caldrail

[Do you mean a lie?] Propaganda involves distortion and fiction. Whether its a lie or not is a matter of opnion. I think some of it is. [Are you sure that you don't have it backwards here?] Not at all. The early christian leaders needed something to give their neophytes as evidence of their beliefs. They collected the gospels for that purpose. [is the Bible a history book or one on religion?] Neither really. Its a guidebook to christian dogma. By that I mean to reinforce the personality cult of Jesus. Is that religion? The followers say yes, because they believe. I say no, because Jesus was a mortal rabble rouser and not the son of god. [for religious purposes] It is used in that way, but lets understand what religion is. Belief is what you hold to be true. Religion is what someone else tells you to believe. [is this within the province of historians or theologians? Would one allow a historian to draw medical conclusions?] We do sometimes. Heck, in the case of the bible this has gone on for two thousand years. Some people take the bible absolutely literally today, and there are those who believe the world was indeed created warts and all in 4004BC. That figure was arrived at by treating the bible as a wholly reliable source. Think about it. [Are you using the same calendar as the authors? At the battle of Austerlitz(?), the Russians arrived 11 days late because they and the Austrians used different calendars.] I understand your point but that merely opens up all sorts of historical distortions in an attempt to prove the bible is a reliable source. Which different calendars do we need to observe? The actual date of Jesus's birthday isn't known (its celebrated at christmas by convention, because the saturnalia was the most popular festival of the year). However, there are no records that I'm aware of of observable stellar phenomena in that period at all. [How do you 'know' this?] When I was ten years old my parents gave me a pamphlet explaining where babies come from. Recreational sex wasn't a feature of life for judaeans of good character. If joseph hadn't got her pregnant... well.... In any case, the story is probably bunkum. By describing it as a virgin birth, the incident appears pure and untainted by human sexual behaviour. A gift from god as it were. [The Chinese record a bright star at that time.] Interesting. Do they also record it moving across the heavens? I think they would have noticed. Or is the record a mere coincidence? You have no way of knowing when this part of the story was added, and whatever the chinese say, the western world does not record that event. [A conclusion without any premises or 'facts'.] No, a supposition, but one based on ordinary human behaviour and not fantastic events without any shred of evidence whatever. [You seem to admit that God exists here. If God exists, then nothing (miracles) is impossible for Him.] Erm... No... thats the christian view. Nor is there any reason to believe that god can actually perform miracles. The use of miracles as evidence of divine status is typical of those who want people to believe nonsense. The modern media do that all the time. [All about worship and not about history?] Correct. The history is in there to understate the vital message. That Jesus must be worshipped [but, Jesus IS God according to Christians.] Thats a heresy, not standard christian dogma. Although I do agree that the worship of Jesus has precedence. But isn't that the whole point of christianity in the first place? Its the subversion of judaic beliefs as the basis of a personality cult. [Neither the Virgin Mary nor the 'supporting cast' are 'worshipped' by Christians.] Pardon? Have you travelled anywhere in the latin world? The virgin mary takes pride of place in a great many churches. [Would you hold the same for a favorable biography of A. Lincoln?] Why would I? Is anyone worshipping Mr Lincoln? Now if that biography tells us he could walk on water, cure the blind, feed thousands out of thin air, and got himself shot to save mankind, I might start wondering. [No problem here, but is this the fault of men or the Book?] Men. The human factor always arises where the potential for exploitation is there. [Couldn't the same be said of you?] That I don't think for myself? Rubbish. If I didn't think for myself I'd be lining up on Sunday along with all the other happy punters. Can I be fooled? Of course. Can I be mistaken? Yes, just like you or anyone else. Just like people who believe in a religion. It may or may not be absolute cobblers but if I believe everything I'm told, then I'm at risk of manipulation. Sorry, but if I smell a rat, I'll shoot it. [Again, you have concluded without offering the proof you demand of believers.] No, I've presented an arguement for debate, not a statement for you to believe in. Oh dear, you do seem amenable to religion. Are you stating that Christianity is a 2000 year old conspiracy? Not as a homegenous conspiracy. But its a milieu for those who want to conspire. I hope that I have shown that you have very weak arguments, if not fallacious ones. Sorry, you failed. Pulling my arguement apart with statements that have even less strength doesn't convince me. Fallacious? Not as far as I'm concerned, especially when you read how much blatant nonsense the bible spouts. Thats my opnion. You're welcome to yours. The Bible was written (guided by the Hand of God according to believers), for the people of the time, using the nuance of the time. And modified by many, many revisions over the last two millenia. I wonder if a 'novel' written today and could be transported back in time and translated, would it be understood in the same sense as it is today? It would be given a different emphasis without modern experience and education. But if you want to know how amenable people are to hidden mysteries, then look at all the behaviour surrounding 'The Da Vinci Code' which now has a core of readers absolutely convinced that Dan Brown has revealed the truth of the world. Hunting for holy grails has proven to be a futile quest more than once hasn't it?

