caldrail

No. You might want to check out out Casale Morgantina just in case -it's associated with earlier emerors but you never know. There are other significant Roman remains in that area too.

I'm turning into a couch potato, and it's all the fault of Star Trek. Now that the original series and Next Generation are back on the screen, I spend my afternoons and evenings staring dull eyed at the antics of sex crazed Starfleet officers hell bent on being nice people. I need help. Worse still I've started watching that awful Ultimate Force series, the one starring Ross Kemp as a Seriously Argumentative Soldier. The strange thing is, although I've never gone out of my way to watch the program before, every episode seems to be the one I saw the first time around. I need more help. {i]Red Dwarf[/i], Farscape, Stargate, Stargate Atlantis, and finally at last the original Doctor Who series has started showing on sundays. Great to see all the old doctors back on television again, Patrick Troughton, Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker.... Okay. I surrender. You can stop helping me now. I've begun to realise that all this science fiction is distracting me from the reality of my difficult financial situation, rather like the cold war players of the space race fifty years ago. All I need to do now to achieve victory and assume my place in society as a successful jobseeker is walk on the moon. I mean, all I need is a television studio, right? Cometary Landing In case you haven't heard, scientists have landed a small space vehicle on a comet way out there in the dim depths of our solar system. At last the Dinosaurs get revenge. You are going to blow it up, aren't you? Childhood Lost With Professor Brian Cox holding a season ticket on science related programs on television, it's pretty well inescapable that I will at some point encounter his master class physics and intellectual whimsy. Hasn't anybody else noticed he smiles whistfully every time he tells us that the Earth is doomed and the Universe will enter a an eternal deep freeze? But there he was, holding a copy of Spacecraft 2000-2100AD, a book with pages of science fiction paintings of exotic futuristic craft and bogus histories surrounding them. He told us how he especially liked the pages about the Martian Queen, a fast luxury liner that plied the spacelanes. Yes. I remember that too. I was also a convert to the Book Of Speculative Starships, the very same volume. So like him I was thrilled by the shape of things to come, only he gets to be a television celebrity and I get to argue with claims advisors. I had the same start as him. Where did it all go wrong? Maybe I was too positive. So, having learned Proferssors Cox's lesson - Hey - We're all doomed, especially me. Blaming Something Else This is one of those 'a friend of a friend' stories you sometimes hear, but worth repeating. There's this guy who goes out clubbing one saturday night and as chance would have it, gets off with a young lady, so it's back to her place for coffeee and whatever else he hoped to persuade her into cooperating with. Once there she went off to slip into something more comfortable, which was a problem because he wasn't comnfortable at all. Desperate for a pooh, and not wanting to spoil his chances of a fun night in (and maybe more), he opted to exploit a cat litter tray.She won't notice, right? Wrong. She spotted it immediately, and from that point forward she was never able to understand how her six week old kitten had left a pooh bigger than it was. Conclusion of the Week It dawned on me last night. Was the reason I had been savaged at the Job Centre for no apparent reason and forced to close my benefit claim because David Cameron wants good statistics about uneplyment to present to the public when he goes to polls in the near future? If Cameron wants to pound his fist at media briefings and ponse around the world stage as if he's someone important, I'd rather he did that at his own expense, not mine. That's one lost vote Cameron. How many more do you want?

