caldrail

Meteorite showers are commonplace. Tons of material falls on earth every day. We have bits of the moon and mars dropping on us for instance. How? Because they suffer meteorite strikes too, and without the thicker atmosphere to burn these objects down before collision, and the weaker gravity, debris from these craters can travel into our gravity field. Look into the night sky (preferably away from a built up area with its light pollution) and you may well see the odd meteorite falling. It appears as a speck of light - hence the phrase 'falling star'. A meteor is essentially the same phenomenon but on a larger scale and definitely more impressive to look at, which is why it has its own name. Perhaps you might consider some revision?

I thought it might be useful to post a picture of a typical hilltfort. This is Barbury Castle, south of Swindon in Wiltshire (Its a country park and easily accesible) The hill looks quite shallow doesn't it? Believe me, it gets a lot steeper when you try to climb up there! This is a pic of Bincknoll Castle, a hillfort southwest of Swindon and little visited, which illustrates better how steep some of these hills can be. These are the ramparts of the fort. The earth is eroded since they were built thousands of years ago and somewhat less impressive. Also, the original wooden palisades are gone. For added interest, here's a pic of whats left of Waylands Smithy, near Uffington Castle (another hillfort). Although it seems a little unimpressive by some ancient monument standards, back then it must have been a spooky place.

Correct - it wasn't. It was built on a plain where there no terrain obstructions to viewing the rising and falling of astronomical bodies. Secondly, and somewhat inconveniently, there are't any mountains in that part of the world. Given that, and the fact that the nearest high ground rises a few hundred feet, it was unlikely that it occured to neolithic people that the view was signifcantly better at high elevation. These people were not studying the night sky as scientists. The sun was bright enough wasn't it? It was red at first then again late in the day. Was there any other detail they needed? They certainly couldn't have studied it with the naked eye. There are other alignments too which is why the equinox has significance. That was the whole point of stonehenge - to mark these alignments for convenience. Yes, but then you're not a tribesman in neolithic england who has genuine fears of what the english weather is going to do to your prosperity. The passing of seasons is a vital consideration. Agriculture was very primitive and hunting always a gamble. These were days when we still had wild pigs, bears, and wolves running around what is now pastoral wiltshire. These ancient people had a rich religious life - quite possibly hard edged - and these sites were not places of worship in isolation. We know there are tracks and paths between many of them. Truth is, we don't know exactly what the rituals were nor have they left many clues. This gives rise to all sorts of well-meaning suggestions. The prevailing opinion is that stonehenge was a place symbolic of death, given the offerings and bodies buried around the place, and that Woodhenge was within easy reach especially if they travelled via the River Kennet. Woodhange, as the name suggests, was built from lumber and wasn't a stone circle, and as I mentioned is believed to have been a symbolic place of life. Wiltshire has plenty of defensive works in the area. Barbury Castle, Liddington Hill, Uffington Castle, Bincknoll Castle (those are just the ones in my area that I know of) - all hill-forts with ditches and ramparts surrounding a habitation most often used in times of danger. The saxons took Barbury as a burial site - The name means 'Hill-top fort of Bera'. They also totally misunderstood Waylands Smithy some distance east on the Ridgeway. It was a burial chamber dating back as much as 5000 years, but the saxons decided it was a place worthy of their legended hero, Wayland. You see? Without knowing what the place was for or how it was used, the later people invent all sorts of theories to explain it. Logic has some use in determining things, but it might help if you study the surrounding area as well, for such sites belonged to communities who didn't simply exist in one spot. The archaeological record is just as important too. Without that, any conjecture has no proof.

