caldrail

The problem with describing the horror of war from roman eyes is that the common soldier didn't write of his experiences, apart perhaps from private correspondence which probably hasn't survived. So the great majority of descriptions of such things come from educated men who might not have experienced warfare themselves. What you need to do is read through accounts of campaigns, and I would suggest Julius Caesars description of his conquest of Gaul, which apart from the exaggerations gives a commanders eye view of what was going on, and also Josephus's account of the Jewish War for glimpses of roman soldiers who are bored and careless besides those implacably besieging the jews. Back that up with say, Tacitus and Suetonius, who fill in with stories and anecdotes of warfare, and a general picture emerges. What you need to do though is look closely at what is being said. Sometimes there's little clues to be had in phrases that otherwise might pass mention - for instance, in Suetonius, where he describes Julius Caesar pushing men back into line as their morale crumbles in the heat of battle, being threatened by one standard bearer, and another running off leaving the standard in his hands. There is an extraordinary account of camping over winter somewhere, so cold that one mans hands fall off as he picks up firewood. A little overstated perhaps, but there's a hint of frostbite there definitely. Typically, a roman soldier is a robust character, strong camaraderie, very much someone to find a way of getting off heavy duties, a man who would casually steal a civilians donkey and use violence if the man complained, a soldier who was trained to fight and dehumanised enough to slay the occupants of a town if ordered to do so, fully capable of long hard marches to get there, and fully capable of building fortifications right there and then. They were rough men, accustomed to hardship and violence, and men who actually became indifferent soldiers very quickly if poorly led, and very bolshy if they decided they were badly treated. They were also men who lived in a regime where punishments might be severe, and despite the risk, guards regularly slept propped up on the spears and shields. In most cases I imagine they weren't afraid of their enemies either, though often there must have been some grudging respect. I think the important thing is that roman soldiers were taught and trained to expect hardship, to overcome fear, and to shrug off the privations of army life. Many of them would have shouldered their loads as ordered and gritted their teeth at discomfort. And complain mightily if their commander didn't acknowledge their efforts.

No, they didn't, especially the private roads that linked important estates directly.

I disagree - but you might not see my point. Thing is, I regard Augustus as something of a successful dictator in the modern sense, a man who has managed to overcome criticism and any potential threats and makes great efforts to appear a benign ruler. He is in other words putting on a public act. Now I know there are people who will disagree with that - fair enough - but follow the arguement. You have a man who ahcieves a great reputation, both by deed and propaganda (not to mention a lot of help from others), so the man who follows him would have to be pretty exceptional to be seen in the same terms. Who could have possibly put Augustus in the shade? There is a train of thought that says such a man as Augustus would deliberately choose a worse man to follow him in order to remembered in favourable terms. Augustus was certainly capable of acting in that fashion, and lets remember he was keen to keep Claudius under wraps. However, he also had the misfortune to lose family members who would have been groomed to follow him, and for all his faults, I think Augustus actually did want the empire to be a success after him.

There's no concrete information whether a legionary was assigned to clean or repair footwear, or indeed if both activities were required. It may even have been an onerous duty given to those legionaries foolish enough to be caught out by a senior man, or even if they hadn't bribed him. I should actually stress that although there was a very physical regime in the legions, this obviously wasn't always practised, and the soldiers were accustomed to bribing officers to be given light duties, and its even on record that at one time soldiers complained that there weren't enough opportunities for bribery! Incidentially, there's a good appraisal of the egyptian record I mentioned in Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army

