caldrail

There's a house I used to pass on a regular basis going back some thirty years now. As a dwelling, it wasn't anything special, but the combination of grubby stonework and detailed windows gave it a subtle hint of individuality. What really made a difference was the garden, a forlorn and neglected patch of withered trees and abandoned fishponds. It had that 'secret garden' feel to it, a real patina, almost a sense of camouflaged seclusion. Sadly the house has been bought by new owners. The garden is gone, paved over with red brick to park the junior management car, and the house plastered and painted bright cream. When the new brick wall was built, the occupant had a part demolished so he could park in a certain direction. Its become a sort of advertisement for the owners lifestyle. Nonetheless, the house, for all its renovated freshness, looks awful. The man just has to be an advertising executive. I hope he has a good burglar alarm. Map of the Week I stumbled across a map of Swindon dated 1890-something in our new library. Fascinating to see how much my home town has changed ovr the years. Most of it din't exist then, and the aborted Swindon, Marlborough, and Andover Railway tunnel site is clearly marked (its now Queens park, a local beauty spot - or at least until they paint it bright cream in the near future). It set me on a quest amongst the old photographs in the reference section. Lots of gothic shops and bemused workmen standing in the street. But it had atmosphere and plenty of it. Once again I've seen how unable Swindon is to live with its past.

There are some people who seem blind to it Actually, even though I hate to admit it, our less popular lead guitarist eventually got voted Best Guitarist In The World... in Lithuania. Boy are they starved of music....

This morning I happened to drop by the library, expecting some light entertainment. It was sheer murder. Teams of children were engaged in a treasure hunt, following clues read out by their adult overseers, running here and there, chanting loudly in that tuneless way that kids do. In particular, one clue revolved around the number of cubicles where I'm sitting, so there's a continual stream of children counting. "Whats special about cubicle thirty five, children?" Asked the teacher. You mean apart from me? I turned around indignantly and the children looked nervously with open mouths as what appears to them a shabby monster of a man rouses from his slumber. The temptation to yell BOO! was almost too much, but the expression on their adult companions face was one of don't you dare. I won't keep you in suspense any more. The speciality of cubilcle thirty five (apart from the US Keyboard setting which is making typing a little more interesting than usual) is that it has a spotlight over it. Now you can all go forward to the next clue. Better hurry. Two hundred children are ahead of you. Weather Warning of the Week Last nights forecast was an absolute corker. "We are expecting a cold snap by the end of the week..." He said with baleful tones. No kidding. I don't suppose the forecaster has realised that its almost winter? Which treasure chest of climatology did you find this guy? Ok, bring back the dolly birds. They might be clueless too but at least you've got something more than a pastel-coloured cartoon in the background to look at.

The car roars across the desert. Fast paced action and immediate editing. A robot-like individual steps off his Harley Grav-bike and asks a tussle-haired young man standing fresh faced and breathless before him... "Who are you?" (Always a good intoduction I think. Find out you the tussle haired kid is before he mugs you and sprays tags over your grav-bike) "James Tiberius Kirk!" The young man responds with film actor defiance. No. Surely not. Star Trek has evolved toward the lowest possible level of entertainment and instead of the original almost cerebral and character driven plots, we get Star Wars 7 (Return of the Captain). Now the hero of Enterprise NCC-1701 is depicted as a Luke Skywalker clone. I can just see it know.... Kirk hangs from railing above bottomless power core. Klingon boss readies his bat'leth for the killing blow. "Surrender, Kirk! Join with us and beat your chest like a real warrior." Kirk grunts and moves further away... "Kirk! I can save you you.... Look, would it help if I claimed to be your father?" You know what? I've just realised that Hollywood has plagiarised The Mighty Boosh. The young tussle haired shaman (An erotic adventurer of the worst kind. Its true) is called Kirk. Wow. Such a small universe. Car Theft of the Week Another strange event is that my car has been broken into again. This time they cut a larger hole inthe soft top on the drivers side. Cheers guys, but if you happen to be reading this, what on earth are you bothering for? The car is dead. Its been dead since last christmas. There's nothing in it, its got no steering wheel, no power, no handling qualities whatsoever. Its a pile of metal slowly going rusty. Didn't you notice that the last time you got inside it?

