Northern Neil

... before which it seems to have been on a par with Southern Europe and Scandinavia. Had it secured the resources it needed and waged its war for, its productivity may have rocketed anyway. Nevertheless, immense differences remain - the lack of competing groups and militias, the lack of any real ideological differences and the fact that the head of state and governmental structure remained. And, last but by no means least, the willingness to level cities with atomic bombs which is absent today. These circumstances are almost diametrically opposite to those surrounding the failure in Iraq, as indeed the natures of the preceeding wars were. You are quite correct that in Japan total democracy arose out of military intervention - but circumstances extant in the country were far different, and Japan had been westernising and industrialising for at least 100 years before WW2 started. My anecdote, although not 'scientific' illustrates the fact that the Japanese people had no fundamental dislike of western culture or values, and even aspired to it. Less anecdotally, Mr. Yamaha started out in the 19th century making violins and other classical music instruments, for Japanese people playing European music. Many Middle Eastern people, on the other hand, are deeply resentful at the inroads our culture is making on theirs. Time and again, we have meddled in Middle Eastern countries which were starting to assume elements of western culture and government, only to find that our intervention has replaced secular dictatorship with religious and tribal feudalism.

I'm caught a little on the hop there, as my initial discussion was not centred around Japan or WW2. All I'm saying is, that the Japan/allied war had many differences to the evolving pattern of enforced democritisation and subsequent failure as seen in the Midlle East. Suffice to say, Britain and the US did not see any reason to dismantle the existing governmental structure of Japan, and left its police force intact. There were no competing groups in Japan over which a dictatorship had to be imposed to keep order. There were no ideological or religious differences between Japan and the west, just economic ones, and on reading your much appreciated link, it seems that Japan was keen to adopt Western models of government and incipient democratic processes. I have not the intellectual equipment to verify my point empirically. My anecdotal evidence that standards of living were similar to ours is however direct - a Japanese friend of mine's grandfather was a Jazz Guitarist in a big band and he went to the cinema to see Hollywood movies as well as enjoying other aspects of a thoroughly western lifestyle. Yes, there were imperfections in this evolving democracy - but at this time, the Brits were still killing Irish, the US had black -white segregation and the French were happily slaughtering Arabs in Algeria. WW2 - eastern theatre was an utterly different political situation to modern day Middle East, and my very broad and imperfect definition of Japan in the 40's is given to exemplify this.

As far as its citizens (if not its own colonial slaves) were concerned, Japan had a similar standard of living to the US and Europe, and its citizens had a measure of democracy already. Tojo, after all, was the Prime minister of a constitutional monarchy, in which the Emperor had little say. They went to war with us, not the other way round, and because of competing economic interests. The differences we made there were economical, not political. It was a war between modern, industrialised nations, and an utterly different situation to which has existed in the Middle East since WW2.

One of the lessons that should have been learnt by western democracies in the last 60 years is that western style democracy cannot be imposed or suddenly brought about in countries which have only ever known feudalism or dictatorship; it has to evolve through very traumatic events. The UK and the US both had to undergo civil wars and a role as dictator to colonial peoples before the democratic state of those countries was finally achieved in the early years of the 20th century. Germany and Russia had to suffer far worse, and the other democratic nations of Europe had to either go through occupation, or assume the role as a dictatorial colonial power. These processes took in some cases hundreds of years. Afghanistan and Iraq were assuming the intermediate stage between feudalism and democracy (dictatorship). Religion had no firm place in government, which was open to people of all faiths. Women were allowed education and minor jobs in government. With respect to Afghanistan, I am refering to the communist government, not the western sponsored Talibans who subsequently gained power. Both countries have now returned to feudalism because of attempts from without to try and impose full democracy (or for more shady economical reasons). In Iraq, the Shah tried to make the place a western style country in the space of a few years; the result was a kneejerk reaction by religious conservatives, and then the Ayatollah. As Tariq Aziz, the Christian deputy to Saddam, said: 'If you get rid of us, you will end up with something far worse'. A pattern has evolved here. Secular, Middle Eastern countries, often western - or at least, Socialist - in outlook, are pressed by various means into becoming fully western and democratic, only to slip back into a feudal, Islamic groundstate. How many times does this have to happen? Why are our sights now on Syria, for God's sake? At present Iraqis do not want western style democracy; the majority would be glad to return to a dictatorship in which you were ok as long as you kept your mouth shut about religion or politics. The remainder - a minority, but a very large one - want revenge. Imagine: a neighbour, the local gangster, murders your wife and kids for not giving protection money. He has done this to other people on the street. you can do nothing about it because he is powerful. A policeman moves in across the road, removes his power, and then decides to hold a party, saying 'let bygones be bygones'. He expects everyone on the street to do this, attend his party, and henceforth become good neighbours. Your violent neighbour is suddenly powerless and friendless. What would you do? That is the current situation in Iraq. A child could have predicted it, and some did when interviewed by the BBC. We shouldn't have gone in. We now need to stay. As an earlier commentator stated, war and occupation are two entirely different things.

