caldrail

Compared to the sets featured on classic Dr Who, the work done on Stargate was satisfactory. So everyone's a critic? Well, I crticise too occaisionally, but the reality is that tv sets are expensivve so production makes use of whatever they can. For instance, it was recognised on Star Trek NG that if the pilot episode did not feature a scene in the engine room, the set would never be built.

Cornovii. People from Britain as a whole were either referred to by tribal name or more scornfully, 'Brittanculi'. One Roman thought the Britons, or more precisly, the Welsh, were spanish by descent and therefore described them as Albiones.

You can see defensive earthworks all over southern Engkland, some dating from the early Iron Age. A little eroded perhaps, but unmistakeable.

The historical chariots were seriously flimsy and dangerous. Riders wrapped reins around their wrists to prevent losing hold of them, and a knife to cut themselves loose if need be. Boys on the turns at either end would rush toward a chariot and throw water onto the wheels as it careered by, to prevent the chariot from suffering adverse friction, and some of those lads may well have been inadvertantly killed too. There were those who were good at racing chariots mind you. Gaius Appuleius Diocles is known to be the most successful driver with prize money totalling a sizeable 35,000,000 sestercii, or something like a modern equivalent of $15 billion.

Not really. Science fiction and radical archaeology have been distorting ideas for a long time. It is a plot device after all, not some revelationary experience, and Stargate, for all its competent production, is often excruciatingly naive and mawkish - not to mention deliberately irreverent - though in fairness sci-fi television often is. The modern Doctor Who revival exploits that avenue to the breaking point.

Buy yourself a stetson, a whip and have a mate nearby with an old flotplane. Watch out for spears, pits, and big rolling stone balls. Oh. yeah. And the nazi artifact cpollection teams.

Erm... No. Evidence of television viewing and a familiarity with a certain american sci-fi series based on a Hollywood film. This really is Von Daniken style abstraction. I'm sure the hoop has some significance but you shouldn't judge it on a coincidential appearance to an idea cooked up by screenwriters. The relationship of the figures in the scene is important. Notice they're all relaxing - not travelling or fighting evil symbiotic aliens - and that the figure in the hoop appears to be holding it in place rather than expecting a breathless transition to some faraway planet. Also note that the figure is naked in a non-sexual context, whcih suggests something to do with Roman mythology.

Apart from visible omens which the superstitious Romans quickly identified (or ignored at their peril), they weren't quite so into astrology as some cultures. They refer to 'Chaldean Astrologers' sometimes, although I suspect that elements of such beliefs were always on the fashional vanguard or the alternative fringes of Roman society. Because the pagan Romans adopted a more personal client/patron relationship with their unseen deities, treating temples as the atrium's of their chosen gods, interpreting the movements of the heavens wasn't the first action of a devout Roman - it was more likely he would sacrifice and attempt to bargain with a god rather than try to figure out what that god was actually doing to the world. Or at least, so it appears to me, so I suspect that it might be all too easy to apply an incorrect significance with respect to Roman coinage.