Recently I made a scathing attack on Gordon Brown, our somewhat self-inflated prime minister. A man whose brilliance at dropping his problems into his successors 'to-do' list is. I predict, what he will eventually be remembered for. But all is not lost. Oh no. I have found the solution. Yesterday I strolled down to the Job Centre to sign on the dole for another fortnight. The heavy clouds and damp drizzle made me wonder if I would have to sprint down to the Job Centre, but thankfully the rain held off. The security guards there are wonderful, second only to our policemen. Ever helpful (and I do sometimes send them on errands) yet after nearly a year of signing on, totally unable to recognise me as a member of that protected species, Homo Unemployedus. Good grief, I go to all this trouble to look scruffy and they still stop me at the door. "Excuse me Sir...." They ask, walking up to me with puffed out chests and hard stares. As usual I present my job search documents, and satisfied that I'm not a suicide bomber intent on destroying civilisation as we know it, they allow me to pass by. The atmosphere in the current Job Centre is by far the best I've ever encountered. Gone are the primeval queues awaiting a rubber stamp at the desk, gone are the ticket machines which inevitably tell you that thirty seven other claimants are in the queue in front of you, gone is the soft music, and thankfully so is that toe-rag who stopped my money the last time I was claiming benefits. Now there was a young gentleman who had the makings of a true dictator, if only he had the intelligence to realise that running an office is not an impressive political career. Anyway, I sat down on the suprisingly comfortable seat and awaited my call. They now politely call you by name. Such a human touch. My claims advisor is a pleasant lady who seems bored of the hurly-burly of spotty kids and single mums. We exchange pleasantries, and I eventually sign her form that allows me to receive a fortnights money. "Is there anything else I could do for you?" She asked me as I was about to bid her goodbye. A thought occured to me that maybe her boredom was becoming too much - sadly I much prefer the brunette two desks down - but perhaps I'm just getting too old and sex starved to see an innocent request. In any case, I felt secure in the knowledge that security guards were not too far away. I thought for a second or two, then replied "Well... you might do something about the economical downturn in this country..." "I'll give it my best shot." She promised me. There you have it Mr Brown. Forget your political posturing and fiscal philandering, the answer to Britains problems is sat in an office in Swindon. You heard it here first. Heist of the Week A giant oil tanker gets taken by somali pirates off the coast of kenya. Clearly they can't afford petrol either, which suggests to me that someone in Mogadishu has just bought a V8. All they need to do now is steal an oil refinery. Far more likely though is the possibility of arms purchase. By coincidence there was a tv program last night about Victor Boutt, a russian arms dealer who inspired the Nicholas Cage film Lord of War, which by even stranger coincidence I saw on DVD yesterday afternoon. What am I bid two million barrels of crude oil? Its a bit worrying, because they've already got plenty of AK47's.

Well, since I fail to attain the standard of literary and scholarly political correctness that Ascepid... Asclap... whatever your name is, I'll not bother posting.

I bow before my audience What is it you actually teach? At the moment, it sounds like Poetic Spanish Cookery 101"

In fact, what defines any army's quality is its performance; whatever example you may imagine to try to sustain such argumentation (maybe Napoleon before the Alps?) it would imply that for whichever mechanism you may imagine such men have become high quality soldiers; period. Not at all. Spartacus for instance. His army was composed of rabble with a handful of gladiators. He fought off professional roman soldiery for two years before being out-manoevered and overwhelmed by weight of numbers. Or Adrianople. The goths did not have any real superiority in tactics, numbers, composition, and were not a formal army at all having gathered together immediately before the battle was fought. On paper, the romans should have romped home to an easy victory. Or the rebellion of Tacfarinas, whose army of numidians was not as capable as the romans should have been despite any training they may have received. Or the upsrising of Arminius, composed of rival tribes who were barely on speaking terms with each other, yet managed to ambush and destroy three roman legions over a considerable distance. or any other rebel, resistance, partisan, or guerilla group that has taken on professional troops and won in the early days before they gathered enough experience to justify your comment. Or perhaps you could just switch on the tv and watch the evening news.

