caldrail

According to Jeremy Clarkson, the demise of the supercar is nigh. His romantic goodbye to petrol-guzzlers on Top Gear nearly had me bursting into tears. What is life, without passion? Let's face it, those ultra-eco-safe hybrid cars are about as passionate as yesterdays warmed up breakfast. There's something horribly socialist about the modern world. It's even showing signs of communist mediocrity and conformance. The world want drivers to be slow, safe, and silent. On the one hand, I have to agree. The law says we must obey speed limits. Of course there will always be those who believe they can drive better than everybody else and that laws don't apply to them, but sometimes you have to wonder if speed limits are designed to make hybrid cars seem like a good idea after all. If all that wasn't bad enough, now the banks have made a complete mess of the worlds economies, along with a daft politician or two, and it seems fewer of us will able to sample the delights (and frustrations) of cars designed to thrill. Yet despite this, manufacturers are turning out more and more supercars. There are new models appearing every week. Most of them are the wild excesses of their designers imaginations and you'd have to be fairly imaginative to figure how to use them on an everyday basis. The more extreme are really just playthings, toys, fun little cars for the race track and the wealthy enthusiast who doesn't know enough about cars to buy something better. Deep down, I want a supercar. Not those silly track day monsters, but real genuine sports cars. I just love the drama these vehicles generate simply by burbling past. As for the bad tempered scorn of the poverty stricken public driven to rage by such displays of extravagance, that unfortunately goes with it. But then, my cheap and nasty bad boy Eunos Cabriolet isn't exactly supercar stuff, but that got vandalised after two months of happy exuberance. It's a rusting wreck at the back of my home. And still, I sometimes get woken by irate kids planning to drive it after the night clubs close. One shouted in the early hours to tell me exactly what he thought of me for preventing his enjoyment of my purchase. Sorry, but it isn't yours and you shouldn't have vandalised it in the first place. Now Lexus has joined the ranks of supercar makers. Surely they aren't serious? It seems they are. For a cool

He does imply that isn't the case.. "We worry about..." Who exactly 'we' are is another matter. Given he was an educated man and someone who gave it some thought, it wouldn't be stretching the imagination to think of him as one of the less avaricious members of Roman society. What skews this is he writes during a later period of Roman history, where the humanitarian sympathies of the ruling classes are increasing (underlined by the improving situation of slaves, possibly also by the adoption of christian beliefs, but in the latter case I don't know enough about how early christians viewed animals, and this was Rome after all). To offset that, he makes thos quote whilst comparing barbarians with animals, remarking it was good that a barbarian tribe wasn't exterminated forever. It reveals less of an enviromentalist (as we more or less agree) and rather more of a typical patronial air of superiority. The fundamental ideology of the Romans from their early days was that the gods had given them a divine purpose to rise and dominate - An empire without end - and it seems this mindset was prevalent even in the late empire, which itself raises an interesting point about christianity - that it must have been coloured by Roman thinking. Okay, I have no idea what religion Themistius worshipped (does anyone else have that info?) but actually I think that question is largely irrelevant, because ultimately Themistius, for all his apparent concern, only frets about the diminishing numbers of animals in the wild. Notice that he does not curse his forefathers for their wanton slaughter. Neither does he suggest that steps must be taken to preserve wildlife, nor praise anyone else for doing so. The whole quote comments merely that a barbarian tribe is spared slaughter, almost if they were a curiosity, a colourful accessory in the world around them. It raises the question then of how the Romans saw the natural world. To some extent, it was a strange and frightening place. Rivers weren't just watercourses. They were places that were either the bounty of a gods benificence, or worse, a place forbidden by the gods unless correct observances were met. The legions that Claudius roused to invade Britain in 43 weren't keen to board the ships at all. The Channel was viewed as a stormy, dangerous barrier, a place the gods would placating over if they were to reach the shores of the mysterious island, and that was even after Julius Caesar had visited the place twice a century before, and despite the regular mercantile and political contact between Britain and the continent that had been going on even before that. Animals were of course simply beasts. Manifestations of of the natural world. If nothing else, the Romans were consumers and the exploitation of a world the gods had given them a right to dominate would seem perfectly in order to them. Beasts were therefore a resource no different to valuable minerals, as both could be sold at a profit. This does seperate the natural world from agriculture. In farming, there is a desire to conserve and ensure the farm animals flourish, but that in itself is only to serve human needs. On the face of it then, Themistius is indeed something of a rarity in Roman circles, a man who voices concern about animals, however lacking in real sympathy it may have been. I suspect though, and this is possibly in the thoughts of Themistius as he wrote about his concerns, that the dwindling stocks of animals in the wild was making itself felt in a very subtle way. Certainly it would have affected their wallet. Increasing numbers of beasts for the arena would have required importation and lengthy transportation, making the use of the creatures much more expensive. So we see both finance and practicality as two reasons for the decline in animal slaughter toward the late empire. The decline of pagan practises must also have contributed. But lurking beneath the obvious was an uncertainty about the world. Because the Romans felt this divine purpose about infinite empire, it would seem in the order of things that the gods were providing the world for the Romans to exploit, something we know they did readily. With a declining resource in the increasing rarity of wild beasts, are the Romans somehow not keeping faith with their gods? The point I getting to then is that Themistius has a better overview of the world, by his education and position in society. He has witnessed the ebb and flow of current life and knows about the history of his realm. He sees the changes occuring around him and has begun, deep down, to question his Roman prerogative? Only with guilt would Themistius have made an intellectual change of heart and assumed the mantle of enviromentalist. That is the essential point then. For all his worries about barbarians and the natural world, he voices no guilt. Themistius is therefore indeed as Roman as his contemporaries.