The fact that they left existing administrative structures intact made it possible to rapidly consolidate gains whilst moving on to the next conquest. Also, Egypt had long been a province which the Romans exploited rather than ruled thoughtfully. It got little back from the Empire, and I think that is why it capitulated almost immediately.

This relatively small subject seems to have acquired a lot attention, yet we are no nearer resolving the query. Instead of asking ourselves how far a pilum could be thrown, how about we ask one of the many good re - enactment groups how far a pilum can be thrown? Then we will get our answer.

Lets leave the Germans out of this - their contribution to the war on terror has been profound. When we went into Afghanistan, the Luftwaffe flew their first sorties outside Germany for 60 years. Its just a shame they were half way to Coventry before they realised they needed to turn round!

That was a very sober response Cicero and I thank you for it. I accept fully what you mean about the Indians and in fact realised this prior to writing; What I think I was trying to tell my friends was that there is always two ways of looking at things, and used this as an example. But also, I was trying to say that to take a differing view to one held by many Americans does not, and should not, imply a hatred of America. We Brits have done a lot of bad things throughout history, and continue to have a dubious role in the Middle East. The French have never forgiven us for scuttling their navy in 1940, and we still have an immense case to answer in Ireland. Many of my friends from all these places, and others, have pointed these things out - often over a glass of wine, and with a smile afterwards. I actually think America is great, and if your forum meeting was on the east coast, would even consider asking if I could attend, and take in New York at the same time!

I think this religion still has modern adherents, about 100'000 of them, in North West India.

...but not motorcycles, eh? Steve Mcqueen winning desert races on a Triumph? MPC would call that 'Creeping Briticisation'!!

Woah, guys... this is getting out of hand. Even Stoic, sober types are getting hot under the collar. What I will say next I think addresses some of the above views, but I relate it solely to myself because I do not arrogantly assume to speak for others. In Europe, we have a tradition of criticising our polititians, and those of our neighbours. It doesnt mean we hate our country, or any other. We are just giving a counter argument, as defined by the principles of democracy. It is laudable that USA pressured Britain to dismantle its colonial empires. But forgive me for pointing out that the Midwest was acquired when we acquired bits of Africa, yet we do not see it being given back to the Indians. We thank the US for feeding us after WWII - yet we prosecuted that war for 2 years before you came in, buying vast amounts of war supplies from you at the same time. Which we have just finished paying for. We note that the US is generous with giving aid - but much of that aid has political strings attached, and anyway would be unneccessary without the WTO hamstringing poor countries at every turn. So can you see why some people may get annoyed by what they see as double standards? There is always a counterpoint to a view; please forgive us for presenting the counterpoint, at times. This, I believe, is at the root of the perception that all people hate the US all the time. It is a sensitivity to criticism which is largely absent this side of the pond. If someone says to me, 'tony Blair - what a warmongering swine!!' I will agree first and foremost, and not instantly think 'Hold on... that guy is a Brit Hater!' Likewise, point out to the French that Chirac is a crook who only avoids jail because he is president, and most Frenchies will shrug, and say... 'Oui...c'est vrai!' Its also the double standards with which not just your, but everyones polititians operate, that arouses much criticism. With all countries, including mine, there are polititians whose main remit is to line their pockets and manipulate the media to cover it up. America just gets mentioned most because it is bigger, has more polititians, and more greedy businessmen than, say, Switzerland or Belgium, which are much smaller. Coke, McDonalds and a whole rash of cheap consumer trash are of no consequence to me, as I choose not to use them. But that, in tandem with my points above, does not make me an America hater, just someone who is honest with his friends when they are wrong, and chooses not to engage in the more downmarket aspects of a given culture. The only side you are seeing of me on this forum, at this time, is of a Brit seemingly taking a pop at America. It is not the whole, or even partial picture, though. There is not enough room here to say what I like about America, and anyway, that is not currently under discussion - a perception by Americans that the rest of the world hates you is. My hairstyle is James Dean, the music I play is Jazz and Rockabilly, there is a picture of the Chrysler building in my flat and currently 'Blue Moon of Kentucky' (Presley, Sun Sessions, 1954) is playing on my CD player. I think Hilary Clinton is horny as hell. Surely a little disagreement on recent history doesn't cancel all that out?

Happy Birthday to you both. May the cornucopia of gold be eternally full, and the fat sow of plenty suckle you forever!