Come on, I can`t believe you're seriously saying that. Impressive deeds require BOTH capable commanders and high standard soldiers. Period. Not true. men of poor quality have been motivated to significant victory throughout military history.

Many years ago, I met up for a game session with a bunch of guys, some of whom I knew well, others I didn't. One chap who was a friend of someone else and not known to me at all, interrupted the proceedings and said "Your mascara is running". I was pretty mystified by that comment, but his leering expression made itself felt. I wasn't happy with that slur, and just to make the point, my friends seemed as mystified by his attitude as I was. The week after, as I was leaving, I noticed a book open beside him and enquired bluntly as to its purpose. "Ahh... Poetry. I'm a poet..." He looked a little flustered as I grinned with relish at this symbol of unmanliness. "Its not all serious... I do some funny stuff... I... errr...." Revenge is soooo sweet. He never came back. Serves him right. However, I wonder if there's a poet in each of us struggling to get out. Perhaps not in Swindon, since most of the local performers prefer yelling insults in the small hours, and poetic it isn't. A mate of mine in the music business, a local singer/songwriter (We'll call him TB), once told me how his poetic spirit once took hold. He was walking through a well-to-do area, looking musically shabby of course, and heard the sound of the wind swishing through the tall trees along the side of the road. He was captivated by it, and stood there engrossed in its subtlety. A passing police car thought otherwise, and since policemen are not known for poetic leanings, TB was promptly called upon to explain why he was staring at the bedroom of an expensive house. "No, officer, I'm not, I'm... err.... listening to the trees.... ummm.... The sound... Its.. you know..." "Don't do it again Sir" The policemen rebuked him, "Now move along." Some people just don't appreciate poetry. Actually I don't either. Still, people who claim to be artistes tend to survive better on the dole, and since I'm too old to claim rock superstardom at grass roots level (I don't live in a country mansion after all), I'm left with no recourse to claim that as a local poet, I'm a vital cultural resource. Unfortunately, that means I now have to prove I'm a poet. So here goes.... Poem of the Week I wandered lonely as a local poet of cultural significance That floats o'er hill and theatre A woman smiles and offers me a chance Of activities peculiar Yobboes jeer and call me 'nance' And ask why I won't bonk her In serene contempt I retain my stance And remind them of their failure Ok. I 'll move along Officer...

Caligula dying peacefully? Well, assuming he wasn't a nutcase and realistically, that as true - he had a perverse sense of humour - you have to realise that now there was autocratic power available people were going to want it. There is almost an inevitability that power struggles would take place. Whatever he may have been, Caligula was prone to personal excess and therefore would have pursued his own enjoyment. This means he would be dependent on guardians and assocites to remain politically safe. Make no mitake, although the early principate was relatively peaceful it remained a bear-pit in higher circles. 1 - The new emperor would have been the man in the strongest position. There's no certainty that Caligulas offspring would succeed him, there was no precedent for this until Commodus. As Caligula approached old age and infirmity, the wolves would be jostling amongst themselves and intrigue rife, people forming factionsto secure their place with the 'winning team'. There is noway of assuming who would emerge from this political turmoil, and there may have been intervention from the provinces as ambitious generals with armies behind them see a Rome becoming weaker with that old Caligula about to kick the bucket. 2 - Since a successful long term rule in Rome would almost certainly indicate ruthless rulership, many of the rivals would have been dealt with. Of the personalities you mention, some would have been executed, exiled, or simply stuck in sidelines. 3 - Generally speaking, the fate of the empire wouldn't have been much different. 4 - That would depend on who invented the technology.

