caldrail

Who remembers Newsround? It's a daily news program for kids that's been around since I was old enough to understand what a news program was. Back in those days the stalwart John Craven, now more usually associated with Countryfile, was the anchorman and roving reporter. I met him once at a school near Bristol where some community thing was going on. The RAF had brought in a rescue helicopter to show off to visitors, and the Duke of Edinburgh was scheduled to visit that afternoon. We spoke to Mr Craven briefly, as I remember he asked us what the helicopter was called. If anyone should know, it's a bunch of teenagers in uniform. Later we discovered the extraordinary truth that the Duke of Edinburgh not only had a sense of humour, but also watched television. Never again will I see the royal family the same way. Today I bumped into Newsround again. I was called into the museum early because a camera crew were dropping in to report on the release of the new Nintendo 3DS. Yes, children, it's real. Quite astonishing what the company have achieved but I'll leave it to you and your strapped-for-cash parents to discover the pro's and con's of it all. It was interesting to see how they conducted the filming. A bunch of kids were roped in to try the new gizmo out - though I'm afraid you will have to watch the report on television because Auntie Beeb will have me publicly flogged if I say too much. In fact, the kids were complete and utter stars. They remained patient and coped with the excitement of this new experience like they were born to it. Who says you should never work with kids? Confessions of a Grown Up Kid I tried a Wii today also. Never before have I enjoyed a game of golf. In fact, I've played golf around the world. No, really, I once did nine holes in New Zealand. Eventually. By The Way... Our boss at the museum likes his game consoles. He was, probably, the man most qualified to be interviewed.. Oh hang on... I see him smiling in front of the camera as he tries out the new ground-breaking never-before-seen multidimensional Nintendo wotsit. Quiet please, everyone... Let's go for another take...

Some of you might be enjoying Neil Olivers touchingly human investigation of our prehistoric ancestors. Not only are the BBC making interesting television, they're also supporting it with a 'Hands On History' campaign throughout the country. Last night the campaign reached my neck of the woods. At Swindon Central Library we welcomed Bob Trubshaw, a researcher and author on prehistoric monuments. He presented a talk on The Origin of Sacred Places, demonstrating himself to be an accomplished speaker who delivers lectures with a sincere passion for his subject. The subject matter turned out to be a little misleading, not for any dishonesty on his part, but because his audience sees things from a modern perspective and not through the eyes of people who lived in prehistoric times. Our idealism of the countryside is a concept unknown in ancient times. It's a phonemonon that has developed from increasingly sophisticated art and a desire to recreate idyllic renditions of it. We see the countryside as a cultural asset, a facility to be enjoyed, which I admit I'm all too guilty of. A few generations ago, it was no more than a workplace where people earned a living by farming it. If you go back far enough, when the prehistoric monuments were being built, the countryside was a wild and dangerous place. There's been a great deal said about our ancient monuments. The ubiquitous stone circle, typified by Avebury and Stonehenge, carry with them endless explanations of their astronomical alignment, purpose, even connections to mysterious ley lines or alien visitors. Bob Trubshaw has a more grounded vision of sacred places from the most distant antiquity.What he stresses is that stone circles are not built on the landscape by themselves. Surrounding sites like stone circles are other kinds of monument connected with them. If the time is taken to study the relationship between these forgotten places of worship and the situation, their placement is clearly no accident. We find it difficult to set aside the notion that the stone circles were built at places intrinsically important. Perhaps there's an element of that, as Mr Trubshaw admits, given some sites have signs of earlier use. However, there is every reason to believe that sites were planned deliberately to create a sense of awe. That may seem an obvious point. Yet we should realise that these places were not necessarily used as sacred sites all year round, but where sacred rituals were performed on specific days. Have we then spotted an element of how our distant ancestors worshipped? Unlike the modern day, when we attach value to places without a second thought, it appears that prehistoric communities attached more value to what you did.

