Melvadius

Therein lies the common problem of not everyone happy with how independent bodies operate, differences of opinion in findings and the subsequent use/misuse of statistics to prove that its their ball and they want to go home. I suppose that having seen some of the underlying statistical evidence I am more inclined to believe in their independence of thought and the IPCC findings as a whole than those of individuals and/or bodies with what appear to be vested interests in negating those findings - including a significant number of the US pressure groups. Using a table of partially 'negative' responses from 3-400 people to indicate that there was no general support from the rest of the (approx.) 4000 people who read a draft document strikes me as trying to use a double negative. Either the other reviewers thought there was no need to respond as the original research was correct or else they thought that their views would not be heard. Having dealt with several individuals from 'environmental' and other NGO bodies over the years I can assure you that they would have been vocal in rejecting draft versions if they thought there was anything wrong with the underlying research. It also wouldn't have been the relatively minor changes/ inclusions of one or two words that were prominently identified in the article you found.

I'm over 30 and it's cause is not obvious to me. I'm not opposed to the idea of climate change, because clearly it is changing (though isn't it theoretically always changing?). In any case, assuming even that man made climate change is absolute truth, it's the notion that controlling this climate change through the current energy reduction concepts and strategies that bothers me. I am honestly more apt to believe that the mere existence of some 7 billion living human consumers (and growing at alarming rates) is more concerning than the burning of fossil fuels alone. Of course, the two have a symbiotic relationship, but I doubt that even the complete elimination of fossil fuel usage would stop the growing environmental concerns caused by our enormous human population. I'm also not convinced that the complete elimination of humanity would stop climate change, whether this would be perceived as advantageous or disadvantageous. I am not trying to say that the there aren't things humans can do to better the environment, but legislating restrictions on all of us because of the possibility... without proof of cause or proof of positive result... bothers me immensely. I can only reiterate that the IPCC findings are presented on the basis of peer reviewed scientific studies. In my view anything which can get several thousand scientists to agree on it stands a fair chance of being the best "proof of cause or proof of positive result" around that the activities of man over the last 500 years are significantly responsible for the current changes in global weather patterns. Although I would rewrite that quote as "proof that human activity has had detrimental effects on global weather".

I somehow doubt that I and a fair few others visiting the board would qualify for any such package so we will probably again end up thoroughly unstimulated by anything Bush wants to waffle on about

I am all for taking an environmenatlists view of what can and cannot be done about climate change but it is possible that some of you are not really aware of the range and depth of scientific evidence that backs up the view that man is responsible for the impending climatic crisis. While it is true that temperatures have been higher than today's in the distant past, for the Northern Hemisphere at least, it is clear the rapid warming of the past half century has resulted in a level of warmth not seen in at least 500 years, and likely for at least the past 1300 years. Southern Hemisphere measurements are scarce and therefore it is difficult to draw such clear conclusions. The important characteristic about the current warmth is that it is global, whereas many previous warming periods have occurred over smaller areas. Climate models indicate that if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, by the middle of the century the world could reach a level of warmth not seen since the peak of the last interglacial period, around 125,000 years ago. At that time, sea levels were around 4 - 6m greater than today. Equally although human emissions are relatively small compared to natural emissions, particularly from ecosystems and the oceans, this is not the whole picture. These natural emissions are relatively in balance: the amount emitted is then reabsorbed. Human emissions tip the balance and lead to an accumulation of gases in the atmosphere. The human source can be shown through, for example, examining the chemical make-up and distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is very unlikely that the rapid increase in global temperatures seen over the past half century could be caused by natural factors alone. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report concludes that most of the observed warming since the mid-20th century is very likely, i.e. a more than 90% chance, due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. Both the spatial patterns and trend of warming can only be explained by the inclusion of human emissions. The IPCC's conclusion is based on a comprehensive peer-reviewed analysis using several lines of evidence. Objectivity is ensured by the broad and open review process and shared responsibility for the report. C/f http://www.ipcc.ch/ for the current situation but be warned there is a lot of information on this website to wade through. No one government, organisation or individual has sole responsibility for any part of the IPCCs reports unlike most of what has been presented by climate change cynics touting the opposite view or in deed that it is ALL 'perfectly natural'. All too often the cynical line is based on poor or at best mistaken science that has at some point been posted on the web without any form of peer review. Even when corrections have been made to originally mistaken premises the uncorrected versions are what continue to be uses as 'evidence' that climate change does not exist. Basically a lot of people would rather believe there was a Government conspiracy to generate more taxes than that there really is a problem that sooner or (much more expensively and with less likelihood of success) later the world's population will have to deal with. Possibly it will take the American Breadbasket to turn into a dustbowl or a different crisis to directly affect them before some will believe there is a problem but somehow I doubt even that would work.

