Northern Neil

I believe the stories of several men and gods have been woven into the Jesus tale. His origins, death and some of his miracles are very similar to stories about Bacchus and Dionysus.

Even if there were no plugs/drains, it's still possible that they knew to circulate the water. An Archimedes screw could be used as a pump for circulating the water out. I believe the bath houses on Hadrians wall had entry and exit culverts for the water. I cannot imagine bath houses in more developed parts of the Empire did not have these too.

..in the more formal setting of the Imperial period army this is the case. Fourth century barrack buildings resemble Terraced houses rather than the sleek, long military buildings of earlier times. The introduction of this more chaotic arrangement coincides with the abandonement of Vici on the Wall itself, a period of increased insecurity (possibly linked to lack of resources) and the introduction of Limitaneii units about 300 strong, replacing the old style COHORS. These new units were less regular than the old ones, and were more of a part time militia than a regular unit. It has been mentioned in more than one source that the fourth century Auxilliary fort became more of a fortified village than a military instllation. Obviously this change did not happen overnight, but it meant that the auxilliary fort underwent subtle changes. Here I have juxtaposed two scannings of the same barrack block, the one on the left is the familiar 2nd century layout, the one on the right a fourth century plan of the same barrack building. Whilst some of the dividing walls of the contuburnia have been retained, some have been dispensed with altogether to make a larger room, and gone are the vestibules of the earlier block. Items of civilian - and female use have been found in the later barrack blocks. This example is from Housesteads. Some of these rooms, it has been postulated, were more like individual houses - some of the walls are stone, some are timber. A reconstruction of a fourth century barrack building, adapted for semi - civilian use rather than a solely military role, would probably look very iregular indeed. Fourth century barrack at Great Chesters and High Rochester depart from the plan altogether, and rows of free-standing chalet type buildings seems to have been built, simply using the flattened 2nd century barrack as a hardcore foundation.

The identity of the Pictish language has always been controversial - it is assumed to be a variant of Celtic, but neither Brythons nor Dalriads understood a word of it. Oppenheimer (Origins of the British) simply states that it was likely to be non-indo-european. I have long held a pet theory that the picts may have spoken a Uralic language, similar to Finnish or Sami, and that they hopped to Britain from Scandinavia before the Ice melted. Maybe this new finding suggests this could be the case?

I LIKE it!! Sorry about it... too much text at a time. ..No, I MEAN it! I used to get that nickname years ago, and quite liked it. Is the P-38 in the Templar Squadron colours your work? VERY nice - and a great idea!

I LIKE it!!

Some of the forts on Hadrians Wall, on excavation, show a charcoal layer dated to the mid-late 4th century. A period of reconstruction followed this, but wether or not these forts were sacked and rebuilt, or demolished and rebuilt is a matter of conjecture. On the one hand, the abandonement of the Vici and the transformation of barrack buildings into a kind of hybrid barrack - come - housing block would suggest they had been attacked. The civilian population was subsequently moved into the fort, to live in what had become a fortified village, alongside the limitaneii garrison. On the other hand, military reorganisation and the demise of the traditional auxilliary COHORS meant that military units were smaller - somewhere in the order of 300 men, rather than the 480 in the standard quingenary cohort. Thus, the Vicus becomes superfluous, as there is ample space within the fort itself for the families of the garrison. In either case, there would be demolition by burning, as often happened when a Roman installation embarked upon a rebuilding. Maybe both explanations have a ring of truth - increased insecurity, together with a reduction of garrison strength, could have meant that it was an expedient to move the civilian settlement within the fort walls. No 'formal' battle site has been attributed to Hadrians Wall and its immediate surroundings. However, Arthur's last battle - against the Picts - was said to have been fought at a place called CAMLANN. The Hadrians Wall fort at Castlesteads bears the name of CAMBOGLANNA - a British name. In Middle Welsh, this indeed transmutes to CAMLANN. The same place, maybe? A fort at the western end of Hadrians wall, Burgh by Sands, or ABALLAVA to give its Roman name, has been suggested as the burial place of Arthur - AVALON. Its situation on a salt marsh fits with the legend. Impossible to prove of course, but nonetheless thought provoking. These events do, of course, occur at the very end of the period in which Hadrians Wall was operational, if not several decades after - but then, this was a time when Roman power was waning fast and central control quickly disintegrating. Although written some time ago (1971), Leslie Alcock's 'Arthurs Britain' discusses some of this.

That is a very interesting observation, which I, for one, have never considered. There is a Gallo Roman Bathouse in a place called Samois Sur Seine, 60km south of Paris, which is stillfunctional. It has a shallow plunge bath which is stillintact and supplied by a spring. There is no algae at all, but I wonder if this is because of local maintainance workers with an array of chemicals to hand. Also, the bath has running water going through it at all times. However, I suspect it was probably the Tepidaria and the Calidaria, with their intermittant supplies of tepid and warm water, which probably had the algae. Maybe the Romans finished their baths in the Frigidarium because it was the part of the complex free of algae?