Would you believe it? A damp and dreary day in Rainy Old Swindon. The rainforests of Darkest Wiltshire never let you down. Luckily the wetter stuff happened in the night. I am told it absolutely poured with rain during the night. I wouldn't know, I was deep in snooze mode and even my neighbours door slamming in the early hours barely raised my eyelids. But, damp or not, today was another day on the farm, so I headed out to the programme centre for another great day of learning how to apply for jobs. Did you know I've been unemployed for nearly three years? You'd think I would know how to fill in application forms by now. Funnily enough, I sort of get it more or less right. Most of the time. I did laugh at the role play session. Before anyone wonders, no, it wasn't about warriors or wizards battling gealtinous cubes in dark tunnels, but a pair of instructors demonstrating How Not To Be Interviewed. "So," The lead instructor asked, "What do you think the first guy got wrong?" He had to ask. That was a red rag to a bull. So I whipped out the piece of paper and read off line after line of hopeless errors and mistakes in interview technique, sounding like a policeman booking in a criminal. The instructor fell over laughing, completely unable to keep up with the pace as he scrawlled on a paper board all the points I rattled off. "So," The lead instructor asked, "What do you think the second guy got right?" Dunno, really. I wouldn't hire him either. A Strange Kind Of Dog I passed a dog on my way to the programme centre. Odd sort of beastie. Sort of like a bulky lurcher with a massive shag pile carpet glued on. I asked the owner what it was. A crossbreed, so he told me, bought from a rescue centre. Part border collie, part something else. He said his gog was unusual. I watched it circle, then prepare to do his business. Looks the same as other dogs to me.

Interesting thread, especially since lately there's a been a number of television programmes investigating early human societies. Our expansion from Africa, the Ice Ages, and the various stone ages. Our pagan ancestors evolved in perspective. We know that the paleolithic tribespeople saw themselves not as seperate from nature (as is common in christian thinking, partially descended from inheriting Roman attitudes, partly by our modern success as a species, especially technologically), but instead, as intrinsically part of it. The adoption of farming in neolithic times brought about a change, where humans realised they could manipulate the world around them for their own advantage, and a connection with the land they live own emerges. Not just for territorial instinct, but because they invest time and effort in one particular place for survival. Also, with the extra free time and need to co-operate, social instincts are heightened, thus introducing a concept of ritual beyond that of communicating personally with whatever spiritual entities supposedly existed. Of course, the need to protect territory also emerges, and sadly, the social and religious changes in outlook evolve along with aggression and eventually organised warfare. It's an irony, I think, that becoming succesful has made us prone to managing violence, and that the Romans, who saw themselves in imperial times as the most succesful of all, that they ctreated an industry concerned with that end alone.

A couple of days ago I walked through the town centre. A street preacher was haranguing passers by with a disjointed sermon, triplets of words bellowed at the top of his voice as he sought someones attention, anyones attention. "It's your choice!" He proclaimed, "You can choose!" We certainly can, mate. We certainly can. We exercised our right and carried on about our lawful business. Except there are some people who are not permitted the same rights. They are not allowed to choose. There is of course a certain gentleman whose choice has been denied. He knows full well his hair is being cut against his wishes, by people who prefer not to reveal themselves. If this man cannot choose his own style and length of hair, what is he? I have no doubt the perpetrators feel good about themselves for what they've done. Human beings enjoy inflicting harm or their will upon others - they always have - and any excuse will do. Envy? Hatred? Or do they claim a matter of honour? Or do they lurk in the shadow of wealth? Or do they hide their own decisions behind the supposed will of god? And if they do achieve their goals, will they stop there? Or will they feel deprived of pleasure and find another excuse to continue their persecution? This gentleman acknowledges the Christian offer of free will. Provided, of course, they recognise that he does indeed have that right to choose even when that choice disagrees with their sensibilities. That is respectful, is it not? In any event, it doesn't matter, because the laws of England guarantee freedom of choice. It guarantees freedom from the imposition of someone elses will by force, or the physical harm inflicted to achieve it. They have no excuse. None at all. Don't say he didn't warn you.

