caldrail

It is interesting to compare Napoleons experience with Hitlers. In 1812, La Grande Armee advanced along a narrow corridor with at least 100,000 men, with Moscow as the military objective to force russian capitulation. Hitler unleashed three million troops plus modern arms and logistics on a broad front, occupying territory and with oil as a major objective. In 1812, the russians harassed the advance but refused to commit to battle until the gates of Moscow were in sight. In 1941, the russians defended every inch as best they could. For these reasons the campaigns were very different. In terms of weather, there are obvious similarities. Neither the french nor the german invasions had planned or equipped for cold weather. Whereas the french advance was difficult, the failure of modern transport in russian conditions brought the german advance almost to a standstill, requiring the requisition of civilian horses and carts. Another point about advancing into russia is the experience of german soldiers, who recorded in interviews filmed in the 70's that the endless flatttened terrain of russia was both difficult to navigate and extremely depressing since after you reached the next hill there was only another in the distance. Vosslers account doesn't mention this malaise, and I'm not sure why.

We don't own the Shed we work in. No, we rent it, at a stupid price, from NF the site manager. NF wants us out of the Shed so he could squeeze us in with all our pallets in the Hangar, and rent the Shed to someone else at an even stupider price. Which sort of backfired a little because we're shortly to move down the road to rent warehouse space from a professional company at a stupider price still. Now I turn up for work one morning. I have to walk through the Hangar to reach the yard, but found the back door locked up. So I went into the office and enquired, only to be told that no-one had any idea who I was and until they did, no access allowed. I've been working here for months! They folded their arms. Well after some irate words and emails and phone calls, I was finally allowed to use the key to the back door, which I could obtain from Security, a pleasant old chap at the front gate who reminisces about his pet rat (deceased) and has an encyclopaedic knowledge of rechargeable batteries. Now I turn up for work one morning. The key had gone! Vanished! Nowhere to be found! Ok, off to the office to enquire. Go find SB they tell me, he's got it. Why? Oh never mind. As chance would have it SB is forklifting pallets around the Hangar and I ask him for the key. "Its open." he shrugs, and drives off. Ok, off to the office to complain. NF decides its time to have this out, so a little later he approaches me in the back yard. "Why do you need the key? Is it really important?" Pardon? Yes says I, its a matter of principle, its a matter of security, its a matter of access, its.... And so on, until NF decided that a confrontation wasn't worth the tonguelashing. One key, duly delivered. They used to do this to AD, but apparently he got his way by breaking open the fire escape every time. And the second time the key vanished from Security? Found in someones car. Career Move of the Week JD is a young lady who joined us because her previous job was too quiet. After four months at Head Office she's now leaving her current job too, this time because its even quieter. Apparently everyone sat next to each other in that office communicate by email only. At least I have an excuse. I'm eighty miles away.

I must admit, when I first saw this thread I thought 'Oh no, the scottish nationalists are making claims'. Well, if the report is accurate, then it shows one thing - that the locals saw the opportunities of living off the roman garrison like they did everywhere else. The romans of course knew that, it was part of their methodology in romainising a new province. However, whats also clear, underlined by such events as the Varian Disaster, is that this romanisation process succeeds where there is no-one to inspire a revolt against roman rule. Again, as the Antonine Wall shows, the romans preferred conquest as a means of obtaining new provinces and the process of assimilation was often too slow for roman sensibilities. Also, ancient authors point at various characters who exploit the new area for their own personal gain - greed, in other words, which was a great failing of their provincial administration.