Inevitably there are subtle vivking influence especially in regions they settled, yet I should point out that the saxons were a hardy lot and not given to giving up their own culture easily. In england, or rather the danelaw area, it would be likely that you see a certain amount of blending. The viking settlers eventually intermarry with saxon neighbours, their own cultural influences watered down. Still there, just in the background. Yes. After Alfred the Great finally beat the crap out of them, Guthrum (the viking leader) agreed to be baptised and live in peace, and was granted the north of england as their territory. That was named Danelaw.

So is the Historia Augustae, and even though thats supposed to be a history book it isn't exactly trustworthy is it? The bible on the hand, as I've mentioned, is propaganda. It exists to provide support for christian dogma, not to provide historians with accurate data, although it must be said that christians do prefer people to see it that way. Of course they do. If the bible is given that sort of credibility then so does their religion. Look at what happens. In the case of a book like the Historia Augustae, we do indeed quote from it, yet researchers check what they can and draw attention to its inconsistencies. The bible on the other hand is treated as a source that is in some way irrefutable, and everyone spends their time trying to prove it correct. Thats a big difference, and I think the inconsistencies of the bible story do need to be highlighted, or the historians quoting from it are not really doing their job properly. Ok - The New Testament. We're told that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem for the purposes of a census. Yet the records of the time don't mention one. Mary is supposed to have a virgin birth. Thats fiction I'm afraid. That element is there to give a purity to young Jesus that ordinary mortals don't have, accentuated by the dubious tale of star that moved in the heavens and led three oriental kings to the stable. All very cute, but how many researchers have wasted their time trying to search for evidence of astrnomical phenomena of the period? And haven't found any? In fact, if the tale of virgin birth has some reality then Mary is a very guilty woman indeed. Can you see how the christian story is embellished and romanticised to make the easily impressed person think that something special happened? Thats the whole point of the story. It isn't to provide a true story, its to create the illusion that Jesus was indeed a son of god. Now if that story begins in such a way, how can you be sure that the rest of the story isn't as distorted? Notice also the most glaring inconsistency of all. In the Old Testament (basically the existing judaic half) we are given the Ten Commandments - the rules by which believers in God must live. One states quite clearly that only God must be worshipped. Yet the tale of Jesus in the christian second hald is all about worship - it illustrates the noble humility of this son of god, how he refuses the devils offer, of how he cures ills and feeds the poor out of nowhere - and look what happens - We know see Jesus worshipped in place of god, not to mention the virgin mary or any others of the supporting cast. The bible is the basis of a personality cult (a successful one it might be said), equivalent to Mein Kampf or those little coloured books so beloved of communist dictators. Now that view is going to offend some people. I understand that, yet you must also understand that christianity is not blameless. Wars have been fought over which version of the bible should be read. People have been burned at the stake because religious leaders don't like alternative opinions, nor the scientific revelations that cast doubt on the traditional christian teaching. We see people exploited as cash cows by charismatic fakers - and thats something thats been true of christianity since the very beginning. Simply stating that we should not dismiss the bible because some researchers have quoted from it isn't a good arguement - it suggests that you don't think for yourself and merely accept that some with letters after their name can do no wrong or automatically know better than you. They might (and often do!), but then I'm not dismissing the bible - I'm simply pointing out that its a romanticised story for propaganda purposes, and whilst it is based on historical events, it should be viewed with a lot more suspicion than many researchers give it.