Oh great. A miserable start to the day with a typical grey rainy day. Better still, the Job Centre have decided to put me on yet another course to fill my increasingly busy schedule, and guess what? Someone forgot I was already on a course elsewhere. Now I must attend two courses this week and if I fail to attend "it may affect your benefits". As it happens I met a guy from Eritrea of all places. He came here to earn a living and avoid the troubles in his home country. It's been two years since he's seen his wife and family. A little reminder that, even though it's raining out there, maybe things ain't so bad. Or Are They? A new course today? Well I definitely need to make sure I don't look like I've been dragged off a scrapheap even though it feels that way sometimes. So I ran the bath. That's a bit of a luxury these days given the price of gas. Not to worry, this is going to feel soooo good... Cold! What the..? My boiler isn't working. Why is my boiler not working? Sher-rail Holmes immediately went downstairs and deduced from the available evidence that the gas had been turned off by some idiot in the night. Thanks for that. The gas company assures me the supply is still valid. The letting agent assures me they'll inform the maintenance people. Back to my primitive manual methods of wiping dirt off then. I can just imagine a Roman smirking at my barbarous lifestyle!

As it happens discipline was harsh, but often lax. It appears that unless there was a pressing need, such as a current conflict, it was easier for commanders to simply let their men go on leave. What might suprise some people are records that show up to half a legion were away on leave at any moment in peacetime. The big disadvantage of a standing army is giving them something to do. Much depended on the legionary commander. A few were very good and notice that the best were usually only involved in running a legion when hostilities were in progress. Otherwise, a better bet was to stay in politics. There are clues that legates could be quite lazy, indifferent, and more concerned with their own lifestyles than running a military unit, which I suspect the centurions were only too pleased about. As for learning tactics, the Romans weren't so willing to adapt foreign ideas. Sometimes they tried things, but in most cases they maintained good traditional roman soldiering, because they knew better than anyone else (get the point) and being a conservative people, new ideas were not encouraged (dare I say it - discipline relies on maintaining standards?). The thing,is, no army ever invents things and adopts practises because they're clever or worthwhile. They adopt things out of necessity. If you're the victor, if you have all the military strength you need, what possible need is there to change anything?

The answer to the original question results from two things. Firstly, the Romans were proud of their legions and thought they were naturally the best, and tell us in their writings, so we adopt the same view without hesitation. Secondly, the legions are somewhat mythologised and the image of a miltary machine marching remorselessly against all who stand uselessly against it is a icon of strength and power that resonates with the human psyche. In other words, the superiority of the legion is greatly exaggerated by reputation and image. Most commonly you'll see the legions described in glowing terms and in comparison with modern armies. A luittle idd, don't you think? In fact, the Romans themselves admit there were serious deficiencies in their armed forces. Tacitus for instance gives the game away. When the the legions in Germania and Pannonia mutiny upon hearing the death of Augustus, he simply dismisses the causes as being essentially the same as usual. The legions were a two edged weapon. On the one hand, they were recruited from people regarded as fit, healthy, virile, and inherently aggressive. They wanted men who would thrust swords into men, women, and children if so ordered. But of course, men like that are hard to constrain, so the Romans tolerated a higher level of bad behaviour than we would today. Any idea that the Roman legionaries were professionally behaved is not consistent with our sources. We know how willing they were to con their own colleagues, how often they tried to get off hard labour by any excuse, or obtain leave. We know how often legion supplies 'fell off the back of a cart', or how readily they 'requisitioned' civilian property. We know how easily they mutinied, retreated, deserted, and chose the wrong boss. They were, in no uncertain terms, a necessary evil. But the essential truth is that glory was one means by which the Romans kept them more or less loyal. And that message survives to the modern day.

That's a little worrying. We usually get your secondhand weather imported soon afterward. And we've already had a cold snap already. I didn't have it too bad, albeit reduced to living in a duvet, but it got a bit rough for some and we Brits simply have no idea how to handle winter.