It came as something of a suprise to me that the US is brokering a peace treaty that aims to create a peaceful settlement in the Middle East for a deomocratic palestinian state. This suprise is not that the treaty has been brokered - western nations have done this sort of thing before, and this brokering is one of the reasons for the end of the Cold War. What suprises me is that there is an expectation of 'victory' for a disenfranchised population who generally don't see the US as a friend. One might argue the US is doing this to further its interests in the region, and if true, who could blame them? Militants have long described the US as the 'Great Satan', and atrocities such as Beirut or 9/11 have left americans on the sharp end of politically inspired zealotry. For the american government, such a settlement carries with it the aura of benign assistance offered in friendship. They no doubt hope that the Middle East will therefore begin to see the west in a positive light, to counteract the often violent messages of islamic militancy. However, is it realistic to assume that a new homeland (or at least a treaty that makes one possible) will win the hearts of the militants? The culture of hatred against the States has important ramifications. Firstly, our latent aggression as a species often emerges in tribal conflict. We see this ritualised as war, in all its brutality. Whilst so many of us prefer a peaceful world, a secure existence free of threat, there is nonetheless a part of humanity that likes to fight. Since the demographic problems of the Middle East have become institutionalised in sectarian violence, this naturally attracts the hot-headed and naturally aggressive personalities, many of whom derive status and a feeling of self-worth from continuing their armed struggle. Secondly, it has become a rallying call, a source of inspiration, a common enemy against which rabble rousers can seek to lead people against this implacable foe. It is, in their eyes, a clash of culture in which they are the just defenders. It has already reached self-perpetuation. It is, in an older way of seeing things, a blood feud. On the international scale it is difficult to see whether the various armed sects would be prepared to cease violence on the basis of such a treaty. Although it gives them a reason to be peaceful, it also conflicts with the miltants need for self-worth, expressed as an armed struggle. They're not weary of the war; far from it, they continue to thrive and some are progressing beyond the casual (and poorly performing) citizen freedom fighter. The problem with hatred is that it never goes away. This was illustrated by the break-up of Yugoslavia, in which old tensions were brought to the surface, and exploited in some cases, with the civil war and ethnic cleansing that followed. Hitler of course used his hatred of jews as a rallying call, a common enemy to struggle against in much the same way that modern islamic fundamentalists pour scorn on America. What these fundamentalists lack however is a strong leader. Their sects are very vocal and even unco-operative to the point of fighting each other as happens in the Middle East. So, can America bring peace to the Middle East? They will define the boundaries of a future settlement, of that I'm sure, and their efforts to resolve the political crisis there are to be applauded. Where they will fail I think is to win the hearts and minds of the public there, and for that reason, the sectarian violence will continue, because ultimately the hot-headed young men enjoy their armed struggle.

...nothing altered the central fact of the Republican Government, that it was the collective rule of an aristocracy... ...The republic was disolved in the first century BC because it failed to address the increasingly serious grievances of the poor, and that members of this elite had appealed directly to the poor for support in the fight against each other... ...The domination of the Roman governing class found expression in the institution of clientela, clientship, an archaic form of personal dependence, which survived at Rome with undiminished relevance, in striking contrast to Athens and the greek world in general.... The Roman Republic Michael Crawford. Before the democratic movement of the Gracchi, and again for thirty years after them, the essential feature of the history of Rome was the monopoly of power by the Senate. Although this body was too narrow in its interests, too selfish, and too persistently riven by faction to be well-suited to governing an empire, its predominance continued, not so much (as Polybius claimed) because the constitution possessed effective balances, as because an ancient tradition of service was still sometimes apparent among Roman senators, and the members of their inner circle continued to display a flair for politics. By prestige, bribery, the purveyance of food and entertainments, and the satisfaction of great armies of 'clients' - who depended on them for subsistence and gave them political support in return - the nobles had long been accustomed to inducing the Assembly of the Roman People to elect them to consulships which were the principal offices of the state. The World Of Rome Michael Grant The view that romans had true democracy is wrong. Romans were extremely class concious, far more so than we would understand, and the aristocracy of Rome simply wasn't going to pass up an opportunity to swing things to their favour. Also, you're ignoring the gratitude and loyalty of clients toward their patrons. All this talk of secret ballots is all very well, but you're ignoring roman corruption - I'll go further - you have an unnecessarily romantic and idealistic view of the roman republic. That republic functioned by deals under the table. Thats how romans did business.