There's a strange mood in the town right now, and I suspect, across England, because once again our national football team has failed to reach the heady goal of winning the World Cup. This time they failed to get out of the starting blocks, so I understand, but then I don't have any time for football. Nothing wrong with the game as such, but I resent the expectations that I should be interested and discuss the subject at every opportunity. I don't like the blatant commercialism and outrageous incomes football stars can earn, or for that natter, I remain baffled as to why a bloke who kicks a football for a living can be seen as important as politicians on the world stage. All those national flags displayed in peoples front windows... But I suppose that's nothing other than a sense of disappointment. For David Cameron, it means a major reorganisation of his social diary now that he doesn't have a football team to be seen with at press events. A few less new years honours to promote. Unfortunatetly it also means that David Cameron has more time on his hands, and with busy politicians who like telling the British how to go about their daily lives, it means he'll have time to think up new ways of getting his face on television, and since trampling on the unemployed is his most popular game plan right now, I dare say it'll get worse for those of us who can't afford football tickets. As it happens I'm shortly to be put on a work placement. Unlike previous years where you get a small premium payment to make the idea worthwhile, now I have to work for my benefits. Those of you with well paid jobs will no doubt say that's a good thing. But ask yourself this - would you want to work a thirty hour week for sixty odd pounds? Especially if you want to earn a living instead of dossing at public expense? In a country that's so strident in its call for National Minimum Wages and assistance for those unable to pay their ever increasing bills? Now the Job Centre has warned me that twenty-six week placements are coming soon to a own near you. On the one hand it's a means of engaging those without jobs in some useful social capacity. On the other, the need of a politician to win popularity by forcing those on benefits into what amounts to slave labour. I'm almost willing to support the England soccer team from now on. As much as I hate football, as least a few goals will keep our politicians busy for a while. They Are Working On It. The Old College site is starting to look like a shopping centre now. Not complete you understand, but getting there. At the back, the car park has the metal underlay almost fitted, obscuring the dark interior and presenting a very bright spectacle when the sun gets low in the evening. Won't be long before the muffled thuds and rumbles from the cinema start intruding upon the normal traffic noise and singing contests. I saw a man from Morrisons, one of the supermarket chains that are going to inhabit the site. He stood looking dejected on the traffic island, watching the work in progress. "Give 'em a chance," I told him, "They are working on it." Sex And Violence of the Week The local park is proving to be a popular hoilday destination for alll manner of birds. Geese, ducks, coots, moorhens, pigeons, an assortment of white sea birds, but none of the swans you used to see every year. I watched a flock of geese arrive, circling down in formation and performing a coordinated landing on the water. That made quite a splash. With such a condensed population of birds you might expect the odd confrontation or two, animals being what they are. I watched a goose making a hasty and noisy retreat as another pecked at its tail feathers in furous pursuit. A coot chased a duck continuously, while the duck cleverly evaded its nemesis by swimming underwater in a random direction, the chase resuming once the coot spotted its quarry again. I watched amused as a fat pigeon sidled up to every other female asking for a date, or preferably, a chance to make eggs. He danced and strutted his stuff, but the ladies really didn't take to his display and wandered away. If that pigeon was a human, he'd be arrested as a sex pest. or perhaps given a starring role on a comedy show. But he's working on it nonetheless. Maybe one day he'll find love. Must be difficult for pigeons. I mean, it's not like they understand the internet or know how to use dating agencies. I noticed a certain cat too. It's the black and white one whose face bears an alarming resemblance to Adolf Hitler. I had no idea this feline adventurer ever prowled this part of town, but as cats do, sometimes they travel some distance to find a hiunting ground. It's all sex and violence, really. Oh well, it was a nice day at the park, but if you'll excuse me, I have work to do. Whether I like or not.

No-one at that time would have envisaged exposing the fairer sex to the violence of the battlefield - indeed, the outrage against the Hun was not just that they had instigated a war, but that in Belgium they had accrued a reputation for murdering pregnant women. However it is also true that WW1 was the first instance of women taking on male roles in production and support in British society, although we also have to allow for the influence of the Suffragette movement that had become quite strident politically just before the Great War.

Until Claudius a Roman owner could kill a slave or dispose of him as required. Claudius was moved by the sight of sick slaves left to die and began humanitarian legislation aimed at restricting the excesses of slave owners. Further restrictions were enacted in later reigns. It is true however that much reputation in high society was placed upon generosity and benign ownership, usually expressed by patronism or manumission. A cruel owner would suffer the poor opinion of the public if he killed slaves so angrily. One young man was caught with a householders wife. He protested innocence, claiming he thought the woman to be one of the man's slaves, whom he had gotten interested in. Had the youngster been found guilty of banging the man's wife, he was liable for some very tough treatment. However, as he had only transgressed property rights by attempting to have sex with another mans slave, he was merely fined. A liucky escape... But it appears this sort of excuse was commonplace. I remember a case where a woman had fallen to her death from an upstairs window. because a fierce row had been heard immediately before, the husband was found guilty of throwing her from the window and dealt with. There is of course the mention of a law in which if a slave killed his master, all slaves in the household were to be executed to dissuade other such occurences. Unfortunately, the public thought this was outrageous, depsite being legal, and the magistrates did not order the deaths. However, it was noted that when Nero held a party on a barge fitted out as a sort of virtual red light district street, a few of the high class women acting as prostitutes were found murdered and presumed to be victims of the slaves who had been allowed to partkae of their mistresses. No-one was tried for the crimes.

