caldrail

Not bad, but the blade is wrong. An assegai had a leaf shaped blade as I recall.

I wonder how much of that colourful unifrorm and bright heraldry was still recognisable at Borodino? Actually one point I hadn't brought up was disease. Nearly four-fifths of napoleons army was affected by various complaints, mostly to do with contaminated food and water. Also, the army thast crossed the Niemen river lost a quarter of its effective strength by the time it reached moscow due to those cavalry skirmishes laid on by the russians, desertions, disease, and sheer exhaustion.

Now Lt Vossler crosses the Niemen River into Russian Poland. Russian cavalry patrols mount skirmishes but refuse to fight head on. The french army is becoming tired. Even as early as August the roads are turning into muddy quagmires. Horses are no longer fed oats but must subsist on green rye, and many of these hardworked animals are left dying from exhaustion by the roadside. Frighteningly, so are some of the men. Vossler loses horse after horse to exhaustion, eventually relying on a tough captured cossack pony. The hot-heads are getting frustrated because the enemy retreat before them, abandoning or burning villages as they go. Finally, Vossler hears a communique read out by his commander. Napoleon says that at last a batlle is to be fought and let it be said that they were there at the gates of moscow. Its well received, although witnesses claim that Napoleon himself seemed cold and distant to passers-by. Vossler enters the battle apparently unaware of its scale. He doesn't even mention the name of the place (presumably Borodino). The Duke Louis Chasseurs are in trouble, encountering russian cavalry that far outnumber them, only to be saved by the timely intervention of friendly artillery. Vossler receives a head wound from a stray bullet and thats his contribution over - he's out of it. Vossler describes the field hospital. Dead, dying, injured, amd maimed soldiers everywhere in primitive conditions. Russian cossacks threaten their security so they must move, retreat. It becomes clear the entire army is retreating. The french army has looted everything they can find and its astonishing how complete the disintegration of the grande armee has become. General officers travel with lowly privates with no regard to rank, unit, or nationality. They all know that russian peasants are murdering stragglers at every opportunity. Vossler witnesses them picking up abandoned muskets and shooting at the french. In fact, Vosslers servant has been told his master was killed by them and leaves for home, taking the horses with him. The roads are frozen and difficult to traverse, littered with abandoned goods and equipment, not to mention frequent ravines. There's a traumatic incident at the River Berezina, a bottleneck with a narrow bridge. The russians know it and ambush the french retreat there, and at dusk, french engineers dismantle the bridge stranding many men, wagons, and horses behind. Vossler is a man of some determination. He mentions the privations of cold and hunger but doesn't dwell on it. What absolutely disgusts him is the french foraging parties, which he must take part in, ransacking civilian homes and farms to provide provisions for the march. He regarded that as something akin to brigandage, especially since the Old Guard receive full rations that were sometimes intended for other units. He even accuses the french commisariat of selling forage for profit. He is undeterred by the risks and even after his injury, he attempts to return to the line. Unfortunately, it becomes clear the game is up and his only recourse is to make his way westward with everyone else. There is no longer any organisation - it would be every man for himself but those russian peasants pick off unwary individuals, never mind the constant harrasing actions by cossacks - including artillery fire in some places. Thats approaching the end of part one - his unit reforms for campaigning the next year. Even after that terrible experience he is willing to take up arms again. Absolutely fascinating stuff.

Just lately I've been reading the translated memoirs of one Lt. H A Vossler, a cavalryman of the 'Duke Louis' Chasseurs of Wurttemburg. Its an interesting tale. He starts as a frustrated young man at his home town, forced by circumstance to work as a lowly clerk but with the urge to follow the colours not far away. He gets his chance, and wangles a transfer to the cavalry regiment. Some action against rebels merely wets his appetite. Then comes the orders from Emperor Napoleon, and eastward he must go. In fact, he relishes the opportunity and there's a bizarre holiday-like atmosphere as the regiment marches across germany. Once in Poland, the land becomes rougher and the inhabitants less to his liking. Seeking comfortable billets and entertainment for the evening is almost a chore now, rather than something enjoyable. Its noticeable that even though he faces a journey of 1200 miles before he returns, he doesn't think about the coming battles. He seems to enjoy campaigning for its own sake, the sense of regimental belonging, a cause to follow. In fact, his men have been warned to avoid contact with french troops because they tend to be an argumentative lot who look down their noses at their european allies, yet Lt Vossler feels in no way inferior to the french line. Although he stays at places that offer friendly comfort and hospitality, his unit must continue forward because of the french units following a day behind. This is as excellent glimpse into the mindset of the period, and I'm looking forward to reading what happens when the russian winter sets in, and that long terrible retreat begins.