And I'm not telling you - I'm merely pointing out that roman ballistae of all types were not wheeled and therefore not intended as mobile artillery. The romans did not develop the concept of tactical fire support as we understand it. As I mentioned before, the primary use of such weapons was to assault a fixed enemy position (or perhaps defend their own). I agree that it was possible to move such weapons around a battlefield, but then you should realise that the same weapons are useless during the transport process and vulnerable to enemy action. This is why we don't read too much of roman artillery in reports of roman battles. In any case, the romans were steadfastly in favour of infantry action although this began to change toward a predominance of cavalry toward the late empire in response to changing strategic conditions. Sorry, I've just realised - Does 'carro' suggest wheels? I'm none to hot on latin. Doesn't change my arguement incidentially, but it raises my eyebrows nonetheless.

No, correction is not necessary The saxons. They thoroughly colonised and opened england up, they made it their own. They managed to preserve their culture under Norman dominion (which is medievalised viking! Norman is a contraction of 'Northmen'). The vikings gave a different blend to english life and to be honest, roman ways were largely dropped after the withdrawal and survive only through the church and establishment careers. Not true at all. Alfred the Great had an english navy with which to secure his coasts against viking incursion, which definitely did the job. Granted their vessels may not have been as adaptable as norse versions but then the saxons weren't afraid of sailing (even if they kept closer to shore). Our modern 'Senior Service' arises because of our island status and the need to protect the coasts even if not technically at war due to piracy (Alfred did good work against pirates too - yes, even the saxons suffered that blight). Standing armies were uncommon earlier in our history because its expensive to pay them in peacetime to sit around and bully civilians for something to do. If I remember right, the regimental system emerges from the english civil war, whilst a standing navy was in place much earlier to deal with threats from spain and holland.

But that doesn't preclude their use on the battlefield as an "Area denial ordinance system" After all cannon were used on battlefiels and they had to have weighed as much as Carroballistae They had wheels. Ballistae did not - they were carried in seperated loads and reassembled in situ.

Yep, I do have to agree there. But then I'm not sure that mankind is well equipped to control the earths climate either, and I rather suspect we might find out how easy it is to tip the see-saw the other way. Nature has balanced this palnet for billions of years. Sure, the extremes it reaches may not suit us - there's been more than a few species that have fallen by the wayside by changing climate - but is eco-tyranny any better? Do I really want to live in a world where throwing out the wrong rubbish is a criminal act, or where private transport is a heinous sin against society (unless you're rich course - I think you'll find the world leaders suggesting these happy socialist idels will have their own get-out clause) etc etc. What I mean is, these eco-concerns are in danger of being used as excuses for controlling our activities even closer, regardless of any supposed benefit to our daily lives. Truth is, we're getting too successful as a species. There are too many of us and its pushing the ecosystem out of balance. There's a cure for that although understandably its a bit distateful to most peoples sensibilities (it is to mine). We have no natural predators, and modern society protects us from accident and disease better than in previous ages. So there's more of us. And the poorer countries of this world want our almighty dollars so they sell their souls for it - sweatshops, industries, tree-felling etc. They don't care about the enviroment one jot. Why should they? Lots of fancy talk won't put food on their table. So, in the final analysis, does this eco-initiative we see today really count? I think not. Most of it is ill-informed wishful thinking or blatant politically correct vote-mongering. Increasingly, its a moneyspinner. Thats why we will have to endure this eco-sensitive culture - because the profit motive will demand that we conform and become part of the market. The changing enviroment? Isn't that something happening tomorrow? But as long as we do what our leaders want, we can soothe our shame and throw off the guilt of... well... having a good time at the planets expense. Even if others intend to anyway.

