Northern Neil

Was the fosse way, in the mid-60-s not in effect a frontier system? Maybe this doesn't count, as it did not have a regular, systemetised organisation and the military installations were more sporadic... but it seems to have functioned as a frontier for a short time.

Often I read or hear anecdotes of figures such as Senators, polititians and businessmen taking poison. Maybe the 'stress related illnesses' associated with modern life were evident back then, in some quarters?

Something really bothers me about this kind of alarmism. Rhetorically speaking, you are implying that a 99% concensus of scientific studies indicating that human activity is not to blame would be insignificant compared to the 1% indicating the opposite, and that it would be ultimately negligent not to alter our lives even if the probability of success is 1%. Why? Help me understand this. If you had a 1% chance of getting killed, right here and now, if you walked down a hypothetical street, but got $1million if you got to the end, would you take the chance? No? Why not? You would be disregarding a 99% concensus that you would survive, and be rich! However, there is not a 99% concensus against human activity=global warming - there is a 75% 'concensus' for. I am not alarmist - just applying everyday logic to my long term lifestyle. And to be honest, the life changes are actually very slight. The assumption here is that people are being alarmist and radically altering their lives. No, I am slightly concerned, when I bother to think about it, and I am being more sparing, less wasteful, and to be frank, making a fat pile of cash into the bargain. And all for the sake of cycling a bit, using energy efficient lightbulbs, using biodiesel and switching off my telly at night. Not a difficult lifechange, or an alarmist perspective, in my view.

I have one called 'Ancient Rome - The Republic' by H.L.Havell. It was published in 1914, but at a little over three quid in the local book clearance store I couldn't resist it. It is very readable despite the almost Victorian prose.

Yes, why worry about something that it's out of your power to change Early humans with stone age tehnology were succesfull in making extinct dozens (if not hundreds) of species of large animals.The begining of agriculture and animal herding changed the landescape in most areas of the Earth. Pollution from Roman mining in Spain left marks on Groenland's ice shelf. Most Europe was a forest 3.000 years ago. I believe theilian was being ironic here. But Kosmo, your points quoted above are mutually contradictory. If Romans in Spain could alter ecologies in Greenland, then surely it is well within our own power to curb the damage our own activities are causing. And as you point out, humans in ancient times were capable of making hundreds of species extinct, so why is it such a strange concept that modern human activity can alter climate? I believe I can rest my case.

The view that people who are in support of the human activity = global warming debate are far from being anti - progress, as I shall demonstrate. Who wants to go back to a pre-industrial world? Not me, for one. It is archaic technologies which are the worst polluters. The incandescent lightbulb, internal combustion engines and coal fired powerplants are all 19th century technology. Hardly progress, one would agree! Motor technology has progressed to the point of using renewables for the past 25 years. I do not see that progress reflected on our roads. I see nothing wrong with using nuclear power as an alternative to coal (along with renewables). I see nothing wrong with making small differences to ones lifestyle to neutralise ones per capita carbon output. What effort does it take to turn electrical appliances off at night, or cycle for journeys of less than a mile? Or to run a low engine capacity second car (If indeed a vehicle built to carry four is needed just to take one person on very short journeys). Apart from anything else, I certainly save a LOT of money, so yes, fortunes can be made! I know some people will say 'Yes, but in our case that wouldn't work because... and so on. If I had more room, I probably would try to make an exhaustive study of everything everyone could do to save money and the planet and not make inroads to their lifestyles. If I had room. I watch the news quite comprehensively, and see nothing of the hysterical anti - carbon lobby referred to, and none who would take us back to a pre-industrial society. Well, apart from the ones who have aways been there anyway, and have just latched on to this debate. Most people in my experience are not 'scared' by this research, they simply say - 'right, what can I / we do about it?' Regarding vested interests pro anti - carbon, I find the arguments rather weaker than the ones that state the massive vested interests of oil companies and business in relegating this debate to the back burner. Like any bad news from the scientific community, this has naturally caused some hysteria - I was guilty of this myself last year, when I gave up smoking in response to the hysteria surrounding the scientific claim that cigarettes cause lung cancer. But really, the bottom line, I think, came in a prior posting of mine, and I repeat it again - even if the climatologists and others were only 1% right, we should be doing something. As it stands, I believe around 75% of the scientific community is behind the 'carbon moderation' lobby in this.