Fear not. The shade has passed to Tarterus, leaving only a frightened slave with a story to tell and amuse his fellows, or perhaps to suffer the ridicule of his peers, for the garden is peaceful in the warm night air, save for the gentle hooting of an owl.

Life was short for the ancient world. Disease, accident, violence - all were lurking in the background. For the romans themselves, only 2 out of 5 survived into their twenties. Unlike today, a child was expected to mature rapidly. Perhaps married at 15, a grandfather at 30. For those races without the benfits of roman culture it might even be worse. One thing that comes across from primitive peoples in our day is their realism about the world around them, allowing for their ignorance of it. Since their survival depends on co-operation, they're often very co-operative and social, and even the more violent of them are sometimes suprisingly accomodating. Violence in primitive peoples is usually down to two reasons. Firstly, a conflict over resources. Where survival is important, then the preservation of your food and water sources is vital, especially if a rival tribe aren't interested in sharing it or coming to some arrangement. These networks of violence between tribes linger for long periods of time, following on from generation to generation. Secondly, it can be a matter of honour. Its not just sophisticated societies that suffer from this aspect of human nature, as perceived insults can also give rise to long confrontations and ultimately blood is spilled if no suitable recompense is found or agreed to. For some primitive peoples, the freedom to live life as they choose can be paramount. The struggles of native americans against continued intrusions into lands they regarded as open are very much an example. Similar motives are found amongst the peoples that the romans ointruded upon, so perhaps we shouldn't be suprised at their willigness to defend their freedom. In a situation where it isn't possible to defend, then yes, we do see situations where primitive tribes become nihilistic. Not all of course. Some simply surrender and lose their former pride. And that is the deciding factor. Is this barbarian tribe too proud to lay down arms and allow themselves to be enslaved by Rome? If so, then they must fight. If they cannot see any way of achieving a victory, then it follows they must sacrifice their own rather than suffer the roman yoke. The same attitudes occured at Masada. The jewish zealots realised they stood no chance of surviving, and killed themselves almost to the last man, woman, and child to retain their dignity.

So these autmata are on the same technical level as cuckoo clocks and clockworks. Clever devices, but hardly ancient robotics.

Hero was a clever chap but I wonder if his inventions are a bit exaggerated in our day. We're used to complex machines in our daily lives but lets not forget these are often the design of many individuals working on their associated part, and often with the assistance of machines to aid the design process. We're that much more sophisticated about these things, and perhaps we look at Hero's efforts with modern hindsight and see parallels that really aren't there. I've no doubt Hero was a capable engineer for his day, but the tales of ancient robotics are pushing it. A roman might describe an automaton but we might describe the same things as a statue with a moving head for instance.

The revellers rejoice in their trouble free celebration of all things pleasurable and light hearted. A slave of the house hurriedly skips across the darkened garden to supply another amphora of wine to the second banquet hall, so as not to disturb the good people at their leisure. He stumbles as he sees something in the corner of his eye. A cold wind, a sundued wail - (gasp) A lemure haunts the garden in his tortured loneliness. Wide eyed, the slave grabs the amphora and backs away to complete his task...

More likely because it was a seperate kingdom in its own right, not to mention a province that was held very closely by augustus. Roman africa supplied cereals, olives, vines. There were plenty of arid grasslands and my reading suggests that these steppes were receding in roman times. The north african elephant is now extinct thanks to the romans, and indeed many of the species we associate with lower africa are no longer present for that reason besides any ecological limits. It appears the african provinces were often turbulent, since the various nomadic tribes were never pacified. The romans even tried penning them into reservations with absolutely no success whatsoever. Sounds familiar?

Not really. But look at this chap.... He's a russian strelitz of the early renaissance. Notice the nasty polearm. Thats called a Bardiche. The 'bard' part of the name derives from an old german word barta which means axe or bill (not the financial sort!). For another example, the medieval Hellebarde is what we now know as the Halberd. There's a very strong german connection here. During the dark ages, the franks, saxons, angles, danes, germans, goths - all the warrior barbarian peoples - became enthusiastic axe wielders, usually falling into one of two camps. On the one hand is a short handled single headed axe, or a longer handled two-headed variety that became popular in the medieval period, or its derived version with one blade replaced with a spike. Yet the bardiche was never popular in western europe. It was however in much wider use in eastern parts, and I wonder if this has a byzantine origin. Was your varangian ceremonial polearm an earlier version of this perhaps?

