caldrail

Its political correctness. They don't want adverse publicity because someone got upset and wrote a stiff letter of complaint. I imagine the friends and family of the kidnapped child would indeed get upset at such a storyline - they've got reason. I think most people who write in over this would mean well but really ought to be sympathetic and helping rather than sticking their oar in. These days I guess the BBC has no choice. The kidnapping is after all still in the headlines of the media.

I accept I was wrong about border length - fair enough. Nontheless Romes position as a conquest state has parallels with other nations and periods. Rome did over extend itself - and I can prove this by the failure of roman government. As a large wealthy empire often does, it becomes a target for the have-nots. You see this happening today and lets be honest, one of the primary reasons for germanic invasion was the possibility of grabbing roman wealth for themselves. I also note that other conquest states suffer similar political problems as Rome did, in that politics becomes ustable under pressure and the economy falters. What I notice about commentators looking at the fall of the west is that they always try to isolate one precise reason for the collapse. I think thats wrong. The seeds of roman collapse were put there simply by absorbing so much territory aggressively. During the pax romana the roman economy was living on borrowed time due to booty, not economic success. I would say that the east/west split advanced the roman collapse somewhat because the money went east. When the western wealth grew scarce, then rome wobbled and its deflation began. Conquest states do this. They expand a little here and there, then get confident, blowing up like a balloon. Its all a question of whether the ballon bursts or deflates, politically speaking.

Its quite possible that a meteorite exploded over america, but I not so sure it had the widespread effect as you posted. We know that human intervention added disease into the equation, and also that some primitive hunting methods were not exactly geared to preserve wildlife. Still, it might be case, and after all the K/T Event certainly tipped the balance worldwide 65 million years ago.

Egyptians didn't use slaves to build the pyramids - there wasn't enough labour to go around. They employed out-of-work farm labourers to haul stone (or concrete) blocks.

In a moment of complete nerd-dom I put this to the test. A typical principate army vs the english of the hundred years war. Well now... The roman cavalry were scattered like leaves in the wind! Disaster for the romans as the medieval knights make short work of the roman horsemens outflanking moves, leaving the english in command of the right wing completely. English longbows prove effective unless the testudo is employed and even so, the romans lose a good few men in the advance. Infantry on infantry belongs to the roman legionaries. Their heavy infantry goes toe-to-toe with men-at-arms until morale makes a difference, at which point the romans have it. Peasants? Gladius fodder basically. The returning medieval knights have the field to themselves and only their lack of numbers prevented a roman defeat. Being so heavily protected and confident they make severe inroads into the roman formations who simply didn't have the equipment to deal with them. In actual fact, the romans would have won but for heavily armoured knights making hell for them. The losses were mounting up and a somewhat less than daring commander meant they split into two groups. The right were set to flight by horsemen and left the field. The left advance pushed the english back. What I discovered was that the mix of troop types influenced the outcome of this fictional encounter. The romans had a very uniform capability, but the medieval troops varied enormously and some were better protected.

Possibly, but nature can roll right over us any time it wants. We're lucky enough to live in an era of relatively stable climate and earthly peace and quite. Or perhaps the earth is changing again as it has periodically over the last few million years?

Maybe the soldiers were not truly Romans, but Germanic mercenaries hired to fill in the army? Or was this practice done later in the Empire? I don't know, the legionaries are depicted in full legionary uniform - lorica segmentata etc. Did mercenaries wear that kind of armour and helmets? Almost certainly german troops, who usually get depicted that way. Now you come to mention it, most of the legionary depictions are indeed clean shaven. I suspect many were anything but, soldiers being soldiers on campaign. Back at their barracks it was something else of course...

Why not? Women throughout history have gone to war disguised as a man (or a younger boy). Beats me why they'd want to, war is not something pleasant or sociable, but I suppose some women just wanted to know what is was that men did, or perhaps didn't see why men should have all the fun, or was it just a sort of primitive 'equal rights for women'? In your case it appears you like shouting at men!

Ignore this one... Multiple post.

I'm going to be controversial, just for a change I think the biggest contribution to roman collapse was becoming a conquest state. No nation or state can conquer indefinitely - eventually it becomes impossible to guarantee their own borders and those borders get disproportionately bigger along with conquered territory. Looking through the history books I see a number of conquest states went the same way. A nervous initial expansion, then going for it when their confidence increases. This is followed by a period where expansion becomes too difficult during which the costs of running the new found empire increase. Then it either deflates under its own weight or collapses under external pressure. Rome actually did both at the same time I think as a result of their imperial gains.