How can you describe me as hopelessly lost when your own information is based on interpreting the Roman world with modern sensibilities? There's a lot of history written on that basis Yes. Augustus changed a few things. So did lots of other Roman personalities with sufficient authority before and afterward. I have no idea. But I'm not concerned in the slightest. The Romans saw things differently from you, and that is perhaps something you desperatel;y need to address before you claim any academic authority on a subject involving them. Julius was a very vain character, I don't know of anyone who would dispute that. It's also true he wanted sole control of the Roman world - no question. He always had such ambition lurking within him. He invested heavily in it - firstly by borrowing an obscene amount of money to fund his career, then looting Gaul to pay them off with interest and a personal fortune. However, the nature of Caesars political reign is a little different. Caesar wanted control. The Senate gave him a dictatorship for three years to sort out Romes problems after the turmoil his rise to power had aggravated (he wasn't the sole cause of it). That was increased to ten years, then to a lifetime appointment. That means XCaesar was given full execustive power over the Roman world until he was dead. That was unprecedented in Roman thinking, and effectively against the prime tenets of the Republic, in that power should be shared, power should be temporary,, and power should be by consent. He had become a king in all but name, and although he kept the Senate sweet by conferring with them and making a big show of refusing the crown publicly, Caesar had become an absiolute ruler - and died for it shortly after. There was no political change that took away the Republic. The Senate were still the official government, voting was unchanged for the public, and life went on. In other words, Caesar did not institute constituional change that removed the Republic. Augustus officially handed power back to the Senate and People of Rome. Had he not done so, his life would shortly end too. So he sought an alternative to maintaining control being the bossy boots that he was (his wife confirmed he was a control freak). It came quite naturally to him - rule by influence. Whilst Augustus was not technically Rome's overlord in the way that Caesar had grabbed with both hands, he maintained influence with the authorities of Rome - quiye aggressively as it happens - and made special efforts to 'own' the legions, to engage their loyalties in a personality cult, to pay off generals with ovations and triumphs, to please the public with games (he boasted of this), and impress his political peers with civic works, famously claiming he'd found Rome in brick and left it in marble. No Caesar thast followed after had any job descritption to conform to. It was a matter of influence, however powerful, keeping the public, legions, and Senate sweet. Failure to do so was often a terminal mistake, and as easy as a Caesar might come by the role, it was way easier to oust him once he started to lose influence, because there was never any constitutional place for Emperors of Rome. Sometimes the Senate awarded honours, such things as Consulshiops or the military role of Imperator, parcels of official power that underlined their influential status. Without grasping the above, you're in no position to lecture me.

That wasn't to support the Wall as such - it was to support the 'forward operating bases', the forts built north of the Wall and garrisoned to patrol the territory the opposite side of the wall than you might expect. This was standard Roman policy. The fact that land was outside accepted Roman territory meant nothing if any risk was perceived. What could be better than a Wall that isn't attacked in the first place?

Syracuse.

Sure are. Got my swords sharp and pointy, my backpack full of cornflakes, I've blown a trumpet a few times, and a free doughnut for the first man through the wall. Bit short of an army however. Slightly disappointing, but not entirely unexpected. Onwards!

Then why did Augustus boast of thirteen consulships in his reign? Why did certain Caesars insist the Senate give them the role? It was far from a joke, the Romans would have seen it as very meaningful. It is true that two annual headman posts were overshadowed by the new role of Caesar, but notice that both roles were not incompatible. To see the Casars as absolute rulers is incorrect - their job had no job description, no official demarcation of responsibility or power, and it was the Senate who underwrote how much status and influence a Caesar had - which was why the post of Consul was offered occaisionally. It was to honour the Caesar and allow him official ruling powers, if for a short while. That's right. Official ruling powers. No Caesar ever had the right to be an absolute ruler, however many of them assumed that part, and this is often forgotten because seeing a Caesar as king is easier than actually figuring out what the mess the Romans called politics was all about. The problem is that most people are confusing this official ruling rights and power with influence, be it political or having lots of soldiers waiting outside. Augustus officially gave back power to the Senate and People of Rome. He retained his influence, which did not escape the Senate in the early days of his reign. Claudius was only accepted as Caesar because the Praetorians would not surrender their favoured role, forcing the Senate to acknowledge him as a senior political figure. The Senate hadn't gone anywhere - they were carrying on business as usual and with the assassination of Caligula, only too happy to do so. Nero thought the Senate was holding him back - and in a way, he was right. Whereas Caligula had poured scorn on the Senate, Nero used it as a cash cow, and was declared an enemy of the state for his trouble. As popular as Nero was with the masses, if the Senate said a man had to go, sooner or later he was dead. Remember that Antoninus Pius was so well liked because he let the Senate continue their business with minimum intrusion, and I notice as his first act 'in power' to persuade the Senate to honour Hadrian with divine status after his death. Then again, even Caligula asked permission of the Senate to hold games.