The converse of this is that human arrogance could cost us, literally, the Earth - or at least our place on it. The arrogance is thus: We accept the minority of scientific studies which deny human involvement, and overlook the fact that these climate changes are not taking place over geological time, but everyday time. And with it, we reject our suspicion that the mainstream research is probably true, but - well, who cares - let our kids and grandchildren deal with the results of our grossly luxurious lives and the mess they are causing. Usually, logically - minded people accept the scientific theory which most fits the evidence. But, just as otherwise intelligent religious believers let their objectivity slip when it comes to authenticity of their Scriptures, or smokers disregard medical evidence because to curb their habits would be too difficult, people who enjoy their luxurious lifestyles search for alternative interpretation of evidence, or marginal yet technically valid scientific studies to justify their lifestyles. And I include most of us here, given that even relatively poor people in industrialised countries are filthy rich in comparison with the remaining two thirds of the planet. The overwhelming weight of evidence is that human activity is warming up our planet. And there are no 'hidden agendas' for the bulk of climatologists subscribing to this theory. What possible agenda could there be for concocting a theory to stop people holidaying abroad? Or from driving over-large 4x4's with comically macho names? I don't particularly like tabloid newspapers, but if I were a scientist, I wouldn't propose a theory to try and stop people reading them. The whole conspiracy theory idea vis-a-vis global warming is just plain fatuous - what possible benefit could the (majority of) climate scientists gain from it, aside from dissuading middle class mums from driving their kids round the block in quasi - armoured vehicles, or reducing the number of flights to Benidorm, Ayia Nappa or Florida? And what purpose would that serve ( If not culturally valid on grounds of taste) if there were no scientfic evidence to suggest it was harmful? I initially started this thread as a spoof ( Read my initial post, and apply the math!) but I had to break my silence with respect to some of the ideas put forward here. The conspiracy theory here holds no water at all, given that there absolutely is nothing to gain from it. All of us, however, would be greatly inconvenienced if we had to alter our lifestyles to curb the findings of the majority of climatologists. And therein lies the real problem - most of us are far too comfortable to be bothered. My view is, if even 1% of the studies show that human activity is to blame, then it is imperative that we curb our habits. To not do so, even with just a 1% probability of success, is negligence to the ultimate degree.

It seems that 'Snail Mail' is the best way to contact!

I must agree with the last posting on almost * all points. Some time ago I rather warmed to the Republic on account of my somewhat left - wing, Socialist and anti - monarchist views. On reading more however, my idealism evaporated when I read about the apalling extortion and greed associated with the Republican regime. I can only currently conclude that the best way in which to govern a state comprising a cartel of Mafia - style families such as Republican Rome was to run it as a republic. Patronage was dispersed somewhat equally amongst the families who counted at the time, and extortion and racketeering was OK as long as a portion of the profits went to the state. At risk of outraging some of my friends on this forum, that is how I (currently) interpret the activities of the Republic based on what I have read to date, and I see it as no more admirable than the Dominate, in which a monarchy returned to the Roman world. Less so even, when one considers that at least the Principate and Dominate did not greatly deprive others of their independence (Dacia, Britain and the upper Rhine excepted). If Augustus hadn't been around, a 'what if' situation (of which there seem to have been a lot around here recently!) would have been little different, with someone else assuming the title of 'Imperator' because, finally, the mafia - style family politics of the Republic had become history. Therefore, one cannot subscribe to the subjective view that Augustus was the worst emperor, because he ended a regime which some people 'like'. It would have ended anyway, with or without him. Like it or not, the Principate and Dominate were no more or less stable than the Republic, they just presided over a somewhat larger territory. The question is, which emperor (Principate or Dominate) made the best of what some would consider a political system they dont like. *Whether or not the Christian persecutions were a 'bad thing' is a subjective view. One must consider also that Christians prior to the Council of Nicaea were a somewhat different breed to what came afterwards, and now predominates. Also, the persecutions did not occur for the same reasons, or in the same way, that the Church and popular media suggest. Neither were they as widespread as is commonly believed.

It does - Apparantly 'skegg' means beard in old norse. The example I have drawn is a late example from about 1200; the 'beard' on the viking ones was smaller, and they also made smaller headed ones for one - handed use.

What a marvellous website! These reconstructions are awesome. Ayasofya is indeed a museum. The mosaics and icons were never destroyed by the muslims, just covered in a thin layer of plaster. In the '30's the Turkish government funded the careful restoration of these treasures.