Sunday morning is a time when we survey the damage left by late night revellers. A womans shoe is on the pavement, a sure sign that Cinderella went to the ball and decided that Prince Charming wasn't charming enough. Not really suprising since he and his mates were drunk, engaging in a singing competition in which random lyrics are put to random melodies and may the loudest voice win. Every week this goes on. Where's Simon Cowell when you need him? At any rate, Cinderella was probably on a girls night out and was too drunk to care, whooping and screaming every time she blindly bumped into something. But that was last night. Her taxi is now a pumpkin again, and the man who headbutts taxi's has gone home to sleep off his bruises. A key left on my front wall? Not mine, and I must admit I do feel a little smug that other people can lock themselves out of their homes too. Not that I ever do that of course. The fact that I'm on first name terms with my local locksmith is entirely co-incidental. He's an ex-RAF chap, a man for whom manning a machinegun in a helicopter window was not the career he had originally envisaged, and to be honest, you get the impression he thinks that idiots who lock themselves out of their own homes deserve to be gunned down by passing RAF helicopters. What saves me from certain doom of course is that I pay him to get in. And also that as a civilian the RAF are none too keen to let him man machineguns anymore. Phew. Talking of RAF helicopters, a couple of years ago I was hiking along the Thames Pathway one sunday. The weather wasn't particularly good, the fishermen along the banks were miserable and unwilling to let me by, and the path itself bore an uncanny resemblance to no mans land. There I was, in the middle of a grassy field, when an RAF helicopter burst into view at tree top height, obviously following the river. I reached for my camera, hoping for a close up all action photo, and immediately, the 'copter banked hard right and performed an extraordinary evasive manoever. Very impressed lads. It seems I now own the only Ground to Air Camera that registers on RAF threat displays. Near the top of the hill I turn off the main road and pass by the Rushey Platt Blind Association building, whose car park entrance is being repaired. One does wonder, eh? Visit of the Week AD decides to let me see the warehouse where I'll be working. Security is busy sleeping in the gatehouse, jerking upright as we toot our horn driving by. I think he needs a another pet rat to keep him company. Turns out our new home is a nice place. Clean, tidy, not like the grubby Shed or the cavernous dark underworld of the Hangar. Very busy place too, with stuff lying everywhere. So... we ask in all innocence, where exactly is the floor space allocated to our use? Huh? For a moment he blinked, his jaw hanging open. What we have here is a failure to communicate...

Perhaps it might be better to give the pro's and cons of each character rather than deciding who was in which camp? It is largely opinion after all.

Not that I know of, but are you talking about recruit training or ordinary drills for long standing legionaries? If the latter, then it raises some objections. I cannot believe the legionaries were allowed one day of rest in three. Most had no money, having gambled, spent, sent, salted away, used it for bribes, or having been cheated of it at some point. The romans were very keen to keep soldiers busy - troops with time on their hands become very badly behaved. As for getting tired out, no army allows its men to get tired do they? What appears to be the case in recruitment circumstances is any man who can't hack it is drummed out, there and then. Roman legionaries exhibit an astonishing camaraderie. They frequently refer to each other as 'brother', and quickly close ranks against people taking legal action against soldiers. For much of legion history roman soldiers weren't allowed to marry, the idea being that the lack of sex would make them fierce, and a lack of family commitment would make them more willing to travel as required. Do you see the pattern emerging? These are men who are put through harsh exercise regimes and become proud of their ability to tough it out. These legionaries had often been recruited from men who had been brought up used to physical hardship. As for cleaning, a papyrus document from egypt shows that men were allocated to such duties, much like KP (kitchen patrol) is today. Some were tasked to care for boots in some way, either repairing them or cleaning, perhaps both? However, each man would almost inevitably have had to keep his own kit clean and given the usual wear and tear, this must have been regular activity rather than an allocated duty. Armies haven't changed that much in two thousand years! As I understand it, garrison troops were expected to practice route marches and overnight camp building once per week. The egyptian document doesn't list this, so perhaps in times of peace things might get a little lax? Troops were also expected to guard local public buildings, serve as assistants to senior men, and other mundane activity. The legions did not give troops a rest after battle, at least not officially, and it should be remembered that a battle is usually part of a campaign thus the troops were needed somewhere else to continue the war. If at the end of a war, then it was likely it was a siege of some kind, and instead of a rest the troops were allowed to loot and pillage at will, something regarded as a perk of victory.

