caldrail

According to the BBC, ten million of you watched the Dr Who special marking the 50th year of time travelling mayhem and alien invasions of Earth. I strongly suspect far fewer of you are going to be reading this, but who knows, perhaps one day this blog will survive the ravages of time and become an indispensible guide to how life in Swindon really was before Professor Cox was proved right. I do note however one aspect of Day Of The Doctor that most people might not have noticed. The good Doctor turns out to have been an utter cad. He sent Rose Tyler into exile in another dimension so he could snog Elizabeth 1st. Perhaps worse than that, children have learned that our foremost warrior queen married a nine hundred year old alien with really bad fashion sense. No wonder she kept that secret. Dr Cox A little while ago I spotted a news item on Yahoo in which Professor Brian Cox was quoted as saying that time travel was possible. I disagree with him vehemently and posted a somewhat sarky comment to that effect. You see, he says that einsteinian time dilation due to excessive speed allows a traveller to go into the future. I say it doesn't, because the traveller hasn't left his own present and cannot move independently of his own local time, thus he isn't time travelling at all. Physics is really easy when you don't listen to physics lecturers. Lo and behold within days a lecture by Professor Cox was aired on television in which he discussed whether time travel was possible. Actually he spent most of the lecture dazzling his audience with the inner mysteries of light cones, and only at the very end suggested a possible time travel paradigm. He said that if you could warp space so that the end met the beginning, then hurtling through space at near-light speed would get you into the past. He is of course wrong. If he was right, all it wouldl do is get you ten penalty points on your license and a three month ban on driving time machines. Not only are there speed cameras everywhere,to catch you flashing past at 186,000 miles per second, your arrival at your destination will very likely be in the history books and therefore you're guilty as charged. According to the history books I've read, no-one from the future ever turned up. He did confess that the energy required to warp space like that would be enormous but tried to inspire the television audience to try anyway. Clearly he hasn't dealt with energy companies. If he had, he would know that no-one in Britain could afford to power their time machine. Survival Without Central Heating Update Cold... So cold... Time Machine Of The Week So you want to follow the good professors advice and build a time machine? Well, you don't need to build a weird victorian chair with rotating umbrella, a 60's police box, or a huge underground complex in the American desert. Just follow my simple instructions and you can travel through time. Step 1 - Sit comfortably. Step 2 - Wait. Twiddle thumbs if necessary. Step 3 - Done. Finished. You have just travelled through time according to Professor Cox. Admittedly you won't be able to snog Elizabeth 1st, battle Daleks, or act the idiot with a sonic screwdriver, but there you go. You see, in order to travel into the past or future then the past or future has exist in order to visit it. That means that Time must be dimensional, which unfortunately for Professor Cox means the past is already defined, and since the future is merely a part of the Time dimension we haven't reached yet, it too is pre-determined , which means there's nothing you can do. The bank will foreclose on your mortgage, Schrodingers Cat will die of starvation, and the number 10 bus will squash your dog. There's nothing you can do because Time is already defined. As for me, I say time travel cannot possibly happen because there isn't any Time, only Now. A single existentent moment that changes on a quantum level incredibly fast like a stop-frame movie with a frame rate of billions upon trillions upon quadrillions of frames a second, varying locally according to such einsteinian things like speed and gravity. All the atoms that made Julius Caesar still exist, albeit seperated and changed. A vibrating universe that has no past or future, merely a present that experiences Change. Time is therefore not a seperate existence, dimension, or place you can visit, just our experience of Change. Sadly I can't compete with Professor Cox when it comes to inviting celebrity audiences to a television physics lecture, but I've taken your advice Brian. I've made a start. Trouble is, my time machine cannot possibly work.

It is true that the Romans wouldn't have stored much in the way of armour, mostly because the creation of it took so much effort so they made it to order, and if it wasn't needed, they weren't going to fill whole warehouses with unused metal armour that needed careful maintenance to prevent corrosion and so forth. Besides, you might need the expensive raw material for something else. In the field, there was little you could do except retrieve spares from the fallen where possible. A fort, if large enough, would have a smithy where basic repairs could be undertaken, or in the main bases, a fabricae where a new set could be manufactured if required. However, bear in mind the ability of the legion to reapir or replace often depended on how many artisans they had on strength. The legion did not have a armoury unit, nor were armourers recruited specifically, so note the priority such men received when they volunteered. It is remotely plausible that legion might not have the necessary skill set at all at any given time (though given the extent of tradesmanship this might be unlikely), especially on campaign, bearing in mind that soldiers were all duty bound to line and fight irrespective of trade. Calatpultae and ballistae were more or less standard in sizes, though you would expect some variety according to who made them and what they were intended for. Bear in mind that the larger artillery were oelty made and used at the scene, not carted around. Rocks would be obtained locally, transported by animals, wagons, sometimes with civilian contractors, and broken to size at the source. If time permitted, some shaping might have taken place before delivery. The Romans would have quickly sorted which rocks were suitable.