It is in fact very unusual for a wall of any length to be defensive. Walls are, by design, impediments to travel and generally set there for that purpose. The same motives apply today. Barbed wire entanglments stretching for miles have very little defensive value - they don't protect defenders from enemy action - but they do impeded a crossing point. Strategic Roman walls of the stronger kind, such as the two Trajanic Wals in Africa, Hadrians Wall in Scotland, and the late empire Trajanusic Wall in eastern europe, are still of dubious defensive value. Impediments to travel certainly, especially Hadrians Wall which sits on an escarpment, but the walls are not built to be defended, and if you look closely, the parapet is often barely wide enough for a soldier to wander back and forth along it in the cold small hours of the morning. Not entirely suitable for defending then, however sturdy or tall. I'm not surer what you mean about moving forts from the Stanegate. Legionary forts did not change position - they remained south of the security zone. The Romans understood that linear defenses disperse troops too much, and preferred to concentrate reactive forcesd leaving auxillaries to patrol and warn of incursions.

You mean Consul? No, it wasn't, but the significance was devalued by application to a post holder with a higher level of status, and bear in mind that consulships were in apirs, so Caesars offered the role as an honour by the Senate may well have a partner in their politics - though it is fair to mention that Caesars often suggested who that other Consul might be (Caligula gave the role to his relation, Claudius - one wonders why...), and that since the office of what was effectively an annual co-prime minister was now an homnour more than an post with clear cut responisbilities, its relevance to politics was lessened. As far as that goes I agree, but at the same time, the office was still a mark of status - it wasn't given to anyone and are suggesting that a Caesar was offered a joke role by the Senate as an honour? You mean Governor? That was an important addition to your CV and a very good earner if you played your cards right. It may well also give opportunites to add military success to your record, though clearly that had less to do with security than exploiting a situation for personal gain, or as often happened, to avoid imperial censure for lack of moral fibre. It was as good as the technology and infrastructure of the day would allow. However, the speed of contact was still limited to a man on a horse at best, and given the size of the Empire, this delay in communication allowed the ambitious to easily forment conspiracies or rebellions. The Romans were very keen to post cautious commanders to legionary command - they needed loyal people running their wayward military even if they weren't especially good at their jobs, and tolerated the typical legionary commander who basically got the job to stay out of harms way. As good as communications were, internal politics was still devisive, factional, and strife always a possibility.

Bearing in mind that the limes, basically interpreted as the 'limit' of Roman control, was not the actual territorial border as such (there was rarely any definable border without a convenient coast or river), but instead where the Romans decided to enforce it, and the actual line might change place from time to time. However the function was more or less the same. It wasn't a defense, but rather an impediment to control who got across the border and where.

Onsanander is broadly right. The provinces were controlled by proxy, a provincial governor sent by Rome to represent their authority, and even then not directly because the Romans liked to exploit native politics to add to their own, putting pressure on their leaders to adopt latin lifestyles - which they generally did and got well rewarded for doing so. Governors didn't normally interfere in day to day affairs. remaining aloof as the last word of Roman policy.