The romans were good communicators. The internet would at first have been used as a tool for the military and administration, the two most obvious uses. Quickly however, the wealthy would have demanded those privileges to keep their social lives up to date. The common people? Haven't they got more important things to do? After the workplaces realise their staff are off enjoying themselves on the net I'm sure a Lex Internetio would state that no man of less than 20,000 sestercii worth would be allowed access. Given the roman penchant for cheating, of course there would have been cheats who got permission to log on nonetheless, and some household slaves trusted to use the internet on their masters behalf would no doubt enjoy a little private time for themselves. Imagine Nero using the internet! Gladiators, boxers, and charioteers would have fanpages, there would be websites devoted to military history and current affairs, with recruitment going directly to the user.... ================================================ From: marcus.cerialis@vindolanda.brittannia To: Dullix@batavianfamilies.com Sent: 1st Germanicus, 779 Dear Dullix. Have you cheered for Rome? Have you longed to share our military glory? Then why not apply to the Legions now! Serve your emperor and earn citizenship! See the world! Play with swords! Apply now, while vacancies exist. We want you! ======================================================== Or perhaps this?... From: pontius.flacchus@sabura.rome To: frixus@wesellslaves.rome Sent: 1st Germanicus, 779 Dear Frixus. Please supply as many buxsome wenches as you can find for my party tomorrow at agreed rates. Please don't mention to wife.

Takes me back. I remember the first year that Mig29's were allowed in british airspace, for a RIAT show at RAF Fairford. The russian pilot was being given a familiarisation tour of the area with three tornado's in very close formation at low altitude and happened to fly overhead one one of my countryside hikes. Quite a sight back then.

The notable absence this week has been Small H. I asked UT about his whereabouts, and was told that he'd gone 'ferreting'. For those unacquainted with British wildlife, the ferret is a small furry predator that is tradiotnally used to warm the nether regions in winter. I suspect Small H has a more practical use for his pet. Oh, but I can't call him Small H anymore. Apparently he's from an important landed family, very big in ferreting circles, and from this point forward I shall call him Lord H. News of Lord H's elevation to the nobility does not phase me. Wandering about the countryside as I do you occaisionally encounter these individuals. For instance, many years ago I had a conversation with Prince Philip. Needless to say it was a pleasant suprise to discover that he watched the same television programs as everyone else. Queen - "I say, Philip, this television show is a programmus horriblis. Do be a dear and change the channel to something less vulgar will you, one hasn't got the remote gadjet." Prince Philip - "(Belch) Yeah, righto love. Pass anuvver beer... cheers Liz" But joking aside, there was that upper class gentleman I once delivered a consignment of expensive china tableware to. He was very impressed by the speed of the delivery, very appreciative of my willingness to carry the parcel to his garage, very generous in his tip, and very unaware that the grunts at the depot had thrown the box on board and whole was smashed. Never have I felt so low for so much praise... Then there was a woman who ran a business out of a small cottage a few miles away. She wasn't too impressed to see a dirty great van rumble up in front of her picture postcard perfect home, and even less impressed when I pulled a tree down on her spotless gravel drive on the way out... Can't win 'em all... Funny thing happened in Henley, a verrrrry well to do area. I arrived at the address and asked a guy doing some brickwork at the front of the house whether... "Excuse me!" A woman in a bathing suit interrupted, "Now that you've finally found the place, would kindly bring it up here?" Oh dear. Well, I lugged the box up the steps and round to her back door. Nice place, love the goldfish. She merely glanced back at me. I put the box down at her door. "Umm, don't really want that box in the sunshine. Could you bring it in please?" Ok. Lift.. And plonk down in her rear hallway. "Umm, I don't really want the box at the back door. Could you bring it in a bit further?" Oh good grief. Well the customer is always right, so in I go. "Ummm..." She looks thoughtful at a door further away inside her home. Thinking quickly, I produce the docket and get her to sign, making my getaway before I'm late for my collections. Oh boy was she bored... Then there was that woman of mature age I played pool with in a country pub one evening. She was a little well watered, and very chatty. The conversation got around to motor cars. "I like the AC Cobra, " She said in an astonishing deep gravelly voice, "Seven litres, plenty of thruuuuust!". I get the hint dear. Luckily her husband was on hand to rescue me from a fate worse than hatchbacks. I suppose you have to make your own entertainment in the countryside. And you thought Emmerdale was a soap opera... Groan of the Week I'm afraid the booze fairies were at large last night, and deposited half a ton of gravel on my car. Cheers boys, just what I needed. Please feel free to share your generosity with other people next time?