Merely a nova I'm afraid. The star coughs and throws off waste material from the surface, resulting in a bright flare. Such things are rare enough, but supernova (The complete destruction of a star) is incredibly rare - I did read of one expert who reckoned there's been three during the life of our galaxy. In any case, an observable supernova had better be a long way off because the explosion has dire consequences for nearby star systems. So, are you saying that the Crab Nebula and such others are only the results of novae and not supernovae? I have to confess I haven't read any up-to-date stuff on astronomy for a while, so this interests me, Caldrail. From my reading years ago I always thought the main nebulae in our galaxy and others were the results of supernovae. Has research proved otherwise now? And I had heard that Betelgeuze (?sp) in Orion was going to be the next big supernova. Have you any up-to-date info on this? It's an unstable red giant, but will it be a mere nova when it goes, or a big blast? Its a question of scale, and many reports of these things are written by people who don't understand the difference between the two events. It may well be that Betelgeuse is primed and ready I'll check into this for you if I still have the info to hand. ------======######======------ No, sadly I don't have that info anynore. From what I remember there's only a limited range of stars that have the potential for supernova, and its not a sure thing that they will. For a general definition then, a nova is an explosion that does not destroy the star, the supernova on the other hand does. You are right though, the Crab Nebula is apparently the smoking evidence of such a supernova, although I understand a pulsar is still there in the center. Its difficult to appreciate how vast such an explosion is. Think of the bombs that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now make that bomb sun-sized, thousands of times bigger than the earth. Now make that a giant star, less stable than our own. Get the picture? Thats one BIG explosion!

Please excuse me for this - its a little off thread - but Columbus did not sail due west. Thats the popular story they teach in schools, but its far more likely he crossed the atlantic further south than presumed given where he landed up. I don't remember the reasons why he would have done that - sailing isn't exactly my subject and I can't remember the arguement - but doesn't the sargasso sea have something to do with it? In fact, if columbus avoided getting stuck then he either already knew about the hazards of being becalmed or was incredibly lucky in choosing his route. We now resume normal service...

The vikings did indeed colonise westward beyond iceland but the actual places are not confirmed. There's some confusion over the name. The most westward expansion translates into english as 'grass-land' which kind of spoils the north american claim considering their terrain is unashamedly forested. It simply isn't clear exactly where they went.

The romans had their own culture but it was influenced by the etruscans. Not really an extension I'm afraid although there is some commonality. The romans were hill farmers before the city was built using the valley between the seven hills as a meeting place between the villages. As I mentioned, the etruscans dominated the region - the romans voted for etruscans as their kings more often than not. I have read on these forums that the etruscans (being a little known culture these days) were not indigineous to the area. They also provided funeral rites that helped inspire gladiatorial combat in later times.

It depends. Roman military architecture was standardised for efficient construction regarding wooden fortresses - almost a flatpack product - but in deserts? The roman forts out in the sahara are very different from the stone and brick tile construction we see in europe, and large sections of Hadrians Wall were originally built up from turf. Local materials are likely to be used so its a fair guess there was local variety. Despite the often quoted point that the layout of roman fortresses were the same layout, under close examination it turns out that apart from a basic similarity no two fortresses are the same.

Which mesopotamian king? Surely his weaponsmith did the work and not him? In any case, such remains are scarce and not so easily found. Remember that a large-ish meteor doesn't simply drop on the ground. It creates a sizeable crater and usually buries itself under the debris. Its a large metallic stone travelling at high speed, much higher than a catapult stone. And where did you get the story that the sword made from it was stronger? My guess is thats a piece of ancient hype. If they can work meteoric iron to create a sword, they can create iron swords of mundane origin.

The etruscans dominated the region in the early days, and most of the kings of Rome were etruscan. The etruscans influenced the urbanisation of the tiber valley and provided some of the basis for roman customs. The roman empire was created by the domination of the republic by one man as ruler without the customary restraints of republican government. The republic itself was founded when the romans got fed up of the kings and had the last one thrown out. tarquinus Superbus is supposed to have raped a latin woman named Lucretia, and that was the final straw. He tried to win his kingdom back but lost.

Mostly thats heroic myth, and although an iron-rich meteorite isn't unusual, most are very small and of no use for making weapons. Meteorites are not made of special quality metals I'm afraid, its just the same stuff we find everywhere on earth. Lets also differentiate between phenomena. Meteors are the larger lumps falling with a very impressive firework display, but very rare. Metallic lumps on the ground of extra-terrestial origin are meteorites and are baiscally interstellar rubble that only become visible on entering the atmosphere, as a 'falling star' without the characteristic tail.