The Idiots Guide To Everything in this case points to some documents somewhat better informed. Point taken, but then again, you can only cite superior references when you find them. Until I do, I shall have to rely on the research of other individuals who have had work published or presented on television. In any case, one has to be careful that the veracity of their sources aren't being accepted at face value without some critical appraisal. To blindly accept Suetonius as fact would be a little misguided, yet he remains a primary source. Also, the use of statistics in cases where no primary source lists any can only be a derived figure at best, and I've spoken elsewhere about the dangers of relying on the manipulation of numbers to prove a point. The Romans themselves made only passing references to the numbers of beasts slaughtered in the arena, and then only in cases where the figure was substantially noteworthy. To appreciate the situation it therefore becomes necessary to utilise secondary sources because otherwise we're left with an incomplete picture. That doesn't mean our resulting picture is necessarily correct. It must be seen that our understanding of history is based on what information has been accrued and the interpretation of it. However heartfelt our picture of Roman history, there must always be a willingness to set that aside in the light of better information, something I've had to do many times on this site. The reality of detailed research is that the internet isn't the tool to do it. For that you need archives, libraries, a lot of time, and in some cases, finance to support your endeavour. Wikipedia may not be the most authoritive guide, but to provide a quick answer that the majority of viewers will appreciate, it does have its uses. I would also point out that since I no longer have transport, computer, or means to afford a research project, I am currently more reliant on the idiots guide than I would like to be. As things stand, a simple article I could have written overnight for these forums will now take weeks. So I'm afraid prodding me for better sources at this time is a waste of effort. I'd like to help. In fact, I'd like access to better sources too.