Some have been found in a military context. I believe the Danes called this type a 'Skeggox'.

Yes it is! That was TOO easy! Given that Maladict will not be around until sunday, how about another one from someone?

Many thanks, Augustus - perhaps I should adopt this hairstyle again! I apologise by the way for going attrociously off topic in places - thats what happens when you send posts whilst enjoying a glass or two of fine Calvados! Back to topic, what is the 'beaked' axe you refer to, Pertinax? I am familiar with the 'bearded' axe, which appeared thus:

Gorgeous then, as now! Come on chaps, lets see more of us. Primus? Moon? Ursus?

No, it isn't; I can see why you say this, though. Its not a bull ring, although it could be said that it is a distant ancestor of one.

We did indeed use olive oil! We also cheated by using nickel - plated split spring steel washers. I believe even now, this is considered an acceptable deviation from the authentic - and it is much stronger than the original Iron riveted stuff! This last photo is of Muslim and Christian warriors together as brothers. Shortly after this photo was taken, my Lebanese friend Cat (real name, I believe, Daoud Ibn Abdallah) went back to the Middle East at the height of the Civil War in Lebanon. I have not heard from him since. 'From Acre to the Sea, AD 1099'

Many thanks, Pertinax. We even had the haircuts! This aided us greatly when combating somewhat unauthentic 'viking' societies comprising violent bikers and punks. Despite being good middle class boys (albeit rugby players and cops ) they assumed we were real nutcases, and thus avoided us like the plague at the 'Hastings' re-enactments!

If using the two - handed English one, the best mode was to swing from upper right to lower left. This would, as you say, at the least snap your opponant's collar bone and in optimum conditions drive through to the centre of the chest, severing the aorta as it goes. Whilst simultaneously keeping your left side protected by the shoulder - slung shield. The crescent axe was wielded in a 90 - degree arc through the centre of the head, with the shield pulled up close in front. For some strange reason the crescent axe superceded the more efective huscarl axe, and the pointy appendages were indeed added as plate armour was added to one's enemies.

I may be biased due to prior re-enactment experience, but I personally view the English 'Huscarl' axe as being the ultimate refinement of the Battle Axe. It was derived from the from the viking battle axe, and subsequently enlarged and hafted for two - hand use by the time of Cnut. The slightly drooped position of the blade with respect to the lie of the haft results in most pressure being brought upon the dead centre of the blade, given that the axe swing describes a virtual semi-circle. See here: By the time of Stephen and Matilda, a different shape was becoming fashionable, which was the crescent shaped axe. I suspect that the shape may have been derived from examples seen and obtained by the crusaders in outremer, and in subsequent centuries it acquired various pointy appendages such as spikes opposite the blade, and atop it. Taken 20 years ago, the following picture of me and some of my boys looking nervously from one of King Stephen's motte and baileys towards a host of barbarous baronial rebels shows both types in concurrent use. In tests, my saracen - influenced crescent axe was far less effective than the long hafted axe used to great effect by my right-hand man, even allowing for the longer haft on the English type. Despite the chicken on his shield, the rather posh looking Frenchie to my left acquitted himself heroically. On this occasion King Stephen's forces lost, and Osprey never did use the photo you now see, despite the characteristic cliched pose. As an aside, Our society (Regia Anglorum - still thriving now!) interpreted the 'square' at the neck of an Anglo - Norman Knight's mail hauberk as an unfastened aventail, or neck protector. You see them here, both fastened and unfastened. The Bayeux tapestry shows the 'square' being visible only on figures not involved in combat, hence the hypothesis. This is now the standard interpretation of the precise nature of the 'Chest Square' shown on Normans and Saxon huscarls on the Bayeux Tapestry. However, the late Professor R. Allen Brown suggested this interpretation several months before us, so to him goes the credit. Such is the academic world! EDIT: yes, the chain mail, weapons and helmets are real.

OK, seeing as we have no takers... And no cheating, Nephele, looking up the Longitude/Lattitude!!

Behind my pillar I feel safe, but this is an illusion. A hand snakes round my upper arm - softly, but persuasively. I look round and my head swims - someone far too noble to even have looked at me during this night is holding a finger to her lips and pointing to a secluded alcove. A refusal to grant her an audience could mean death! But so could her message. She clearly wants to delegate some unspeakable task to me. Why me? I feel my purse of Octavius' gold weighing heavy and I resent life for not permitting me the oppurtunity to spend it. Ah well, now for the message. Get it over with!!