A party of men skulk in the shadows of a darkened alleyway. They wait patiently for the passing of late night revellers, young men staggering drunkenly and singing out loud, challenging each other concerning the dangers of late night women. Once they had gone, one of the lurkers whispered to his companions to move. They crossed the alleyway to the door of a villa, an expensive dwelling though one with a modest frontage. They convene and quickly discuss their tactics. One man knocks upon the door. As if impatient he bangs again. And again. "All right, allright..." Came a tired voice from inside, "I heard you. What do you mean by bothering us at this late hour?" "Sir, " Called the leader, "Your house burns at the side! Come see!" The door was unlocked and an older slave emerged with concerned curiosity. Immediately he was hit from behind and collapsed unconcious. The lurkers rushed inside and made no further pretence of their purpose. Within minutes they emerged, carrying two struggling forms. Small, perhaps children. From the villa a woman was heard shrieking in alarm, and three slaves armed with cudgels ran out into the street, only to find their quarry already lost in the darkness. They called for lanterns or firebrands, another left to find vigiles...

its an extraordinary claim all right, but that does not mean it had any lingering impact. We are after all only talking about small numbers of travellers, maybe a ship or two, probably lost and given the distance, unlikely to return. There is some vague indications that something like this happened. The legend of the white bearded god who would one day return. The recently found dark age remains in europe of what appears to be someone of central american origin. Not substantial proof by any means, but then my point to was illustrate the genuine theories of early cross ocean travel. Thor Heyedahl made that point with his papyrus rafts - again, it doesn't prove the ancients made that journey but it certainly showed it was possible. And whilst Columbus got the credit for discovering America, lets not forget he knew the land mass was there. He may have been mistaken and genuinely thought it was the orient, but the story of his voyage strongly suggests he wasn't just plucky - he had access to information about coastal waters elsewhere. Such information wasn't easily shared back then. mariners kept their reputations by keeping quiet about what they knew, hence the 'rutter' of later periods where these men wrote their notes about tides and coastlines etc. In any event, an extraordinary claim is merely that until - as you say - extraordinary evidence is provided. Is that right? Not really. because an extraordinary claim runs against accepted knowledge many learned people will attempt to pour scorn on the theory because it devalues their own status as educated men - it means they're wrong basically - and they usually don't like it when some upstart overturns everything they've written and earned royalties for. So therefore an extraordinary claim - assuming its correct - goes ignored while the learned men beat our hands with vine staffs until we learn their accepted version - even though its actually wrong. I would therefore recommend you keep an open mind. That doesn't mean you have to accept the theory simply because I pushed it onto the forum in front of you, it simply means the theory is there and awaits proof. You see - if you dismiss a theory because it offends your sensibilities, then the subject will make no progress. Of course if you happen to know positively that the claim is wrong thats another matter - presumably you can quote sources to the contrary. If you feel the claim is wrong but you have nothing to stop the arguement, then you need only say so. There's no shame in not knowing, but wilful ignorance is criminal. Really? Get a measuring stick and open an atlas - I'm sure you'll be impressed. Its a long long way to that part of the continent.

No, the chinese were better...

Marius introduced changes he thought worked better on the basis of his own experience in dealing with hastily raised armies without the standard division in troop type based on military experience. Hastatii were novices, pricipales were experienced, triarii were veterans etc. The trend to an 'all-hastatii' legion had indeed already been under way for some time, so perhaps Marius wasn't so put out by having to raise his own. Nonetheless, once consul, he introduced what is now considered the professional army, in that it was no longer levied for each campaign but existed in something approaching permanance - a standing army. Augustus made changes in his reforms but I would suggest these were an evolution of the legions toward an established army with permanent legions and the tradition and esprit-de-corps that goes with the regimental system, apart from relatively minor changes in organisation such as the introduction of military tribunes and the return of the cavalry contingent. How professional the roman army actually was is debatable. In many ways it was - we see training and drill that is reminiscent of the modern day, and daily army life for roman soldiers is hauntingly familiar. Yes, they were paid for their 25 years service, three times a year at a special parade if possible. They had stoppages for equipment, burial clubs, and a sort of pension scheme which saved a seventh of their pay for a lump sum at their end of service. Nonetheless, these men were expected to loot and pillage if the opportunity arose, and the soldiers considered this a perk of service. On the other hand, corruption was rife and I have read that some soldiers complained when opportunities to buy their way out of fatigues were hard to come by. Therefore we need to be careful when considering if the legions had a professional attitude, though I must admit these matters are partly due to the mindset of the times, given many of them were from poor ill-educated families in less civilised regions in or surrounding the roman world.