Yo ho ho mee hearties, 'tis blowing a gale and the seas be rough. This be weather to sort out the landlubbers from old sea dogs. Haven't seen a good squall like this since last year. Batten down the hatches boys and break out the rum. Ye'll be needin' it fer the journey 'ome... Ha ha harrr. They promised foul weather this morning and delivered on it. It is horrendous out there. For old sea dogs and parrots only. Wooden legs available while stocks last. From the Window A few days ago I was sat at the window of my home reading a good book, watching the world go by, and generally chilling out. Across the street, an older man plodded slowly along the pavement, pausing occaisionally to study the buildings and looking a little confused. He stopped at one gateway. He pointed, looking around, unsure if this was his destination. A step forward and again he looked around, searching for some clue as the address. Another step. Again he pointed and looked around. At this point one of the occupants of the premises had spotted the bloke outside. A middle aged man came out, escorted the old guy back to the street, and after a quick exchange, pointed him in the direction he needed to go before vanishing back inside. The old guy looked up the street, then pointed... From Another Window Late afternoon at the library and I'm sat in the second floor lounge, with its splendid view of the busy street below. Across the road is a bar, quite a popular one though I've never partaken of its services myself. The rather tacky neon sign hardly works anymore, welcome to IS='s. Outside on the pavement an old man was busy gesticulating and talking earnestly. I wonder what that's all about? At first I thought he was remonstrating with a passing driver but no, he was busy talking to himself. This went on for around ten minutes and the old guy had parked himself next to the entrance. naturally this attracted attention from the staff. An impatient young man shooed him away. The old guy stumbled along the pavement, barely able to stay on his feet, and as far as I could see, in no need whatsoever of purchasing drinks from IS='s bar. He tried to talk to another person waiting to cross the road, who in turn tried very hard to avoid his unwanted companion. Eventually the pedestrian decided risking life and limb by walking across the road through busy traffic was a better idea. When I last saw the old man, he was stood talking to a dark corner. A part of me sympathises and hopes he gets help for whatever his problem is. I suspect part of that problem is exactly the reason I can't help him either. Apology of the Week I got it wrong. I really did. The Dizzie Rascal gig was the night before. All due apologies to anyone who made a wasted trip but good grief, discover music before it's too late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Lion http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showto...mp;hl=bestiarii

Maybe he foresaw the disunity in the Empire which was to become very problematic a decade or two later, and this was his attempt to address it. Later emperors used religion to this purpose. An interesting point, considering Caracalla had all the hallmarks of a warrior-emperor. Definitely a soldiers man. Somewhat ironic then a Roman soldier killed him on campaign. The problem with individuals in that sort of powerful position is that if they become focused on military activity (as Caracalla clearly wanted to) it tends to be at the expense of everything else. Now of course he did instigate civic improvements. As history shows, emperors were usually a tad cynical about that, as public benificence was expected of a wealthy ruler (and interestingly, would remain a characteristic of Italian culture even as late as the Renaissance). Caracalla may have been a very hard-nosed individual (am I being too generous?) but he wasn't stupid. Keep the Romans sweet. Unfortunately, his ideas of how to do that would have also included military glory and triumphs to warm the Roman heart. It remains unlikely he would have conquered Parthia, which as a region showed considerable resilience over the centuries in resisting Roman aggression, and he he not been assassinated you have to ask whether his reign was going to be remembered fondly even with his efforts to appear a beneficent ruler on the home front.

The heartland of Roman occupation? If our experience of the Newcastle trip is anything to go by, a visit to an 'area' as opposed to a 'location' will need careful thought regarding logistics. As we discovered, it's very easy to overstretch your itinerary (and miss your bus).

It didn't fail at any given time, it just never worked well at all. It required the efforts of the two individuals mentioned above for any notable success at alleviating the problem. After all, the entire point of the Saxon Shore was to ward off incursions, yet these incursions continued for centuries, and the defense in depth strategy of the late empire was designed to react to incursions after landing, not on the coastline itself. There is some literary evidence from Roman writers. You can find some of it through the links on this site. I managed to find them. Other than that, post-historical analysis (with reference to archaeological evidence) fills the gap quite neatly.

On the contrary, we assume it worked reliably, but when you consider the efforts required to ward off the Saxons were only succesful in two circumstances, the initiatives of Theodosius and the campaigns of Stilicho, the perspective of the defense changes considerably. The fact was that the Saxon Shore was ill-defended. Not entirely the fault of the Romans (it must have been extremely difficult to stop Saxon raiders nipping in and out), but perhaps more of a failure of resolute persistence to deal with an ongoing situation. In other words, the Roman defenders did not approach the problem with their usual relentless and overwhelming aggression. Partly because of geography, partly through irresolute leadership.