The problem with pseudo history is that it often picks on sensational aspects of history which are emotive or romantic, but have little documentary material with which the pseudohistory can be countered. This is unfortunate, because it makes the study of certain fascinating topics off - limits. Take Atlantis. Thanks to the preposterous literature of Edgar Cayce and Graham Hancock, no historian of any prominence will touch this subject. Which is a shame. Geologists for years have been saying that the central Atlantic ridge in the region of the Azores was once above sea level, similar to Iceland in the North Atlantic. It is thought that the subsidance of this land, due to America and Europe/Africa drifting apart, resulted in the gulf stream suddenly flowing north, rapidly bringing the Ice age to a close and raising sea levels precipitously. This would explain a lot of geology, and a lot of biblical and classical legends. But the pseudohistorians have rendered this topic, at least for the present, untouchable in proper academic circles. Again, the Catholic and Orthodox churches have an immense case to answer vis-a-vis the rewriting of early Christian history, but who will touch the subject now it has been done to death by populist journalists, novelists making a fast buck and renegade catholics with an axe to grind??

I can understand you frustration here, Ursus, but I think there is only this and one other thread which is currently discussing modern day US politics. But given that The US is currently the richest, most influential and (politically) the most interesting country in the world at present, surely that is no surprise? Given that there are more Americans suscribing to this forum than any other nationality, it also gives us non-citizens a chance to learn something, or to inform on things which may have escaped the media in the US, and I think thats a good thing.

...apart from the people who already lived there.

I think it was Africa Proconsularis, on account of all the food it sent to Rome. Egypt is probably up there too, for the same reason.

Again, I wouldn't like to either. Apart from anything else, I quite like living half a morning's drive from Hadrians wall, to the south of the English Lake District, so its not a put - down. I don't think as many people hate the US as Americans think; Some people hate the US, for some of the time. Unfortunately many in the US are unwilling to listen to the reasons, and construe it as 'hate' (or silence the voice) when people point these reasons out. Although largely ridiculed in the US, Michael Moore goes a long way to explain to puzzled Americans exactly why this is.

If he was there, I'd have gone for Julian. But as he isn't, I'll go for Belisarius.

The man in the feature is totally European in appearance.

Just as a footnote, there is an excellent website which devotes itself solely to Hadrians wall and the continuation of the frontier down the Cumbrian coast. Here is the link: http://www.hadrians-wall.info/ There is a vast amount of information on the Wall here - not just history and site information, but also travel itineraries and bus/hotel availability. There is also a cheerful little forum to be found in the 'of interest' section. One or two familiar names have signed up already! I urge those with an interest in Hadrians Wall in particular to explore this site and forum. You will not be disappointed! EDIT: Whoops! I see that Pertinax has done this already. That'll teach me to read posts properly! Anyway, it wont harm to post the link again.

Thats terrific, Gaius - the photo told me all I need to know. It seems that the fort platform is flat, with a slight drop to the south and west. Cheers! But yes, a visit would be the best thing, of course.

Maybe not. However... The annexation of territory after the Spanish American war, and the Indian Wars was very empire - like, or at least evokes to me memories of the Roman Republic in its acquisition of territory. Examine closely the present day practices of supporting/disrupting other sovereign governments, having protectorates and financially bound allies, and the concept of always having an enemy, just lurking below the horizon, so as to whip up basic patriotism among the masses. I think it is best to say that powerful states throughout history have all used similar means to acquire and hold on to power, and this includes the European Powers in recent history. For the purpose of this discussion, I include America with the 'European powers' as it was a product of European expansion, has an overwhelmingly European culture, and until recently was largely European in ethnic make up. It still is, linguistically and culturally - hence the beautifully worded declaration of independence, or the fantastic neo - classical monuments of Washington, deliberately created to make a point, and a link to the most powerful empire of ancient times. And like all other empires, it has its immense positive cultural attributes, as well as its pragmatic political aspects.

Help, folks. I have just embarked upon my most ambitious reconstruction model yet - a 6mm scale (1/300) reconstruction of Segedunum! At first I wanted to do Greatchesters, as I have always had an odd fascination with that site. But there is too little of the groundplan available to reconstruct, and the western ditches would be a headache to get right. Then I thought Housesteads - but its already been done by several other people, and better than I could do. Other forts are too lacking in detail currently, and I would hate to spend a lot of time making a model of a site, only to have some archaeologist disprove my conjectured groundplan a few years later! So I chose Segedunum, partly because the plan is nearly complete, and partly because the aparant lack of ground contours will render this easier to build than the aforementioned forts. When complete this will, including wall spur and vicus, cover a small tabletop, say about 1.5 metre square. I have a groundplan blown up to this size - but groundplans always miss out one important factor to model makers - contours. Which leads to my question. On the photos I have available, the whole site looks fairly flat - is this the case, or are there undulations and rises that I might need to include if my model is to be absolutely bob - on? I would be grateful for input from people whao have been there. I havent - as yet.