There's an internet cafe I use infrequently. Its sited in an area of immigrant people, many of them muslim (the proprietor is - I've seen him using his prayer mat behind the desk). Now, as individuals, I have no arguement with these people. I do not like zealotry of any kind, its too dangerous and irrational for my sensibilities, and whilst I've no reason to believe that anyone sitting at the computers there are terrorists hell bent on destroying western civilisation as e know it, there's always an uncomfortable feeling. Clearly I'm viewed as an outsider, tolerated because society says discrimination is wrong and heck, I suppose my money is as good as anyone elses. Here's the difference though - whilst I will quite happily converse and deal with these people as required, they seem very reluctant to do so with me. Why? I'm an ordinary citizen, I'm a customer, I don't bother anyone else unduly nor do I hold their culture(s) in contempt. But at the same time this feeling of seperation (it isn't rejection thankfully) isn't conducive to good relations is it? I suspect this is true of many people, not just me. How much of this atmosphere is down to the media? Our collective opinion? Our tribal inclinations? Is this a result of bomb blasts or rabble-rousing clerics in foreign lands? To what extent are we influenced by word of mouth as opposed to establishment sources? I have to be honest -whilst I would like to be objective about this its difficult to be so in the light of terrorism and all its random barbarity.

Exceptions? What difference does that make? It happened Cato, you can't just ignore events that don't suit you. And I should point out that Sertorius and Brutus weren't from amongst the great unwashed either. Hardly a point in favour of plebian democracy. What on earth are you gabbling on about? A free man exists in a state of harmonious anarchy, a benign state of infinite individuality. He lives without threat, obligation, or responsibility. Like any asymptotic value, its impossible to achieve, largely because we're social animals and form cultures as an extension of our pack behaviour. For every situation that requires interaction and group effort, that free man must relinquish some of his freedoms to co-operate. A free man cannot defend democracy alone, he must therefore seek co-operate with others and either lead or accept leadership to co-ordinate efforts to preserve his herd. The obligations of service and responsibilities of command are not freedom. Those that choose not to co-operate risk rejection by the group, and since we're programmed by nature to regard this as a poor survival strategy we generally go with the flow. Therefore, your concept of democracy is hopelessly biased toward your own ideals (based on classical ideas which I see you admire greatly). Influence Cato, influence. Human beings do that all the time and always have. You for instance are trying to influence others to believe I'm talking nonsense by pouring scorn on everything I'm writing. Its absurd to believe the roman republican government was whiter than white. Those men were ambitious, powerful, wealthy capitalists who ran a conquest state that ruthlessly enslaved or slaughtered anyone they wanted to. Not a recipe for democratic paradise is it? Get real Cato. Of course there were dirty deals done behind closed doors, there always is in any human society, or are the morning papers not evidence enough for you? If I want to use the word 'conspriacy', I will do so thank you. No thats your reasoning. America may hae based its constitution on classical ideas but wake up, its the twenty first century and a different nation. or do all roads lead to Washington DC? Pardon? Since when was democracy precisely defined by real world politics? Even the greeks fell short and their participating democracy is the closest there's been , at least as far as I'm aware. Democracy is an ideal, one you can approach but never achieve, and like many things in life, it isn't a black and white issue, its shades of grey. The romans had their own shade of it. I'm sorry Cato, but your idea of democracy is utterly naive. You know Cato, I've presented arguments against your view of republican politics. Ok, I may not be an expert on such things, but so far your argument appears to be that I'm wrong, the books I read are wrong, and only the books that agree with your opinion have any value. There is no way I can accept your argument on those principles. Say what you like, your case is unproven, and you won't prove it by attempting to bully me into silence. Please present an arguement based on fact, not your opinion - that is after all what you're demanding of me.

You know, I remember some books I had from when I was very young. All those carefully painted pictures of aeroplanes and trains. Modern publications and their hard focused photographs lack the same romanticised mystery don't they?

