caldrail

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.

I must say, looking at your pdf map, my initial instinct is to see a fort. It certainly doesn't look like any other sort of building. That doesn't mean the earth ramparts there are roman - but let us know what you find.

Neither. According to Polybius, the government of Rome was divided into three sections with no discernable gap. The Consuls ruled by decree, they were the roman prime ministers for a year, who provided leadership. The Senate ruled by virtue of prestige, bribery, and the provision of food and entertainment. The Common people had access to government via the voting assemblies, the Comitia Curiata, Comitia Centuriata, Comitia Tributa, and the Consilium Plebis. However, due to patronage the common people were often obliged to vote as required by their patron. The senate of course was largely disinterested in the affairs of the poor (one of the reasons for their failure to retain control). The plebians had to work hard to get attention, and the Gracchi movement was the most pointed attempt to persuade the senate to look after the interests of poor people, through the issue of land reform. The two Gracchi met a sticky end because of it.

It is an intersting point. Rome had progressed through a 'hoplite' army which in true greek style was as close to a citizens army as they would get. As such, the roman army equipped themselves with whatever gear they could afford, and were graded accordingly. There is a set of standards quoted from roman sources which describe the various wealth and equipment expected of roman soldiers, but this must be viewed with suspicion. The organisation reflects that of the voting assemblies, not a direct reference to how the romans organised their armies, and may well be a case of reverse engineering by a roman commentator who didn't actually know what the 'polybian' army organisation was, and had assumed that the traditional assembly setup was the same. The point however is that the soldiers back then paid for their equipment. Later, as we move into the post Marian period, the state took responsibility to supply equipment, although the soldier still paid for it via stoppages. Therefore, by this stage, a legion was expected by the state to field itself in the appropriate manner, and so the commander of this army must have been responsible to ensure that happened.

Thats not what I said. A layer above the senate does not necessairly have the power of veto - it depends on circumstance and political structure. As for being a tribune of the people, surely the tribune was a part of administration rather than a leader, and emperors achieved power without input from the plebs in most cases, and lets face it, most emperors only bothered themselves about plebs in case they revolted. My point was that the emperors considered themselves as rulers of Rome, therefore rulers over the senate, yet the power base of those senators was such that it often hindered emperors. True, there were some emperors who weren't concerned with senatorial sensibilities. Caligula seems to have had nothing but contempt for them. Nero wafts past them airily... (though one wonders if he wasn't buying them off individually with luxury). Commodus visibly warned them to behave when he played the venator in the arena. Severus of course simply turned up with an army to enforce his rulings. I think you're being a little inaccurate, and this view of the republic is idealistic. The roman monarchy was supplanted by an aristocracy. My point about SPQR indicating this is valid, it was a cornerstone of politics, that there was a senior class. Of course the plebian families wanted their slice of the action, and campaigned to be allowed into the ruling set. They achieved this by 342BC, and in the period following we have the most democratic era of republican life. Polybian states that roman government can be seen in three indivisible ways - rule by decree (the consuls), rule by aristocracy (the senate), and rule by the people (voting assemblies). The powers of a consul are clear - they are the roman prime ministers for a year. The senate of course ruled by virtue of privilege accorded to their wealth and status . The voting assemblies? Now here we part company, because although the poor had access to a vote it was not the modern one man, one vote concept. It was a block vote. All four voting assemblies offered a single block vote each much the same way trade unions used to do in british politics. Also, the voting procedure was not as inherently free as we might think. Patronage rears its head whether you like it or not, and one of the primary obligations a patron asked of his client was that he voted in the way desired. The popular vote was effectively biased, even rigged to some degree, and during the golden age of republican democracy we still see the corruption inherent in roman society. By the late republic the upper classes had reasserted their superiority. We see people like Cicero working to safeguard upper class privilege. But - and this is an important point - the senate was no longer addressing serious issues affecting the poor, and had effectively lost their support, thus the individuals who fought each other for supremacy were able to call upon the support of the poor. It was the senate who had lost their grip by laziness and indifference, allowing those men who wanted power to seek a following amongst the roman people and thereby acquire a power base to rival that of the senate itself. The people had no role in imperial roman government? Did the voting assemblies survive? A dimished role certainly, but then isn't it true that the senate were still asserting their privilege and continuing to disenfranchise the poor? Augustus may have allowed that to happen - it certainly didn't spoil his plans for autocratic power - but did he actively remove plebian rights? Or was the senate simply grabbing back whatever power it could get hold of? The augustan senate was not initially augustus-friendly, that took time and some effort.