Yes this happens. Penguins have wings but swim instead of fly for instance. Its also surmised that cold temperatures increase the rate of brain evolution, since thinking isn't too necessary in tropical idylls with food everywhere. As for less intelligent species of humanity, they're already with us, and you may well find them engaged in their mating rituals on a saturday night I also read that our modern society has boosted the need for intelligence. Fine if you're a nuclear scientist, but for for the average grunt has life really got that much more complex? Since many of them do no more than lower classes did in roman times?

Yes - Politicians want our vote, they want us as concerned citizens who believe our politicians are out there saving the planet with our consent, they want our money. In a way I may have overstressed my arguement. The problem we modern humans have is infrastructure. We have these huge conurbations and most of the important ones are adjacent to coastlines for obvious reasons. This means we are trapped by our own development since we can't easily uproot civilisation and move it five miles up the hill. Thats why I say that humanity needs to adapt rather than plug gaps in the dam. Its ok saying that - what I don't want is some sort of eco-tryranny which we're very close to already.

No, I don't think the fall of constantinople had that kind of effect. The process had begun much earlier, at the end of the 11th century ad with the first crusade. Large migrations of warriors and assorted misguided innocents were travelling to this area and undoubtedly a few returned much wiser and better endowed with scholarly material. I agree that most crusaders weren't exactly keen on learning anything except where the cashbox was, but this to-ing and fro-ing across europe and asia minor must have opened channels of communication that weren't there before.

The foosil record reveals this sort of thing in all kinds of species. Notice how cunning and intelligent modern cats of all sizes are. The older sabre-tooth varieties (which apparently survived much longer than we previously realised, and may even have survived the ice ages before dying out) were not so clever either. Dinosaurs too are notorious for having small brains. Massive animals like sauropods had brains way smaller than our own, and some species had a second brain devoted entirely to allowing the beastie to walk. But - after all those millions of years dominating the world - right at the end they begin to evolve intelligence. For millions of years being big was a major survival advantage. In the harder poisonous late cretaceous world, outsmarting your rivals suddenly became more important. You might argue the opposite considering that neanderthal men had larger brains than us, but then they were specialised human beings evolved for cold climates which were disappearing. The more aggressive and general purpose cro-magnons moved in a with a hostile migration, apart from evidence in Portugal, which seems to show both species living together. The last remaining neanderthals throwing themselves at the mercy of their enemies? Maybe they were more intelligent.

And an even later happy birthday from me, assuming you're still sobre enough to switch the PC on....

Its undeniable that we've been adding to CO2 levels, but the underlying evidence is that CO2 is not reponsible for global warming. Its a by-product. The tropopause, a hot layer of air very high in the atmosphere, isn't changing temperature despite all the greenhouse gases supposedly fillig it up. The CO2 cycle of this planet is well established and varies from period to period. Its a curiosity that sunlight on the oceans produces bucketloads of the stuff eight hundred yeras later in some interaction that may even reach the sea floor, yet that same CO2 is re-absorbed by the oceans after time. My own feeling is that we're still leaving the last ice age whose frozen blankets faded away ten thousand years ago (and arguably, still fading). Here in britain we may well be returning to the 'african' climate we enjoyed between ice growths. Seriously - african animal fossils have been found in england dating from that era. But then the earth wobbles on its axis and another ice age can happen very quickly indeed. The end of the last ice age was for that same reason. The mean temperature rose seven degrees in fifteen years. Ouch!

Gauls were in decline as a warrior people at the time of Caesars campaign. Those gauls who had spread across europe and sacked Rome three hundred years earlier were a dying breed. Your imaginative prose in the last post is possibly more accurate for the caesarian period. Gauls flourished under roman rule because they were ready for it. They had already been seduced by roman luxuries and taught a stark lesson of roman violence.