A free people require their leaders to explain themselves and justify their actions, as the tribunes of the republic required of consuls like Pompey and senators like Cicero--they don't permit homicidal lunatics like Caligula and Nero to abuse them without resistance, as the lapdogs of the empire did. So why wasn't Sulla removed from power for breaking one the most important traditions, of no military interference in Rome? Why did he not have to explain himself tio the masses? Why was Julius Caesar not removed from power in Rome for the same reason? My point however is that the the romans were not entirely a free people. No individual of the lower ranks of Rome could make his voice felt. They only did so if someone of higher status decided their cause was just, or if they spoke as a mob. These supposedly free men were restricted in where they could sit for crying out loud. You keeping pushing the view that Rome was democratic, but that ignores the restrictions of roman culture. A free people take an interest in the defense of their state, as they did in the republic--they don't cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, as they did during the empire. Although the cutting of thumbs was common practice by the late empire, its recorded that Augustus had to deal with that problem, and since recruiment had remained more or less the same since Marius, we can safely assume the problem existed during the republic too. Also, free people often have no interest in defense at all. Why should they? If they feel the need to defend, then people are not free - they are required by circumstance or inclination to adopt a restricted attitude. A free people can even taunt, satirize, and write ribald poems about their leaders, as Favorinus and Catullus did--during the empire, this kind of thing could and did get people killed. Plenty of figures got satirised and mocked in public, including emperors, and I notice the suprise in Suetonius when Augustus refuses to punish severely a slave who mocked. These attitudes were nothing new, so therefore, I can again safely assume that pre-imperial VIP's did get upset sometimes. However I concede there was more restraint in republican times. A free people can chart their own personal lives. Just think about the incident with Augustus and his daughter Julia--only when you have supreme power vested in one person do you get the utter absurdity of one woman's sex life causing the deaths and exiles of so many people. During the republic, women like Julia certainly existed (Servilia, Fulvia and Fulvia come immediately to mind), but they were free to be as promiscuous as they wanted w/o getting all their lovers killed. But promiscuity was rarer in the republic, because the prevailing uncertainty meant that people led more austere lives. I forget her name, but one woman scandalised roman society during the late republic for the same activity that merely raised gossip in imperial times. These lifestyle restrictions are part of roman culture, and a free people can't do what they want if they can't afford to. Many of these people were genuinely poor. Thats why they begged for coins at the doors of the wealthy, and also why the wealthy were able to persuade them to do them a favour. Even from first principles it works. We DON'T know that patronage was very nearly an alternative government. NO Roman sources attest to such an arrangement. If you can find a SINGLE ancient source that attests to such a system, I'll eat crow. Really, if we're going to just make up institutions out of thin air, we might as well get creative and claim that Martians were very nearly an alternative government! Martians were running the republic? Thats an interesting premis Cato. Do you have any evidence for that? Thought not. Lets stick to romans shall we? Of course there's no text saying these things - good grief, the records were written by the very same people who were pulling the strings in most cases. On the one hand it was simply life and not worth mentioning, on the other it carried a hint of corruption and wasn't something to admit to. In contrast to this fictional system for which there is absolutely no evidence, we DO have ample evidence of voting in ancient Rome, as well as the fact that voting was a legal right. Thats not what I meant. Voting was indeed a legal right. What I'm disputing is 'one man, one vote' had any reality in roman politics, and it didn't. The popular assemblies used block votes, not some 'first past the post' system. There were people who campaigned for democracy in roman politics but this was offset by resistance of the privilged, just like most societies. Further, the secret ballot wasn't introduced until 139-131BC, and if Cicero is anything to go by, it was a move that frustrated members of the senate. I wonder why?

Its also known that contraception by various means was practised regularly. Leather condoms have been recovered. Also, does this 100 illegimate children include those unacknowledged by the father and exposed/left for slavers? Those born to slave women aren't likely to be counted to be honest, since they're simply property of the slaves owner. Or is this claim made to underline the virility of the gentleman?