Impressive deeds which were a triumph of leadership. Under capable commanders, the men were motivated and it should be noted these deeds were not lasting. This is typical of armies. Its a mistake to assume that an army that achieves a victory is automatically at a high standard all the time because of it, and it also fails to address the circumstances in which that victor was won. More than one ancient victory was achieved by a ruse, not by great deeds. It was also due to the over-extension of the current roman capability. Justinians reforms allowed the roman army to become motivated again - to become ready for war. Thats typical of able and strong leadership but not a lasting one. Its noticeable that his army remained unwilling to campaign abroad for any length of time, nor were keen to retain that terrritory. Links to home life were much stronger in the late empires armies, the early byantines similarly so, and the use of territorial troops strengthened these links. A logical conclusion which would be correct if the situation was clear-cut. It wasn't. There was even a bizzrre situation in the late empire when the Western Empire was defended by Goths against an army of Romans. You also assume the resistance to external threat was organised and resisted in such a manner, again, this isn't entirely true. The fragmentation of the late empires defence made this difficult, the lack of authoritive governmental control made it doubly so. In your defence, we must consider a facet of human demography dealing with warrior cultures. In some circumstances where tribes become involved in violent competyition, we see a warrior ethic emerging. They hone their skills and begin to violence as a desirable end in itself, that it allows rites of manhood, glory, status, and some measure of material gain when victorious. In cases where the violence is turned inward this culture would tend to remain contained, unable to expand because of distrust and vulnerability. Eventually though, a strong leader emerges and units the tribes. Their warlike instincts are now prevented from attacking each other, and inevitably the culture expands aggressively at a high peak of effectiveness through practice and atttude. It happened a few times during the ancient period. What must be noted however is that te culture is temporarily united under one mans rule, and that once he dies or victory ius achieved, the pressure to cmpete is much lessened by the extra territory and the society goes off the boil very quickly. They 'lose the sword' very readily. As arminius proved, it only required clever and able leadership. A bugbear of the professional period from the beginning. It was however largely driven by personal ambition of individual leaders. Britain was a special place in roman eyes. Not especially valuable in itself - its resources never matched those of mainland europe and much of the island remained troublesome - but it represented the furthest extent of roman control. Agreed. Notice however the legions did not return. Notice also that the withdrawal of the legions from britain across the channel was the last of such movements. Roman withdrawals had been going on for some time. Durocornovium for instance, a town grown out of a vicus along ermine street, was abandoned nearly a century before the Groan of the Britons simply because the army had left. The local markets had no buyers. No, not quite. I understand the connection but the opposition at Adrianopolis was not from Goths involved in roman society. Possibly there elements amongst the gothic horde that had crossed over - the reverse may also have been true, but the leadership of this particular threat was not from roman society.

At last. An island of stability in an ever-changing world

Since the decline of the legion is linked to the decline of the west as a whole, the continuation of the eastern army in some semblance of its former glory isn't suprising. Nonetheless, despite the continued organisation of the succesful byzantines, we must note that the peak fine edge achieved by the empire had been lost. The Byazantine armies were not able nor inclined to conduct the civil and military engineering so fundamental to classic roman activity, and whilst they retained a high standard overall, the pre-eminence of the cavalry had arrived and that inevtiably affected the importance of infantry in eastern armies. It cannot be denied that infantry was still important per se, this is attested to in more than one work on the subject, but again it cannot be denied that the Byzantine army, for all its links and traditions inherited from the west, had little more than a resemblance to the legions of old. The Byzantines themselves thought themselves rightly or wrongly as roman and the true inheritors of their tradition, perhaps a reason why their armies are seen as such more than they deserve. Thats not to decry their efforts - they maintained Byzantine security for some considerable time. In the west, the failure of government was characterised by an increasing attempt to spend wealth in displays to impress rather than to underpin efficient government. Indicative of organisational failure? I would say so, and the increasing reluctance of communities to suffer their rule, pay the rising taxes, and rely on western roman security must be seen as a decay of control. This inevitably afflicted the military since the roman army and government had been two sides of the same coin since early times. The late empires reorganisation into mobile and territorial troops did not meet its needs. There was a trend toward conflict on a wider front for which the new organisation was intended to meet, an attempt to revise roman response to changing conditions in military strategy. There is also concurrently a sense of desperation too. We see the empire moving its capital to Ravenna, a city surrounded by swamp with an escape route to sea. We see emperors decreeing that two men without thumbs are as good as one man fully able to hold a sword. We see press gangs enforcing recruitment by violence and ruse. We see families bereft of support by the unprecedented recruitment of all male family members. In equipment too, the sense of desperation continues. Vegetius complains about many things, the lack of training for one thing, one reason why he wrote his treatise on the subject. Also, he complains that roman troops are unprotected. He exaggerates of course, since any soldier seeks self-protection where he can, but since the government had taken responsibility for the equipping of troops with the fabricae system, it was therefore a drain on governmental resources they could ill afford in the less tax-efficient regime of the late empire. There has also been comment on the decline of roman population. This is difficult to quantify. It is true that disease was far more prevalent in the late empire, that the risk of death and injury from violence more accentuated, and that records of the time less accurate for the lack of reliable accounting if nothing else, but in the wake of decreased security, perhaps the main reason might be a decline in agriculture to support it, given the western empires demand for military labour. In other words, the western empire was propping up its declining armies with recruits less than willing to perform, taking them away from the 'producing' industries, and in effect, reducing the level of tax income by occupational redistribution. Not enough for a total economoc collapse, but certainly, it introduced an extra burden on the financing of military endeavour. To some extent them, the western empire was cutting its own throat. Given they were under pressure and the demands of defence required they recruit foreigners to enforce it with giftys of money, tax breaks, and land, you can see the seeds of a terminal decline in their armed forces.