Thats backs up my view that Jesus was building a personality cult. I don't know too much about messiah prophecies, but I suspect the average Joe back then didn't either, hence jesus (with some glib talking) was able to convince well meaning but easily led people that yes, he was the man. In some ways jesus was optomistic - the area was under roman rule and the romans don't like potential troublemakers. By making this stand, Jesus effectively labelled himself as such. Now then. In the bible we read of jesus being nailed up on a crucifix (a standard roman punishment for people they wanted dead and made an example of). The christian explanation is that he died for us - as if he was some sort of martyr simply 'doing the right thing'. Which is nonsense isn't it? jesus never chose to be executed, indeed, under questioning he tried to persuade the romans he wasn't the problem they thought he was. Truth is, the romans executed him for reasons they thought perfectly lawful at the time. In later years, it was the romans themselves who were preaching christianity and this 'martyrdom' explanation was cobbled together to paint over the implications of it. Its interesting that you say the royal family thing is fiction (No suprise there! ) and that gallileans were considered troublesome anyway. The middle east has always been a rich source of religious cults, especially Syria, so this sort of career was possibly not unusual for the time? Nothing unfair about it at all. Why should the bible be given freedom from criticism? Because its the christian guidebook? Look what happens. As soon as you cast doubt on christianity someone picks up the good book and says "But its written in here Sir" as if the bible is automatically considered inviolable. How many archaeologists have been chasing phantoms trying to find evidence for the bible stories in the holy land? Look what happens with 'The Da Vinci Code'. Now there are people utterly convinced its real. So it is with the bible. But thats exactly what the bible is - fiction. Its a series of stories based loosely on real events and reinterpreted to portray the world in christian terms. If mundane history and archaeology backed the story closer then I'd have to say there was something in it, but as far as I'm aware the records of the time simply don't match the New Testament. History is written by the victors is it not?

The magistrate glanced up from his work. His treatise on roman myths had almost seduced him from his social duties, and given the ardent promises of completion he had made to his friends, he considered his duty to finish the work more important. "Slave!" He called, waiting for the youth to rush into his study. "What is that noise?" "The marching Sir? Soldiers Sir, many soldiers. More than a legion, going to the harbour." "Find out why will you? Be quick about it." "Yes Sir" And the eager youth was about his task. Soldiers in Narbo? What on earth for? The magistrate shook his head and muttered how better organised things were in the Republic. Especially since he would inevitably have to provide provisions.. And vigiles... The magistrate put down his quill, stroked his chin uneasily, then got up to leave the room hurriedly. He stopped short of the door, and retreated in the face of visitors. "Sextius Flaccus?" The lead man asked, "Are you the magistrate Sextius Flaccus?" "Yes. And who pray might you be?" "Your Emperor... Imperator Caesar Romanus Darkus Syrianensis, Resititutor Orbis and Pater Maximus. You, Sextius Flaccus, must kneel in my presence." The magistrate seemed confused. "But... Augustus... Is he not Princeps? What happened-" "KNEEL!!!" Almost involuntarily, Sextius Flaccus knelt. He looked from face to face, but found no ally. "Sextius Flaccus," The dark robed man stared down at him with a piercing gaze, "I bring sad tidings of Rome.... There is a sickness that afflicts the life blood of our empire. Concern yourself not with Augustus. He has become decadent, given over to sexual excess, a man who sold his own daughter to senators for their pleasure and exiles her for her refusals. Oh yes. Does it suprise you? Hmmm? That a man who is so fond of the cursed realm of the Ptolemies should be seduced by its exotic mysteries?.... These are not roman ways. A man such as he is not fit to rule. I mean to save Rome from the cesspit that Augustus offers.... You are the chief magistrate here in Narbo are you not? Let it not be said that I fail to reward those who show loyalty to Rome. You need only kiss my ring, and you will be Governor of Narbonensis." "Governor? Of Gallia Narbonensis?..." Sextius Flaccus gazed upward as Romanus nodded slowly. Flaccus took the offered hand and kissed the imperial ring. He watched a faint smile cross the lips of his emperor, and although fearful, the chill lifted. "Stand up Flaccus." Emperor Romanus gestured airily, "Stand up. No governor should remain so servile. Here... A warrant for the arrest of the former governor. Take whatever levies you can gather. Do with him as you will., but remember, he will be loyal to that pompous lecher in Rome. I have sent word to Hispania, and there will be cohorts to back your governorship shortly.... I need good men in the provinces Flaccus. I shall not forget that you chose the course of courage, and duty to the Empire. Come, we dine tonight, and we wish to honour your family with an impromptu display of fighting pairs...." Laronius Ralla watched silently as Romanus Darkus led the daunted Flaccus away. He paused in reflection for a moment, then tugged at the chain holding a gaulish woman. She made no resistance, but shuffled toward the door insolently. Ralla grabbed her hood and stared at her, their eyes meeting each others gaze for a moment, before he gently shoved her forward....