The fathers right of life or death over his children was traditional, and goes right back to the beginning. Anotonia assumed those rights over the household as a widow. Strictly speaking Claudius should have assumed them on coming of age, but Antonia didn't believe he was a suitable patron.

Languages evolve, words are shared, new words invented. Yet there seems to be a modern movement to preserve languages in some form of static integrity. This comes largely from national pride. Hence we have the french officially 'banning' the use of anglicised words in common use. Welsh is a case in point. Its an old celt-derived tongue but to what extent can you preserve it in a modern world when changes in technology and society move faster? Is the imposition of a fixed lexicon an safeguarded heritage, or a barrier to progress?

LOL. That's my favorite too. Have you ever noticed what cognitive parasites these village theologians are? By 'cognitive parasitism', I mean that the naive theology implied by the comments above comprise nothing more than cribbing the notes of scientists. In fact, none of these alleged facts about God had ever been known about God before--not until critics realized how the scientific findings did not jibe with Genesis and apologists had to reply to the critics. And the funny thing is it's heresy! After all, nothing in Genesis says that "God created the light on the way to earth so that we could see them" and nothing in science implies as much either. The only way to reach this absurd conclusion about God is by mangling scientific findings to fit the Procrustean bed of Genesis. If I were a theist (which I'm not), I'd be outraged by these stupid arguments. I'd say to the village theologian, "Genesis is just a human story about God, and I'm not going to piss off God by making Him out to be a monster just to save my great-great-great-....-great-grandfather's bedtime story." I agree absolutely, utterly, and completely. This sort of rationalising is wallpapering over the cracks to justify a two thousand year belief structure that now looks anachronistic and inconsistent. Funny thing is, the same rationalising must have been used back then - humans haven't changed much over the millenia after all - which to me is positive proof of just how many fakers and con-artists were duping ordinary well-meaning people. That sort of thing goes on today. We see religious leaders growing fat and wealthy on the back of their own particular cult. Listen to Jesus He Knows Me by Genesis. That kind of says it all.

I must say, looking at your pdf map, my initial instinct is to see a fort. It certainly doesn't look like any other sort of building. That doesn't mean the earth ramparts there are roman - but let us know what you find.

Neither. According to Polybius, the government of Rome was divided into three sections with no discernable gap. The Consuls ruled by decree, they were the roman prime ministers for a year, who provided leadership. The Senate ruled by virtue of prestige, bribery, and the provision of food and entertainment. The Common people had access to government via the voting assemblies, the Comitia Curiata, Comitia Centuriata, Comitia Tributa, and the Consilium Plebis. However, due to patronage the common people were often obliged to vote as required by their patron. The senate of course was largely disinterested in the affairs of the poor (one of the reasons for their failure to retain control). The plebians had to work hard to get attention, and the Gracchi movement was the most pointed attempt to persuade the senate to look after the interests of poor people, through the issue of land reform. The two Gracchi met a sticky end because of it.

It is an intersting point. Rome had progressed through a 'hoplite' army which in true greek style was as close to a citizens army as they would get. As such, the roman army equipped themselves with whatever gear they could afford, and were graded accordingly. There is a set of standards quoted from roman sources which describe the various wealth and equipment expected of roman soldiers, but this must be viewed with suspicion. The organisation reflects that of the voting assemblies, not a direct reference to how the romans organised their armies, and may well be a case of reverse engineering by a roman commentator who didn't actually know what the 'polybian' army organisation was, and had assumed that the traditional assembly setup was the same. The point however is that the soldiers back then paid for their equipment. Later, as we move into the post Marian period, the state took responsibility to supply equipment, although the soldier still paid for it via stoppages. Therefore, by this stage, a legion was expected by the state to field itself in the appropriate manner, and so the commander of this army must have been responsible to ensure that happened.