Actually, you need to understand what Themistius is on about. he isn't voicing modern sentiment. The Romans believed as a society that they had mastery over nature. They revelled in it, and celebrated this superiority in their beast fights and hunts staged for the arena. In bemoaning the loss of these fine animals, what he means is not that these cute and wonderful species are no longer romping around looking magnificent, but that they are a passing symbol, a lost age, the end of a time when man struggled against nature valiantly and heroically, making do with imported creatures of wretched condition and less impressive stature. Please understand what these creatures meant to the Romans. Whereas we marvel at these end-results of evolution, we see them as such because our society has developed that viewpoint and that's what we teach our children. A hundred years ago, such animals were caged up in conditions far less sanguine and without concern. For the Romans, who saw the death of a fine animal as symbolic and a kind of celebration of Roman virtue (although the fighting of animals inevitably means the fighter is tarred with being of the same stature), the animals were sources of entertainment. Certainly Romans will have looked on in awe at these strange and often dangerous animals, but that has more to do with rarity and mystique. There is an almost spiritual aspect to their regard (or lack of it) for wild animals. The men who hunted these animals for transport to the arena were well paid professionals, who operated in large teams using funnel-nets and all sorts of tactics to capture them without injury to either side. Soldiers also played their part. One german-based legion boasted of their Ursarii, their 'bear hunters', who earned a substantial side-income from this activity. In fact, the entire animal-industry was a huge commercial enterpise, lucrative if somewhat risky, some animals dying en-route through lack of care or accident. Perhaps Themistius had a more humanitarian view of animals. He was, however, a man born into the Roman world and we cannot assume he voices the modern concern for our enviroment that has become such a popular issue today. He is, therefore, sorry to see them go. What great displays they once made.

So did I

Perhaps, but then it was social instability (and rebellious leaders) that required the withdrawal of legions from Britain, and the Saxon threat (in the generic sense) was felt no less by northern Gauls, especially since they had no moat to ward off predatory advances. One of the reasons for the long term failure of the Saxon Shore defences was the lack of support from continental stations.

Last night I started to feel a little warm. You know those restless nights where you just cannot achieve a state of blissful comfort no matter what permutation of bedroom artifacts you choose? Yes, it was one of those nights. I decided the atmosphere was a bit stale and opened a window, plodding back to bed in the vain hope of sleeping. As I lay there staring at the gloom I could hear rainfall. It is curious what a gentle sound it has, how soothing it can be (providing of course, you're not out in it). It came as no suprise. We had been warned. Recently they changed the weatherman. Instead of the happy "Hey you guys are in deep trouble" presenter we've gotten Mr Quiet, who informs us almost apologetically that we're all in deep trouble. You see, so far October has been relatively benign with no hurricanes, tornado's, cold-snaps, or welly-threatening floods. All that is about to change. Our indian summer is making way for nasty 'orrible cold, wet, and windy weather. So I lay there with eyelids growing heavy safe and secure in the knowledge that for the time being I was still in Kansas. If you see what I mean. Palm Trees? Out on my exercise jaunt yesterday I went down the old railway line at the bottom of Swindon. There's a rock cutting there that has Jurassic Period carved all over it. On one of the gardens that back onto the artificial canyon the owner has planted a series of palm trees. With all the surrounding foliage turning yellow and falling off like aboreal baldness, it looked distinctly odd. Still, it proves global warming has one positive side effect. We can now create tropical paradises in our own backyards. Hang on... Is that bloke doing rain dances or something? Or does he own a captive ape of enormous size? I must admit, I haven't seen any dinosaurs around just of late. Survival Challenge of the Week Dizzie Rascal is set to take to the stage of the Oasis Sports Centre tonight. Hopefully he'll last longer than Morrisey did. Erm... Then again...