Personally I agree wholeheartedly. For the stirrup to be effective in 'shock' value it requires that the rider braces himself rigid. This would cause injury to the rider on impact because the full force of the blow transmits backwards too. In any case the human body is ill suited to bracing itself in that manner. The roman saddle is especially well suited to allowing weight and momentum to carry through, given the four humps that the rider sat between. Re-enactors tells us that these saddles are very effective and easily allow the rider to maintain his balance on the horse, although as I've mentioned elsewhere I suspect its a little easier to be unhorses without a stirrup to brace yourself against. I'm not sure of the value of standing with stirrups other than looking over a hedge I suppose, but there's nothing in combat that benefits from this. Its the saddle that transforms the momentum of the blow, not the stirrup. Notice the high backed medieval type for use with lances. If a blow is delivered with great energy the result is a backward force on the rider, who should then slide off the horse backward without friction or saddle to keep him there. The stiruup does nothing to assist, and might possibly trap the riders foot and cause him to be dragged behind the horse and even trampled by the back legs. Not really. Its perfectly possible to ride a horse bareback without them, which was the usual method for earlier cultures who first domesticated the horse. I doubt many of them would have considered the stirrup necessary since vaulting onto a horse is traditionally a sign of skill/manhood amongst riders.

For a while now I've watched an advert on global warming. Its a frightening prospect. All those greenhouse gases polluting our atmosphere and raising temperatures that render our world a very inhospitable place. You need only log on to www.climatechallenge.gov.uk to join the effort to save our planet. Except for one small point... IT'S RUBBISH! Sorry, but it is. The advert is blatant propaganda designed to pander to our current fad for enviromental concern and recruit well meaning citizens to the government cause by frightening their poor little socks off. So why is this advert propaganda? The current popular belief is that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. False. Global warming is powered by the sun. As the sun becomes more active, so our temeratures rise. The action of sunlight on the worlds oceans creates far more CO2 than we do. True. Pollution from volcanoes is currently the worst offender. True. Cosmic rays are responsible for the extent of cloud formation, not CO2. True. We also blame industry for the rise in geenhouse gases yet during the period from 1940 to 1975 when industry increased in leaps and bounds - the mean world temperature dropped. Its ironic therefore that greenhouse gases are caused by global warming. True. Serious climatologists have uncovered a time lag between mean temperatures and the amount of greenhouse gases resulting from it amounting to around 800 years. But what about the ice caps? Surely we have to stop the sea level from rising? Well it would be a neat trick but changes in sea level are nothing new. It happens all the time and always will. One of the reasons for the saxon incursions into england was rising sea levels that inundated their coastal settlements. The current perception also ignores the fact the dry land rises and falls too. Britain is rising out of the sea (slowly) after the collossal weight of ice from 10,000 years ago has now gone. London is sinking because the land mass we call Britain is slowly tipping over. The northwest is rising, the southeast falling. Why? Because tectonic movement is pushing Britain aside as it opens the Atlantic wider. Something similar is true of the Mediterranean. We know that the Meditteranean coast is rising and falling as it buckles under the strain of the African plate as it moves northward. The Alps are the result of it, and the sea is shrinking. Thats what powers volcanoes such as Etna, Vesuvius, and the reason why the island of Santorini blew up in distant antiquity. The fact is global warming is a natural event. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. Where they beset with droughts and disastrous weather and flooding? No. In fact they benefitted from bumper harvests. Wine was produced in the now chilly north of england. When you consider the 800 year time lag between temperature and greenhouse gases we are in fact now receiving the 'tax bill' for the Medieval Warm Period. If you go further back, there are long periods in earths history where the world is significantly warmer than our predictions of doom. Only once in earths past, the late Permian period, was the temperature so high as to seriously affect life on earth. For those that don't know, that was before the dinosaurs. We're at the mercy of a ball of hydrogen undergoing a nuclear reaction 93,000,000 miles away. So what the heck is going on? Basically the study of climate has been hijacked by those people with agendas. Remember all those campaigners who tried to stop the deployment of nuclear weapons? The ones who played cat and mouse with whale hunters? Now their holy grail is global warming. The failure of governments around the world is that they now adopt the same attitude for popularity. These days if you mention global warming doors open. Point out that its all nonsense and you're a pariah. Its become a mantra of our time, and its based on misconceptions. One of these misconceptions is that we can predict what will happen. Although the current trend is for warmer temperatures, it might swing the other way with a vengeance if our ocean currents change too far. The computer models designed to make these predictions are based on the premis that global warming is down to greenhouse gases, and we already know thats incorrect. But because the global warming industry is in full swing no-one wants to hear that the statistics are based on mistakes. They only want to hear the answers that suit their purpose. So what can we do about global warming? Unfortunately, the answer is almost nothing. Really. We are literally helpless in the face of nature. But then nature has always insisted that survival of the fittest is the prime directive of life. Species survive because they adapt to changes. Species that become specialised can do well, like us, but ultimately their enviroment will change faster than their ability to change with it. Our attempts to be greener are laudable but it won't stop climate change. Like King Canute, we stand there trying to order back the tide.