Thats not what I said. A layer above the senate does not necessairly have the power of veto - it depends on circumstance and political structure. As for being a tribune of the people, surely the tribune was a part of administration rather than a leader, and emperors achieved power without input from the plebs in most cases, and lets face it, most emperors only bothered themselves about plebs in case they revolted. My point was that the emperors considered themselves as rulers of Rome, therefore rulers over the senate, yet the power base of those senators was such that it often hindered emperors. True, there were some emperors who weren't concerned with senatorial sensibilities. Caligula seems to have had nothing but contempt for them. Nero wafts past them airily... (though one wonders if he wasn't buying them off individually with luxury). Commodus visibly warned them to behave when he played the venator in the arena. Severus of course simply turned up with an army to enforce his rulings. I think you're being a little inaccurate, and this view of the republic is idealistic. The roman monarchy was supplanted by an aristocracy. My point about SPQR indicating this is valid, it was a cornerstone of politics, that there was a senior class. Of course the plebian families wanted their slice of the action, and campaigned to be allowed into the ruling set. They achieved this by 342BC, and in the period following we have the most democratic era of republican life. Polybian states that roman government can be seen in three indivisible ways - rule by decree (the consuls), rule by aristocracy (the senate), and rule by the people (voting assemblies). The powers of a consul are clear - they are the roman prime ministers for a year. The senate of course ruled by virtue of privilege accorded to their wealth and status . The voting assemblies? Now here we part company, because although the poor had access to a vote it was not the modern one man, one vote concept. It was a block vote. All four voting assemblies offered a single block vote each much the same way trade unions used to do in british politics. Also, the voting procedure was not as inherently free as we might think. Patronage rears its head whether you like it or not, and one of the primary obligations a patron asked of his client was that he voted in the way desired. The popular vote was effectively biased, even rigged to some degree, and during the golden age of republican democracy we still see the corruption inherent in roman society. By the late republic the upper classes had reasserted their superiority. We see people like Cicero working to safeguard upper class privilege. But - and this is an important point - the senate was no longer addressing serious issues affecting the poor, and had effectively lost their support, thus the individuals who fought each other for supremacy were able to call upon the support of the poor. It was the senate who had lost their grip by laziness and indifference, allowing those men who wanted power to seek a following amongst the roman people and thereby acquire a power base to rival that of the senate itself. The people had no role in imperial roman government? Did the voting assemblies survive? A dimished role certainly, but then isn't it true that the senate were still asserting their privilege and continuing to disenfranchise the poor? Augustus may have allowed that to happen - it certainly didn't spoil his plans for autocratic power - but did he actively remove plebian rights? Or was the senate simply grabbing back whatever power it could get hold of? The augustan senate was not initially augustus-friendly, that took time and some effort.