My favourite has to be Jack Vance. He's a great storyteller, very influential in the fantasy genre, produces some extraordinary characters in his tales, and always provides a colourful and interesting world to read about.

They went a lot further than that. Russia (Kiev was their kingdom), Byzantium, Iceland, Possibly greenland or labrador, and persistent theories have them on the west coast of america, even central or south america if you want to stretch things to breaking point.

I always get a bit annoyed by these speculative ideas of how humans will turn out. Mostly it emphasises factors that may not be available in future generations, or that the enviroments we live in are within certain bounds. Take a closer look at how animals develop. Small creatures are the better survivors. They require less resources and can hide from danger more readily. In times of plenty, or where threats from predators are lessened, there is a tendency to grow larger. Indeed, size can be an evolutionary advantage. We see creatures in the jurassic period that are truly colossal. In Argentina they've uncovered parts of a sauropod that suggests a size of up to 140ft long. Thats big. Very big. I can only guess how much a creature of that size weighs and lets face it - how the heck are you going to bring one of those down if you're hungry? The remains of a pterosaur (flying reptiles) has been found with a wingspan of 70ft, around twice the previous biggest. In England, the head and tail of a fish called Leedsicthys (I hope the spelling is correct) suggest a full grown size of up to 100ft long. Try catching that with a rod! In later periods we see larger animals too. Flightless carnivore birds in the hothouse period immediately after the K/T event that would make short work of us. Megalodon, a shark that died out only four million years ago, with jaws large enough to allow a six foot man to walk in. Indratherium, a truly big mammal that dwarfed elephants, and until the ice ages there was a species of elephant in africa twice the size of those we see today, not forgetting Gigantipithecus, more or less a colossal gorilla. Not quite king kong, but way larger than we see these days. Thats a few examples. So why do I stress size? Well, due in part because of our relatively safe enviroment and protein rich diet, humans are doing well, and its noticeable that we're bigger than our ancestors. Assuming modern civilisation continues unabated, I would expect to see very large human beings becoming the norm, increasing in size over millenia. I regularly see predictions of dwarf descendants. Guess what? I think the opposite. The result of human evolution is dependent on all sorts of things, but then, in purely darwinian style, isn't the huge hunk of a football player more likely to get the girl than the super-intelligent nerd?

They might mount some in times of trouble, but not as a permanent feature. These machines needed maintenance and being made of rope and wood, are not able to withstand the enviroment forever. Watchtowers were observation platforms, not defensive works.

In sieges bolt throwers were useful for keeping the heads of defenders down - and given the continued use of such weapons for that end - I'd have to say it worked. At Masada the earth ramp was defended by ballistae in this way for instance, and the romans sometimes built wooden towers to mount ballistae for better targeting. On the battlefield they don't seem to have made much impression, because we don't read of the general use. No, bolt-throwers were primarily weapons for use in or against fixed positions.

