caldrail

Where shall I go today? The library, so I can do more internetting? Or the Support Centre so I can do more job searching? It doesn't really matter because I'll end up doing both today as I do every day. Today I will go to the library first I think. Nothing ike variety in the working day. The road crossing outside the library also happens to be where the main entrance to the Old College building site is. The tarmac is crumbling under stress and has become a building site all of its own as repairs to the road take place. With lorries coming and going from the Old College site regularly, combined with the wet weather we've been having , the road is a shade of sandy brown with little ridges of half dry mud. The lads on the gate are often seen sweeping the mud away and occaisionally a lorry is parked nearby with a tank of water and cleaning apparatus. I've gotten used used to it I suppose. But I had to laugh earlier - I was following a pair of east european lads when one of them stopped short of the muddy entrance and refused to go any further. It's just a thin patina of mud, my friend, not quicksand. Honestly, they leave friends and family behind and travel hundreds of miles to discover that despite our wonderful benefits payments, they're just as at risk of getting their clothes dirty. Our Wonderful Benefits Payments It's a wonder I still qualify now that our glorious leader has declared war on claimants. Just the other day I received a huge form to fill in. it must be returned by the due date or payments may stop - the information must be correct or payments may stop - it must be retuirned in the correct envelope or payments may stop - Okay, okay, I get the message. I'll run around everywhere like a headless chicken collating all the information demanded. Phone the doctors surgery to get an exact date. No point phoning the Council - their phone system is designed to induce apoplexy in those attempting to pierce its defenses. I swear there are skeletons with boney fingers around a handset with a tinny voice repeating periodically "Please wait - we're trying to connect you to an advisor". Apparently I missed an interview at the Job Cente about my future as a jobseeker, which is why the form arrived through the post in the first place. It might help if I received it before the day afterward. But hey, that's how things are done in rainy old Swindon. Annoyance Of The Week Yes, it's our old friend, BFG. This morning I had the misfortune to be at the computer when she decided to sit in the next computer. If anyone else made the same running commentary of her woes concerning the library computers she'd throw a tantrum. Just ignore her. When she realises we're not paying her any attention, she'll eventually shut up.... Except she discovered the young lady on the helpdesk is a very helpful person and basically demanded that she ran errands while BFG struggled with her argumentative computer. Ding ding... Round three...

Work at the Old College site proceeds apace. I know this because firstly there's a huge jungle of steel girders blocking the view from my back window, and secondly, because they've starting demolition of the brickwork in one corner of the site in order to create the entrance to a new car park. Every time the digger brings down the bucket to smash the bricks the whole terrace of houses in which I live vibrates. Really, the house has been shaking intermittently for the last few days. I'm actually bouncing on my seat. Little Monkeys Monkeys can be entertaining to watch. Like other people I've marvelled at the graceful slow motion of Orangu-tangs, the lightning quick bursts of gymnastics from gibbons, or laughed at the parodies of human activity from chimpanzees. Actually, come to think of it, the closeness of human and primate behaviour can be a bit embarrassing sometimes. Like that male chimpanzee sat on top of a climbing frame in Auckland Zoo. As soon as he saw me watching him, he gave a big monkey grin, stood up, and enjpyed a very full on wee. Yes yes yes, I see you. They share 99% of our DNA you see. What do monkeys eat? I suspect the obvious answer for most of us is bananas. Finally, after millennia of keeping animals in captivity, one zoo has realised that monkeys are happier eating green vegetables. They behave better, and I suspect, enjoy fewer visits from the veterinarian and his pesky blowdarts. Here's the thing. Primates that eat bananas have too much sugar in their diet and it drives them... well... bananas. Which I suspect is largely the cause of Attention Deficit Disorder in young human beings. Not because of bananas I have to say, but because there's so much sugar in our diet overall. So give your kids less Sunny Delight, Cocopops, Halibo sweeties and maybe the local policeman with his pesky blowdarts won't be dragging the kids home every evening with acres of unreadable grafitti left in their wake. After all, why wouldn't the same thing work for our little monkeys, assuming you can ween them off stuff that tastes nice? There you go. Helpful dietary advice from Dr Caldrail. You know what? I fancy some chocolate right now... Ahh yeah... Yeah.. Oh that's good... Wow. Ah'm feelin' bad... Pretty Woman of the Week You have to be a bit wary of tabloid news stories, especially those connected with celebrities, but I couldn't help noticing recently that Cameron Diaz has been quoted as saying that we shouldn't refer to women as pretty because it forces the female of the species to strive toward a visiual ideal they may not be able to attain, and to suffer the mental torment of failing to achieve it. Cameron my love, you are such a silly girl. Quite apart from the fact that the female of the species causes the male no end of grief regarding their appearance, behaviour, commitment, and domestic capability, is your career based entirely based on your talent as an actress? Face it, if you were a frump, where would you be? You're a very pretty woman Cameron. So please stick to the script. It is, after all, your lifestyle choice.