Take a look at the BAttle of Leuctra in 371BC. The Spartans arranged their cavalry in a line ahead of their phalanxes, and so did the Thebans, which would result in a cavalry brawl ahead of the closure of phalanx lines. However the wiley Thebans advanced right flank refused (or a diagonal with the left leading if you prefer) allowing their cavalry an escape route and trapping the spartan horse between the rows of pikes. The Spartans lost.

A spear is a convenient weapon to ake and distribute to poorly trained fighters, and when used en masse, can at least up to a point compensate for that lack of training. However, like any weapon, those that know what they're doing generally do better.

There's an undercurrent of arrogance and immaturity too.

So basically this is about societal values? Well, human beings are no different than they've ever been. There will be those that get very up tight about loyalty and sacrifice, and those that are more selfish. Or loads of people in-between. So I guess the idea that you gun down people you don't like with machineguns, or nail them up on crucifixes, just because they have different sensibilities is nothing more than unrestrained subjectivity. As it happens, my grandfather once came home on leave during the Great War. Whilst out in civilian clothes, an irate lady approached him and stuffed a white feather into his hand. As an underage volunteer, you can imagine what he thought of the declaration of cowardince. So as you see, subjectivity and perception is rather at face value and an obvious source of contention when surely some tolerance and communication makes life a bit more peaceful. After all, mowing down those that you don't like, historically, has led to situations where a lot of people don't like you.

Those of you who know England will also know that somtimes, just sometimes, the rain goes away to ome back another day, leaving us with a few days of glorious weather. Like today, a warm balmy day, and with all my chores done it was time to seek a quiet corner of the local park and relax in quiet solitude, away from the noisy daytime activity of my home town. It isn't all that quiet if I were honest. An ocaisional gravelly rasp of a light aeroplane overhead, the distant subdued roar of a transatlantic airliner, the insistent clangs of the town hall bell, on the hour, every hour, and the incredible range of bird noises from the trees and lake. The squirrels weren't so keen to be idle. I saw a few bouncing around the earthy woodland trail. As I sat, one headed toward me, almost oblivious to my presence. It knew I was there, and stopped for a moment when I shifted my position, but otherwise I was just another human lowering the tone of the neighbourhood. It's unusual for a squirrel to be so tolerant of people. Most are quite nervous. For this squirrel, it was another day, another nut to carry away. Damp Squibs Those of you who know England will also know that sunny days soon change to weeks of dull rainy weather. A week ago it was exactly that. The worst wet weather coincided exactly with a job interview. This was an unusual interview for me, the first time I'd attended a three hour assessment session with al sorts of things going on. I even gave a fifteen minute presentation on Roman history. The assembled junior management were either bored by the lack of graphs showing a year on year increase in imperial profit, or perhaps stunned by my Roman revelations. Maybe a prior presentation had already melted their brain? Perhaps managers have no comprehension of presentations? Who knows? On the way home I came across a length of road with a lot of standing water. I had to stand back and wait as motorists ploughed past with big sprays that threatened to drench me. At last there was a gap in the traffic, and I thought I might have enough time to clear the danger area before that lorry arrived, the one just turning the corner a way back down the road. Sometimes you just know that the driver is going to do something. It isn't an inner voice, or any visual recognition of body language, just that strange spidey sense I really ought to have taken notice of. Of course I didn't. You might be experiencing a similar sensation right now, reading this. As I tramped along the wet pavement I heard the sloshing sound coming up behind me. Fearing the worst I glanced behind... Splash!... A tall wave of water caught me from head to foot. Right in the face too. Of course the lorry drove on, either oblivious to his transgression of the Highway Code, or perhaps gloating over his handiwork. Sir. I salute you. One finger only. Sunset of the Week As the sun descended behind the the cinema building now occupying my view of the landscape from my back window, the high altitude cloud was lit bright. I suddenly noticed a stunning resemblance of a map of Britain composed of whispy clouds. Where Ireland ought to have been was a broad rainbow, formed by the sunlight refracting in ice crystals tens of thousands of feet above the Earth. The conicidential map of Britain soon distorted and was lost in the gentle migration of the clouds, but for a moment, it was really stunning to see.