Another working day, so finish the breakfast, lock up the house, and walk down to the car. This morning the mechanics of the garage opposite have decided to forego the usual cut and thrust of car repair, and instead opt for the traditional teabreak. They line up at the top of the ramp, bellies thrusting inside their oily overalls, cups in hand, eagerly predicting the visual spectacle of Caldrail Going To Work. Man and machine in no harmony whatsoever. Right. Here goes. Key in slot. Turn... And... Open sesame! I fight the natural urge to hug and kiss my car (we're friends again) and wave good morning to the disappointed mechanics in triumph. They wander back inside disconsolantly, but I doubt I've seen the last of my impromptu audience. That well dressed woman turns up in her Audi. She always parks here in my neighbours slot even though its a private car park. I'm sure she she doesn't live here, I'm sure she hasn't seen the sign, and from the look of her, I'm sure she'll get irate if I point out her error. Or is she having an affair with the goth metal layabout next door? You never know... The garage boss has parked his 4x4 next to the alleyway again. Its such a huge truck he can't park it accurately, and to be honest, I doubt that careful parking has entered his conciousness. Ease past it carefully... its black paint gleaming in mirror-like obsession and an obvious sign of possible legal action if I get too close.... and its down the uneven rain-eroded path to the main road. I hear the car scrape something as i run over a pot hole. Maybe the 4x4 isn't so stupid after all. But how does he get that truck down this path? Its too narrow. Its not humanly possible to squeeze that automotive leviathan between the houses and trees. Or does it come with a button to retract the wheel arches? How much does that thing cost? I wonder what he charges for labour? No, its too frightening... Along the main road, left at the roundabout, where that dark blue Ford does its usual party piece by going all the way round in the wrong lane, and off down toward the warehouse. Sixty miles an hour allowed along this windy stretch and the guy in front is driving at twenty. Its no good, I can't pass him on this road, so I grit my teeth and wait for the straight bit... Where he accelerates to sixty on a section of road limited to thirty miles an hour. Is he taking the mickey? Of course, at the bend he slows down to twenty again.... and finally at the gate to the industrial estate, where a car transporter and trailer is busy doing a twelve point turn across the road... No mate, left hand down a bit more... Tell you what, go forward and try it again.... Aaargh! I always remember speaking to an american woman on one evening out, who was from Iowa, or Idaho, or somewhere flat and empty. The conversation happened to get around to driving in Britain, and she gasped - "You people are soooo-per-men!". Apparently she was overawed by our skills and reaction speeds compared to american drivers she was used to back home. Well I don't know what part of Britain she was driving in, but it certainly wasn't Rushey Platt... Task of the Week AD points at a length of shelving running along the west wall. "We need that dismantled, Caldrail, here you go..." and passes me a ratchet and adjustable wrench. Oh joy... Cue Mission Impossible theme tune.... Hang on... How am I going to get the bolts undone the other side? Well, it looks like I'm going to have to haul the shelves away from the wall... Gouging deep furrows in the concrete floor, I pull the line of shelves round inches at a time. Management training at its best. With a mighty crash the shelving falls over. AD glances out the portakabin window during his phone call to Head Office, no doubt explaining the sudden crescendo of noise as "Oh thats just Caldrail, he's dismantling the shelves for me". I give him a reassuring silly grin. Covered in cobwebs and dirt, polo shirt snagged and torn... Ten more minutes of this and I'm going to look like I've been savaged by a rotweiller. Just in time for that important meeting... Life on the sharp edge of warehousing...