Collingwood Bruce's Handbook to the Roman Wall (Updated by David Breeze) has references to some interesting archaeological findings. Some of the signal turrets which, although occupied, had their doors open for decades at a stretch (in other words, no doors at all to the lower floor). This would indicate long periods in which there was no warfare at all. Also, it must be pointed out, the tribes to the immediate North of the wall were not Picts, but Britons - Selgovae and Votadini, who were pro Roman, and in whose lands there were additional Roman outpost forts.

I believe that, minor differences considered, Sabrejets and Mig-15's were very similar indeed. I have heard anecdotes which state that piston engined aircraft such as Corsairs and p-51's often got the better of the jets in that conflict -is this true?

Yes, when there is an international tournament I have a momentary superficial interest in the sport we call football (soccer). At least the players do actually come from the places they play for (apart from Ireland, which is the England B team and France, which award citizenship to talented players from former African colonies). I have no interest at all in club football, played as it is by bands of foreign mercenaries.

Decimus - have you a link for this?

RW, Caldrail was pointing out that that the psychological mindset of a centurion was more akin to a tribal chief, not that he actually WAS a tribal chief. That a senior centurion could become a camp prefect is a matter of record. How they did it I do not know, I suppose they were called to the legates tent when the previous camp prefect died/retired and were offered the job. Or maybe they applied for it in writing, supplying references from their current employer and documents of good conduct, and then were subject to competetive interview. I believe the Roman army you allude to is that of the pre - Marian republican army, hence references to Hastatii. I suspect Caldrail may have been, like myself, talking about the imperial legions.

Faustus' article and Longshotgene allude to possible remains left by european populations on the East coast of America. Some time ago I saw a TV programme which showed stone tools from Western France/Spain. Identical items have been unearthed on the Eastern coast of North America, with associated carbon dated material from the same period as the European examples. I have tried to find a link to this but so far have been unsuccessful. The team involved in this work appeared to be pleased with their evidence, but not surprised. Nomadic groups adept at hunting seals and fishing, they said, would probably have migrated naturally by foot across the North Atlantic, which by then was covered with thick ice. When one dispenses of the psychological block some have regarding pre-columbian incursions by Europeans, and the new age fantasy woven around the Atlantis legend, this theory appears to be quite sound. Like I said, I have tried to find online links to this, but have not thus far been successful.

As England are not in it this time ( 'Here we stay, here we stay, here we stay!') I will be supporting France, the country of my forebears - well, half of them!

Very good as usual. Will you/ have you had your material published? Have you any paintings of Spitfires/mustangs/P-47's etc?

CLose inspection does indeed suggest a hexagon shaped hole in the centre - for an alan key, maybe?

You're still trying to prove the romans did things the same way as today aren't you? Well... logistically they did. For a start, it was a state funded standing army with a standardised rank structure. Furthermore, its materiel was made by state funded factories, and its installations followed a standard building plan. In war it attempted to attain achievable targets, rather than attacking hated enemies just because they were there. Which is why, for example, the Boudiccan revolt failed so disastrously, despite the Brits much having the upper hand at first. A centurion may well have acted like a tribal chief, but an uncle by marriage of mine, a Captain in the Falklands war, says that he and his company did exactly the same when away from central command.

Beautiful. I checked out the related vids as well. Some amazing stuff.

Maybe the Church found it convenient that people believed in such things, as it deterred the 'ordinaries' from taking too much of an interest in long distance travel?

Maybe then writers should dispense with this comparison altogether. I do not think that a casual reader would have a problem understanding the concept you have illustrated in the above quotation. It would also I think cause less confusion of the kind I felt as a child when reading such matter. Perhaps our discussion should be split off this topic? It is in itself an interesting topic to debate.

Because they understand what an NCO is. Its part of our culture. Even if you're not in the military and have no idea what the military do, you still have some concept of an NCO. For the record, a modern officer is 'commisioned'. That means his command is given to him by the nation state (or authority) he serves. A non-commisoned rank receives his command without that sanction, so therefore he's only going to receive it under the command of commisioned officers. Nonetheless, these are ranks. That means a series of graded levels of status which follow the individual whichever job the army gives him. The romans didn't do that. They received status from the particular role they were given, and even the centurions were named to prioritise their status, not their rank. Note that a centurion at the end of an illustrious career might be given the role of Praefectus Castrorum (hope I spelt that right) which means 'fort prefect'. Its not a rank, although that would make him 3rd in seniority, but a role, from which he derives status. Further, the tribunes were 2nd in priority and there was aays a number of them. Hmm.. I understand all this - but only by virtue of a reading of Roman History which more thorough than is the case among the general populace. I thought the idea of equating Roman with modern ranks was to illustrate a rough correlation to people who are generally unknowledgeable about the Roman world, or casually interested. To call someone an 'NCO' when he has a command numerically similar to a captain or major is misleading, and WAS misleading to me as a child, when I started reading in depth about this.

No, they had responsibilities more on par with a tribal chief. I was referring merely to numbers involved, and in the context of people who like to draw parrallels between modern and Roman military structures - I personally do not. My point being, why do these writers persist in calling people with a command of between 80 and 960 men 'NCOs'?

Maybe the Wikipedia people should state that there are several dates given for the end of the Roman Empire, all equally valid in some sense, but for differing reasons? 625 and 1204 are also given, for sound logical reasons.