Hi Doc. Glad to see you've un-topsied your private life. As to letting people down, some people do find that easy. It's about their selfishness or respect for for others. Then again, sometimes our own expectations are unrealistic. We sometimes assume things are going great, only to discover how wrong we were. That's the risk you take. Good grief, I'm getting all serious and philosophical. Talking about commitment is all very well, but the lesson, I think, is to enjoy things for what they are. Our self worth should based on self-respect and personal goals, not the comfort of a carefully constructed world around you. Castles built on sand? Plenty of people do that. Right, that's enough seriousness. Somewhere, in this wild and woolly town, someone is doing something incredibly stupid and I want to be there to report on it. I lead such a simple life

The convulsions rippling through the moslem world recently seem a litle strange to me. Maybe I'm used to fundamentalist uprisings in the wake of Iran's revolution and the anti-western stance of their factions ever since, but I do note the popular unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, and now Lybia, where dissent is spreading among common folk. I must admit, it's a little baffling to me why there's a sudden change. Democratic movements in islamic countries? We're not used to hearing that. For now, the idea that common people can overturn what they consider as autocratic and selfish regimes is spreading. In some cases, the regime has changed as a result. I have the luxury of not needing to worry about the political and strategic implications upon the worlds stage since I am only a bystander to events dislayed on my television. My worry is that these democratic regimes have, in the long term, merely swapped one major problem for another one already existing among them. Fundamentalists don't like democracy. They want their own autocracies instead. How long will it be before freedom and fundamentalism turn on each other in the moslem world? There And Back Last night I stumbled across a film on tv. It's a spanish film called Timecrimes, a sort of psychological thriller in which a man inadvertantly finds himself in a loop in time and no matter how desperately he tries to control events, he can't, and the only escape from his dilemma is to see it all through to the bitter end. I like the way each iteration of the lead character is visually identifiable. Good emphasis on props as plot markers, tightly scripted, pitched almost to the point of maddening inscrutability, and even with subtitles an oddly watchable film, even if it does delve into human ugliness at times.

That's exactly why comparisons should be viewed with caution. It's like a venn diagram. Put our modern world in a bubble and the roman world in another. See where it crosses over onto common ground. Now what have you left out? Quite a lot as it happens. That's a very myopic way of studying history. Sometimes I have to start on that common ground because I don't know any better. But as comfortable as it is, I want to seek out the boudaries of the Roman bubble, not the bit we want to foist onto the Romans from our own time. The idea that the Romans were essentially the same as us and very modern is an idea that's been very common in recent decades. I think it's responsible for huge distortions in the popular understanding of who the Romans were. How good? How do you measure your knowledge of the subject? To my mind, understanding the differences is more important and indeed more indicative of good knowledge.

Not necessarily. This sort of recycling tends to be local in scope, and Constantinople had sources of its own. The question is whether the effort and risk of transporting secondhand masonry and ironwork was worth the price.

Today I spent another three hours on a volunteer stint, manning the reception desk and researching some of the exhibits. Friday mornings are a bit quiet to say the least. Whilst chatting to the boss a young man popped in, sharp suit and dangling camera, for no apparent reason than to find an excuse to show off. It turns out the young man in question, Young D, is something of an entrepeneur. Always starting a business or other, making connections, wheeling and dealing. "This month I made

The trouble is that the greeks had a culture of male familiarity (as did the japanese samurai as it happens, both male dominated warrior cultures), but that only implies homosexuality from our perspective. It's like they had a different form of friendship that allowed intimacy where ordinary relationships wouldn't, and there's no suggestion of any sexual intent between them.