Looking good as ever!

And Michael Grant? John L Patterson (Political Life In The City Of Rome)? They all say the same things. I agree with them. You see, you regard the republic as essentially superior to the empire. But what was different? The romans hadn't changed one iota. They were still competitive, they were still prone to corruption, they were still class concious, and they still operated by obligation and private agreement, just like they always had. Rome may well have had good intentions (or rather thsoe romans who weren't among the aristocracy and were campaigning for exactly the sort of democratic state you describe) with all these assemblies, traditions, and rulings, but you cannot escape the nature of the roman people. Just because a law exists does not mean its adhered to. Do you ever break the speed limit when driving? More to the point, the law exists often in an attempt to rectify a lack of observance of existing rules. Just ask our current government, they make laws to enforce laws that were made to 'plug gaps' in laws that already covered the situation. Was Rome really so different? No, I don't think so. And its all very well rubbishing Michael Crawfords work claiming he has no evidence, but you don't have any evidence that 'one man, one vote' ever really existed in roman politics as a safeguarded tradition and legal right, especially since we know that patronage was very nearly an alternative government.

It is interesting to compare Napoleons experience with Hitlers. In 1812, La Grande Armee advanced along a narrow corridor with at least 100,000 men, with Moscow as the military objective to force russian capitulation. Hitler unleashed three million troops plus modern arms and logistics on a broad front, occupying territory and with oil as a major objective. In 1812, the russians harassed the advance but refused to commit to battle until the gates of Moscow were in sight. In 1941, the russians defended every inch as best they could. For these reasons the campaigns were very different. In terms of weather, there are obvious similarities. Neither the french nor the german invasions had planned or equipped for cold weather. Whereas the french advance was difficult, the failure of modern transport in russian conditions brought the german advance almost to a standstill, requiring the requisition of civilian horses and carts. Another point about advancing into russia is the experience of german soldiers, who recorded in interviews filmed in the 70's that the endless flatttened terrain of russia was both difficult to navigate and extremely depressing since after you reached the next hill there was only another in the distance. Vosslers account doesn't mention this malaise, and I'm not sure why.

We don't own the Shed we work in. No, we rent it, at a stupid price, from NF the site manager. NF wants us out of the Shed so he could squeeze us in with all our pallets in the Hangar, and rent the Shed to someone else at an even stupider price. Which sort of backfired a little because we're shortly to move down the road to rent warehouse space from a professional company at a stupider price still. Now I turn up for work one morning. I have to walk through the Hangar to reach the yard, but found the back door locked up. So I went into the office and enquired, only to be told that no-one had any idea who I was and until they did, no access allowed. I've been working here for months! They folded their arms. Well after some irate words and emails and phone calls, I was finally allowed to use the key to the back door, which I could obtain from Security, a pleasant old chap at the front gate who reminisces about his pet rat (deceased) and has an encyclopaedic knowledge of rechargeable batteries. Now I turn up for work one morning. The key had gone! Vanished! Nowhere to be found! Ok, off to the office to enquire. Go find SB they tell me, he's got it. Why? Oh never mind. As chance would have it SB is forklifting pallets around the Hangar and I ask him for the key. "Its open." he shrugs, and drives off. Ok, off to the office to complain. NF decides its time to have this out, so a little later he approaches me in the back yard. "Why do you need the key? Is it really important?" Pardon? Yes says I, its a matter of principle, its a matter of security, its a matter of access, its.... And so on, until NF decided that a confrontation wasn't worth the tonguelashing. One key, duly delivered. They used to do this to AD, but apparently he got his way by breaking open the fire escape every time. And the second time the key vanished from Security? Found in someones car. Career Move of the Week JD is a young lady who joined us because her previous job was too quiet. After four months at Head Office she's now leaving her current job too, this time because its even quieter. Apparently everyone sat next to each other in that office communicate by email only. At least I have an excuse. I'm eighty miles away.