Difficult to say, and we should remember that these artillery pieces were intended as siege weapons primarily. On the battlefield, they were usually immobile, which suggests a defensive battle is the best form of deployment and then on higher ground with infantry cover and support. The battlefield is a dynamic place so the utility of these weapons is limited, and the cases where we know they were used is almost invariably against an enemy position. In fact, I can't think of any case where roman artillery was used openly on the battlefield.

Hey NN, good to see you around! Actually, the impression I get is that most of these suicides were of an honourable variety rather than wanting to end it all. There are cases of people killing themselves merely for being accused of scandal rather than being found guilty in court. Societies with organised and ritualised family lifestyles sometimes show these tendencies. Shame, or the fear of humiliation, are sometimes strong motives for suicidal behaviour.

As far as I'm aware Lancelot is a medieval literary invention, a man who falls to temptation against his liege lord in typically medieval unrequieted love for the queen Quinevere (who is based on a historical character apparently). Thats the reason why Galahad exists in the story - a man who replaces Lancelot in the arthurian mythos as the pure and noble knight. Any claim of somewhere that it's connected with Lancelot in real life is basically talking out of a smelly orifice. That said, it would be wonderful if there was some older inspiration for the character.

So does life on this planet period. Some species are an essential counterbalance to CO2 levels if some climatologists are to be believed. We're not I have to say, but then I don't believe we have a right to expect a comfortable technological civilisation forever. We've done well as a species, but our survival is no more guaranteed than any other, and there's plenty of species that have died out because they couldn't adapt to changing conditions. Humans do have an advantage of course, in that we build our own enviroments (and we're getting good at doing that), but that depends on our abaility to exploit the planet. In fact, I think humanity as a successful technological society has a limited lifespan. I can't honestly guess how long the good times will last, and there's some real tests waiting just around the corner. What I will say is we've become a very specialised creature (at least the modern western variety) and that makes us vulnerable as a species. Nature does this. Creatures evolve to exploit the enviroment and become better at it until the enviroment changes, leaving the creature with little or no chance of surviving. In any case, the planet will change beyond recognition eventually. Our sun won't last forever, and as it uses up hydrogen stocks it will burn hotter, making the earth somewhat unpleasant for most species. Eventually the oceans will boil away and thats it. The sun will then swell into a red giant once it starts to burn helium (so I understand) and you won't believe how big its going to get. We might be enveloped by it! Or perhaps there'll be a very very bright and hot star filling the sky. Who knows? It all seems pretty bleak I guess but then look at the bright side. You're here, you're alive, and chances are you can do something to make life wonderful.

What we typically find in britain is that local communities like to get in on the act regarding legends. It gives local pride and offers an excuse to extract cash from easily impressed strangers. For instance, on Dick Turpins epic 12hr dash north to York, we have every old public house along the route saying he stayed there for the night! Where Arthur is concerned, we have a bigger problem, because the earliest records are so imprecise. His battles for instance appear to be fought here and there with no apparent logic to it, and in one sense I agree with you because the likeliest sites put forward are mostly the north of england or scotland. What muddies the water is the modern popular view of Arthur as a medieval king - well he obviously wasn't was he? That was an invention of Geoffery of Monmouth (or perhaps he related these tales by other unknown sources?), whose history of england is a little embellished by such invention. Now we do know that Arthur was given the title Dux Bellorum (Duke of Battles) as related by Nennius. This is significant and also more so that it is mentioned in a history of Wales, as our redoubtable warrior fends off all-comers in twelve battles. England at this time was not unified. Following the roman withdrawal we see a collapse into petty kingdoms within fifty years, survival of the strongest, but eventually the situation stabilises around seven kingdoms at the time of Arthur. He was king of none of them, and his legend is part of each. So, he was either a general much in demand, or he's being credited with victories he never took part in, or simply that someone was fibbing to sell a good yarn and the story stuck. As for being heroic, there's no doubt at all that Arthur was fearsome in battle. What he wasn't was a noble chivalrous leader. In fact, the older stories suggest a cruel and hard-nosed guy who wasn't going to take crap from anyone, and I think possibly his almost rebellious hot-headedness was the real reason he did not become a king. Revered by the people he personally saved perhaps, but loathed by the more sophisticated nobles who may have seen him as a coarse and dangerous upstart. Which is why he was made Dux Bellorum and tasked with defending Britain regardless of national borders? As you can see, there are many inconsistencies in this tale, which makes it all the more fascinating.