Animals weren't slain to feed the poor - they were put into the arena either to be hunted ritually (or more to the point, for entertainment), as bestial galdiators, or as a means demonstrating justice to those unfortunate comdemned individuals tied to a post in front of it. The arena at Pompeii was a popular venue -0 it was after all a purpose built amphitheatre which survives to this day (albeit after being buried), and was once the scene of crowd violence as Pompeians fought audience members from a nearby town, prompting Nero to ban Pompeii from holding fixtures there for ten years. The extent of poverty isn't really the issue either because the act of goiving meat would be a matter of securing votes (the Romans were absolutely shameless in their political graft) thus anyone in the audience could rasonably expect to partake of what was available, with the proviso that they would suffer negative reaction if they were known to be able to afford food without worry. Bear in mind there was no fee or ticket price for watching the games - it was all civic largesse. Also bear in mind that the Romans often expected the wealthy to pay for their entertainment and welfare - that's one reason why Romans rushed to visit their patron of a morning, and in an unrelated incident, Tiberius once had to order troops into a town because the ciorpse of a dead centurion was being held for ransom until the family paid for a munera to celebrate his death. There are reasons to debate the issue of poverty in Pompeii -one tlelevision archaeologist has pointed at the obvious prosperity (allowing for the natural disasters that afflicted the place between 69 and 79ad). Nonetheless, the poor were allowed a grain dole if they had an adress to live at - a subsistemnce ration to prevent them from starving, and we know that urban populations were not absolutely secure regarding provisions - food riots were not unknown in ROman times. Pompeii has a geographical adavntage and clearly prospered from the availability of produce, both of land and sea, yet there must have been those whose incomes or career prospects made a gift of slaughtered meat very welcome (it would have have been a treat anyway), and of course the Roman public had come to expect such generosity. In terms of numbers of animals slain the total would have been nothing like the city of Rome, but occaisionally a big cat or two, an elphant, or something similar to delight a rural town audience with something they wouldn't ordinarily see, both to be impressed with displays of aggression, speed, grace, or simply because the animal was exotic, and also the display Roman mastery of nature.