There's always been a certain amount of sexual cross-over in human societies. Most cultures have stories of woman who take on mens roles. We read of a female samurai, capable and deadly. We read of women hiding amongst the ranks of redcoats pretending to be boys. The native americans, of the plains tribes at least, tended to accept that not all men wanted to be warriors, and if a man wanted to stay in the camp and do womens work that was his choice. And so on. Today we see all sorts of manifestations of this behaviour. I watched a program about a jail in Costa Rica where two men dressed as women to entertain fellow prisoners and amuse themselves. There's all sorts of categories of cross-dressers such as american 'Shims', or a caste of men in India who dress and behave as women completely. Man Has Second Child said the headline. It depends how you look at it. A woman has chosen to have a sex change and despite being married to a woman, has decided to forgo 'his' hormone treatment and have children. One wonders how 'he' became pregnant at all, and what 'his' wife thinks of this. It seems to me that the person involved really doesn't want to be a man as much as he claims, and that despite the sex change and hormone treatment, female instincts rose to the surface. In fact, far from being a satisfied and stable person it rather sounds like this individual is a hugely mixed up hermaphrodite. I have to be honest - we don't get much of this sort of thing in rainy old Swindon. I doubt Swindoners have the imagination nor the will to consider it. Perhaps thats why I tolerate the place. I must be honest, whilst I accept people aren't always cardboard cut-outs and stereotypes, I'm comfortable with men being men and women being women. Smile of the Week Goes to the young lady of a bookstore in town. Sometimes people come across as genuinely pleasant and she did. Now only if I could find out what sex she was....

How can we discuss if we keep saying exactly the same? Because we're not. You're looking at the roman legionary army of the professional period and considering the whole thing as composed of units fighting on equal terms. Not so. If you investigate operational formations and battlefield descriptions, the battle is conducted with the legions as the main arm, the other troop types support their efforts and prevent them from coming to harm. Noticeably, although there are obviously accounts of auxillary action, the auxillaries themselves are not given any 'starring' role. They are technically lesser troops in roman eyes, a necessary evil, one composed of non-citizens that happen to be useful to some degree. I daresay some commanders were more enlightened than others concerning that - Caesar was one, though he remained disappointed with his Aedui allies and had his own men trained as cavalry to replace them. In the late empire, the emphasis changes. Legions are not as 'elite' as they had once been, and their battlefield role was no different to any other unit in that they simply took their place in the line and fought as directed. They were no longer the 'elite' or the 'heavy hitters', and although some of the former organisation survived the late imperial armies were beginning to resemble everyone elses. This is due to the organisational changes that had seen the end of the old-style legions (the ability to organise these professional units had withered along with the loss of military and governmental expertise) but also because the late empire was using units that consisted of tribes fighting without any roman influence, as independent allies. The homogenous quality of the professional era had been lost. Units were no longer uniformly equipped, smaller, probably more adaptable, but certainly no better overall and lacking the esprit-de-corps of earlier times.