To some extent it depended on the personality of the emperor concerned. Some rulers get very attached to numerous titles and occaisionally you get those dictators who pin mountains of medals on their chests for self-aggrandisement. In rome though some of these titles were offered to an emperor for his benificent rule, his military acumen, or simply because he was popular. I also notice that some emperors adopted titles awarded to their predecessors, so there's also a psychologal need for inheritabnce - a sense that they are the true successors of the last man on the throne, particularly since the many emperors claims to power were straining credibility and their rivals knew it.

Okeedokee the consensus is that politics was definitely in the air when Julia got sent into exile. I usually spot things like that but hey, I'm only human. No honestly My previous uneducated viewpoint was that Julia was a partygirl who embarrased her father so much that he felt it necessary to keep her out of the limelight. The other view is that she was part and parcel of a political faction which may have had the demise of augustus as its aim. What I think is important is to look closer at why Julia was exiled because there's something not quite right about either picture presented. Julia was thirty six when her lifestyle was brought to a halt. She comes across as a fun loving person and actually quite dutiful considering the political marriages she had to endure. I have no doubt that Julia slept around a bit. She was was probably desperate for fun and games after all this public service and family nonsense. Now, if a plot against augustus was actually going on, was she involved? I think not, at least not directly. Julia IMHO wasn't politically motivated at all. In modern terms, she was something of an office girl who stayed up late in nightclubs getting drunk. The important question then is whether her partners were politically motivated, and yes, of course they were, being important men around the city. Now I doubt Julia was quite as fecund as the Robert Graves suggests, but she was probably a little less than fussy when a powerful man gave her attention, something I feel she lacked within her marriages. Does this mean that she was targeted as a way of inheriting power? Its possible. By ensuring Julia was emotionally or sexually attached meant it was more likely this gentleman would inherit augustus's power. Was there a plot against the old man? Actually, no, I don't. I think it more likely that a few ambitious men were preparing the way for their own accession sometime in the future, but then augustus wasn't princeps for nothing and as soon as he smelled a rat, he squashed it. Julia is therefore a somewhat tragic victim of circumstance though one wonders if she'd adopted a more mature mode of life then she wouldn't have suffered the indignity of exile. Especially since augustus told her guards to make sure she drank no wine.

North Africa was the most heavily urbanised part of the roman empire, at least along the coast. The presence of crops and gardens means that the area was well watered by irrigation, wells, or even possibly because the climate may not have been so dry away from the african interior. The trade in animals for the games was particularly important for Leptis Magna and Alexandria, and the last named is well known as a center of learning. North Africa was not a backwater in any way whatsoever. Egyptian stone, and grain in particular, was a valuable resource, not to mention the various native peoples who served Rome as auxillaries, legionaries, or even hated enemies during the punic wars.

No, its something else entirely. Apparently a thracian derived curved longsword in many ways reminiscent of the japanese no-dachi. http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=5972

Its an interesting point. Obviously the hordes of lesser functionaries still went about their business even during the principate, so in that sense, yes, politics carried on. Those 'extrovert' emperors however demanded and got their fair share of attention didn't they? Being colourful characters, plus the source of considerable speculation and gossip given their celebrity status, they are infinitely more interesting to write about than a bunch of faceless bureaucrats. Class? Well.. possibly, it is true that the lower classes rarely get any more than a passing mention and as we know Rome was fiercely class-concious. Individual ambition? Oh yes, but that ignores the temporary factions that sprang up over issues, and some of those bumped off an emperor or two in their time. In politics, you cannot act alone. Its all about popularity with the masses and support of your peers. Given augustus anger over his public humiliation then yes, it was. Was there any politics in the background? None that was directly connected I think. It was purely embarrasement at these youngsters behaviour that got them exiled. Augustus was performing a balancing act during his reign - his own personal power vs the dislike of tyrants/kings/dictators. His detractors would pounce on his families wayward behaviour (as the media does now to our own royal family) and given the murderous qualities of roman politics, then it was essential that such scandalous behaviour was seen to be punished. Augustus was keenly aware that he must show an example as much as preach his moral stance. We regard him as a hypocrite for that reason, but lets not forget that his womanising wasn't unusual for male romans and not considered scandalous. At least he was relatively discrete compared to the arrogant antics of his successors.

Witness the inhabitants of the americas falling over themselves to welcome the return of the white bearded god. Unfortunately it turned out to be the spanish that time. But it does make you wonder.