Agreed

A quick jog through Lawns and it's back down to the library for my usual net-fest. I arrived before the inner doors were opened. The security guard, as usual, waited with professional calm for the exact second to stroll toward the locks, and I do suspect he enjoys the process immensely. It doesn't really matter of course, there's still a selection of books available for perusal and... Hello... What's that notice board over by the window? It seems our councils have decided to pursue another makeover opportunity for Swindon. They've been making quite a few grandiose schemes over the last few years, some of which resemble those city-scape matte paintings in Star Trek episodes, but this time they've decided to upgrade Regent Street, one of the pedestrianised shopping streets in town. On the face of it there's little to suggest a huge improvement. The artists impressions, a mixture of photography and renderings, looked all very tidy (and notice the 'after' pictures with lots of happy people being sociable and content in Post-Madeover Swindon), yet it was hard to see why all the effort of ripping up the pavement to replace it with a duller pattern is really necessary. One point I did approve of was the exposure of the old tramway tracks. They're still there? Apparently so, buried under pavement, and it's good to see that after all these years Swindon is starting to appreciate it's heritage. On the other hand, Swindon has always been more comfortable with future ambition and the makeover shows all the hallmarks of modernist thinking. They intend to install neon lights in the pavement so our happy citizens can tell which parts of the street are fit to be happy in. It probably won't suprise you, but the artists impression of bright electric blue lamps in the footwalk doesn't exactly thrill me at all. It's a very cheap and tacky idea, gentlemen. Welcome to Nightclub City. Ugh. Leaner, Fitter Me I woke this morning feeling none too bad for my energetic hike yesterday. Heck, I even went for a jog this morning. Hang on though... Am I imagining things, or am I genuinely losing weight? Oh ye gods, my spare tire has become partially deflated. I have lost weight! Seriously, I'm in danger of becoming unbearably smug. At least until I realise I can't make jokes about being officially fat anymore. I have to say though that these fat-burners only work if you burn fat, or in other words, exercise, and eat sensibly. It isn't a quick fix for obese walrus types. If my weight loss continues at this pace, I'll need bouyancy aids in the bathroom.

I suspect the Saxon raiders were less concerned with social instability than getting rich quick, and since their tribal members were becoming a little migratory, one would expect fewer Saxons at home, especially since sea levels were rising, inundating their coastal settlements, and forcing aggressive behaviour with a view to profitable survival. The Saxons allowed into Britain as settlers proved to be good citizens - the Romans describe them as such - and therefore show far less social instability than their avaricious continental cousins. Since the raiders on the Saxon Shore were effectively attacking their own countrymen as often as not, the question of social instability is a moot point and hardly indiciative of anything more significant than typical human larceny brought on by opportunity and intent.

Never said they weren't. Unfortunately, they didn't just spring into being. That level of popularity had to develop and only with the Augustan Franchise did arena combat see empire wide acceptance as another facet of Roman culture to aspire to. Further, gladiatorial combat may have retained a level of audience interest in the late empire, but its popularity had faded since the Pax Imperium. It isn't reasonable to suggest that an emperor could simply ban a hugely popular entertainment and not receive a bad review from the bullish Roman populace. The games in Rome by the 4th century had changed. Whereas in previous styles the idea was a fast paced real sword fight ending in a clean kill (the reason gladiators fought with unprotected chests), the idea now was to accentuate the drama with weapons designed to wound rather than kill, and fights became slogging matches. Certainly some parts of the public would have enjoyed the spectacle anyway, but increasingly the arena combat was viwed, in Italy at least, as undesirable. Chariot racing was always more popular. There is easily available evidence for that too.

There were plenty of Romans who didn't like gladiatorial combat, despite the more violent and bloodthirsty mindset of the day, and arguably the increasing religious objection with regard to christian practises in conjunction with deliberately more bloody staged fights as gladiatorial combat reached it's final days would have polarised the audience largely into two camps - those who wanted it stopped on religious or humanitarian grounds, and those who wanted to see a good fight. That such combat survived a ban and lasted for more than a century in the distant provinces shows a cultural bias, and we can discount some of the dark age staged combats as the plaything of wealthy lords rather than a contiuance of a tradition. Since the cost of staging these games was rising, especially with an increasing shortage of suitable animals for hunts and beast-fights, the emphasis must have changed from large scale spectaculars and returned to private displays of a more modest kind, given the increasing disapproval of the public at large. It worth bearing in mind that chariot races remained more popular than gladiatorial combat throughout, and survived the end of such combat.