The reputation of Faustina the Younger stems from gossip of her contemporaries. Commodus was so unlike his father in build and temperament, never mind his inclination to fight as a gladiator, who were after all social scumbags by custom. Emperors posturing in the arena was nothing new. Caligula had done so, and had reportedly deliberately killed a helpless sparring partner with considerable glee. Claudius, did not, but was known for his fascination with gladiators, having the swords of fallen men retrieved and turned into pocket knives. Nero of course was not so inclined toward combat, but he did srut his stuff in a chariot for nothing else than self-aggrandisement. Commodus took this to an entirely new level. The public were hugely interested in the arena in this period, it was big business, and the sight of an emperor who reputedly fought 735 times (mostly beast hunts) was to roman eyes extraordinary. Commodus of course understood the entertainment value, and it suited his personality to portray himself as a virile hero despite any social mores to the contrary. Roman superstitions also arose with gladiators (as claudius demonstrated) in that association with them was supposed to be beneficial. A woman being married should have her hair parted with a gladiators spear for instance. Good luck charms and so forth. So when Commodus appears frequently in the arena it naturally gives rise to speculation. Surely the philosophical Marcus Aurelius could not have sired such a violent man? It was not unusual for women of quality to attend the training schools, usually covertly, in order to meet their favourite fighter or indulge themselves at the palus playing the role. It isn't so suprising them that gossip about Faustina's activities - and in Rome, nothing escapes somebodies notice - linked Commodus as the bastard son of an unnamed gladiator. Is Faustina guilty? I don't know. Nor did any roman with any certainty (except perhaps that forgotten fighter). What is clear is that her behaviour invited such comment. Since her husband and his civic duties seem to have bored her, never mind his absences dealing with foreign incursions and such, it might not be so far-fetched.

I remember there was a hullabaloo some years back when some young man killed himself listening to suicide solution by Ozzy Osbourne. The tragedy is one thing, the association is perhaps a little strained because if you pay attention to the lyrics you discover the song is actually about alcohol abuse. There was a publicised court case when Judas Priest were prosecuted over someones elses death, the idea being that the lyrics contained reversed messages. Ridiculous. Who bothers to listen to music backwards? Why would a band go to the enormous trouble of ensuring that their lyrics sound like an intelligible message the wrong way round? Now its happened again. Simon Cowell, never a man to charm a crowd, lambasted a fan of Paula Abdul for her lack of star quality in 2006. The fan I mean, not Ms Abdul. It seems the woman was a stalker too. She's now been found dead. Mr Cowell is going to get some bad press over this but I can't help feeling that it wouldn't have mattered. This woman, like all those other stalkers, suffer from a lack of self-worth and seem to compensate by an almost religious quest to associate themselves with their chosen star. They are, frankly, deluded. Since their self-esteem is based on fantasy is it any wonder that this woman couldn't deal with the reality of her lot? Is Simon Cowell to blame? Pinning blame, finding scapegoats, pointing fingers... Human beings have been burning people at the stake for petty reasons for thousands of years. Actually I doubt Mr Cowell can really be blamed for the womans demise, she was emotionally weak to begin with and any disappointment would have set off her action. In any case, if she couldn't handle disappointment, the entertainment business was not the place for her. Sorry, but it wasn't. Its a tough arena and I know from my own experience how soul-destroying it can be. Fantasy is something we all indulge in in some way or other. Its about control in a way. In your own fantasy world everything occurs as you desire. In the real world, everything occurs because others decide to make it so, and your ability to control your own life is down to your own influence or willingness to buck the system and suffer the consequences. Fate is the sum of all decisions and natural forces. This womans fate is as much her own as Simon Cowells comments. Somehow though, I doubt I'll invite Simon Cowell to my christmas bash. I'm sure he wouldn't dirty himself with a response anyway, but then perhaps I'm not so deluded. Thank You of the Week I used to have fans. No, I'm serious. There was a buch of guys from Bristol who used to travel around just to see me play a drum kit on stage. I always to used to chat to them after the gig, and there was always a pint for my trouble. Actually, given how physically demanding a performance was and the lack of audience response we sometimes got, their support was worth a great deal. Funny thing is, even now, twenty years after I strutted my stuff in pubs, clubs and venues all over England, I still get the occaisional handshake. I waited at an Indian takeaway for my curry, only to be accosted by a wild-eyed straggly haired guy, grinning at me like a cheshire cat. "Great gig man, great gig. Wow that was great...." Glad you enjoyed it Sir. At least someone did. Maybe inviting Simon Cowell to parties isn't the thing. Perhaps we should have invited him to a gig? Sure he would have lambasted us. Why not? Everyone else did. No fantasy about that at all.

