) in cramped spaces, that later during service might also have slaves and servants in there too. Having got to this point, there is a remote chance that the woman might persuade her group members to protect her secret (that doesn't automatically mean sex, it might be she was lucky to be amongst soldiers of a more generous nature) Thats ok until the centurion (or any other soldier of rank) spots that a conteburnium is 'carrying' or 'protecting' one of their members. He would want to know why and may well focus his attention on getting that soldier up to speed or even out the door as a failure. Certainly a woman amongst the men would be regarded as a morale disaster and very undesirable. As an aside, its recorded that one wife of a legionary commander pestered her husband to allow her to drill the men. This caused much hilarity and derision, and I suspect, killed the mans career thereafter! All in all, it would have been quite an achievement for a woman to survive as a legionary. But we'll never know if it actually happened.

I'm sorry sir, but driving on the right simply isn't british...

The stirrup was not used in europe during roman times. Archaeological evidence shows they were introduced from the east around the 7th century AD. Roman saddles used four prongs between which the rider secured himself with his thighs. Whilst this sounds uncomfortable and even impractical, it was used successfully for centuries and re-enactors demonstrate this form of saddle. The romans did not charge at the enemy in the way you might imagine. Charges against other cavalry units took place because both units used open order, in order to pass each other without risk of collison. Since horses will refuse point blank to barge into something they interpret as a solid barrier, cavalry charges against tightly pack infantry either stopped short or swerved past the edges. Loose infantry units were vulnerable to cavalry charge. In any event, roman cavalry were used in a light role. That is, engaging opposing cavalry, scouting, harassing, and pursuing. There are records of roman cavalrymen refusing to charge infantry. A typical attack was to ride past, throwing spears, then wheeling about for another pass. In general, the first thing the roman cavalry would have done is secure the flanks of the battlefield to ensure enemy horses were not a threat, then possibly begin an outflanking attack at the sides or rear of the enemy. The introduction of heavily armoured horsemen in roman armies (Cataphractii or Clibanarii) began the evolution of a more direct style of charge, but this wasn't always a success and at least once the wiley enemy infantry opened its ranks, allowed the horses in, then pulled off the riders and despatched them without too much effort. The sort of mounted invulnerability we see in medieval knights was a long time coming. I'm no expert on sizes but roman horses were indeed smaller than todays. They were looking ideally for mares, tractable, agile, and quick.

Neanderthals are known to have a larger brain volume, a characteristic that may well have developed from having to live in a harsh enviroment. However, its also believed that neanderthals moved around in small family groups. This is an important point. They lived a semi-nomadic life constantly searching for resources or latching on to herds for that purpose, and there's no evidence that neanderthals developed any larger scale social gatherings, though its entirely possible they did for information and social matters such mating etc. However, since they ranged over considerable territory, we cannot assume that. Now the whole point of this is that their need to communicate is focused on day to day matters. In fact, since they moved in small family groups, they had little time to else but focus on survival. Thats the problem with survival - its a tough business and requires your full attention, which is one reason why human beings stick together. As far as I'm aware (and I'm perfectly happy to be put straight on this), the cro-magnons moved in larger tribal groups and possibly had more permanent settlements? If so, their society would have developed to a more sophisticated degree and therefore so would their language, in order to deal with interaction amongst a larger and more diverse group, who would have had more time to be sophisticated since co-operative effort in survival is easier. The thing is, nature eventually discards anything that isn't worthwhile. If you live in a darkened cave, your eyesight will wither. If you live in water, your limbs wither. If you live in zero-g, your muscles and bones wither. Language is no different. If you don't communicate, you forget how to (or become very bad at it). The neanderthals needed to concern themselves with survival first and foremost, although I must admit I have seen one newspaper report (a dubious source I know) that reckoned the neanderthals did indeed have a spiritual life as well as subsistence hunting and gathering. Here's the problem. The neanderthals did not leave traces of their culture. Their crude huts have not lasted - there are traces of camp-sites undersea near the coast but I'm not sure whether these were actually neanderthal or thier successors.

Swindon is mentioned in the Domesday Book after William the Conqueror landed and conquered in 1066 with his Norman buddies, descendants of vikings from france. Swindon (the name means 'pig hill') was divided into five diocese, one of which was given to Bishop Odo, half-brother to William himself. Swindon wasn't the center of the universe (it still isn't) and remained an isolated town with only four roads in and out, these having toll gates when liquor smuggling became Swindons growth industry in the rambuctuous 18th century. The old town on the hill has long had rumours of tunnels for smugglers to transfer barrels of rum and ineed, some of these have been found in building restorations in recent years. The Bell Inn in old town was once a coach stop and dates from the 16th century. Trading Estate - an area of buildings built for business/commercial use, either as offices, warehouses, or small industries. Allotment gardens - Areas of land allocated to interested indivuals for growing vegetables. Much less popular now than in previous decades, and when I was young, there were several areas where these gardens had long been abandoned. Housing Estate - New housing developments. Although not intended for the rich, its often difficult to afford the prices of these buildings, and many are deliberately targeted at affluent middle class families. There's been a recent move toward affordable housing for first time buyers... Yeah right. Cycle track - a route set aside for bicycles (available for pedestrians and horse riders too, but no motorised transport). Old railways are popular for this and the M&SWJR can be followed all the way south to Marlborough, plus the route is being extended to Cricklade in the north so I hear. Goods Station - A railroad depot where passengers services don't call. They used to stop at Rushey Platt Junction when the M&SWJR first crossed the GWR mainline, but there wasn't enough traffic to justify it. To be honest, there wasn't enough goods traffic for the four platforms either. Okus - Not sure where the name comes from, though one suspects it has a latinised origin. I can state quite categorically that it has nothing to do with hollywood musicals. Actually, Okus was the site of Swindons gallows during the brief period in the 18th century when we had our own (criminals were usually sent to Devizes for execution), and the was once an infirmary there too, now the site of a school threatened with closure. A quarry, now mostly filled in, is adjacent to the school and is used as their sports ground - it is actually a flattened grassy area now, with a small corner left to show where the rock face once was.

He got that absolutely right. Swindon is like an old woman who dresses in the latest fashions and goes nightclubbing to attract the young men.

This is a little suspect. Neanderthals weren't stupid, despite their heavy browed appearance, and were well aware that if they travelled south the temperature got better, and they didn't originate in the north, nor was the change in weather that abrupt, nor was sewing a prerequisite for survival. Neatly sewed warm clothes were an advantage certainly, but surely neanderthals were well used to the cold weather to devise some way of strapping crude hides on their person, which would have done the same job. It must also be remembered that they didn't live in the coldest regions of ice-age europe, but preferred the areas they could find food, which meant animal herds as well as nuts and berries, so they were definitely living in regions within the habitable sphere of the ice-age cold (and very cold it must have been). Humans, neanderthal or not, are adapatable creatures and survive in some very extreme climates today, plus the neanderthals were physically adapted for life in cold regions anyway. My own suspicion is that they were too rarified as a people, that they were too prone to the illnesses that cro-magnons brought with their wolves/dogs, and that possibly many were caught out by changes in animal migrations and numbers. Effectively, they lost the competition for survival despite their best efforts. One of the last outposts of neanderthals was Portugal, where studies have suggested that the last survivors went off to the nearest cro-magnon camp and asked to live with them - there are both remains on-site and no evidence of conflict. The cro-magnons were probably more aggressive as well as better equipped, and perhaps better communicators?

This is interesting, because traditionally a roman soldier who breaks ranks like this without orders is liable for execution. This was certainly true in the mid-republican period.