2014. At last. All those god awful christmas songs have been put back on the shelf for another eleven months and life returns to normal. Apart from floods in Britain and blizzards in the US, or the usual woes of war and famine elsewhere. There's also been a distinct lack of a Rapture - that's when Jesus returns and magically transports his believers into paradise leaving behind their worldly goods, which lets face it, would be a charter for looters here in Blighty. You have to admire End Timers for sheer stubborness in the face of reality. Ever since the Great Disappointment of 1844 they've been waiting for Jesus to get his act together - Still hasn't happened. Oh but it will, they tell us, and those of us not whisked away will suffer drunkeness, looting, and party political broadcasts. What kind of year has it been for me? Well, I've been Lord Caldrail for four years now and suprisingly it seems to be gaining some acceptance in the hallowed halls of the local Job Centre. Who would have thought the last bastion of working class socialism in Britain would find it in their hearts to recognise that dole claimants aren't all the same? So I look forward to another year of progress and who knows? Perhaps there really is gold at the end of a rainbow, a car that really is what the adverts describe, a lost city of Atlantis waiting to be discovered, or a government that will get it right. A Dog Is For Christmas Pets seem to be perrennial gifts and sadly, as we know, many get discarded one way or another. A mate of mine has had a different experience. His erstwhile girlfriend decided the dog was too cute to be left behind and departed with the animal. From what he tells me it was turning into a strange sort of 'tug-of-love' contest, but not only is the confused animal now back with its original owner, my friend has inherited a another puppy to keep it company. Of course putting two dogs together causes a slight problem in that they had to negotiate social status, rights, and pecking order, resulting in growls, chases, bitten fingers, much shouting and the usual chaos of animal interaction. However, all is well, as the next day he came downstair in the morning to discover that a treaty had been signed and both dogs were curled up asleep together. Awwww... Cute.... Well it was Christmas after all. Job Interview Of The Week A few days previously I'd applied for a job over the internet. The recruitment agency tried to get in touch, I tried to get in touch with them, but between the vagaries of my mobile phone and the hussle and bussle of recruitment, somehow contact was as easy as contacting space aliens on Planet Zarg. However, in the evening I received a phone call from a lady who wasn't my contact at the agency, but who was following up the application nonetheless. At least something's happening. She asked what I normally applied for then enquired why did I want this job? Well, it has something to do with being unemployed, needing to pay my bills, and satisfying a government hell bent on forcing me into the gutter. It isn't difficult to understand. Actually, it turned out she didn't understand. Not only was she unable to grasp why I applied for the job, she went into a minor tantrum and tried to give me the benefit of her opinions. Hmmm... Think I'll hang up and leave her to it. Clearly a woman without a dog this year.

It is believed that meat from animals slain in the arena were distributed to the poor as part of the civic largesse ( also to avoid the need for huge burials and secure votes for the games editor).

The simple exostence of modern superstition is two-fold - firstly that it is natural to human beings and that we pass those superstitions to the next generation as part of our culture, and secondly, the explanations for the state of existence that inspires superstitious belief is more diffcult to understand due to the nature and complexity of scientific principles as opposed to the much less complicated statements of religion As for today being the most superstitious age - ridiculous. Since when did the Joint Chiefs Of Staff sacrifice aniomals to discern whetjher the Godsapproved of Operation Desert Storm? Really? So the fact that the Romans existed as a human culture, that they achieved an extraordinary influence over our own, and that we're both using a website devoted largely to discussing their history, is of no possible relevance? I would steer clear of such pseudo-intellectual waffle if I were you.

It most certainly does not. Or are we to imagine that the shape of someone's nose dictates whether it is acceptable to gas them? Or that the Earth is flat? Or that Atlantean spaceships are on their way to rescue the chosen before the an uncoming apocalypse? Or that the End Is Nigh and the Rapture is happening any time soon? Concepts are merely ideas, nothing more. Facts are established by evidence, not ideas. They most certainly did not. The greeks got there befopre them, and arguably, there were much earlir tales that might loosely be described in that genre from civilisations that predated the Romans by a considerable margin. However I would point out that whilst elements of that literary genre might be present, the genre itself requires sicnece as a popular basis for story-telling which requires a certain education from its readers, or else the story is no more than mere fairy tales (a fault I level at the modern Dr Who series). Since sicence was a very limited subject in ancient times to say the least, any such basis for popular literature has to have been largely coincidental.

Whilst I appreciate that even today we tend to be superstitious (Heck, I still my horoscope even though I know it's bunkum), the extent to which superstition drives our lives is different to that experienced by the ancient world. Although you discount education, I would argue that you have learned that a thunderstorm is the result of physical interactions within our enviroment rather than any act of God. There's still the irrational component of our brain that tells us we ought to not step under a ladder, but then, isn't that the result of learned response from our peers and parents, and thus an educative argument rather than a rationally considered option for improved safety?

There are plenty of climatologists who have similar views. Check out newspapers from the twenties. In the US, you will find stories about massive floods with hundreds of deaths that are now forgotten. Human beings have short memories and short lives. So we tend to see the world in a shorter time scale and ignore evidence that experts have been recording for a long time. Whilst average global temperatures have risen a small degree in the last century (I can't deny that), they rose much more more since the "Litlle Ice Age" of the 18th century, or haven't reached the peak of the "Medieval Warm Period". These things aren't just human intgervention - whilst we aren't helping things by our sheer impact duie to numbers - there are a great many people seeking to profit from fears concerning global warmiong. Anway, it doesn't matter. Humanity is foolish to believe they can control the Earth or that the Earth will remain exactly as it was forever. Climate changes all the time and we've been very lucky over the last ten thousand years. Sooner or later that luck will run out and we either cope or enter the fossil record. That's how it is. Bleating on about eco-this that or the other won't help one jot, nor the taxes we pay to fund it.