In recent years Swindon has gotten into festivals. A couple of years ago we had a festival of Innovation, which I suspect was not entirely innovative, but since I never attended it I'll have to assume that Swindon was wowed by new and exciting stuff. Last year we had the LEGO-fest. What? You missed it? Shame on you. The museum still has the Mario mosaic crafted lovingly in, yes, you guessed it, LEGO. Proof that Swindon is James May's natural enviroment. Now looming on the horizon is the Swindon Festival of Gaming, which I have the pleasure of helping to organise. You just can't wait, can you? Big ciommunity events take a little time to get together. Last night we visited our intended main venue, our very own Meca, across the road from my favourite haunt, the library. The last time I entered that building was forty years ago as a child, back in the days when it was a cinema. It was a strange experience to see that decorated curved ceiling again. Maybe I'm a bit taller now, or maybe it's because they had to put a new floor in, but the roof felt like a sort of extravagant awning rather than a roof, lower and much closer than I remember it. Actually, it felt a little cosy, an odd sensation for a venue licensed for nearly two thousand people. Oh yes. We have plans. The Festival of Gaming will be big... BIG! ... You have no idea of the havoc we're planning. Comedians can scoff and crack jokes at Swindon all they like, but compared to the good citizens of our ridiculous borough, they're coplete amateurs. Thinking Big Big Society? What's that? Like many people I'm a little perplexed by an ambiguous concept put forward by our government. So perplexed I've been forced to look it up on the internet, the true source of informed opinion and debate, or at least, a good deal more understandable than a politicans waffle. I don't like politicians. Never have. They are by nature a lot less honest than they would like us to believe. Partly that's the nature of people who put themselves forward to rule in our oligarchial democracy, partly because they're persuaded to conform to the wretched system even if they start with good intentions. One of the reasons I despised Tony Blair, besides a bad smile, a wife with a even worse smile, and a bunch of cronies who did nothing but smile when they spent their our money for us, was his use of slogans. Cool Britannia. I mean, what was that all about? Am I paying taxes for that grinning idiot to come out with useless slogans? Now David Cameron has resorted to the slogan too. Big Society. For some reason I don't exactly find myself inspired by that phrase. This is something that annoys me about politics. Whenever things get tough politicians invent a slogan. Churchill did that. He wandered around an area of London demolished by the Luftwaffe and made his trademark vee sign, pronouncing proudly that "Britain can take it!", only to be put straight by an outraged housewife whose home was currently disassembled by a thousand pounder. I once accused David Cameron of being a lightweight. Having become prime Mnister, I decided instead to give him the benefit of the doubt. But resorting to slogans? Sorry, Cameron, you blew it.

What is the significance of his sexual preferences? It seems a bit irrelevant to me.

You can, but with caution. Never assume the Bible is authorative.

Once more unto the Job Centre, dear friends, once more... Apart from my regular signing days I sometimes get called in to attend a more serious interview. I think that's just in case I've charmed the pants off my advisor and get away with all manner of shenanigans. As if. Most of the time I feel one step away from a cancellation of payments and believe me, the Job Centre's do that on purpose. Maybe it's right that they should in that claimants shouldn't get too attached to claiming the dole for a living, but nonetheless it can get a little stressful occaisionally. On this occaision the lady collected me from the waiting area and with a weary detachment went through the usual rigmarole of checking my credentials as a true claimant (yea brother, I have seen the light) and forwarding me onto yet another interminable course to try and assure my ascension to the paradise of the workplace. If there's one thing a bloke likes to see, it's a pretty lady who's bored out of her mind. If only I were younger and not in a an office full of bored people with nothing to do but stare at what's going on around the next desk. Then again, it would help if the government upped my payments so I could afford to wine and dine. That way I could inject the money into the economy where it's needed. You know what I'm saying. Seeing it Differently How wrong can you be? I mean, we all back the wrong horse, buy the wrong DVD player, take pictures at the wrong time, and discover afterwards that you just tried to date an off duty policeperson. What? You haven't? Good grief, get a life. Come to think of it, I used to regularly encounter warehousemen who sauntered past, blithely claiming they never made mistakes. Oh? Like all those pallets of rubber halloween toys that entered the warehouse seven years ago and never got put on the system at all? I think by now many of them regard working in that warehouse as a mistake because the majority have been laid off. The company wanted to get rid of 'all the dead wood' as they saw it. What they actually got rid of was anyone who knew anything about how the stock was productively handled. And, incidentially, everyone who knew better than the amateur managers brought in to run the place. So everyone makes mistakes. That does include me, I have to admit, because I worked for that company too. Also I tend to accept things I've known about for ages. Last night I found out that stone carvings of monsters and demons hanging off the side of medieval monuments are not necessarily called gargoyles. Some of them are merely grotesques. It turns out that a grotesque is a carven image that does nothing except look scary, whilst a gargoyle is a protruding device intended for channeling water. How fascinating. But what, you may ask, is the significance of that interesting item of information? Well for me it's very enlightening, because I now understand that a certain fun part of my anatomy is slowly changing from grotesque to gargoyle as I get older. Can't believe I just typed that out.