I must admit, when I first saw this thread I thought 'Oh no, the scottish nationalists are making claims'. Well, if the report is accurate, then it shows one thing - that the locals saw the opportunities of living off the roman garrison like they did everywhere else. The romans of course knew that, it was part of their methodology in romainising a new province. However, whats also clear, underlined by such events as the Varian Disaster, is that this romanisation process succeeds where there is no-one to inspire a revolt against roman rule. Again, as the Antonine Wall shows, the romans preferred conquest as a means of obtaining new provinces and the process of assimilation was often too slow for roman sensibilities. Also, ancient authors point at various characters who exploit the new area for their own personal gain - greed, in other words, which was a great failing of their provincial administration.

It came as something of a suprise to me that the US is brokering a peace treaty that aims to create a peaceful settlement in the Middle East for a deomocratic palestinian state. This suprise is not that the treaty has been brokered - western nations have done this sort of thing before, and this brokering is one of the reasons for the end of the Cold War. What suprises me is that there is an expectation of 'victory' for a disenfranchised population who generally don't see the US as a friend. One might argue the US is doing this to further its interests in the region, and if true, who could blame them? Militants have long described the US as the 'Great Satan', and atrocities such as Beirut or 9/11 have left americans on the sharp end of politically inspired zealotry. For the american government, such a settlement carries with it the aura of benign assistance offered in friendship. They no doubt hope that the Middle East will therefore begin to see the west in a positive light, to counteract the often violent messages of islamic militancy. However, is it realistic to assume that a new homeland (or at least a treaty that makes one possible) will win the hearts of the militants? The culture of hatred against the States has important ramifications. Firstly, our latent aggression as a species often emerges in tribal conflict. We see this ritualised as war, in all its brutality. Whilst so many of us prefer a peaceful world, a secure existence free of threat, there is nonetheless a part of humanity that likes to fight. Since the demographic problems of the Middle East have become institutionalised in sectarian violence, this naturally attracts the hot-headed and naturally aggressive personalities, many of whom derive status and a feeling of self-worth from continuing their armed struggle. Secondly, it has become a rallying call, a source of inspiration, a common enemy against which rabble rousers can seek to lead people against this implacable foe. It is, in their eyes, a clash of culture in which they are the just defenders. It has already reached self-perpetuation. It is, in an older way of seeing things, a blood feud. On the international scale it is difficult to see whether the various armed sects would be prepared to cease violence on the basis of such a treaty. Although it gives them a reason to be peaceful, it also conflicts with the miltants need for self-worth, expressed as an armed struggle. They're not weary of the war; far from it, they continue to thrive and some are progressing beyond the casual (and poorly performing) citizen freedom fighter. The problem with hatred is that it never goes away. This was illustrated by the break-up of Yugoslavia, in which old tensions were brought to the surface, and exploited in some cases, with the civil war and ethnic cleansing that followed. Hitler of course used his hatred of jews as a rallying call, a common enemy to struggle against in much the same way that modern islamic fundamentalists pour scorn on America. What these fundamentalists lack however is a strong leader. Their sects are very vocal and even unco-operative to the point of fighting each other as happens in the Middle East. So, can America bring peace to the Middle East? They will define the boundaries of a future settlement, of that I'm sure, and their efforts to resolve the political crisis there are to be applauded. Where they will fail I think is to win the hearts and minds of the public there, and for that reason, the sectarian violence will continue, because ultimately the hot-headed young men enjoy their armed struggle.