Rationality and logic have little to do with this. The facts are that ancient peoples were usually very superstitious, the Romans particularly so, and for them crossing a river wasn't just a physical act - it was trespassing on the domain of a local god who might take offence at their presence and sweep them away to their deaths. Whilst you or I might shake our heads at their reticence, bear in mind that we have a different worldview and better education that they did. For them, things happened because of divine intervention. Romans saw thunderstorms as evidence of a gods anger (note how dispirited troops were in Germania ad9 when the storms broke overnight. It wasn't just that they were wet and windblown, they were at a low ebb of morale. Note how Romans would buy lead pellets inscribed with the name of the gladiator they wished to curse, or that next to a temple you would find a vebndor selling the various paraphenalia a worshipper needed to properly appease or pray to a god, or that Romans would voluntarily bury or deposit in water artifacts as offerings for divine favour)

Slingers operated in loose formation as any other skirmisher type, but for that matter, taking cover wasn't necessarily the done thing. If there's any cavalry nearby, you're in serious trouble if you don't tough it out togetjher. Historically there are many examples of units standing under fire - I concede that sometimes they had little choice - Carrhae, Adrianople, et al - but you find that taking cover was sometimes viewed as a cowardly way of behaving on the battlefield.

Slingers from the Baleric isles would represent a cadre of skilled men rather than the islanders as a whole, who fund useful employment of those same skills on the battlefield as mercenaries. The availability of skill with slings might also might have been a local cultural emphasis too.

It isn't emntirely a myth. The Romans were very averse to crossing rivers without appeasing the local gods in some way, an aspect of everyday ancient life that isn't usually considered. Auguries were taken before a battle as another instance, including an ancestor of Augustus who called for chickens to be tested before a naval battle. He didn't like the result and had the birds thrown overboard, for which the gods denied him victory. Also we have other instances such as the mutiny in Pannonia which was settled due to Drusus taking adantage of a lunar eclipse, or the refusal of Caligulas three legions to embark for Britain, or Claudius's freedman persuading superstitious legionaries to embark for Britain, and so on. The fact that the world is dark and mysterious, or perceived as such in common belief, does not mitigate against the minority who either aren't afraid of such things or are under the impression that their actions are properly patronised by their own gods. Necessity is npt only the mother of all invention, it's a major motivation against the unknown too, amnd for that matter, since our own world can be explored from our armchair these days, the concept of a dark unexplored world map is something we've largely come to forget these days. The ancients saw things a little differently to us.

I'd never heard of him. His significance apparently derives from involvement in the AWI on the American side rather than French politics, which is understandable I guess, but here in Blighty he's pretty much forgotten.

Roman sexuality wasn't much different from today albeit sex was more readily available via slaves or cheap prostitutes. However, the idea that all Romans behaved like Nero's party guests is a bit off target - many Roman's were very moral, although wealth was always the problem. With prospertity comes free time and that encourages the looser side of human nature.