There was also Legion (using an established game engine) but that wasn't too good. Also there's a game featuring gladiators. I can't remember the title off hand, but don't try too hard to buy it - its rubbish.

Yes thats typically roman isn't it? One thing I must add to the discussion on mental health is the outburst of violence expected of legionaries, typically seen in successful siege assaults. Although the legions camped around the target often become bored and indifferent, once they get in the anger of their training and regime bubbles to the surface, and we see killing and looting that may not be encouraged by the roman leadership, but certainly isn't stopped. Its as if its the soldiers reward for their efforts, and the monetary gain is certainly of interest to the men. We have Josephus telling us that the value of gold halved in Syria after Jerusalem fell. Also, when the romas finally broke into that city, they began slaughtering the inhabitants regardless of age or sex. So many were killed that even the romans grew sick of it, and eventually decided to take the survivors as prisoners. Many were sent to Egypt as slave labour, the remainder distributed to the provinces for the arena.

We should also remember that roman artillery, whilst it was part of the imperial legions train, was also constructed on an ad hoc basis. We have Josephus describing some massive siege engines put together to attack Jerusalem which are far bigger than the standard items.

If Cato is correct and John is more accurate, then his account is arguably better because of the accuracy even if the early life is left off. Simply including the early is not necessarily of any importance or may it may be a later fabrication. In fact, by arguing that the entire story is related you are in fact accentuating a need for a good story rather than cold facts. Roman historians were storytellers first, and archivists second. They needed to be. They wanted people to read their books and there's nothing worse than a dry treatise that needs concentration to read. Theology is the whole point of why the bible survives to this day - it was a document providing a rationale for the belief structure of christianity, which is arguably a heretical cult of judaism itself. The early bishops of Rome were under no illusions about this faith, which was fragmented back then even more than today, and unashamedly used their worshippers as cash cows. Sounds familiar? It should. John is also supposed to have written the Book of Revelations even though he probably didn't, given the different style, and the only reason the Revelations still form part of the bible is that its been misunderstood since roman times. It wasn't a prophecy for the modern day, it was a call to arms against the roman empire. Lets not forget, the bible as we know it didn't exist until centuries after Jesus's death.

But thats necessary isn't it? With each modern sldier carrying the firepower of a platoon of 1815 soldiers in his hand, then he needs to remain as inconspicuous as possible. in ancient warfare, you generally see the enemy coming (apart from deliberate ambushes that is). From a long way off too. Now its true that ancient armies had missile weapons - bows, javelins, stones etc - but a lot of these are slow moving and in any case you carry a shield that may well deflect them if you're quick or lucky. Caesar complains that his pila salvoes weren't having the effect he expected - the quick-witted gauls merely sidestepped them and threw them back (a clue that the bendy tip wasn't always effective) Also, the big artillery of the day, the siege catapults, fired very slow moving missiles. At Jerusalem, the jews on the walls shouted "Here comes a baby!" when they spotted the bright white limestone boulders coming at them. Remember that missiles were often directed at the defenders or the internal structures, not the walls, particularly at Jerusalem where the walls were so strong that Titus despaired of getting in. In any event, the romans were forced to paint these rocks black so they were harder to spot. How do you spot an artillery shell? A guided bomb? A bullet? You can't. Whereas the ancient warrior was able to do something to further his survival the modern soldier instead must rely on better intel and communication to avoid getting hit. The mass effect of men grouped together is a two-edged coin. On the one hand, waverers are bolstered by the knowledge that their mates are standing firm and there's safety in numbers. On the other hand, if too many turn and run the general feeling is that its over and we'd all better scarper! Thats been true of warfare since the beginning and still rears its head today even with modern dispersal. Thats why Caesar sometimes stood behind a line, pushing frightened men back into the thick of it, or sometimes inspired his men to courage by fighting alongside them. In fact, a close grouped nit is usually finished as a fighting force before you reach 30% casualties. Human survival instinct is very strong and unless there's some resolve or strong leadership, the unit will break under pressure. Thats why cavalry was so effective. By threatening the enemy they become less willing to stay around and get chopped down. On the other hand, in some circumstances morale is bolstered by situation, and there's been odd cases of last stands throughout military history.