I have to be honest, I don't have a lot of time for military theory (nor it muust be said, many of the self appointed experts that come out with twaddle). I don't doubt that there's lessons to be learned or that there are better options for any given situation, but at the same time, if you apply a dry military equation you picked up in a book to a real world situation, it's questionable that you understand what was written, what is required, or whther your choice is applicable. Warfare is a form of collective combat and therefore the best commanders are those who are intuitive. Logical, rational solutions are okay provided they work, but so many generals have come unstuck because they applied a set paradigm instead of thinking creatively. In terms of 'offense vs defense', I'm a little perplexed why you say so many factions don't have that sort of concept. It's fundamental, in some form or other, to human psychology.

A great deal is said about offensive strategies. We regularly read about blitzkriegs of armoured divisions, outflanking and breaking through in motorised mayhem. There are debates about targeting strategies for bombers, or the effectiveness of ground attack missions that might disable or destroy an enemy's reaction. Sometimes we discuss other means of harming our opponents, by commercial or logistical struggles. It must be said, we also deeply criticise those leaders in the First World War for their wasteful troop charges, or the seemingly pointless static trench lines that barely moved for long periods. It is in the nature of human beings to focus on offense. Every day, in an instinctual way, we judge each other in terms of aggression and weakness, sometimes without realising. For some, it's a prelude to a decision about violence, or perhaps getting the drop on a business rival. But of course attacking someone in some way carries intrinsic risk, and so we seek allies, people who will co-operate to achieve the objective, whatever it may be, which is of course part of our social behaviour. Most of us would not normally invite an attack. This means that we have to consider our strategy to avoid aggression. Do we behave submissively to avoid antagonising a potential aggressor? Do we rattle our sabres, beat our chests, or shout back to intimidate our enemy and dissuade him from being aggressive? Or, as humanity has often done in the history of warfare, do we man the barricades, dig trenches, and ultimately, build the impregnable fortress? The parallels with the natural world must be blindingly obvious. As a species, do we evolve a fast escape mechanism? a fancy threat display? Bigger teeth, claws, and a nastier temper? Or grow a shell the predator cannot bite through? Defensive strategy is far less studied in military science than offense. We should expect that because defense is often a passive activity rather than one demanding action, and in a primal way, far less attractive to military thinking unless circumstance dictates its necessity. We have learned from millenia of armed conflict that taking the initiative is vital. Now let's consider a defensive campaign in 1940. The Battle of Britain. Most of us already have some appreciation of what went on in that struggle for air supremacy over southeast England, so a careful analysis and comparison of factors isn't necessary here. What is important is the lessons that those few months of bitter fighting teach us about defense. In the first place, Britain is an island. The English Channel formed a sort of moat, a barrier to German conquest, and a not inconsiderable one. That was after all why the Luftwaffe were trying to win air supremacy before an invasion of Britain could go ahead. In other defensive measures, we had detection. Air patrols, radar, and the patient alertness of the Observer Corps. All were very important to Britain's defense, but they only provided information. They could only warn us that the enemy was approaching. The next passive defense were barrage balloons, whose trailing steel cables made flying beneath them a hazardous activity, especially at night when the balloons could not easily be seen. The 'blackout', the dampening of light from urban centers, hid the target. Sometimes phoney lights were deliberately lit to mislead German pilots. Even the anti-aircraft guns, with the potential to wreck an enemy plane, were relatively ineffective. Veterans of the London Blitz recalled how gunners admitted their fire was mostly useless. It did of course help maintain morale. As always in warfare, half of it is psychology. When attacked, a population need to remain spirited whatever the trials they are put under, or the military defense will eventually lose support. Londoners sang songs lampooning the Germans, or songs that voiced the hope they had of surviving. As much as was possible, ordinary life carried