The idea that morale is the major factor is not unusual - I've always said myself that half of war is pschology - and many years ago I came across a wargamer whose rules were based entirely on morale both because it did away with bookeeping of casualities but also because it meant that players had to be more aware of circumstance to be successful. I tried it but somehow it just didn't work for me. However, morale is certainly a huge factor in warfare. With it, men will stand against impossible odds, even to their own sacrifice. Without it, an army collaspes. Ancient cavalry weren't weak, the horse gave them weight, height, and mobility. Infantry needed to act coherently - a weak defence would be ripped open by cavalry and this was why infantry were so keen to fend off horsemen, resulting in cavalry tactics to threaten, harass, and outflank enemy infantry.. Once an infantry unit began to break, as might well occur under pressure from cavalry, the horsemen would likely wreak havoc and anyone getting away from them could call themselves very lucky. But then you don't have a japanese mindset. For them, it was a matter of honour and logical exchange. Firstly samurai tradition (or rather, the 1930's reinvention of it) says that a warrior should consider himself already dead and not to be frightened by the possibility; secondly, that dying in combat gave a death a purpose; thirdly, that a suicide attack upon a capital ship was the exchange of one man to sink an entire ship crewed by a thousand, which to the Japanese was clearly an advantageous loss; fourthly, in choosing to die in battle rather than rip his propellors off, he honours his family and ancestors with his conduct. Oh good grief. No, it was a simple matter of dextirty and practicialty. Most people were (and still are) right handed and taught to fight so. Thus they logically met the shield of the enemy on that side who understandably was trying to protect himself as much as kill his opponent. Note that Roman gladiators were invaribaly expected to fight right handed. Those that fought left handed (such as Commodus) were considered unusual.

Unfortuinately statistics regarding climate change on the short scle are difficult to trust because those using them often have an agenda and get very choosy over which figures to use. Rapid warming isn't unusual - it happened at the end of the last glacial period and was way more dramatic than anything we're experiencing now. In any case, the correlation betwen industrial activity and CO2 levels is debatable - there is no direct link because the carbon cycle is not immediate, and in any case, we ought to be adding cosmological CO2 to the equation since we often come into the firing line of gas stripped from Venus by the Solar Wind. If anything, I might believe that deforestation has more to do with it than industry - and that's worrying, since in the story of Easter Island we have a model of a closed system that consumed it's resources and suffered the penalty for overpopulation. Earth as a whole is heading that way for no other reason than we're too succesful as a species. So in other words, we're reaching toward a curve in the "Rabbit & Foxes" diagram.

To add to the explanations given above, I understand that for historical purposes the 'Present' is defined as 1950, because nuclear tests and explosions after this date have rendered carbon dating useless afterward.

Bah! Humbug! it's that time of year when supermarkets try to get us to buy more stuff by playing Christmas Hits Of The Last Fifty Years over the tannoy. I asked a member of staff if the sound could be turned down - she walked away! I'm sorry, do you like Christmas? My Struggle With Earthy Girls Can't be bothered with all this Christmas rubbish. A young lady once told me that Christmas and New Year were the time of year when people are most likely to end it all. I didn't go out with her. But then, trying to go out with a woman is one of those things that very few of us are any good at but try anway out of some primeval urge to spawn more hapless generations that can't get off with a woman either. Here's a funny thing. People often sneer at sports car drivers and their apparent need to flaunt it because they've got it - I should know, I heard all the same comments back when I indulged in the cheaper end of the fast car market. Yet I found that women were attracted by the sight of my bright blue curvaceous and low slung speed machine. Not because of any extension of my physique (that's an unfortunate part of the male psyche), but because it suggested I was wealthy and successful (that's the unfortunate side of the female psyche - as much as hormones, pesonality, and physical attractiveness can spark our emotions, women do instinctively prefer a caveman to fill her larder, spawn her young, protect her from harm, and emable her deep rooted instinct to spend, spend, spend. Face it girls, you know I'm right) But flying aeroplanes? The kiss of death where girlfriends are concerned. Unless she happens to be one of the minority that actually like flying, most girls regard being in an aeroplane as a means either to be thrilled by adventure or to arrive somewhere interesting. Sitting in a grotty old Cessna for an hour, squeezed into a narrow cabin with a guy she hardly knows, subjected to the loud monotonous rasp and roar of a small aero-engine, feeling uninvolved in the entire process of getting from one place to another by air - she is quickly bored and can't escape. So unless you have access to a business jet and the money to reach a warm Mediterranean coast, the experience of flying won't make her think you're good in bed. Also, she will quickly realise that going out with you means she'll be sharing her bed with aviation magazines. What a great day to be flying. Isn't this fun? "Umm, Caldrail, we need to talk" Yes you're right. Hang on a moment Babe... "Eastwich, this is Romeo Juliet, overhead , routing south of London for Little Wimpton, over.... "Caldrail, I've been doing some thinking" Yeah? "I don't think you and I are going anywhere." No no, really, it looks slow because we're so high. Look, we're doing 90 knots. That's over a hundred miles an hour. "So is anything going to happen?" Nah, you're okay, flying is the safest form of travel..... What? Drunkard Of The Week It was all quiet in the early hours last night Drunkards don't like quietness, it disturbs them, and normally at some point there's a singing contest, football chants, threats of physical violence, appeals to lost girlfriends, or sometimes incoherent yelling. However, this time we got a treat. A drunk singing that old English favourite... I'm forever blowing bubbles Pretty bubbles in the air They fly so high Nearly reach the sky .... At which point he either fell over, bumped into a lampost, got squished by a passing car, found a friendly policeman, or considering how much alcohol was in him, did something extremely dangerous like try to light a cigarette. The residents sighed, pulled their blankets and duvets over themselves, and went back to sleep.