I don't know which GHG smoke stack the author of "An Inconvenient Reduction" was sitting under but the Scientific evidence for man's involvement in the increased production of GHG is well founded. Yes there is a natural cycle of warm and cold periods on the earth but the average temperature increase has never been as rapid as it has been in the last 500 years or so as man has been merrily burning everything in sight. I am afraid that contrary to Bush's free-market blinkered vision there is no easy get out clause to the situation we are now in. Nothing can be done without some real cost invovled and if we don't act quickly some of the future decisions will be tough or even taken out of our hands. In Europe the motor manufacturers had several years of "Voluntary Agreements" to reduce average vehicle emissions but there has only been limited reductions - nowhere near what they had agreed to achieve. Th story is similar in most other area's where there is no immediate 'real' financial incentive to make industry change its ways. The bottom line folks is that the world cannot continue to support as many of us as it is currently doing - climate change is going to reduce a significant proportion of the arable area's of the world's surface. If everyone currently living in the third world achieved an average Western World let alone American level of resource use the situation will obviously accelerate. We all need to change how we use resources and the level of GHG emissions must be reduced before thigns really do hit the fan because at that point all bets are off. At that point the survivors will probably be too busy trying to salvage what little can be saved of the dwindling resources to worry about what could and should have been done now.

One point to be aware of if any list of Roman Holidays is that some historians believe that holidays dedicated to particular gods may only have been holidays as far as worshippers of that god were concerned and the majority of people would have worked as normal on those days.

The Standard UK Government (and EU) view is that the cost of reducing emissions is actually cheaper than trying to adapt afterwards. The May 2007 UK White Paper on Energy cited the Stern Review on the economics of climate change (pg 25) as estimating that the "cost of not taking action could be the equivalent of losing between 5 and 20% of annual global GDP wheras the cost of taking action can be limited to around 1% of annual global GDP, if the world pursues the optimum policies." I should point out that the 5 to 20% GDP cost would not be a one off it would run over an unspecifiable but significant number of years with the same annual costs as power plants and general infrastructure were redesigned and rebuilt to take account of rising sea levels, loss of agricultural and commercial land, changes in weather patterns, etc, etc.

The correct term is actually 'Climate Change' as 'Global Warming' gives the incorrect impression that everywhere will become warmer. In fact, as has already been mentioned, we have entered a period where weather patterns are becoming less predictable over a long period, particularly in an El Nino year, within an overall rise in Global Average Temperature. Some areas are experiencing sudden savage storms, such as the recent spates of flooding (the once in two hundred years variety) that occured last year in Carlisle and this year in Hull, etc. The problem is with Climat Change those 'once in two hundred year' storms could very easily recur on an annual basis. In other areas the opposite effect can occur with some parts of North Africa having received minimal rain fall during the winter period which is normally their stormy season for several years now. If this goes on for long enough it could effectively make some of those areas uninhabitable due to long term drought conditions and consequently ground water obtained from wells and bore holes not being replaced.

I misunderstood what you wanted the links are to permanent forts not marching camps. The attached link is to a wargaming site but does show how the portable spikes were used to create a defensive structure. Alesia used similar techniques but on a more massive scale. Try looking out a copy of the BBC programme "Roman Soldiers to Be" to see how Roman recruits may have been trained to build defenses.