When Augustus came to power, he did not announce a change in society, rather that he was Princeps, the first citizen, a leader among equals. He was acutely aware of the fate of Julius Caesar. The conspirators who stabbed Caesar to death thought they were saving the republic from a tyrant, however popular or capable, and were cruelly disappointed. The rule of the Caesars did not supplant republican institutions, it sat on top of them, adding a layer above senatorial government. yet even then, Augustus did not have everything his own way. There were occaisions when this man was seriously heckled by senators and left the senate house fuming. Again and again we see the senate making decisions under the principate. Claudius and Nero both declared enemies of the state. We see Didius Julianus pleading with the senate to retain some semblance of power, and the senate having him executed in the face of Septimius Severus' arrival in Rome. The phrases republic and empire carry two meanings each. Republic was the name Rome gave its government, a rule of the people rather than that of monarchs, however biased it was toward the aristocracy. Its also a name we give the period between the roman monarchy and the principate. Empire is the collection of foreign lands who are ruled by Rome. The romans did mention the phrase occaisionally, even during the republic, and there's a later quote about the gods granting Rome an empire without end. Empire is also a name we give the period from the principate onward until the fall of the west.

Tales of human sacrifice are not so unusual. Augustus is said to have sacrificed three hundred of his enemies early on in his career, but Suetonius is a bit dubious about that and I suspect the story concerning the aftermath of Cannae must also be treated suspiciously. For the romans, human sacrifice was something barbaric. Whilst they were quite capable of executing thousands, they did so for reasons they considered expedient, not because they wanted to indulge in un-roman rites. Remember the horror the romans felt when they discovered the sacrifices in the teutoberg forest for instance. I would like to know the source on this, because I suspect this is a story designed to underline the desperation of Rome's plight. It might therefore be propaganda?

I'm not suggesting that Rome had a medieval fuedal society, it wasn't structured like that, but you might view patronage as its ancestor? Maybe, maybe not, it might be simply a facet of human behaviour emerging whereby a person seeks aid from someone with more personal power and in return agrees to certain conditions. In that respect, patronage and fuedalism are similar. I'm not disputing your knowledge of roman social structure - what I'm pointing out is that despite safeguards, there are always those who exploit the weak, exploit gaps, or just plain refuse to play by the rules. Now thats a general point and you could easily pick holes in it, but any society accepts rules to govern their citizens behaviour, which includes how people get to rule. Rome certainly did that - and even I have to say, their answer to this was fairly unique and worked for centuries. Then again, wasn't it the mavericks - those who refused to play by the rules- the ones that pushed the system to one side? I get a little bothered by people who say that one society or another is superior. You might claim that ours is, because immigrants flock to our nation in droves. Of course they do. They're getting handouts of cash and pay is better than back home. That doesn't mean our society is better than theirs. We might have a much colder, less friendly, more authoritarian and officous regime than theirs. You could apply the same arguements to the germanic immigrants of roman times. There must have been plenty of them who couldn't give a fig for roman culture. What they wanted was roman cash. Roman luxury, and if they could get it without doing all the competitive roman stuff, so much the better. I know that there were immigrants in the late empire and after its expiry that adopted roman ways. I'll bet they were the people incharge. The ones with cash in their pockets and access to roman houses and such. They were if you will, playing at being roman and enjoying its luxury, without worrying too much about roman civic responsibility which had all but died by that time anyway.