You will indeed! Yesterday a comprehensive itinerary was proposed. Augustus Caesar will be posting the results very soon, with the assistance of the Augusta. In the meantime, here is a little 'appetizer'. Part of our proposed schedule of events involves walking a short - ish but very atmospheric part of Hadrian's Wall and perhaps stopping at various turrets (signal towers) for individual members to give a presentation on their particular realms of expertise. The following photo shows a stretch of the Wall on this proposed walk, which stands about 8ft. high in places. As you see, to the right of the walker is a crag from which the Wall was quarried, to the left the Wall itself, and out of view, over the Wall, a drop of about 150 feet. Standing in the turrets on this stretch, one is reminded of the more dramatic stretches of the Great Wall of China. Although things are more scaled down, it remains a very dramatic experience. C'mon, members everywhere. Join your British friends on a weekend you will never forget!

Re-joining this thread somewhat belatedly, here are some points to consider: then why the English did not conquered the French and won the war if long bow was enough to win war. The tactical process of winning a battle is a different matter to the strategy of winning a campaign - especially when the campaign drags on for over 100 years! Pyrrhus almost always won his battles, but derived almost no strategic advantage from his victories. In addition, the longbow alone did not win these battles, the decision to dismount men at arms and remain on the defensive were factors too. normally a legio will not attack a defensive and encamped enemy... Quite. My point being, the English remained on the defensive and let the impetuosity of the French bring about their own downfall. Just like the brave but impotent charges of Celtic warriors against formed legions. Regarding fortifications, great castles such as Krak des Chevalliers , Chateau Gaillard and Caerphilly were exceptions rather than the rule. A Roman Legion would have no difficulty in sacking castles such as Berkhampstead, Restormel and Pickering, which were Motte and Baileys reconstructed in stone. Likewise they would be in their element attacking Portchester, Pevensey, Brough and Cardiff, all Roman forts with keeps added. York, one of the most well known of Mediaeval walled cities, would easily capitulate, given that said walls are in places only 8 feet high, and lacking flanking towers on such weak stretches. The alleged low effectiveness of archers in the Roman period could have more to do with perceived lowly status of archers compared to line infantry / cavalry, rather than having a basis in fact. Regarding bows used by some people in the Roman era itself, Robert Hardy, in his well known book 'Longbow', has this to say: A very rich series of finds in Denmark and Schleswig Holstein give some idea of the bows of Northern Europe during the Roman Iron Age.... They all date from between AD100 and 350; they are all made either of Yew or Fir wood and they are recognisable longbows of deep stacked, generous 'D' section... no Tudor archer would have found these bows anything but familiar. In other words, during the Roman period, we have bows with the penetrating power to pierce plate armour. Schleswig Holstein is a short trek from the Rhine frontier; I suggest that Auxillia from the lower Rhine probably had such bows also. One last reference to Roman archers: A unit of Hamian (middle eastern) archers was present at Greatchesters , on one of the bleakest sections of Hadrian's Wall. It seems strange indeed to trust an entire frontier fort to a unit of troops generally considered ineffective. Regarding military techniques in general, one must also consider that sometimes economics dictates the obsolescence of weapons and techniques, not efficacy. Up to the American Civil War, when widespread use of rifled smallarms broke the 400 year status quo vis a vis hand gunnery, generals often discussed in private the superiority of a group of archers over a group of musketeers. More aimed shots per minute, greater accurate range, ability to shoot in wind and rain, reusable spent ammo. A 'wedge' of 15th century longbowmen would stop dead a Napoleonic, or Crimean war, cavalry charge, whereas a hastily conscripted regiment of musketeers probably wouldn't. Problem is, it takes years and a lot of money to train a longbowman, but a few weeks to train a napoleonic line infantryman. Translate this to the Roman Army: In Medieval times very few states apart from Byzantium could afford a standing army, uniformly trained, capable of disciplined attack/defence. Just as a wedge of longbowmen would be more effective than a line of musketeers, a Roman Army would probably win out against a medieval one prior to AD 1325.

Again, Paestum has a large temple to Demeter, but I am unaware of the Roman equivalent Ceres having any temples at all. Just as an aside, Where Athena/Minerva, Demeter/Ceres, Ares/Mars etc etc actually the same gods, or different ones with similar attributes?