A few days ago on Richard & Judy (a daytime tv talk-show on british tv if you don't know), two climatologists where wheeled in to talk about the recent rains & flooding in britain. I don't know the names of these guys unfortunately, but it was an interesting interview. Immediately the presenters asked about global warming, hoping for a conversation about the evils of it and what we might be able to do to stave off disaster looming around the corner. Both climatologists distanced themselves from the phrase 'global warming' and whilst they confirmed they both supported the notion of climate change, they offered some interesting views on why the subject is so sensitive to us. They pointed out that in britain since the 70's many homes have been built on flood plains, and that the natural ability of the landscape to absorb water is being reduced by our development of the infrastructure. Our experience of weather is no longer what is was either. Many of us live in centrally heated homes, travelling to air conditioned offices in air conditioned cars or trains. So therefore bad weather seems worse that it might have to our predecessors because so few of us actually experience ii in our day to day lives. Look how britain grinds to a halt after a few flakes of snow. One of these scientists did mention a 50-60 year cycle in weather Iwasn't aware of, and that the wet june/july we're getting now is similar to 1947 (which had one of the two worst winters in living memory!). It does make you wonder. It'll be interesting to see if we get a nasty winter this year though I have to say I'm dreading the prospect!

I'm still reading through it, but what fascinates me is that a book like this can teach you far more about roman life that bookcase full of learned tomes. I suppose its because all the deep meaningful stuff is stripped away and you're left with the basics in a no-nonsense style. Always room for more books that do this I reckon.

What comes across from my reading is this cosmopolitan ideal that the romans preferred. They regarded their culture as the civilisation, the center of everything worthy about humanity. It was a little arrogant, but they had a point, despite the brutality involved, but then europe wasn't a friendly place back then and brutality wasn't unusual. Although these barbarians were tolerated amongst their midst, the romans much preferred them to speak latin. Many didn't of course, and the greek language was in many ways far more important given that it was used for commerce. Becoming 'roman' was something that might open doors for you. It gave you the right bearing, the right accent. I've mentioned this before, but on Trajan's first speech in the senate the senators rolled in the aisles at his spanish accent. Barbarians were encouraged to become romanised. It meant they were thinking in terms of being part of roman society. That didn't always work of course (arminius being an obvious example). A lot is said of the greek-speaking east and how this led to a split in later years, but I think that factor was only one of many for this political event. Constantine wanted a new capital. Rome was tired, shabby, run-down, and romans were possibly disinterested and suspicious following the civil wars. Byzantium on the other hand was a thriving town and a good location for a great city, something not lost on Constantine, who was striving for icons to weld his shattered empire back together. The fact they spoke greek is actually irrelevant. When the split occured, it had more to do with the failure of government over a wider empire. Costs had risen, people were perhaps lazier, the old republican zeal had long since evaporated. We see Rome as a monolithic empire sending its legions to crush dissent for one simple reason - thats exactly how the romans wanted it to be seen. So did Constantine I should say, and lets not forget his attempt to bring the christian church together as a unified whole. One religion - one empire. Its no coincidence therefore that since the church has preserved latin, so it has also preserved the image of Rome as this monolithic state. Perhaps thats not entirely fair. The legend of Rome has survived through folklore and story-telling. Notice how the uneducated person sees Rome - Power, Glory, Wealth, Decadence, Excess. These are powerful images underpinned by stories of those ever colourful Julio-Claudians. The last two attributes, decadence and excess, are definitely imperial in origin. The civil wars of the republic were behind them, Rome was then an autocracy and would be thereafter, the old republican austerity had been buried by the new imperial 'good times' brought in by augustus. Let the good times roll. Public morality was longer constrained, and whereas a woman of good birth but dubious behaviour may have been outrageously scandalous in the republic, she was an object of gossip and almost celebrity status in the empire. Whether Rome was a 'social whole' is partly down to opinion. Superficially it was. Rome wanted its foreign acquisitions to become roman, to adopt the same language, ways, and lifestyles. Yet even the city of Rome itself had ghettoes. Much like today. Our own cities have 'chinatowns', or areas where foreigners group together. So not everyone wanted to buy into what Rome was even if they wanted to shelter in its culture. Again, the parallel today is these foreign immigrants taking advantage of the western welfare but not relinguishing their own culture. Its not for nothing that these people do not rise to the fore in society. The foreign provinces, at least for the poor lower classes who may have lived pretty much as they had always done, carried on doing their thing quietly under the roman aegis. When in Rome, do as the Romans.