Yes. Psychohistory is another phrase for the theory of social engineering - that human behaviour as a whole can be predicted and manipulated, and that mathematical formulas can be applied to mass social situations in such a way that these predictions can be made. Thats the concept behind the Foundation novels. Such a science doesn't exist inreality nor is it likely that it ever will, since Asimov conveniently ignored human personality as a factor in decision making, as for instance the unpredictable nature of leaders whose personality is a little less than sane. A psychohistorian whose maths was up to it could in theory plot the progress of a civilisation from start to end, determine when the major crises will arise, and any relevant changes in social structure that result. Its a form of statistics with complex formulae governing a dynamic quotient. In the stories psychohistorians lock themselves away and pore over huge mathematical conundrums to arrive at an answer. Its easier to learn a little history and recognise the trends if you ask me, but I don't think Asimov thought that had dramatic potential

My trusty motorcar decided to have a sulk yesterday. I finished breakfast, locked up the house, and walked down to the car to go to work. It wouldn't let me in. The door was jammed solid. I cursed, I begged, I pulled the handle in a frantic tantrum. No, the car isn't talking to me. Can't get in the other side either, the cockpit is too cramped. So I call the breakdown people. They were very sympathetic and promised someone would turn up in an hour. He nearly made it too, despite a bad car crash elsewhere on the Great Western Way and the resulting gridlocked traffic. Needless to say, after some fettling from a gentleman far more skilled in talking to cars than me, the door opened. UT strode into the yard as soon as I showed up. "Come on Alfie!" He shouts. Alfie? Since when was I called Alfie? Never mind, there's no point arguing. I wonder what he wants? "Oi needs to get moi my van in, Alfie. 'As you got a key? You do don' you? Goes and get the key an' lets moi van in." UT as usual has such an air of command. He disappears through the premises of a neighbouring business to fetch his van. My mobile phone rings. Security has another van at the front gate with two parcels for us. I ask him to send the man round, but the old gent tells me the outer front gate is locked. Aw poo. Right then, I'll dump my bag in the office and its back through the Hangar to fetch the parcels. I open the Shed, and... What the **** is this? Somebody has deposited a large metal roadside map to an industrial estate! Well first things first... As I stride back across the front yard to the gatehouse the van is pulling away. With my parcels on it. Yes, he's going round the back with Mr Security to open the gates as he goes. A quick jog down the lane and I hitch a ride in the back of the parcel van. I forgot how bumpy this old back lane was, pot-holed concrete and eroded gravel. You will not believe how painful the corners of cardboard boxes can be when you're bouncing around in the back of a van. Anyway, nursing a few bruises, I manage to indicate where to drop the boxes. He's a pleasant character this driver. "Hope you didn't you get jolted around back there" He says in concern at my flustered face. Parcels duly delivered, he goes, and I turn to UT, newly arrived in his trusty flatbed. He looks at the metal roadside map. He looks at me. "Somebody must 'ave nicked this the uvver noight. Better run, Alfie.." I really have no idea if he's serious.... After some genuine heaving the map goes on the flatbed, followed by bits of metal tube. Isn't that the front gate barrier? "Somebody must banged into it last noight, Alfie. Made a roight mess of it they did...." AD arrives after a visit elsewhere. He greets UT in his usual disparaging manner, and the two senior citizens then proceed to have a mock fight. As usual, UT's superior strength and aggression win the day, and I console my boss over his defeat. Sulk of the Week No, not my car, but SB, who is starting to feel the pressure of the impending move and whose patience is very fragile. He 's been very comfortable in that darkened Hangar for many years, and really, having to deal with the outside world for the first time in a decade, its all proving a bit of a shock for him. Poor man. I'd help him but our relationship consists solely of glaring angrily at each other when we walk past. Has anyone got a home for a warehouseman? Well trained, barks at strangers, doesn't need much exercise, and would make a perfect pet for someone with the time and patience to provide a good home. Remember, a warehouseman is not just for christmas...