There is quite a lot of information on the web about various Roman forts but it isn't always clear where precisely or even what period artistic impressiopns belong to - as an example I have included a link to a simple Google search I did for "Roman fort reconstruction": http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&am...sa=N&tab=wi This pulled up a number of artists impressions as well as some photographs of partial reconstructions notably at Arbeia (South Tyneside) as well as the Lunt (Coventry), but also check for Vindolanda and Segedunum where there are other reconstuctions. These two sites in particular point out some of the differences that arose with the 'standard' pattern depending on date and purpose. The Lunt is believed to have been intended as a centre for breaking horses - it has an additional feature of a walled enclosure a gyrus which was possibly a cavalry training enclosure. The Lunt is also not as regular in its wall design as most Roman forts of the same period, while Arbeia was used in the third century as a major supply centre so had extra granaries built over earlier barrack blocks. You may find the following English Heritage site (it also came up in the general search) of most interest as it includes artists impressions of parts of forts. You will however probably have to browse through several pages as there doesn't appear to be any real index and civilian images are mixed in with the military. http://www.englishheritageprints.com/pictu...rt-J000115.html

Well as you may remember from the Roman Camp thread (c/f link below) I did mention that Pseudo-Hyginus in his work on the 'Fortification of the Roman Camp' allocated five feet for camels and their riders so on that basis, even if they didn't have a full blown 'Corp' the Roman engineers did have the occasional need to make allowances for camel riders in setting up their marching camps. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7903

I haven't heard anything that revises the original estimate that the items of metal work found at Carlisle (including the possible "manica" are "thought to date from around the time of the Emperor Hadrian's visit to Britain in June 122". On that basis they do come from the time of the "Five Good Emperors".

While agreeing that gladiatorial equipment would be highly likely to have had some of its origin in some form of military/ war related equipment or activity that doesn't necessitate that any of it was used to any great extent by the Roman military. As far as I know it is one of the area's where there is very limited if any real documentary evidence. Traditionally interpretations have been primarily based on sculptural and similarly visual evidence backed up by a limited amount of archaeological evidence which has previously seemed to be almost exclusively related to gladiatorial interpretations. The archaeological find of apparent 'manica' from Carlisle, especially when linked to the earlier Newstead finds, has pushed the legion link beyond the previous sculpturally interpetated view of a purely Dacian related phenomena.

I won't go into all the detail here but you will find quite an informative article about the manica and it's possible uses extending beyond the obvious Dacian campaign on the Roman Military Research Site at this link: http://www.romanarmy.net/manica.htm

Can you elucidate on the Clibanarii and Cataphracti, then? I thought those were armored heavy cavalry. The Clibanarius, in fact, was armored all over with a form of segmented armor, and it is said the horses wore some armor, too. Those were smaller horses than the Western European chargers, of course. But they didn't use them, evidently for a direct assault on massed infantry, probably, as already stated, to prevent their horses from tiring too soon. Agreed that these cavalry types were used in the later Roman period. While my reading in the Later Roman period is admittedly fairly limited as far as I have read the Romans seem to have used them in a few specialist cases/areas rather than as their only or even primary type of cavalry. It was only in the later Medieval period that 'heavy' cavalry took on a primary role but again this appears only to have been in Western Europe. In comparison in the same period Saladin's (and various other Arab and non-Arab) armies were not generally noted for making use of heavily armoured and equipped troops - in fact just the opposite.

BTW I should have also mentioned that often they go in to determine the extent or otherwise of archaeology at particular sites or else give specific assistance to longer term projects. With protected sites they have usually been called in to find out what has been left by antiquarian investigations so you may hear them say they are only allowed to dig one or at most two trenches, often of a specified size, in a particular area. Once they have completed their investigations for their programme several sites have subsequently been given protected status [iIRC in one case the statury protection body granted an emergency order while they were there] and/or long term excavations have been started. [EDIT - One slight correction to previous posting Time Team 'officially' started in 1993 following a couple of experimental programme formats, using some of the same team, in 1991 and 1992 (this last not broadcast).]