Concerned at the sound of a struggle, the guards looked into the tent. When they saw the gaulish slave woman trying to force a knife into Ralla's chest, they rushed in and pulled her away. They disarmed her with typical heavy-handedness, then attended to their legate. Laronius Ralla held his shoulder, where the woman had almost succeeded in killing him, trying to staunch the blood. "Nasty..." The soldier commented with some bluntness, pulling some rags from beneath his breastplate. "Hold this this to your shoulder Sir, we'll fetch a physician. What about the woman?" Ralla looked across to where she stirred groggily from the sudden beating she'd received. Betrayed! After all the care he had lavished on her! He tried to speak but winced at the pain of his wound. "Get her out of here." The soldier commanded to another by the tent flap, "Find the Centurion, tell him what happened. Watch it, the bitch is quick with a blade... Don't worry Sir, we'll soon have you patched up." Romanus Darkus sauntered into the tent without hiding his satisfaction that Ralla had been taught a lesson. "So... The pretty slave has claws?... Soldier, leave us. Centurion!" "Sir!" The Centurion saluted Romanus from the entrance. "That woman is not a suitable consort for my general. Have the men play with her - they could do with some sport." The centurion raised his eyebrows for a moment but thought better of questioning the order. He saluted again, then turned away to carry out the task. Romanus sat down and watched Ralla lying in pain. He could hear shouts for medical aid in the camp outside the tent. "Ralla - I want no more time wasted on that gaul. You should know better than to play with wild animals. Why else does a beastmaster keep his cats in cages? Forget her. She won't forgive you for the deaths of her tribesmen, nor her treatment to come.." Romanus glanced outward at the raucous laughter nearby. He poured a goblet of wine and savoured the aroma for a moment. At the arrival of a breathless physician Romanus motioned him to stop. "Wait outside... Numidia has fallen in with us. Soon we'll have troops trained in the roman fashion. Once these men deploy it won't take long for Augustus to realise our intentions, and that is when we must play our hand in Rome. We shall carry on as planned however. The eastern element is of vital importance. Oh incidentially, you are now divorced from your wife in Rome. There is a Syrian princess I want you to marry instead. She's not particularly comely, but I'm sure you uunderstand the necessity.... You know, you should be more careful Ralla. That shoulder looks most painful. Physician!... Put him back together... When you're feeling better Ralla, we'll speak again." Romanus sauntered from the tent without looking back.

No harm in questions whatsoever. Well... I'm not sure. Given they were halfway between arrows and spears i would hazard a guess that making bolts wasn't something for the odd five minutes you had spare, and that the legion carried supplies of these for use. I doubt they made them on the move, but if the right craftsmen were available, then a few more might have been readied. The bolts had fletchings. They were literally big bulky arrows in effect. A bulls skull found at Vindolanda shows the legions practised regularly with bolt throwers in camp. The larger engines were usually built on an ad hoc basis at the site of the siege, and therefore practice with them was on the day as it were. Smaller catapults of that kind were on the legion strength (In Hadrians time siege engines were allocated to each legion) so I would hazard a guess they practised with those too. Training was very much a feature of legionary life and the men were cross-trained for flexibility, so most soldiers eventually got to play with artillery. Primarily weapons for fighting at a fixed position. That doesn't necessarily mean a siege, but I guess it usually was. Employing such weapons on a battlefield was awkward given the size and weight of weapon and munitions, and with the ready availability of missile firing troops, the need for battlefield artillery wasn't there. We know that bolt throwers were used in the attack on Maiden Castle, England. They were also using automatic bolt throwers that fired repeatedly but the commander was very critical of those, regarding them as a waste of ammunition. Since they fired faster than they could be retargeted, inevitably a man was killed by five bolts instead of one. Thats the only instance I know of of these auto-ballistae, so perhaps they weren't regarded as a success?

the wheels are small diameter and not well suited to rough ground, nor was the carriage steerable. Therefore rapid relocation is extremely unlikely, although I agree it makes it easier to move a very heavy wooden construction if need be. The romans had pila, archers, and slingers. The demand for battlefield artillery wasn't there, particularly since moving siege engines around was a slow difficult business. Such engines might be accurate but only at a stationary target. As I mentioned, the battlefield is a dynamic place and unless the battle is involving a fixed position, the catapults have limited utility. Effective once they got your range I imagine - you'd go down like ninepins - but then, wouldn't a formation move or do something if targeted in this way?

i use england as a regional description, not as a nation state.