The romans certainly considered their civilisation as superior, yet I 'm not sure the poor had things much more comfortable than anywhere else. Life in a city has advantages for sure, but then, such a focus of human contact and therefore waste and the plague and pestilence that goes with it must count against comfort surely? Even those outwardly impressive insulae were often jerry built rat havens, overcrowded firetraps, structurally unsound, probably unheated, no running water, no cooking facilities - are there any other disadvantages I haven't considered? Roman civilisation was great if you could afford it, or if you could live off the wealthy. Maybe so, but my point was that the senate considered themselve a class apart - even the abbreviated name for their civilsation hints at that. Also, the wealthy members of Rome established an desire to retain the privikleges of society for themselves. Isn't that why the Gracchi got bumped off? You see, republican traditions had a strong democratic element (I can't disagree) yet the wealthy had no intention of giving a poorer man more say than necessary. Human beings love building pecking orders. Its part of our social animal behaviour, and the romans were no exception. But it did form networks of fuedal obligation, and even if it didn't correspond to establish social order, it did correspond to wealth, which after all is the decider of who has influence in roman life.

The raising of slave legions was due to Augustus if I remember, I don't recall any during the Punic Wars unless you have better sources on that, and as for being an innovation, it wasn't. It was desperate measures, something that the romans wouldn't ordinarily consider under any circumstance. I'm not entirely sure what the positive point might be other than extra recruits who were not supposed to join the legions at all. Notice that Augustus freed them all prior to service and made darn sure they were a second class legion afterward.

You have no idea how many galoots are here. Its a nationally recognised breeding center, and regarding 'the guy', I have no idea what he charges for demonstrations since he decided to wander off and practice before we could any info out of him. Mind you, its a fair bet that alcohol will be mentioned in the contract

No, I disagree. Rome was never a monarchy although it evolved toward over centuries of empire. It was an autocracy however, with no established and accepted method of transferring power. It was Commodus who was the 'first man born to the purple', a break with the past by Marcus Aurelius and a precedent for future development. In Antonia's case it isn't that she was the mother of future monarchs - lets face it - she had no intention of allowing Claudius to become head of the household given that she considered him a man who 'nature had not finished', and until the praetorians became keen to find an emperor sympathetic to their need for a continued easy life, he wasn't likely to be considered for emperor anyway. It was to do with status however, and in that sense I agree with your point. She was a mamber of a very influential family, people who led fashions, set the tone, people that were expected to be the leading lights in Rome. That meant she had to keep up appearances, to keep her own house in order before others must. For her family to be dragged through a scandalous court case to prosecute Livilla was anathaema.

I have to be honest, I don't understand a word of the language, bar a few phrases I've become acquainted with. Given the number of translations available I haven't found this an enormous problem, but then I suppose I'm a little dependent on other peoples work.