...nothing altered the central fact of the Republican Government, that it was the collective rule of an aristocracy... ...The republic was disolved in the first century BC because it failed to address the increasingly serious grievances of the poor, and that members of this elite had appealed directly to the poor for support in the fight against each other... ...The domination of the Roman governing class found expression in the institution of clientela, clientship, an archaic form of personal dependence, which survived at Rome with undiminished relevance, in striking contrast to Athens and the greek world in general.... The Roman Republic Michael Crawford. Before the democratic movement of the Gracchi, and again for thirty years after them, the essential feature of the history of Rome was the monopoly of power by the Senate. Although this body was too narrow in its interests, too selfish, and too persistently riven by faction to be well-suited to governing an empire, its predominance continued, not so much (as Polybius claimed) because the constitution possessed effective balances, as because an ancient tradition of service was still sometimes apparent among Roman senators, and the members of their inner circle continued to display a flair for politics. By prestige, bribery, the purveyance of food and entertainments, and the satisfaction of great armies of 'clients' - who depended on them for subsistence and gave them political support in return - the nobles had long been accustomed to inducing the Assembly of the Roman People to elect them to consulships which were the principal offices of the state. The World Of Rome Michael Grant The view that romans had true democracy is wrong. Romans were extremely class concious, far more so than we would understand, and the aristocracy of Rome simply wasn't going to pass up an opportunity to swing things to their favour. Also, you're ignoring the gratitude and loyalty of clients toward their patrons. All this talk of secret ballots is all very well, but you're ignoring roman corruption - I'll go further - you have an unnecessarily romantic and idealistic view of the roman republic. That republic functioned by deals under the table. Thats how romans did business.

The romans were good communicators. The internet would at first have been used as a tool for the military and administration, the two most obvious uses. Quickly however, the wealthy would have demanded those privileges to keep their social lives up to date. The common people? Haven't they got more important things to do? After the workplaces realise their staff are off enjoying themselves on the net I'm sure a Lex Internetio would state that no man of less than 20,000 sestercii worth would be allowed access. Given the roman penchant for cheating, of course there would have been cheats who got permission to log on nonetheless, and some household slaves trusted to use the internet on their masters behalf would no doubt enjoy a little private time for themselves. Imagine Nero using the internet! Gladiators, boxers, and charioteers would have fanpages, there would be websites devoted to military history and current affairs, with recruitment going directly to the user.... ================================================ From: marcus.cerialis@vindolanda.brittannia To: Dullix@batavianfamilies.com Sent: 1st Germanicus, 779 Dear Dullix. Have you cheered for Rome? Have you longed to share our military glory? Then why not apply to the Legions now! Serve your emperor and earn citizenship! See the world! Play with swords! Apply now, while vacancies exist. We want you! ======================================================== Or perhaps this?... From: pontius.flacchus@sabura.rome To: frixus@wesellslaves.rome Sent: 1st Germanicus, 779 Dear Frixus. Please supply as many buxsome wenches as you can find for my party tomorrow at agreed rates. Please don't mention to wife.

Takes me back. I remember the first year that Mig29's were allowed in british airspace, for a RIAT show at RAF Fairford. The russian pilot was being given a familiarisation tour of the area with three tornado's in very close formation at low altitude and happened to fly overhead one one of my countryside hikes. Quite a sight back then.