Whats often forgotten about industrialisation is that there were religious reasons not to proceed. Romans were very superstitious and creating a machine to do something a man cannot would have been considered an affront to the gods (especially if it didn't work or did something terrible0. Ok, there was always going to be romans who laughed up their sleeve at such things, and we know that some industry was in existence. There was a water powered stone cutting machine in one quarry for instance - obviously the profit motive succeeded against slave labour in that instance. However, roman technology was usually isolated. I don't mean the common or garden stuff, or the military items that once accepted would have been used by legions everywhere, but the really clever innovations are almost invariably limited to one site.

Notice that Onager, Ballista, and Scorpion are latin words. Trebuchet is french (although I expect the byzantines had another name for it).

It was late in the night when Marcus Laronius Ralla leant back from the pile of maps and notes upon the desk. He ran his fingers over his tired eyes, resting from his mental exercise. The oil lamp flickered briefly, its sombre glow lending a conspiratorial air to the tent. He listened, but the night had little to say. A few men snoring in the distance, the hooting of an owl. A peaceful night... The tent flap pulled open quickly as a dark robed man entered, his face hidden by the shadow of a heavy cowl. This impertinent stranger glanced outward, as if to check that no-one had seen him, then he yanked the flap closed behind him. For a moment, Ralla thought himself at risk. He tensed, his jaw opening involuntarily... The stranger lifted back his cowl. The grim countenance of Rome's nemesis, Romanus Darkus, nodded in greeting. "Gods teeth Romanus!" Ralla spat, "I thought you an assassin!" Romanus harumphed, pouring wine to a goblet and taking his refreshment for a moment. "Ralla, had I wished you dead, we would not be speaking now. I've had a long journey. Its lucky for you the wine is to my taste. But of more important matters. Our time is fast approaching. Very soon now we shall begin the work that will lead me to the Imperial throne. I have not forgotten what Augustus did to me... My revenge will be dreadful. And you? Ahh yes Ralla, our deal. Worry not. The East will be yours. I care not for that sandy wasteland and its petty tribesmen.... Well, have you a tongue?" "Uhh yes Romanus. Our deal is still on." "Good. Now listen. No-one knows I'm here. There's been a setback. Augustus has banished Julia to Pandataria." Romanus waited for the significance to become obvious to Ralla, then sighed irritably as he perceived the legate had not seen it. "Julia was our best spy. Augustus found out about her liaisons however, and I think he put two and two together. Still, we have learned much, and caused Augustus no small embarrasement. I shall have our men harangue Augustus in the street to return her... You never know, it might work." "And Postumus?" "Forget him. He's an oaf. Anyway, Augustus will probably realise he was involved and exile him too I shouldn't wonder. I'm more worried about Livia. She's sharper than the emperor and may see through our plans before they hatch. For that reason, we must move faster than planned. Did you speak to Nephele?" "Yes, but she hasn't said anything. I cannot guarantee she will remain uninvolved. Romanus... Augustus has something like thirty legions. I have but three..." Romanus thumped his goblet onto the desk in anger. Wine spilled across the map in semblance of blood. "Fool! Do you think Augustus will leave his borders unguarded? He fears the germans most of all. I tried to seek embassy with Arminius but he prefers to be king of a forest. It doesn't matter, he's expendable. He's already done what I required of him. With a bit of luck Germanicus won't find him. He's not the general the senate believe him to be. Look, we're not going to move openly until we must. Besides..." Romanus almost smiled, "We have support in the east. Palmyra can supply many troops, and some arab tribes are keen to throw off the roman yoke. We may be able to match the army of Augustus man for man." "So then... What is the next step?" Romanus leaned closer, so that he need only whisper...

To some extent, as I mentioned, but modern warfare is so much more insidious and sudden

Julius Ratus, sign here if you will. I lost one or two fighting those gauls, and there's always room for good centurions. Tribune, take Ratus to his new command will you? "YUS, MASTER!" Now I must study the maps... There is much work to do, and little time...