Today I'm at the local library.. So who's in this morning? Ahh.. As usual Mr AM makes his unhurried entry. He's an elderly New Zealander, over here to find his family, and after seven years they're still not answering his emails. Always first through the door, always slowing everybody else down with his two walking sticks, always bullying an unsuspecting interloper off his favourite PC, and always smiling at young Miss L (She's a pretty lass, desperately bored with library work). Give him a few minutes and he'll be chatting at the top of his voice. Give him a few more and he'll have a problem with his emails, an excuse for some personal attention from Miss L, who grits her teeth and shows him the obvious. Ahh, there he goes... We're in for a good whinge this morning! His best mate, a jovial chap who hasn't washed, shaved, or cut his hair since 1971 sits down and proceeds to lay out his belongings on the desk in a slow deliberate manner. I'm not even sure he uses the PC, he just comes in for a chat with AM. Apparently his main ambition in life is to visit a park four miles away. You go for it mate. Two soldiers from a regiment I don't recognise drop in. You don't usually see soldiers in here, but these two seem personable lads and don't bother anyone... except they've got a problem with their emails and ask Miss L to sort them out. I think she's happy with the distraction. So are they. And over by the aisle - yes, its that young lad whose name I don't know. He fancies Miss L desperately, and fidgets without actually logging on, plucking up the courage to search for an excuse to chat her up. Is he going for it?.... Yes? No?.... He's watching her go by.... She's not paying attention.... He's on his feet!.... False alarm, he asks her about logging on. Good grief boy, even I wasn't that bad at your age. Just ask her. Before AM does. There's a new blonde librarian sat way back at the enquiry desk. She keeps looking at me in that sort of 'Whats he doing?' way. Well I'm watching you as it happens dear. Guess we're made for each other really. We'll spend happy hours staring at each other across a crowded library. The other blonde librarian (I must say, this library is well stocked with blondes) is a thin irritating girl who thinks I'm a wierdo. Thanks for telling everyone, that was diplomatic. She likes to ignore me when I walk past and always seems to choose that moment to inspect her nails. Passing me now is a huge gorilla of a man I've seen a few times. He's at least seven feet high and and very burly, so slope shouldered his knuckles should drag across the carpet, except they don't because he's too tall. His arms hang limply as he thuds along the aisle. He sits beside me and it looks ridiculous, like a giant poised over a toy computer. Each key press is soooo slow.... ...Compared to the slightly annoying woman the other side of the desk, who types so fast my instinct is to take cover and radio in for an artillery barrage. She just doesn't stop! Meanwhile that even more annoying child of hers is busy re-enacting last weeks Top Gear, attempting for the fiftieth time to break the Library Speed Record For Toy Cars. Oh there he goes again.... There's a loud BONG! I look round and he's collided with something. Driving without due care and attention I'd say. I cannot suppress a grin, and the woman gives me a hard stare, torn between giving me grief, helping her crying child, or doing some more typing. Three young men of afro-carribean origin arrive and shunt each other around the available PC's. In sharp suits. With black bandana's? Bizzare. One sits the other side of me, leaning back in a streetwise manner and browsing the net, obviously disinterested, and I sort of wonder why he bothered coming in.... or is he here to look cool? I hate to admit it, but he does. Ten out of ten for image. But what's it for? Are they Gangsta Rappers? In this neck of the woods? Or are they affluent terrorists? Should I call the police? Should I call Bruce Willis? Decisions, decisions.... Well that's my hour on the internet. Just another day in Rushey Platt. Incident of the WeekIt happened last night. This guy is on the other side of the road, waiting at the pedestrian crossing, as I am, for the lights to change. Except he doesn't. Looking the wrong way and seeing a gap, he steps into the road into the path of a taxi. THUMP! The taxi skids rapidly to a halt, whilst the guy rolls along the pavement looking a little stunned, leaving the taxi with a broken wing mirror. Despite the efforts of myself, the taxi driver, and a small crowd of ladettes on their way to an all night binge, the guy refuses to stay around to speak to the police or get medical help, and wanders off down the road... Whoops there he goes again..... Not my idea of a fun saturday night, but if headbutting cars is your thing, he's available for functions and childrens parties.

Consider me committed. I'm flexible on dates so it shouldn't be a problem.