Another working day, so finish the breakfast, lock up the house, and walk down to the car. This morning the mechanics of the garage opposite have decided to forego the usual cut and thrust of car repair, and instead opt for the traditional teabreak. They line up at the top of the ramp, bellies thrusting inside their oily overalls, cups in hand, eagerly predicting the visual spectacle of Caldrail Going To Work. Man and machine in no harmony whatsoever. Right. Here goes. Key in slot. Turn... And... Open sesame! I fight the natural urge to hug and kiss my car (we're friends again) and wave good morning to the disappointed mechanics in triumph. They wander back inside disconsolantly, but I doubt I've seen the last of my impromptu audience. That well dressed woman turns up in her Audi. She always parks here in my neighbours slot even though its a private car park. I'm sure she she doesn't live here, I'm sure she hasn't seen the sign, and from the look of her, I'm sure she'll get irate if I point out her error. Or is she having an affair with the goth metal layabout next door? You never know... The garage boss has parked his 4x4 next to the alleyway again. Its such a huge truck he can't park it accurately, and to be honest, I doubt that careful parking has entered his conciousness. Ease past it carefully... its black paint gleaming in mirror-like obsession and an obvious sign of possible legal action if I get too close.... and its down the uneven rain-eroded path to the main road. I hear the car scrape something as i run over a pot hole. Maybe the 4x4 isn't so stupid after all. But how does he get that truck down this path? Its too narrow. Its not humanly possible to squeeze that automotive leviathan between the houses and trees. Or does it come with a button to retract the wheel arches? How much does that thing cost? I wonder what he charges for labour? No, its too frightening... Along the main road, left at the roundabout, where that dark blue Ford does its usual party piece by going all the way round in the wrong lane, and off down toward the warehouse. Sixty miles an hour allowed along this windy stretch and the guy in front is driving at twenty. Its no good, I can't pass him on this road, so I grit my teeth and wait for the straight bit... Where he accelerates to sixty on a section of road limited to thirty miles an hour. Is he taking the mickey? Of course, at the bend he slows down to twenty again.... and finally at the gate to the industrial estate, where a car transporter and trailer is busy doing a twelve point turn across the road... No mate, left hand down a bit more... Tell you what, go forward and try it again.... Aaargh! I always remember speaking to an american woman on one evening out, who was from Iowa, or Idaho, or somewhere flat and empty. The conversation happened to get around to driving in Britain, and she gasped - "You people are soooo-per-men!". Apparently she was overawed by our skills and reaction speeds compared to american drivers she was used to back home. Well I don't know what part of Britain she was driving in, but it certainly wasn't Rushey Platt... Task of the Week AD points at a length of shelving running along the west wall. "We need that dismantled, Caldrail, here you go..." and passes me a ratchet and adjustable wrench. Oh joy... Cue Mission Impossible theme tune.... Hang on... How am I going to get the bolts undone the other side? Well, it looks like I'm going to have to haul the shelves away from the wall... Gouging deep furrows in the concrete floor, I pull the line of shelves round inches at a time. Management training at its best. With a mighty crash the shelving falls over. AD glances out the portakabin window during his phone call to Head Office, no doubt explaining the sudden crescendo of noise as "Oh thats just Caldrail, he's dismantling the shelves for me". I give him a reassuring silly grin. Covered in cobwebs and dirt, polo shirt snagged and torn... Ten more minutes of this and I'm going to look like I've been savaged by a rotweiller. Just in time for that important meeting... Life on the sharp edge of warehousing...

When Augustus came to power, he did not announce a change in society, rather that he was Princeps, the first citizen, a leader among equals. He was acutely aware of the fate of Julius Caesar. The conspirators who stabbed Caesar to death thought they were saving the republic from a tyrant, however popular or capable, and were cruelly disappointed. The rule of the Caesars did not supplant republican institutions, it sat on top of them, adding a layer above senatorial government. yet even then, Augustus did not have everything his own way. There were occaisions when this man was seriously heckled by senators and left the senate house fuming. Again and again we see the senate making decisions under the principate. Claudius and Nero both declared enemies of the state. We see Didius Julianus pleading with the senate to retain some semblance of power, and the senate having him executed in the face of Septimius Severus' arrival in Rome. The phrases republic and empire carry two meanings each. Republic was the name Rome gave its government, a rule of the people rather than that of monarchs, however biased it was toward the aristocracy. Its also a name we give the period between the roman monarchy and the principate. Empire is the collection of foreign lands who are ruled by Rome. The romans did mention the phrase occaisionally, even during the republic, and there's a later quote about the gods granting Rome an empire without end. Empire is also a name we give the period from the principate onward until the fall of the west.

Tales of human sacrifice are not so unusual. Augustus is said to have sacrificed three hundred of his enemies early on in his career, but Suetonius is a bit dubious about that and I suspect the story concerning the aftermath of Cannae must also be treated suspiciously. For the romans, human sacrifice was something barbaric. Whilst they were quite capable of executing thousands, they did so for reasons they considered expedient, not because they wanted to indulge in un-roman rites. Remember the horror the romans felt when they discovered the sacrifices in the teutoberg forest for instance. I would like to know the source on this, because I suspect this is a story designed to underline the desperation of Rome's plight. It might therefore be propaganda?