Not quite. The heavy infantry of the professional period was the primary arm. The auxillaries were there to support their work. The late imperial infantry were little different from the auxillia.

A gaulish legion. Just one? As I said, it was always likely that a unit might be as effective as in previous times, but the whole roman army was not by any means. Also, this notable example of morale is not necessarily esprit-de-corps. It certainly is evdence that this unit had a high degree of morale and motivation - so congratulations to its commander for a job well done. Esprit-de-corps is something that exists on a permanent basis once established, to a greater or lesser degree. Morale is circumstantial, and even troops in bad situations have been motivated to acquit themselves beyond expectation. Roman commentators aren't entirely objective. Some are worse than others - Marcellinus comes across as one of the better - but because he highlights the commendable attitude of one unit doesn't mean that entire army was so motivated, even if he means to communicate that. Also, Does Marcellinus have experience of Principatal legions? No, of course he doesn't. The old methods were well known to romans. Vegetius records them but he does so because no-one else has. His training schedules are based on what occured in earlier times, not his contemporary soldiery of which he himself had little experience.

The growth of the republican army wasn't exactly continuous, but expansive due to political situation. They mushroomed in size during Caesars time purely because of the need to counter the rivals forces and even gain some strategic advantage in numbers during the civil war. Marc Antony alone had more than than thirty legions plus naval forces amounting to more than 150,000 men. Thats a colossal size to command for the period and it wasn't sustainable at that time - one reason why Augustus disbanded so many. I think not. The peak was during the Principate, although the effects of peacetime cannot be ignored. Once the civil wars that brought Constantine into power had ruined what was left of legionary structure, he reduced the size of the units. The other changes, the supremacy of cavalry, the mix of mobile, territorial, and foreign troops did absolutely nothing to maintain roman military efficiency. Quite possibly. Given the extent of the recruiting efforts the romans clearly needed more troops than were conveniently available. From a largely voluntary force in the Principate, it became something the average person did not find desirable at all. That cannot be ignored. False assumption. The need for auxillaries was to compensate for skills the romans didn't have, and to retain tactical flexibility. The main arm of the legions up until the late empire was heavy infantry in an offensive posture. But the two periods have distinct qualitative differences. The same as other commentators. Whereas the infantry was the primary arm in earlier periods, it certainly wasn't toward the end. It had reduced in scale, in effectiveness, in equipment, in training, in capability, and status. That isn't conducive to esprit-de-corps.

Today I decided to journey down to the local sports center. At last there's a break in the inclement weather so I thought I'd forgo my usual survival outfits and make the expedition in something resembling a reasonable appearance. Beige trousers no less. Now if thats not a challenging fashion statement, what is? On my way down there I stepped on the wrong leaf. Its autumn of course and there's plenty of them littering the pavement. Worse still, it rained last night and with this yellow vegetation spread about it gets a little slippery... Yep, I did. Step... slide... WEEE!!!!!! Splash. Flat on my back in a muddy puddle. Right in front of a group of council workmen. They looked down at me then at each other. Its a little known fact that council workers are telepathic. You could see the amusing jokes being passed between them wordlessly. I took the route through the local shopping center. A young child prodded his mother as I strode by. "Look... He's fallen over on his bum." Thanks kid. I know. Financial Plan of the Week Gordon Brown is incredible. He actually believes we're all going to believe this drivel he comes out with. Now that Obama has been voted into office, and finding that they do get along, he's straight in there with a call for a 'New World order'. After his failure to achieve a mandate at the polls its rather like Gordon Browntrousers becoming Gordon Browntongue. The man has no shame. Gordon, just shut it. You are after all the bloke who's taxed our economy to the point of collapse. And incidentially, what is the point of announcing tax cuts now we're all going down the pan? Especially since you plan to borrow to pay for them. Please excuse me for not being a financial expert, but aren't we going to have to pay it all back?