I agree that such concern existed - of course it did, the romans were human beings after all. However, this concern is modifed by society as a whole. You see, in general, if someone shows concern and gets laughed at by his peers as a softie, its likely he won't show that concern again whether he feels it or not. Whether that person continues to act on his concerns afterward without the knowledge of his peers is another matter, and that depends on his personality. We see in the romans a society that has mixed influences. On the one hand, there is a democratic element, on the other, personal power sometimes verging on the absolute. We see a society that derides romantic illusions, that regards love as a form of mental slavery, yet retains a strong family virtue. We see men who keep little children as pets, and despite their complete familiarity, these same men quickly sell the child when it gets older and potentially scandalous. We see slaves as trusted followers, personal friends, or more usually - as 'talking tools'. One thing to be said about this testerone rich culture is its virility. The romans do seem to have this sense of achievement and pleasure in life, almost as if they know it could be so short and should therefore make the most of it. And so they should know it was short. Much is made of the romans medicinal care but this was costly and unavailable to common citizens outside of the legions. Disease was ever present, there was always a risk of death or injury in the active lifestyle of romans, even the competitiveness of Rome caused casualties. Death was something the romans were familar with. In fact, they make it a virtue to be contemptuous of it. Honourable suicides are recored in ancient sources and what comes across is that some senior romans would prefer that to scandal and dishonour. Perhaps this shouldn't suprise us. Such a man who falls from grace can often be treated with utter contempt by those who instigated his fall, or even torture, public ridicule, or even a staged execution if it suited the purpose. It shouldn't come as a suprise then that the romans made courage a virtue, that they applauded those who did not bow to fear. Like Caractacus, who stood in the senate and gave them a piece of his mind whilst his family cowered and pleaded for mercy. A certain death sentence commuted to life at Rome as an ordinary citizen, something I note that was accorded to Zenobia too. This contempt for death has another side, the nasty side that sees people murdering each other readily. Nero, as a young man, joins his friends in late night violence in the streets of Rome, something considered usual for young men and never really dealt with. In Nero's case of course, he delights in stabbing the victim and depositing the corpse in sewers. Is that only typical of Nero? Not really. Whilst it may not have been so commonoplace, such killings were known to occur in the darkened streets, and its entirely possible that watcmen, whose job was to deter such behaviour, may have been bribed at times to be somewhere else. Money was preferable to justice it seems, and surely this indicates not only contempt for death, but something approaching indifference to it?

Hmmm... Not sure about that. Arminius was a clever guy, a real sneaky rat. In fact, its better to say that without Quntilius Varus he wouldn't have been able to do it. Perhaps a more able commander and one who realised that Arminius wasn't being honest may well have prevented a disaster. That siad, Arminius had already formed an alliance of german tribes and was a force to be reckoned with north of the Rhine. The Romans were going to be in trouble anyway. Notice that Arminius did not pursue the romans across the Rhine. He knew they would eventually field too many men to contend with. Instead, he attempted to force the romans to withdraw and leave Germania to him. In that he succeeded, but roman training wasn't essential. The german tribes weren't trained in roman fighting but I do agree that the military intelluigence that Arminius could provide was useful. What was more useful was Varus's inability to see through a ruse.

Yes, the romans lost a considerable number of men. During the course of the Second Punic War Hannibal marched his army around Italy defeating every roman commander sent against him. At least twice roman armies were surrounded and slaughtered, Cannae being the most well known. When you consider the numbers involved, it seems like a huge portion of roman manpower was eliminated, but notice that after each disaster, the romans were able to field more men. True, the romans were brought to a state of panic, but they had access to a large recruitment pool by virtue of their empire, which even then was of a considerable size. This was Rome's advantage. If they lost troops, they simply called for more. Carthage on the other hand was dependent on hired mercenaries to field a professional army, and there was a limited number of these men available on the market, so we have a situation where Rome is playing for time, keeping Hannibal busy, and fighting a war of attrition. On a local level, there must have been parts of the roman world that suffered the lost generation syndrome, although it must be pointed out that families were larger then (a necessary survival characteristic of poor families) and it was unlikely that all the male children went to war. Rome as a whole did not reach that point. I haven't seen any evidence of a fall in the birth rate. The social function of women was unchanged. This was before the increasing leisure time of wealthier families gave women a measure of freedom (that also reduced the birth rate funny enough - they simply had too much fun and childbirth was beginning to be viewed as a serious impediment to their social life). Back in the Punic Wars, the role of women was more traditional, and life for romans generally was more austere than in the Empire anyway.

They fought in the quincunx formation as a rule, the whole point being that formations were not conflicting on space and supported each other, as well as covering the gaps and making them potential traps for less organised enemies. The legions were very disciplined, and retained that mindset even in combat, so that chaos was avoided and the troops could readily follow the centurions orders. If you think about it, these disciplined formations allowed superior command and control across the entire army, and with the coded trumpet calls and verbal orders, changes in formation and strategy were more easily controlled.

I'm not making this up. Those guys have been dismantling the world and his dog for thirty years. They're incredible - they really are - they just seem unfettered and unhurried by life and simply will not conform to society. The world will be poorer without them!