I'm not suggesting that Rome had a medieval fuedal society, it wasn't structured like that, but you might view patronage as its ancestor? Maybe, maybe not, it might be simply a facet of human behaviour emerging whereby a person seeks aid from someone with more personal power and in return agrees to certain conditions. In that respect, patronage and fuedalism are similar. I'm not disputing your knowledge of roman social structure - what I'm pointing out is that despite safeguards, there are always those who exploit the weak, exploit gaps, or just plain refuse to play by the rules. Now thats a general point and you could easily pick holes in it, but any society accepts rules to govern their citizens behaviour, which includes how people get to rule. Rome certainly did that - and even I have to say, their answer to this was fairly unique and worked for centuries. Then again, wasn't it the mavericks - those who refused to play by the rules- the ones that pushed the system to one side? I get a little bothered by people who say that one society or another is superior. You might claim that ours is, because immigrants flock to our nation in droves. Of course they do. They're getting handouts of cash and pay is better than back home. That doesn't mean our society is better than theirs. We might have a much colder, less friendly, more authoritarian and officous regime than theirs. You could apply the same arguements to the germanic immigrants of roman times. There must have been plenty of them who couldn't give a fig for roman culture. What they wanted was roman cash. Roman luxury, and if they could get it without doing all the competitive roman stuff, so much the better. I know that there were immigrants in the late empire and after its expiry that adopted roman ways. I'll bet they were the people incharge. The ones with cash in their pockets and access to roman houses and such. They were if you will, playing at being roman and enjoying its luxury, without worrying too much about roman civic responsibility which had all but died by that time anyway.

Yes. Psychohistory is another phrase for the theory of social engineering - that human behaviour as a whole can be predicted and manipulated, and that mathematical formulas can be applied to mass social situations in such a way that these predictions can be made. Thats the concept behind the Foundation novels. Such a science doesn't exist inreality nor is it likely that it ever will, since Asimov conveniently ignored human personality as a factor in decision making, as for instance the unpredictable nature of leaders whose personality is a little less than sane. A psychohistorian whose maths was up to it could in theory plot the progress of a civilisation from start to end, determine when the major crises will arise, and any relevant changes in social structure that result. Its a form of statistics with complex formulae governing a dynamic quotient. In the stories psychohistorians lock themselves away and pore over huge mathematical conundrums to arrive at an answer. Its easier to learn a little history and recognise the trends if you ask me, but I don't think Asimov thought that had dramatic potential

My trusty motorcar decided to have a sulk yesterday. I finished breakfast, locked up the house, and walked down to the car to go to work. It wouldn't let me in. The door was jammed solid. I cursed, I begged, I pulled the handle in a frantic tantrum. No, the car isn't talking to me. Can't get in the other side either, the cockpit is too cramped. So I call the breakdown people. They were very sympathetic and promised someone would turn up in an hour. He nearly made it too, despite a bad car crash elsewhere on the Great Western Way and the resulting gridlocked traffic. Needless to say, after some fettling from a gentleman far more skilled in talking to cars than me, the door opened. UT strode into the yard as soon as I showed up. "Come on Alfie!" He shouts. Alfie? Since when was I called Alfie? Never mind, there's no point arguing. I wonder what he wants? "Oi needs to get moi my van in, Alfie. 'As you got a key? You do don' you? Goes and get the key an' lets moi van in." UT as usual has such an air of command. He disappears through the premises of a neighbouring business to fetch his van. My mobile phone rings. Security has another van at the front gate with two parcels for us. I ask him to send the man round, but the old gent tells me the outer front gate is locked. Aw poo. Right then, I'll dump my bag in the office and its back through the Hangar to fetch the parcels. I open the Shed, and... What the **** is this? Somebody has deposited a large metal roadside map to an industrial estate! Well first things first... As I stride back across the front yard to the gatehouse the van is pulling away. With my parcels on it. Yes, he's going round the back with Mr Security to open the gates as he goes. A quick jog down the lane and I hitch a ride in the back of the parcel van. I forgot how bumpy this old back lane was, pot-holed concrete and eroded gravel. You will not believe how painful the corners of cardboard boxes can be when you're bouncing around in the back of a van. Anyway, nursing a few bruises, I manage to indicate where to drop the boxes. He's a pleasant character this driver. "Hope you didn't you get jolted around back there" He says in concern at my flustered face. Parcels duly delivered, he goes, and I turn to UT, newly arrived in his trusty flatbed. He looks at the metal roadside map. He looks at me. "Somebody must 'ave nicked this the uvver noight. Better run, Alfie.." I really have no idea if he's serious.... After some genuine heaving the map goes on the flatbed, followed by bits of metal tube. Isn't that the front gate barrier? "Somebody must banged into it last noight, Alfie. Made a roight mess of it they did...." AD arrives after a visit elsewhere. He greets UT in his usual disparaging manner, and the two senior citizens then proceed to have a mock fight. As usual, UT's superior strength and aggression win the day, and I console my boss over his defeat. Sulk of the Week No, not my car, but SB, who is starting to feel the pressure of the impending move and whose patience is very fragile. He 's been very comfortable in that darkened Hangar for many years, and really, having to deal with the outside world for the first time in a decade, its all proving a bit of a shock for him. Poor man. I'd help him but our relationship consists solely of glaring angrily at each other when we walk past. Has anyone got a home for a warehouseman? Well trained, barks at strangers, doesn't need much exercise, and would make a perfect pet for someone with the time and patience to provide a good home. Remember, a warehouseman is not just for christmas...