The notable absence this week has been Small H. I asked UT about his whereabouts, and was told that he'd gone 'ferreting'. For those unacquainted with British wildlife, the ferret is a small furry predator that is tradiotnally used to warm the nether regions in winter. I suspect Small H has a more practical use for his pet. Oh, but I can't call him Small H anymore. Apparently he's from an important landed family, very big in ferreting circles, and from this point forward I shall call him Lord H. News of Lord H's elevation to the nobility does not phase me. Wandering about the countryside as I do you occaisionally encounter these individuals. For instance, many years ago I had a conversation with Prince Philip. Needless to say it was a pleasant suprise to discover that he watched the same television programs as everyone else. Queen - "I say, Philip, this television show is a programmus horriblis. Do be a dear and change the channel to something less vulgar will you, one hasn't got the remote gadjet." Prince Philip - "(Belch) Yeah, righto love. Pass anuvver beer... cheers Liz" But joking aside, there was that upper class gentleman I once delivered a consignment of expensive china tableware to. He was very impressed by the speed of the delivery, very appreciative of my willingness to carry the parcel to his garage, very generous in his tip, and very unaware that the grunts at the depot had thrown the box on board and whole was smashed. Never have I felt so low for so much praise... Then there was a woman who ran a business out of a small cottage a few miles away. She wasn't too impressed to see a dirty great van rumble up in front of her picture postcard perfect home, and even less impressed when I pulled a tree down on her spotless gravel drive on the way out... Can't win 'em all... Funny thing happened in Henley, a verrrrry well to do area. I arrived at the address and asked a guy doing some brickwork at the front of the house whether... "Excuse me!" A woman in a bathing suit interrupted, "Now that you've finally found the place, would kindly bring it up here?" Oh dear. Well, I lugged the box up the steps and round to her back door. Nice place, love the goldfish. She merely glanced back at me. I put the box down at her door. "Umm, don't really want that box in the sunshine. Could you bring it in please?" Ok. Lift.. And plonk down in her rear hallway. "Umm, I don't really want the box at the back door. Could you bring it in a bit further?" Oh good grief. Well the customer is always right, so in I go. "Ummm..." She looks thoughtful at a door further away inside her home. Thinking quickly, I produce the docket and get her to sign, making my getaway before I'm late for my collections. Oh boy was she bored... Then there was that woman of mature age I played pool with in a country pub one evening. She was a little well watered, and very chatty. The conversation got around to motor cars. "I like the AC Cobra, " She said in an astonishing deep gravelly voice, "Seven litres, plenty of thruuuuust!". I get the hint dear. Luckily her husband was on hand to rescue me from a fate worse than hatchbacks. I suppose you have to make your own entertainment in the countryside. And you thought Emmerdale was a soap opera... Groan of the Week I'm afraid the booze fairies were at large last night, and deposited half a ton of gravel on my car. Cheers boys, just what I needed. Please feel free to share your generosity with other people next time?

The fathers right of life or death over his children was traditional, and goes right back to the beginning. Anotonia assumed those rights over the household as a widow. Strictly speaking Claudius should have assumed them on coming of age, but Antonia didn't believe he was a suitable patron.

Languages evolve, words are shared, new words invented. Yet there seems to be a modern movement to preserve languages in some form of static integrity. This comes largely from national pride. Hence we have the french officially 'banning' the use of anglicised words in common use. Welsh is a case in point. Its an old celt-derived tongue but to what extent can you preserve it in a modern world when changes in technology and society move faster? Is the imposition of a fixed lexicon an safeguarded heritage, or a barrier to progress?

LOL. That's my favorite too. Have you ever noticed what cognitive parasites these village theologians are? By 'cognitive parasitism', I mean that the naive theology implied by the comments above comprise nothing more than cribbing the notes of scientists. In fact, none of these alleged facts about God had ever been known about God before--not until critics realized how the scientific findings did not jibe with Genesis and apologists had to reply to the critics. And the funny thing is it's heresy! After all, nothing in Genesis says that "God created the light on the way to earth so that we could see them" and nothing in science implies as much either. The only way to reach this absurd conclusion about God is by mangling scientific findings to fit the Procrustean bed of Genesis. If I were a theist (which I'm not), I'd be outraged by these stupid arguments. I'd say to the village theologian, "Genesis is just a human story about God, and I'm not going to piss off God by making Him out to be a monster just to save my great-great-great-....-great-grandfather's bedtime story." I agree absolutely, utterly, and completely. This sort of rationalising is wallpapering over the cracks to justify a two thousand year belief structure that now looks anachronistic and inconsistent. Funny thing is, the same rationalising must have been used back then - humans haven't changed much over the millenia after all - which to me is positive proof of just how many fakers and con-artists were duping ordinary well-meaning people. That sort of thing goes on today. We see religious leaders growing fat and wealthy on the back of their own particular cult. Listen to Jesus He Knows Me by Genesis. That kind of says it all.