It isn't proof of anything. Northern Neil has made some observations and linked them to a map - it's evidence, not a conclusion. Since the prevailing strategic policy was defense in depth at the latter part of the empire, which presumably was the case in Britain as much as anywhere else, we then have a failure of an 'integrated system' regarding the Saxon Shore. The defenses had been in place since the 3rd century and had been under pressure from Saxons since that time. The evidence of Roman coin hoards in Saxon hands suggest succesful raiding (there's rather too many to indicate succesful trade which involves payment for goods as much as taking them) throughout the period, thus if integrated, the system had serious flaws. As already observed, the defenses were designed primarily to discourage Saxon depridation rather than destroy it, which given the limited Roman communications network of the day was quite probably an impossible endeavour. What makes this situation worse toward the end of empire is the increasing use of Saxon mercenaries as defenders. Even feoderatii were used wholesale without Roman training under their own officers (or more accurately, tribal leaders), thus weren't rained in the Roman methods of waging war. It is highly probable therefore that these mercenaries were not as keen defenders of the Roman state as might be imagined, since they would have been loyal to their pay check in this circumstance. It doesn't stretch the imagination to see the later Saxon defenders as somewhat lazy and indifferent. Integrated systems of defense have one essential property. Communication. Without that, the disparate forces available to it have no means of central control. The Count of the Saxon Shore was functionally unable to control centrally. In any event, his was a primarily administrative task in that it would be his responsibility to organise the forces prior to the incursion, to ensure they were capable of meeting that threat. I concede that if close to a situation the Count would be required to lead a response personally, but this wasn't his primary task. That the system was failing (the Saxons were successfully raiding and remained an ever present threat even with any assumed co-operation from continental assets) rather points to a lack of co-ordination, a natural consequence of the limited command capability of Roman times. It would be wrong to assume that a Count of the Saxon Shore could scramble a squadron of cavalry to counter any threat once detected by observation. Firstly, the forts were not closely spaced, the coastline offered many chances of making safe landfall in areas outside of direct observation, and that the Saxons weren't likely to announce their presence at all, preferring instead to mount suprise raids. We then must consider response times of the Saxon Shore. Since the defenders would be relying on patrols encountering incursions, or signals from other emplacements, or perhaps no more than hue and cry, the intelligence received of an enemy threat would be variable in scope, according to situation. Again we return to the lack of Roman preparation in late empire forces. Untrained feoderatii may well have been slow to respond (that remains an assumption - those saxon defenders with more enthusiasm would have reacted quicker but then we have little evidence to gauge their motivations). All in all, the lack of maintenance and operational ability in the defenders will have told heavily on the supposed 'integration' of the Saxon Shore. But what exactly is 'integration'? Boat patrols must, by their very nature, have operated independently. Cavalry patrols were orbital to their station, from whom the initial response would have started by word of mouth, without direct communication other than riding back to their station. In short, patrols were there to ward off the enemy, to discourage his arrival, as any attempt to fight them was by that patrol alone. There was little chance of immediate aid in the event of an encounter.