In my view (and you will find those who disagree0 the Bible is a disaster as a history book, because it wasn't written to describe events objectively but to promote a certain religion. The bias in the writing is fairly obvious. Not only that, but a great deal of the supposedly 'christian' events are in fact borrowed from asian and middle eastern mythology that existed back then. I am reliably informed that there are cultural details that can be gotten from the work, in terms of behaviour and customs, though even that is coloured by Roman and Medieval thought. The problem is of course that the Bible has not survived in its original form, but now exists as reviosed and censored versions. The Romans decided which of the stories were suitable and junked the rest, inventing heresy at the Council of Nicaea in 325 in order to force the various christian sects to unify and conform (which they didn't, laying the foundation for later religious persecution) Also be wary of taking the dstories out of context. The Book of Revelations is the worst offender by far. As you may well be aware, many christian sects now use this as a modern day prophecy - which interestingly probably isn't too far removed from the style of worship in Roman times other than the overt chauvanism now clutching tightly onto the modern churces. That is of course a convenient interpretation. What I consider more likely is that the book was written as a rally against Rome way back in Nero's reign by disaffected Judaeans, rather like an ancient version of radical moslem propaganda. In that sense, we can determine a possible thread of history in that we see how Roman rule has provoked discontent among a subject people. Now regarding the characters in the book.... Well, it wouldn't suprise me if many of the people described are in fact based on real personalities. I would caution a historian to view the Bible in much the same way as a Hollywood film. It's based on historical events, but uses considerable license and tells its own story for its own ends.

Once again Swindon has returned to it's natural state and raindrops are splattering against the library window. As it happens, the library is very quiet this morning. Partly I suspect because the loudies aren't interested in going there when it rains, but the mood is very subdued anyway. I can't see any reason for that, but it's fine with me. Yesterday Punch & Judy were at their usual shenanigans. In fairness, they weren't as loud as they have been in the past, so it was an intrusive level of noise rather than excessive. Still not comfortable to ive with though. Because peace and quiet is conducive to my work on the computer, I now tend to stay up late into the night working on one thing or another. The only intrusion then is the occaisional male display in the street, which I generally ignore, secure in the knowledge they'll fall over if they stop in one place for too long. A late night is no problem. After all, there's only the odd day when I have to worry about getting up early. Last night, at around half past three, my concentration had ebbed to the point where going to bed was finally necessary. Ah well. it's been a productive night. Can't complain. Unfortunately on my way to the bedroom I stubbed my toe and knocked things over. A great dull thud as something heavy fell onto the landing. Groan. Punch won't like that. Everything I do is some sort of attack on his territorial mastery. That's the problem with him. He's so wound up by hormones and east european machoism he just can't resist treating absolutely everything as a competition in which he has be top dog. It gets a bit depressing to deal with. Sure enough, when he was leaving for work, there was a dull thud on something metallic outside, loud enough to wake me (briefly). The boy is an idiot. Apology refused. Things Beyond My Back Yard Swindon has always had a problem with the outside world. Historically the town was isolated on the north edge of the Marlborough Downs, and only the arrival of canals and railways opened the place up. Avebury was only just down the road and the stone circle there wasn't discovered until 1649, when John Aubrey stumbled across it hunting foxes. That's how wild and remote the region was. It seems the modern descendants of Swindon Man have the same attitude. But enough criticism. let's throw off the yoke of myopic mentality and look at the news concerning the big wide world out there. Be brave, Caldrail. Woman gives birth to own grandson It certainly is a strange forbidding world out there. Woman just eats crisps That might be because she can't afford anything else. Another headline tells us that despite measures the cost of living is rising inexorably in Britain. And I need a news headline to tell me that? Millions of faulty gas meters Well there you go then. Fix her gas meter and she'll be able to afford food again. Fix mine and I'll have hot water and heating the next time we have a cold snap. It does make you think though. I've just endured the worst winter in decades with hardly any heating. No, really. All those television programmes by Ray Mears haven't gone to waste. I'd like to credit Bear Grylls too, but clambering all over the urban landscape the way he does will probably get me arrested if I don't die of exhaustion first.