on, and it was this stability in society that was so important in keeping defiance alive. None of this would win the battle. Note how the most vital factor was the counterattack, the interceptions of German bombers by hard pressed RAF fighters. Offensive action in defense is an important concept we will return to. Physical barriers have always been present in warfare. Even the warriors of ancient times often learned the benefit of the 'shield wall', or the temporary barricade. Rome made a policy during their imperial period of blocking the routes used by nomadic raiders with stout walls. The medieval nobility often resorted to stone fortifications, visual statements of their status and power, as well as formidable barriers in their own right. But castles are never perfect. Siegecraft emerged even in ancient times to deal with the difficulties of getting through those barriers. Sooner or later a way past would be found. In one siege, the defenders of a city casually remarked to the Roman leader that their siege was pointless - they had enough supplies and water to last ten years. "In that case", The Roman general replied, "We'll defeat you in the eleventh." This brings us to another aspect of defense. Playing for time, or making the best of what time you have, can be a dominating factor. If you need time to strengthen your defense, then you must in some way to delay the approach of enemy forces. Once he arrives, then your defenses will only last until he finds a way in. Notice again that the issue of counterattack arises - in siegecraft, it isn't just about the besiegers. The defenders must seek to retain or withhold the initiative. They must attack or counteract attempts by the enemy to destroy or undermine their stone walls. The First World War developed an entire genre of underground war as men tunnelled beneath No-Man's Land, fending off enemy diggings or placing explosive charges beneath their trenches. Soldiers might sally forth to raid the camps of the enemy, or wreck their siege engines. Yet all these measures can only last as long as the defenders have supplies. Ultimately, a defender must decide whether to attack or surrender at the last, for as their supplies run out, they can only choose between the two, or perhaps as the defenders of Masada did, by committing mass suicide rather than face capture by a Roman legion. Notice the difference in policy during the Cold War. Russian troops faced with ambush habitually took cover and defend their position, whereas NATO forces were trained to counterattack, a policy they regarded as superior in that a proactive attempt to regain initiative was better than letting the enemy pick you off one by one. It is the same principle of reaction once more. It is of course worth noting that there is a subtle difference between a castle and it's more elongated cousin, the defensive line. Each is an expensive form of construct that whilst intimidating and potentially difficult to break through, requires huge investment and must be manned in times of insecurity. It is an unfortunate part of human psychology we inherit from the natural world that the strongest defense often protects the weakest entity. As we grow stronger defenses, so our need to remain aggressive lessens, and we rely on stout walls more and more, becoming at worst indifferent to potential danger, believing our defenses will prevail. History tells us they won't. The great problem with elongated defensive lines is that we spread our troops manning them along a wide distance, whereas within the castle they are concentrated. On the other side of the equation, the defensive line means fewer men might be affected directly by enemy action, whilst the defenders of a fort must suffer together. The problem is, when the enemy eventually gets past the wall, the troops manning the defenses are really not where you want them to be, and in all probability, will not react positively, preferring to retain the protection of their defenses. Note that in a lesser sense, the Iraqi's in Kuwait simply sat in their foxholes. Admittedly they were overwhelmed by a highly mobile offensive and lacked proactive coordination, but at the same time, they surrendered in droves, intimdated by alllied attack and the insidious side effects of waiting to be atacked. Notice that the biological parallel with dinsaurs illustrates the point. Predators hunted animals that either ran away, herded together for protection, or grew hard shells and boney plates. It was still necessary however for some of those herbivores to gain some advantage by adding a means of counterattack. The horns of a triceratops, the heavy mace and tail of an ankylosaurus, or the formidable spikes of a stegodaursus. It is often quoted that {i]offense is the best form of defense[/i]. Military history agrees. Natural history agrees. But do you?