I would tend to disagree, although some well known archaeologists initially decried their methods, over the years since they first started, Time Team have built up a deserved reputation for carrying out responsible archaeology using a variety of modern techniques - many of which have now become commonplace, where funds allow, on any archaeological excavation. The archaeologists and specialists who work on the programme are amongst the best available and when anything unexpected turns up they have a list of experts they can call in for help and guidance - in some cases they have even stopped work on finding the first evidence for a wall structure let alone anything deeper as required by a particular sites preservation order. Everything they find is properly recorded and they will delay or even halt totally deeper excavation to allow that recording process to be completed. Don't forget that all archaeology is a destructive process and if it isn't recorded then it is without context so has no real archaeological value. Time Team are well aware of that need and Tony Robinson (who has presented the programme since it started) does actually have good archaeological knowledge (and some experience) even if the programme format requires him to play the part of the gung-ho treasure hunter. The archaeologists in charge will not allow that viewpoint to sway their use of good archaeological technique. If they were irresponsible English Heritage (and the other statutory bodies in the UK) who have responsiblity for protecting archaeological sites would not allow them the access and support they have had since about 1991 when the programmes started. To make the most of their limited time they make extensive use of maps, previous reports, aerial photographs and geophysical surveys to target areas of specific interest and then use mechanical excavators to get down to the in-situ preserved archaeological layers. However mechanical excavation is done extremely carefully in small spits and on a relatively limited scale under close supervision of experienced archaeologists. As soon as anything of interest is found the machine 'over burden' removal is stopped so artefacts can be investigated by manual techniques. In addition they pay for the conservation of artefacts and involved in preparation for the final publication of site reports for the excavations they have undertaken. See the FAQs section of their website which addresses some of the issues at: http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites.../faqs_prog.html In particular this FAQ addresses some of the conserns about post-site work: http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites...aqs_prog_6.html

As part of an ongoing series of 3 day archaeological excavations by Channel 4's 'time Team' they have found and partially excavated the first row of Roman masouleums found in Britain for about 150 years. The discovery was made at Binchester Roman Fort (Vinovia). 'Binchester Roman fort, near Bishop Auckland, was one of the largest and longest permanently occupied Roman forts in the north of England. Binchester, or Vinovia as it was called, was a key staging post on Dere Street, the road to Hadrian's Wall and the north.' Full details at: http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites...ster/index.html

I agree with much of what you have already said on this topic but could you be more precise about what you mean by a "larger horse"? Do you mean the differences between the pre-Roman and Roman period horses found in Britain covered in my previous posting? i.e.: 'The Fell Pony museum believe that there is a body of evidence (on the basis of particular bone dimensions) to support the view that the average size of a horse in Iron Age Britain was around 12.1 hands (equivalent to the Exmoor Pony today) but in the Roman period there were two larger distinct types found, one around 13.3 hh and the second 14-15hh.' As you note the differences in size may be due to differences in battle tactics remembering that in Britain at least there appears to have been a preference for the use of lght war chariots in war rather than a significant amount of cavalry before the Roman's arrived. As several people have pointed out the use of horses evolved throughout the Roman period including the introduction of stirrups and even the amount of armour carried by particular troops. I don't think that there is any real evidence that very heavily armoured troops became the primary cavalry type in the Roman Empire at any point although it eventually did in Western Europe in the later middle ages.