In the last year or so I've been making half hearted efforts to maintain my physical fitness. The ennui of unemployment and its incessant requirement to stay active in the jobsearch has left me, ironically, with less time to devote to physical exercise. Slowly but surely I've become aware that hiking has become tougher on my reserves of energy, and that my rebellious waistline is advancing it's remorseless progress ahead of me. Walking through town the other day I passed a shop dealing with health foods aimed at athletes and sportspeople. To be honest, I've never given the shop a second glance before, but in the corner of my eye I spotted a window ad for 'fat-burners', and I stopped in my tracks. Would that be helpful in my quest to be more than another ageing has-been? Shall I ask? Yes. Let's. Inside the store was a plethora of plastic tubs containing everything from atomic powered porridge to aviation grade food additives on an industrial scale. People consume this stuff? It was like entering the brave new worlds of Isaac Asimov. Anyhow, I asked the guy behind the counter about fat-burners. After some questions about lifestyle and health he took me to an unassuming range of pills that he thought would suit my needs. It did worry me a bit that he was only four feet tall. Heck, those fat-burners must really work. I went to bed that night wondering what would happen to me. Would I awake a seven stone cyclist with a strange passion for lycra? Or would I mutate painfully into a hairy sexually rampant monster? As it happens, I awoke feeling no different. My six-pack stomach was still buried under a mound of wobbly blubber, pretty much as I expected, and there were no traffic cones adorning my bedroom decor. It's early. Half past seven. The sun is up and I'm in a mood for a hike. A fair test then to decide whether these strange chemicals will affect my physical performance on the hills and dales of North Wiltshire. Hike of the Week The verdant English summer has gone. In its place is the sombre greyness of Autumn, whose russet foliage bears little comparison to the extrovert colours of American deciduous forests. The soft ivory sun struggled to penetrate the listless clouds and there was a hint of chill in the air as I set out to climb the escarpments toward Barbury. Did those strange pills work? Funnily enough, yes, they did. Make no mistake, the symptoms of lengthy exertion were still evident. I still breathed heavily and sweated like a pig on the steep hills. My legs still ached, my feet grew sore, and yes, I think a small blister is developing on my little toe. The pills don't make you any fitter than you already were. But at the same time, I didn't feel as weighed down as I normally would. On the last few miles back into Swindon after a twelve to fifteen mile round trip, I was still striding purposefully forward, instead of the exhausted plodding I normally resort to by that stage. Sure I was tired. But I felt good about it. So good in fact, I had to pop down to the library and tell everyone about it. Now that I've had to wait an hour or two for an available computer, my physical condition is catching up with me. What I have noticed is how thirsty I've become. The guy in the shop had suggested I should drink plenty of water. He wasn't kidding.

It just proves that advertising is nothing new. Bad boy Caracalla was only too keen to project a Mr Nasty image. That is after all what busts were for regarding living characters. Advertisements for the personality cult.

If nothing else, Constantine was a great opportunist. How he got away with that stunt is beyond me, but it was a superstitious age.

We do take a lot on face value regarding historical accounts, and in all likeliehood, the events are exaggerated by the victors (We won, by the way, if you haven't heard). Now there is some patriotic pride involved as there always will be in the success of a nations past. The problem with reconstructive analyses like this is that often the researcher has started with the express intention of proving something he or she believes, thus raising the possibility of bias. A statistical revision also runs the risk of being widely incorrect because it doesn't necessarily include all the relevant factors (or only includes those the researcher feels is relevant) and that many modern assumptions can creep into the equation. Re-enactive research is useful and does point out some obvious fallacies, but that isn't just dry research made real, it also involves a lot of intuition and even guesswork, because many of the activities and paraphenalia used at the time are no longer part of ordinary life and thus things deemed mundane aren't likely to be recorded, a potential calamity for us ignorant modern day types. I would view this revision with interest. Perhaps it's worth reading or simply bunkum, but in this sort of thing it's worth keeping in mind. For my part, I would say there has to be something that links modern insight with events as recorded, even if it isn't what the chroniclers of old wrote down for us. If a complete revision is called for, this actually needs justification. Can the researcher point to peripheral events that support his hypothesis? Further, a revised account isn't necessarily correct despite good intentions, and whilst we can accept the qualifications and indeed quality of the work, we should never blindly accept revision unless the case is overwhelming. In thisparticular case, I've yet to be convinced, but it is an interesting possibility.

How significant are these connections in family names? Is it simply a family tree or does this reflect more than just ancestory? The Romans certainly indicate that breeding was everything, but a part of me suspects a certain amount of snobbery from wealthy and succesful families. More to the point, do these connections reflect a social order from before Rome was created, amongst the tribal raiders of the Tiber valley?

I'd be happy to. Unfortunately... the Romans were inconsiderate regarding comparisons between ancient and modern tactics, strategy, organisation, and methodology, in that they never wrote any such treatise, at least as far as I can tell, so like everyone in the modern day, you'll have to rely on post-historical analysis, like wot I wrote. On the other hand, if you don't like mine, there are other authors as qualified if not more so currently in print who deal with such issues, and if they aren't to your taste, you might like to attempt an analysis yourself.