Cruel and unusual dictatorship? I think not. Party on dude...

Gladiators were spared for popularity, not for humanitarian concerns. Quite the reverse, the lower classes often called for the deaths of these men and we see a change in the style of fighting toward the end of the empire, when weapons designed to wound rather than kill outright were becoming commonplace. Make no mistake, this is a culture that routinely exposed its children and left them to die or live as slaves. I agree this wasn't always true - sometimes an unwanted child was given to friends or deserving couples, or even given to slavers directly (at least the child would then live, however poor and downtrodden). The thing is that although individual sensibilities may have been humanitarian, and there is plenty of evidence that such people lived in roman times, roman culture was hard hearted. It had developed from a time when they scraped out a living on hillsides under threat of invasion or tyranny from their neighbours, and this mindset persists in the roman psyche for centuries. Its easy to get carried away with the actions of individuals who call for death or torture at a whim. But lets use another example. In the war against the Lusitanii the roman commander, Galba, knew they were tired of the war and hit on a ruse. He let it be known that if they surrendered and gave up their weapons, the romans would call it quits and give them land to farm if they paid taxes. So thirty thousand or more turned up at three camps and did so, whereupon Galba had nine thousand slain on the spot and carted off the rest in chains for a life of slavery. The senate were appalled, not to mention the bad publicity, and had galba prosecuted. He of course was a little more wiley, and brought in his tearful children to sway the hearts of the senators who couldn't bear the thought of these children going without a father. Now then - what seems a humanitarian decision is in sentimentality, the roman love of family, which this case is being exploited by Galba. Exploitation is the key word. Thats what romans did. They exploited human beings as much as any other commodity, and that does not breed humanitarian sentiment. If there was, why did romans not campaign to dismantle the slave trade? Why did they allow the slaughter of vast numbers of exotic animals? These are not humanitarian viewpoints. There was a fourth century writer lamenting the loss of these fine creatures, commenting there were no more lions in Thessalay, that rhino's and crocodiles were vanishing from africa. Of course they were - there was a massive export business to have these animals killed for public entertainment - but did he decide that the games were a bad thing? Of course not. Exploitation of the natural world was a natural thing to him, he did not see that by changing things the loss of these animals copuld be averted. It simply did not occur to him. The games were there, that was how roman society functioned, and who was he to attempt to change entertainment of the masses? A monk named Telemachus (amongst others) tried to in AD392, by rushing into the arena and attempting to stop the gladiatorial fights. An impatient gladiator cut him down and the fights continued... The point must be recognised that roman culture was inherently biased against humanitarian considerations, that it supported exploitation, that it tolerated violence and death in many circumstances. Roman society had clear divisions on what was acceptable. For a father to kill his errant son was for a long time acceptable practice. For a son to kill his errant father was a heinous crime. Rape of a barmaid was tolerated - what did she expect working in such a place? - but to break into a womans house and commit the same crime left romans horrified. You see? There's a black and white morality here, a line beyond which which what we see as a criminal act is no longer considered so by romans. The lower classes must take a large portion of the blame. Their poverty breeds a hardened frame of mind, that survival must come first. They were the ones who revelled in gladiatorial deaths, who thrilled at boxers fighting with metal gloves, who stood captivated as a charioteer met a grisly end. They were not educated people. Their sentiments are not generally recorded, and although I would have to accept that some, perhaps many, felt human kindness toward one another there were many who didn't. The unwanted child is a burden - it must be exposed. The child is old enough - it must earn its keep. I cannot earn enough - I must go the the patron and kiss his feet for a handout. I cannot feed my family - I mustl take money from late late revellers who stray into my street. I cannot pay my creditors - I must consider slavery, You might say that these sentiments are understandable and necessary for survival. My point is that such sentiment inevitably hardens peoples attitudes, and that roman culture as a whole was biased toward a macho, callous attitude, where aggression underlies roman interaction and entertainment.