I also suspect that Boudicca role was mainly either as a figurehead, or possibly as a 'war' leader possibly directing initial placement of her troops, but probably did not intend to come into direct physical contact with the enemy - except at javelin range. I would agree that in relatively recent recorded history there have been instances of women being able to fulfil a 'normally' male function while apparently hiding their sex. Possibly the most obvious of is the case of how this could be done is Dr James Stuart 'Miranda?' Barry who went to Edinburgh University to study medicine about 1809 and who performed one of the first successful caesarian operations. He also had one of the best patient survival records at the infamous Scutari hospital in the Crimea and rose to the upper echelons of the British army medical corps. Until his death at about 70, 'he' apparently successfully managed to hide both the fact of 'his' sex as well as at one point going through at least the early stages of pregnancy. http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/barry.html - short article including his flirting and getting into a duel http://www.usmedicine.com/column.cfm?colum...&issueID=28 - longer and better referenced article noting most of his military and civilian achievments. There are a scattering of other recorded cases throughout history. I can't find the reference at present but believe there is at least one recorded case in the Napoleonic period of a woman 'officially' serving as part of a gun crew in the Royal Navy. In such a case unlike Dr Barry I would suspect that she would need to have had the active support of her mess-mates in the deception to successfully hid any 'obvious' sign of her sex from their officers who could then turn a blind eye to less obvious signs in an efficient 'crewman' adn gun team.

Understood but possibly in hindsight not obviously taken as read in my posting. My phrase about 'given the choice' was simply meant to indicate my own preferences and to indicate that I understand the problem of possibly contentious links from [from long and sometimes bitter] personal experience. [i now usually try to post links to original articles if I have time to find them.] That is why I included the choice of a couple of alternative postings above that I hoped took a more balanced approach and ones that I thought you may not have had access to or time to find when you initially posted. Carry on the good work,

I'm afraid that it is the old problem of journalists often going for the 'sensational' rather than using a bit of thought and putting things into context. Following only a simple search I found the following options as a comparison: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../11/nart111.xml - Daily Telegraph article under the title An outing for Hadrian at the British Museum goes on to state 'An exhibition on the Roman emperor Hadrian - the first staged anywhere in the world - is to be mounted at the British Museum this summer, replacing the First Emperor terracotta warriors show which closes in April...' The British Museum itself uses the title "Hadrian: Empire and Conflict" opens with the description 'This special exhibition will explore the life, love and legacy of Rome's most enigmatic emperor, Hadrian (reigned AD 117

I wouldn't know. Some day I'll try it, and then I'll let ya'll know. As for the beard, I thought Romans didn't wear beards, anyhow? Until around the time of Hadrian it was generally frowned upon by Roman citizens (and possibly prospective citizens) although not necessarily unknown especially amongst auxilliaries as this detail from Trajan's Column seems to indicate: http://www.stoa.org/trajan/images/hi/4.22.h.jpg {Edit] I think this may be a better image on this point as it appears to actually show a legionary with a beard: http://www.stoa.org/trajan/images/hi/4.47.h.jpg

The stills taken at the same time at the Birdoswald event may also be of use as they show what the reconstructed saddle looks like: http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/reenac...ald-2007-2.html BTW the evidenc efor the shape of the saddle comes in a number of forms - obviously from tombstones, but also archaeological finds of the saddle 'horns' as well as two or three rare finds of the leather which had actually been used originally to cover saddles so have retained the impression of the horns coupling the archaeological evidence together and allowing reconstruction of the saddles for re-enactors.

I was interested in this suggestion and have been doing a bit of research on this topic and by burrowing into the website of the archaeological contractors concerned a few further details arose. The site concerned was excavated in the 1960's literally under the blade of bulldozers at times and they recovered about 300 bodies not all of which were (or could be) fully recorded. The scholar who was trying to piece together the evidence into a coherent whole subsequently died in the 1980's and it was only relatively recently that the archaeological contractors 'Barbican Research Associates' took over the cataloging task. As the director Hilary Cool while reiterating the possibility of their being warriors did slip in an admission in a letter to Archaeology magazine in 2005 [see link below] that there remains some abiguity about who precisely the remains of the two women actually were. Numeri is one explanation but equally [or possibly more plausibly in my view] they were simply the spouses of some of the numeri or other soldiers serving at the site in the third century AD. http://www.barbicanra.co.uk/projects.htm#Brougham - main 'facts' on Barbican Research Associates website http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba80/feat3.shtml - Original Jan/Feb 2005 'Archaeology' article containing much more details of find http://www.archaeology.org/0505/abstracts/letter.html - subsequent May / June 2005 'Archaeology' article pointing out the ambiguity of the finds