Misconception? No, actually, I don't think it is. The Romans were very literal about naming ranks and formations and the term 'First Spear' to them was a very meaningful phrase. To believe the Romans used a modern rank system is merely foisting our culture on top of theirs. Theirs was more direct, more feral, and the phrase 'First Spear' very appropriate in my view.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that Marius had particular motives appropriate to his day. The Roman Empire of his time wasn't so large and back then, Rome relied on a militia levied according to need. Given the very traditional mindset of the Romans it's unlikely they would have considered a standing army as necessary, since they desperately wanted to avoid having to do that for it would turn against them - the entire rationale behind sharing command of the consular armies of old. Marius had more immediate concerns. He had struggled to raise units against Carthage because he couldn't find enough veterans to fill his rear ranks. His reforms were designed to avoid that circumstance in case of emergency. Since when were the Roman legions modern? That's a ridiculous anthropomorphic argument. Of course the Romans weren't a modern army. They lived two thousand years ago in a different socio-political and military world. The idea that the Romans clicked their fingers and invented modern armies is a fallacy. They never invented anything unless they had to, and in fact, the Romans had no permanent army structure until the late empire.when increasing size, troop diversity, and security issues made it impossible to do without them. Who ran the legions? It wasn't career military officers. The legions of the Marius Reforms were not regiments in an army, but strategic mini-armies themselves, with a sentatorial overseer to enforce the authority of the Roman state. In fact, the legions had represented a military cross section of Roman society (as indeed you might expect a citizen levy to do), but post-Marian Reforms were designed as a convenience for the state to defend, or prosecute wars if they so chose, by applying a measure of commonsense and practicality to the system. It is true that Marius adopted measures that were in existence already, but in fairness, his decision to create legions based on one class of swordsman is his alone, since before that, it was an emergency measure only and one he had personal experience of.

It's monday. Again. Worse than that, it also happens to be Valentines Day, so it's a bit like Friday the 13th but without all that walking under ladders stuff. Tonight is the annual pilgrammage of single males into the pubs and clubs around town, hoping that some girl will catch their eye. It's all a lost cause of course, and I won't bother. What's the point? I'm not going to be able to get to the bar. All right, I admit it, I was sent a valentine message by a certain lady of my aquaintance. It was a little unexpected, if I were honest, and since the concept of sending little teasers is supposed to be anonymous, I have the perfect excuse to avoid having to name her to all those people for whom other peoples private lives are the main focus of their entertainment. Am I embarrased? No, of course not. there are those who claim I wouldn't be because I sleep with anything, but there are those who claim I'm too fussy. One taxi driver regards me as 'stuck up', but that's really because I think he's a jerk. So... What is the truth about Caldrails love life? The Sex Life of Caldrail Okay, here we go. It all began ...(Deleted by the Britsh Board of Boring People)... with a white mouse. Oh no, wait, that didn't come out right. I mean.. Erm... Is It True? The trouble with us human beings is that we like to present a public image to the world, sometimes even to ourselves. In most cases all we do is embarass ourselves, but boasting about sexual prowess is one aspect of british culture. They're all at it, you know. Like those two lads last night, having a very loud arguement concerning notches on the bedpost. And also who was going to get their head kicked in. Sex and violence. never fails to draw an audience, even with impromptu street performances. Then again, I have Punch & Judy, my turbulent neighbours, whose daily comings, goings, tantrum and giggles, and horrendous singing are impossible to avoid. Despite our exchange of threats and warning letters last year, I still don't think they realise I can hear everything they do. I mean, literally, everything. It's a nightmare. It really is. Oh no... They're doing it again... Please stop... I can't handle it any more... And Finally... Having survived the trauma of the weekend, I can now go about my daily business. So far I haven't been swamped with marital offers, but it's not midday yet, so there's always hope. The sun is shining. The sky is blue. You thought this was romance? More the fool you.

I seem to recall that the Goths were supposed to have migrated out of Sweden.