Discipline is "Organised Good Manners" in a modern context. The Romans might not have put it like that, preferring something along the lines of "Obedience and Sufferance". The Rape of Lucretia was the excessive behaviour of one man, Tarquin The Proud, not Roman soldiers en masse. As it happens, the event spurred the revolt against the Roman monarchy and Tarquin was out on his backside. However, as Aurelia says, people who decide to commit such acts generally aren;t too worried about laws if they believe the law can't catch them.

So Barry Scott isn't real? There is a God. Civilisation is saved. Maybe still a bit dirty in places.

Saturday night in my area is never entirely quiet. My street hapens to be a major path between Old Town on the hill and New Swindon at the bottom of it, with clusters of clubs and pubs at either end. So as you might imagine, the Swindon branch of the Inebriated Debating Society often pass by. If that wasn't bad enough, my neighbours are keen on playing music before they go out for the night on the basis it puts them in the mood. For what? Annoying people? It seems to work, because at half-past one they returned with a crowd of like-minded friends in tow, holding an emergency session of the Inebriated Shouting Society. I gather the Police stopped by to quiet them down. Then, an hour later, when their society meeting had run its course and they'd dispersed to spread mayhem around the borough of Swindon, my neighbours decided to play music, because they were in the mood. This time I had to bang on their door. Is that your music? "Erm... Yes it is..." Said the startled young lady at the door, "You want me to turn it down?" Might be a good idea at this point. Finally, in the wee small hours, long after all the fast food and indian restaurants are closed, somebodies girlfriend outside my home side "I'm hungry.... Fooooood!". Of course she could have been a wandering werewolf or perhaps a zombie searching for brains, or maybe an immigrant from the jungles of New Guinea, I don't know. What I do know is she will very likely go hungry until she gets home. Somebody point her in the right direction please... Indian Restaurant Having mentioned indian restaurants, I shoukld mention that I tried a new last night, during the somewhat quieter period when my neighbours were summoning their allies to the relentless thud of a nightclub metronome. The food was very good quality, I have to say, albeit something of an expensive extravagance for my income, but a little of what you like does you good (until today, when the race for the toilet becomes an excruciating exercise for your lower cheek muscles). However, whilst I waited for the meal to be cooked and handed over, I became aware that all the customers were Asians. Every last one of them. I don't begrudge them residency in Britain or the availability of dining out, it's just a very strange feeling to be the only Briton in a restaurant in Britain. Question Of The Week Who is Barry Scott anyway? I ask this because we often see him on television advertising a certain cleaning product, looking glassy eyed after experiencing some purple painted form of high speed transport. I susect those of you spared British television won't even have heard of him. But it occurred to me he's perfect for the US firearms industry. "Wow, that was a fast reload.. When you need home defence... Bang, and the dirt is gone."

A good list but mot entirely accurate... The Goths had been previously defeated by Valens and he was willing to let them settle in Roman territory, especially since they had agreed to become Arians. Although the Huns had set off the process and the threat of their migrations had caused tribal movement, the Goths were involved in an internal power struggle among themselves and Fritigern was only one of the contestants. In fact, a further group of refugees crossed the Danube without permission. Although the Goths intended to settle peacefully as agreed, the local Roman authorities allowed them to be ruthlessly exploited and enslaved., preferring to sell them away rather than pay to support their settlement. Eventually in desperation the Goths rebelled, spurred on by a blatant assassination attemnpt on their leaders (Fritigerm fought his way out of trouble by himself having realised his friends were being murdered). Once at large, the Goths initially won victories against local forces, which demanded that Valens take action. The ambuscades made by Sebatianus and his corps of trained raiders had in fact forced the Goths onto their back feet. Valens was willing to negotiate, but as it turned out the Battle of Adrianople started without official orders while hostages were being arranged.

Or the Minoans, whose empire collapsed because of the tsunami damage the explosion of Thera (modern Santorini) had caused. The Huns were supposed to have been forced to migrate and raid westward because their homeland was becoming too arid for them, leading to all sorts of problems.

But 'niddle class' is a term covering a modern social segment. The Romans were divided into two, Humiliores or Honestiores, which corresponds to whether they were effectively elite or not. The lower class of Roman society was subdivided according to wealth, as previously mentioned, with the only difference between landowners and tenant workers being the ownership of land (obviously). A wealthy tenant might conceivably have more wealth than a landed farmer, although the rights and obligations thereof were different because of the land issue. *honestiores / humiliores - during the Empire, the populace was divided broadly into two classes. The honestiores were persons of status and property, the humiliores persons of low social status. Only the latter were subject to certain kinds of punishment (crucifixion, torture, and corporal punishment). (From The Latin Library)

I think the Romans had a somewhat pragmatic view of war. It was a desirable activity in a martial society, and the Romans were in their early days a very agressive culture. Of course it was clear that if you play with swords, sooner of later someone is going to lose blood, limbs, or life. Unlike today, where we have a media that portays mixed messages about war and thus everyone finds something about war that suits their sensibilities irrespective of how the reality is, the Romans had only one reality of war or the heroic tales of legend and veterans. Incidentially, to call the early Roman armies a middle class affair is a bit distorting. It was certainly a matter for the land owning classes, but 'middle class' wasn't really a feature of Roman society back then. rather, society was graded according to wealth with five civil categories defined by their ability to arm themselves to a certain level. Only the highest grade, the category that became equites or horsemen, would evolve into a sort of middle class.