Plebs vastly outnumbered patricians among the magistrates. Far from the plebs having little recourse to elected office, they dominated political offices, the law courts, and the military. I stand corrected

Behave? I can't. Romanus Darkus has but one goal in life, and thats to be the evilest roman in Rome. Sulla? A rank amateur. Caligula? Pfah! A naughty schoolboy. Nero? Too wishy washy. Nope, stand aside and allow Romanus Darkus to assume his natural role as Rome's Master of Evil.... Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. I'm perfectly relaxed about it....

As much as I love the stuff ozzy has turned out over the years, lets be honest, as a singer he's ghastly. Dio gets my vote. A better lyricist, better range, better vocal quality. Ok, so he sings 'rainbow' every third word, but thats the neture of this post. The question was who was best. Fact is, I've bought more ozzy recordings than dio's, so perhaps that would make him my favourite?

On the one hand the romans have a wealth of herbal medecinal knowledge, tempered by some incredible ignorance. Is there any way of knowing if the use of walnuts as an ancient *iagr* was genuine or another case of the 'chinese rhino-horn' syndrome?

Quite right. Democracy was a privilege to the wealthy classes, and the plebs had little recourse to it. After all, you wouldn't want those menials thinking they had a say in things would you? Dictatorship is something more subtle. Tyrants today are no different than tyrants then. Dictatorship for the romans was an ad hoc political post to deal with a problem that the senate couldn't cope with. It was by nature a temporary post, as indeed roman power was intended to be, in order to prevent tyranny. I think this is false. They seem efficient because the stakes are high and those involved in it have a vested interest in making it appear they are doing their utmost for the regime. However, this is often no more than appearances, and a lot depends on the efficiency, and ruthlessness, of the guy in charge. I agree that such regimes are corruptable because power is strictly defined by the regime and the only way to have more of it than simply being promoted is to buy it. But thats a modern perspective from the experience of one democratic state. I dare say though that the romans groaned about certain consuls as we do our leaders. Popularity is a vital component of democracy - a leader can't survive without it unless he changes the regime - and look how far they go to persuade us that they, and they alone, are the answer to all our problems. In a way, but that assumes the senate was a unified organisation. It wasn't. It was a group of ambitious wealthy men and typically people of that class rather like more power and wealth than anyone else. So yes, if the opportunity was there, then it was inevitable that some would go for it and leave their more honourable comrades fleeing for the exit. I don't see that. Its true that Gaul and Britannia were regions with resources the romans found useful, but gaul was invaded for military glory and the political kudos of it. Brittannia was initially invaded to prevent support for a gaulish rebellion and again for the political kudos. During the augustan reforms colonisation became a foreign policy all of its own. Remote or backwater areas were given little 'capital' cities, little rome's, a sort of politico-economic franchise, each vying for attention and reward by development, and a crucial pillar in the empires success in its early years. It was after all the failure of this policy in germanica, thanks to Arminius, that prevented rome from colonising northern europe. He let his ego get the better of him. In these situations judgement becomes flawed. Although Caesar was enormously popular with the masses he'd upset a lot of colleagues. He was after all a king by any other name. He'd already had marc antony perform a false coronation in an attempt to forestall criticism in this regard, but he accumulated permanent power. This was against a primary concept of republican culture, that power was given temporarily. He was too powerful, and an obstacle to political success for others. Really it was inevitable that he would be killed (or subject to attempted assassinations at least). In many respects Caesar was good for Rome for no other reason than his success made the civil wars end - but the lack of formal succession once the oligarchial democracy was laid aside left the state open to further conflict when the daggers came out. To begin with, they did a lot of good. Augustus 'found Rome in brick, and left it in marble'. The empire was becoming consolidated and it was only the varian disaster that prevented large scale expansion early on. The problem was that this peace and prosperity bred a series of rulers who wanted to enjoy it instead of performing duty. Rebublican sentiment was subverted by easy living. No, because the senate was too divided and too willing to stand behind one of the major factions vying for power. Many were playing it safe, running with the crowd, supporting the major players with armies at their disposal. Without such backing, I doubt any senator was likely to stand in the senate and get enough applause for republican sentiments. It was all getting a bit too dangerous. No, I disagree. Whilst caesar is an enormous legend in his own right, our culture, and even more that of america, is based on republican ideals and law rather than those of dictatorships and autocratic power. People looked back and admired what rome was, at least the more glorious side of it, and in any case cultural inheritance is a strong factor in demographics. It really is amazing just how long traditions and opinions persist. It was if you like an era that was seen as a golden age of wealth and glory that many leaders have sought to emulate for their own ends. There's something buried very deep in our subconcious that gives Rome this powerful aura.