I doubt the horsemen alone brought down the empire given that roman cavalry was evolving toward the end too, but certainly the increasing use of horses in battle and in some cases the development of heavier cavalry for shock value affected the flow of battle. I notice though that these heavy cavalry are quoted as having 'little endurance' in battle, both because of the extra weight of arms/armour but also because the added protection left them tempted to continue melee when it it would have been wiser to withdraw and regroup, thus they fought longer pitched fights. Be careful here because medieval chivalry was largely a romantic ideal. Most early knights were nasty beggars both in politics and war. In terms of the warrior class, it was going to develop that way in any case. Warrior societies whose function depend on an elite class tend to become more sophisticated and held back by ritual over time. No, I don't see it that way. Persian cataphracts had been the prototype of heavy cavalry for two centuries before Adrianople. Hadrian had experimented with them, and Constantius made them part of the legions, although I freely admit the tactical use and expertise of these early knights left something to be desired. Gothic armies were different from roman ones. Goths were warriors regardless of whether they rode horses or walked around the battlefield - they were effectively interchangeable. Its also noted that the goths were weighed down with equipment. In this case it seems to have served them well. I agree absolutely. Theodosius couldn't ignore the gothic success, and better that they fought for you. No, the development began much earlier (and elsewhere), but perhaps you could view Adrianople as a milestone in cavalry evolution. The gothic cavalry were very effective in this battle, and given they could continue to fight in the same way as their infantry if unhorsed, they had a certain edge in flexibility. The predominance of missile weapons in gothic hands cannot be underestimated. They could make repeated passes at infantry and whittle down their morale and coherence with little effort before closing in with the melee.

One wonders why china and taiwan haven't seen this business opportunity...

It seems the romans didn't care much for bodily hair. Was that merely a fashion, or was it to appear less 'animal-like', or perhaps to seperate themselves from the barbarians? I always read they dry shaved with sharp iron razors and I'll take Pertinax's recommendation on faith.... My own experience of dry shaving (due to circumstance on rare occaisions) is that it doesn't get a good result and whilst it doesn't actually hurt, its none too comfortable. Armpits, arms, legs, chest? Thats a lot of boldily hair and generally men are hairier than the ladies, so they must have gone to some effort to look their best. I'm not suprised there was a fashion for greek style beards!

Not in the manner you think. Colliding with dense masses of infantry isn't likely to happen. Horses refuse to do so, and lets be honest, so do many riders, though I accept napoleonic beserkers didn't think too clearly. Even if the horses can be persuaded to collide, all you get is a tangled mass of bodies either dead or struggling to get up, including all the horses who entered the fray like that. If you actually study the battles you've mentioned, you'll find there's no evidence of infantry being bowled over by masses of suicidal horsemen. Why would they do that? Its madness. You might win the battle but how can you prevent outflanking moves from enemy cavalry if yours were wiped out in the last one? I used to believe the same as you years ago, but its a fantasy, and I know its a fantasy because I read something on the subject somewhat more authorative than a web page on this very subject. Listing battles is no good whatsoever - it doesn't prove anything - and in the case of waterloo, I've already informed you that charging dense infantry achieved nothing except pinning the men down. They were NOT attacked in the manner you ascribe because they formed square, a dense mass of infantry, which cavalry of the time didn't charge into - unless the dense mass of infantry was already shaken - which is another point you don't seem to understand. These periods saw co-operation between cavalry and artillery to achieve this effect. Most ancient armies couldn't do this apart from the romans, but as yet I haven't found any evidence for roman field artillery being used in conjunction with the horses in this way, mostly because cavalry actions of this period were against each other to prevent outflanking moves by a highly mobile force. Heavily armoured cavalry do nothing different apart from the fact their protection makes them well nigh impervious in melee, not the charge. Lancers do not collide either. Jousting is all very well but notice both horsemen are kept apart by a fence. Your concept of cavalry action is wrong. Read reports and treatises of the time. Far more revealing and you'll become a better military historian if you do.

Yes it is possible to find these people. There's a magazine for re-enactors (I think its called 'Skirmisher') which has loads of adverts for people making stuff from all era's. Price dependent on quality and purpose I would say. Museum quality replica's are going to hurt your wallet, but a re-enactment object shouldn't cost too much.