You have my sympathies.

Aren't they too busy clearing up the mess left by british holidaymakers?

Some challenging points then. Okeedokee... - Even if it was integrated by smaller units, the army described by the Notitia Dignitatum was actually far bigger than during the Principate. Only if you accept the Notitia Dignitatum as accurate. Some of the units listed are no more than ceremonial. Nor can you assume every unit listed was ready for battle or actually existing at all. - Why would the developement of larger cavalry and archery units have implied decadence instead of evolution against new enemies? Decadence? Whats decadence got to do with it? Certainly there was an evolution to meet the demands of campaigning (even for the ultra-conservative Romans) but that does not imply it worked. What you fail to grasp is that the late empire was finding it harder to pay for all this stuff. Men need pay to remain loyal, never mind donatives to bribe them, and horses are not cheap at all. By increasing the emphasis on cavalry the costs rise. Also, since this emphasis inevitably means less on infantry, it would imply they would slip in standards. Military formations do if they lose their status. - Why is it so clear that heavy infantry must have been superior? For one, that's not what the battle experience of any nation against central Asia nomad warriors (eg, Huns and Mongols) tell us. Groan. The romans emphasised heavy infantry because it worked for them. But thats not why it was superior. The actual troop type is only part of the answer. It was the roman organisation, methodology, and relentlessness of warfare that made them superior - provided the leadership capability was present. However, there is an 'elite' quality during the Principate, an esprit-de-corps, that isn't usually seen in the ancient world. They believed they were better. Thats a priceless commodity in warfare. - Why would the use of "barbarian" swords have implied lack of discipline. (BTW, virtually all Roman weapons were unavoidably "barbarian" previous to being adopted from other nations). Because of the style of swordplay and amount of training required to perform it. With the shorter sword, you need to get close in, requiring more practice and nerve. With a longer sword, the temptation is to 'hack' in exactly the same manner as the barbarian enemy. It meant the roman soldiers were no longer stabbing in close formation, but engaging in open melee. Thats not a disciplined approach. In this context I'm not interested in the origin of the roman swords, only how they used them. - How can Luttwak objectively compare the Roman soldiers training level at different periods? Presumably he's researched it. Vegetius may have written his manual on legionary practises to impress somebody, but it also carries with it a message that this was what the legions ought to be doing, not waht was taking place. He constantly refers to traditional training methods which we know were never always carried out in full as described by him. - Even more; why would the Decius' defeats of 251 be explained by the ND (no earlier than 395)? Why is there any connection? I can perfectly understand that a "weakened army" might help us explain why battles were lost and I actually think that was probably the case; now I would like to see some hard evidence of such assertion, and not just circular argumentation (ie, the defeats were a proof of the army weakness that caused such defeats) Aha. I see the problem. What you're doing is making a simplistic assessment of the roman legions purely in terms of victory or defeat, which is often circumstantial anyway. As for hard evidence, you seem far better able to find that than me. I have limited sources as you're well aware. As for the circular argument, thats yours, not mine. I would point out that if the roman armies were still as effective as in earlier times, why did they dissipate? We know they did. The answer is that they weren't receiving the same level of funding they once had. Warfare had become too expensive. I've no doubt there were roman units in the late empire that remained effective, but then, why were communities seeking their own defence? Its all part of the general malaise affecting the western empire. No, they weren't. The level of civil engineering by the military almost evaporates in the late empire. And its worth remembering that a roman described the legionaries as "Desiring any fate than to stare Persians in the face".