Wheat. The Romans needed it to make bread, their staple diet, and later would rely on Egyptian imports to supply the eternal city (that's why Augustus kept it as a personal preserve). Hopwever we know that supplies were sometimes prone to the vagaries of agriculture, and note that at one point shortages forced Augustus to send away 'useless mouths' to maintain enough food supplies for everyone else. As it happens. Nero was very fond of sumptuous dinners, delighting his guests with all manner of unexpected treats.

All you're doing is describing a modern military unit that you're familiar with. That's not history, and until you've derived something from historical or crchaeological sources in context, it does not describe functions of an army that lived in a different culture two thousand years ago. Looking for similarities teaches us nothing. It's the differences that matter.

1 - If one book is based upon the other, then you're still speculating about why. So no, I don't agree. And I;m not convinced the books are closely related as you insist. There's bound to be some similaruty given the nature of historical events and those who witnessed them. A future historian might draw similar conclusions from comparing current newspaper stories - there's no significance other than the story they relate. 2 - If the gospel writers are recording oral information derived from eye witnesses, then yes, they will agree. That's not conspiracy or invention, it's simply recording what people said. 3 - We're not accusuing you of fabrication - Please don't tempt us - We're pointing out repeatedly that you haven't done anything more than compare texts from a limited sample. If you watch the evening news, you'll likely see politicians being given a hard time for doing the same thing. That has failed to convince anyone. If you believe the Flavians 'invented' christianity, which has little if any support here, then you need to find proof that supports your conclusion other than another comparison of texts. The simple fact is you're going to struggle to find any, but I think you already know that, which is why you ignore the obvious and attempt to limit your sampling - which any statistician will tell you leads to inaccuracy.

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with this, nor should yours, given that this is a history forum and not a site for religiois conformance. Gilius has derived a concept from comparing texts which is tenuous and dependent on limited scope, not to mention modern translation and historical censorship. There really isn't any convincing reason to believe his conspiracy theory because it has limited credibility, no historical context, nor does it make sense. If the Flavians invented christiabnity, why? Why didn't they promote it as Constantine did? Why isn't there flavian era christian temples in the Roman world? Why aren't pagans moaning about the change of religious policies? Why isn't there any strife in Roman streets as there was in the late empire? Why isn't there any flavian era grafitti or inscriptions that illustrate the new policy? There just isn't any realistic motivation for believing that the Flavians invented christianity.

Of course there's climate change - it happens al the time - the Earth is a dynamic enviroment ifluenced by all sorts of things. To imagine we're the sole cause of it is actually illustrating how self important mankind can be. The problem is we're now more concious of these changes, because there are more of us to affect with more devices to record the changes. If you look back at older newspapers, say the between the wars, there are any number of reports of floods in America for instance, with great loss of life. Terrible weather is not unique to the modern day - it's just that unless we experience it, we tend not to consider it. The debate here is to what extent humanity is responsible for the changes. I cannot agree it's solely our own work, but with such things as deforestation, there has to be some suspicion that we're changing the balance out of our favour. That won't destroy the world, just lots of lives eventually. After all, experts reckon that all signs of civilisation will be eroded away by nature in two hundred years should mankind cease to be. What's that on a geological scale? Blink and you'll miss it.

Statistics won't prove it either. How many times does this need to be emphasised? Gilius needs an independent source of evidence before his comparison will be taken seriously.