I am officially at war. Never wanted it to come to this but my Claims Advisor has gone too far. After inspiring me to apoplexy the week before, she made sure there were no independent witnesses in the office and attempted to provoke an incident, one which presumably would have me escorted off the premises and quite probably to a waiting police car outside. Sorry, I'm not falling for that one. As I look for work, I record each step I make, and I mean fairly exhaustively. That list has satisfied claims advisors since I started it in 2010. For some time now I've been copying that information onto a government website to record my jobsearching activity for all to see. Last week I mentioned this to my Claims Advisor, telling her that the records were available. She dismissed it. No use to her at all. Okay. I won't bother posting it then. Less work for me, although I still keep the list up to date. The next week she asked why the government website hadn't been updated. I reminded her we'd discussed that point previously., but she insisted she needed the information to know what I had been up to. Okay. Would she like a printed copy of the latest information? No, she tells me, it might just be typed up, an argument I found odd because I was only going to copy and paste the same information anyway. So she was demanded information she had already dismissed and then dismissed it again. And so on. Finally I gave up after a barrage of demands to account for some discrepancy in her investigation of my activity. I told her I'd had enough of this circus, threw my signing book on the desk, and told her to close my Jobseekers Benefit claim. Which she obviously hasn't, in order to portray me as reneging on my Jobseekers Agreement, which I haven't. So a little advice to all those unfortunate souls who have by chance found themselves in the dustbin of the employment marketplace. It makes no difference how diligent you are. It makes no difference how honest you are. It makes no difference how much jobsearching you do. When a Claims Advisor wants her bonus for christmas, she is going to find a reason to justify it, at your expense of course. Kiss your reputation goodbye, because as of now you're a dole cheat. Gulty until proven innocent. Of course if you're sitting on your backside because you don't want to work, that's your problem. I really don't care what happens to you. Pouring Cold Water On It The weather lately has been fairly wet. Hey, this is Britain you know. Yesterday I had to walk across town to attend a course at the local college (intended to improve my marketability in employment). With all the rain, there was a lot of standing water by the roadside. So I got splashed by a passing car. Then a line of three or four cars splashed me one after the other. Needless to say I vented my frustration loudly. Wasn't much else I could do. But you know, it has changed my mind. All those police video programs you see on television are blatant propaganda, however well intentioned. When do you actually come across a police officer so gentlemanly and fair minded? I'm no longer botjhered by this. Car dribers - or drivers of any other vehicle on the road - if you get caught, it's your own fault. I couldn't care less what hapens to you. Pilot Of The Week There I was this morning, diligently searching for work and making job applications at the Support Centre, when I heard one of their administrators mention to his boss "Hey, you've got a pilot on your case load". You've got one in the room too, I added. I mean me, if anyone hasn't come across my flying escapades on this blog. Not that it actually mattered as such, but I got to chat up a pretty young lady as a result. Oh yes. Those magnificent men...

What? WHAT?! I can't even type properly.

Two walls had been built in North Africa during the reign of Trajan to impede the movements of nomadic tribesmen. Although I'm unaware of any specific incidents, clearly the Romans thought they were either troublesome or a potential source of 'customs' taxation.

I've seen both series. It is quite funny. Not exactly true to history - that's part of the joke - and not quite ROFL, but it does get very amusing at times. As I said, I've watched both series. Certainly filled my monday night.

Hadrians Wall was a security zone, not a defensive work. It also kept troops busy with building and maintenance tasks besides patrols and garrisons on the milecastles (or gatehouses if you prefer).

Aha! My suspicions confirmed Ghost! This is the work of but one man.... That evil genius known as Moriarity... Or maybe somebody lost the paperwork. Either/or (Cheers though ) More details have come to light thanks to my netting ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legio_IX_Hispana http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12752497 http://www.erminestreetguard.co.uk/Ninth%20Legion.htm1

I did read somewhere that the 9th were dishonoured. Apparently they re-appear later in the Roman record somewhere but I don't have any details.

The Romans were as usual ambivalent about such things. Sometimes they enforced prices for political reasons whilst at other times it was down to market forces. Since many slaves were brought into the market during the period of conquest, typically the profit found its way into the hands of the Roman elite - so they that had a vested interest in accentutating market forces when it suited them. Later in the imperial emoire attempts to control the economy imposed price levels, but this was as far as I'm aware unsuccessful.