The romans certainly considered their civilisation as superior, yet I 'm not sure the poor had things much more comfortable than anywhere else. Life in a city has advantages for sure, but then, such a focus of human contact and therefore waste and the plague and pestilence that goes with it must count against comfort surely? Even those outwardly impressive insulae were often jerry built rat havens, overcrowded firetraps, structurally unsound, probably unheated, no running water, no cooking facilities - are there any other disadvantages I haven't considered? Roman civilisation was great if you could afford it, or if you could live off the wealthy. Maybe so, but my point was that the senate considered themselve a class apart - even the abbreviated name for their civilsation hints at that. Also, the wealthy members of Rome established an desire to retain the privikleges of society for themselves. Isn't that why the Gracchi got bumped off? You see, republican traditions had a strong democratic element (I can't disagree) yet the wealthy had no intention of giving a poorer man more say than necessary. Human beings love building pecking orders. Its part of our social animal behaviour, and the romans were no exception. But it did form networks of fuedal obligation, and even if it didn't correspond to establish social order, it did correspond to wealth, which after all is the decider of who has influence in roman life.

The raising of slave legions was due to Augustus if I remember, I don't recall any during the Punic Wars unless you have better sources on that, and as for being an innovation, it wasn't. It was desperate measures, something that the romans wouldn't ordinarily consider under any circumstance. I'm not entirely sure what the positive point might be other than extra recruits who were not supposed to join the legions at all. Notice that Augustus freed them all prior to service and made darn sure they were a second class legion afterward.

You have no idea how many galoots are here. Its a nationally recognised breeding center, and regarding 'the guy', I have no idea what he charges for demonstrations since he decided to wander off and practice before we could any info out of him. Mind you, its a fair bet that alcohol will be mentioned in the contract

No, I disagree. Rome was never a monarchy although it evolved toward over centuries of empire. It was an autocracy however, with no established and accepted method of transferring power. It was Commodus who was the 'first man born to the purple', a break with the past by Marcus Aurelius and a precedent for future development. In Antonia's case it isn't that she was the mother of future monarchs - lets face it - she had no intention of allowing Claudius to become head of the household given that she considered him a man who 'nature had not finished', and until the praetorians became keen to find an emperor sympathetic to their need for a continued easy life, he wasn't likely to be considered for emperor anyway. It was to do with status however, and in that sense I agree with your point. She was a mamber of a very influential family, people who led fashions, set the tone, people that were expected to be the leading lights in Rome. That meant she had to keep up appearances, to keep her own house in order before others must. For her family to be dragged through a scandalous court case to prosecute Livilla was anathaema.