If I'm not mistaken, the weather is turning seasonal and things generally get a bit chilly. Yep, the trees are turning brown, and that's not because they've spotted the tree surgeons butchering the local vegetation on the annual crusade to defoliate Swindon. I was amused the other week when I encountered a couple of guys sweeping leaves out of the main corridor of the College. How very autumnal. Unfortunately, there's little for me to be amused about now and yes, things are definitely getting chilly. Showdown At The Job Centre Boy oh boy was I naive. I walked right into this confrontation without any idea what was coming. I'd been told I was seeing a different advisor this week. As you might expect, I just assumed that my usual advisor was taking a holiday or some other reason to to save her sanity by avoiding my weekly progress report. Oh no. Nothing so innocent. This lady was from Compliance. They're the equivalent of the Gestapo. I have to say she was a fine actress. her rendition of "I'm in a really really bad mood and what on Earth is this rubbish you're presenting me with?" was fabulous. I know she was faking it - I spotted her amused expression from the corner of my eye when she sent me on a pointless errand to get evidence of my jobsearch. I provide that every week as part of my normal activity, but after she had more or less accused me of being a liar, I no longer provide it. She is after all merely looking for an excuse to stop my payments. Anything will do. So I could not answer her questions without fingers pointed at me, accusations of bad behaviour, accusations of unrealistic expectations or activity, accusations of this, that or the other.... it's inexcusable. I lost my temper. Somehow I don't think that was part of her game plan. But what a ridiculous situation. I've just spent a week at Swindon College going through an Employability course, taking a Health & Safety examination, and all of a sudden I'm unemployable. The woman is an idiot. Health Diet Of The Week You can't go far these days without an expert telling you that whatever you've been eating is going to kill you unless you change to this new diet, available from all good bookstores at low low prices. It was refreshing then to have been present at the Support Centre when one of the young ladies was accused of not eating properly or healthily. Healthy or not, there is nothing more scornful than a woman denied chocolate. Now there's an idea....

Strictly speaking. Some people have argued that the imperial period was a period of competitive politics between two governments, the old Republican Senate and Caesar with his Imperial Household. I have in fact stated many times that the Principate was a tog of war between Senate and Caesar. Eventually the Roman court won out and things strayed into the realm of monarchial forms in the later peiod we call the 'Dominate', which was still nonetheless referred to as SPQR, but then, the Romans never did set out exactly how a Caesar should be chosen.

Suetonius was very much a tabloid journalist and if an anecdote made interesting reading, he wasn't usually too discriminating, sometimes adding that "it was said that" or something similar to distance himself. Some of his anecdotes are there to illustrate the influence of divine favour, such as Julius Caesars horse, said to have stranhe hooves. Whether such a horse actually existed is irrelevant - what matters is that such a creature was unusual, perhaps an omen, something that marked out the owner for special events to come. Sometimes the reader is so bound up in shocking revelations that occaisional sentences that carry interesting information (at least to us - the Romans might not have seen it so revealing) can get overlooked. I would never dismiss Suetonius as some do, but then, other sources are not necessarily entirely truthful either, with the Historia Augusta as an exampke of something far more suspicious and potentially full of fiction or propaganda than Suetonius was.

If there's one thing human beings are good at it's spotting similarities. That's why we have such successful witch hunts occaisionally, why conspiracy theory attracts new adherents every year in spite of all logic and reason, the reason why 'Where's Wally' books sell to the general puiblic. It isn't about similarity - it's about the criteria you use for finding them. I'm sure that the works that you suggest both contain the latin word for 'and' quite a few times.

I've already outlined my objections to your premis. Creating such an assertion merely by linking observed 'similarities' is not a very good basis for building a revision of established history, because events are rarely unique by themselves - they're almost always interconnected with other events, coloured by cultural bias and expectations, and are often described in terms that exclude a hidden complexity, by which I mean if something happens, then observers attempt to find a single cause or offender - you have only to watch a news broadcast on television to see that at work. Journalists love on-screen investigation and derived conclusions. Not really. Josephus was a Judaean. His opinions are coloured by his culural background. Today I popped into my local Subway. So did another customer, at the same time. We both bought a breakfast sub. How odd. Obviously there's a conspiracy, especially since over the last years hundreds of people have been doing exactly the same thing. Similarities and parallels are not necessarily proof. Sometimes it marks only an observation of human or societal behaviour that has no significance to each other. Personally I think you're on a colossal wild goose chase en par with searching for aliens at Area 51. Until you start to find something more damning than a passing similarity, this quest of yours cannot achieve anything credible.

Lucky guy. At least he didn't end up dead like the Romanian who found a silver hoard in a quarry (the hoard is currently in a London vault awaiting the results of protracted legal action - the current owner cannot legally sell it)