The senate died out because it became less and less relevant to the actual running of the empire. This was why the empire ultimately broke into cooperative halves, or why Diocletion instituted his Tetrarchy. Partly this has to laid at the feet of the senatorial class themselves - their self serving factiobalism allowed the chaos of the late republic and the rule of the Caesars to emerge - partly because there were Caesars who didn't want the Senate sharing what they regarded as their power - partly because senatorial competition for power had been diluted by changes to the cobnstitution - and partly because Rome was less and less the centre of the Roman world.

Chickens may not be the cleverest animals. but they do have a modest imntelligence along with any creature with any brain organ. For instance, I know of a chicken shed that was raided by a fox. The farmer found the carnage the fololowing morning and was devastated at the loss. However, the farmer discovered by sheer coincidence that his crafty rooster had played dead, and thus survived a little ruffled rather than mauled.

Shopping? Done. Interview at the job agency? Done. Gas account cancellation? Done. On my daily checklist I had only the obligatory online job search to do, so off to the library for another struggle with Microsoft's worst. Balloons? What's going on here? It's usually excessively warm in our local library but there seemed to be a much livelier atmosphere, and evidence of small scale partying. Worse still, as I ascended the stairs a jazz band started up, creating a very genteel background noise, like the sort of music you get in resteraunts. Years ago our band was driving through London along the embankment on our way home from a gig in early hours of the morning. We passed that odd resteraunt that stands on the riverside by itself between the trees, and our singer, Dave, commanded that the van be brought to a halt. Enough was enough. We'd all noticed the place every timne we went this way and finally his curiosity could bear no more. He had to find out what it was like in there. So I parked up for a while as a slightly inebriated folk-rock singer tried to gain access. The bouncers actually let him in to have a look. Apparently it was a very strange mystical experience with a rock band doing the impossible by playing at low volume as the clientelle ignored them in favour of expensive morsels and famous brand wines, and finally Dave re-emerged with the advice to bring a tie next time if he wanted to come in and eat. Sadly we were all struggling musicians without a penny between us, so that never happened, Okay, reminicense over, back to the library. I was expecting to be distracted by the music, but strangely, the easy listening tunes suited the mood and I got on - I strongly suspect I was typing in unison with the beat, but don't tell anyone. A guest singer was introduced who completely tortured 'Summertime' to death. Clearly not a finalist in X Factor then. Whether she was supposed to sing one song or not, that was it, and the band called everyone together before they found something interesting to do. A chorus of 'Happy Birthday' explained the change of pace. Oddly enough, when the band finished, the library started to empty. Maybe the guest singer was planning to sing again? Cold Facts I must be honest, now that my flat has no heating I am starting to notice the cold. Not for the first time, I have to say, just that now I can't do much about it except report my shivering on this blog. I notice that an MP has warned the gas companies not to use their customers as cash cows. Too late for me, I've already escaped the meadow, and worringly I quickly noticed newspaper headlines at the supermarket. A sharp freeze expected. Four inches of snow expected. Oh great. Well at least I live in Swindon. Thankfully our much maligned town doesn't seem to be greatly affected by weather - we never suffer the extremes you see on the evening news. One winter, the whole country was inundated with snow, drifts up to six feet deep, but Swindon? Not a flake. With luck the snow will pass us by this year too.

Right. And what about the actual knowledge (skills) of the architectural work? In what ways could these be distributed? Most of these skills were pretty basic to civilisations everywhere. Since the legions had a policy of recruiting tradesmen and had official patterns to worjk to, you would expect work of a fairly uniform nature. Having said that, the level of craftsmanship involved in Roman architecture depends on how long the settlement or fort is located there.

Ummmmm.... You never seen charity adverts on television showing how animals are actually treated, have you?

By our standards, perhaps, but please realise that Roman's did not have the same attachment to animals that we do today. Think of the third world, where animals are used as beasts of burden or usually in some practical capacity such as food, guards, whatever. In fact, the Roman's could be very callous about animals - the biblical quote in Genesis about humanity being given mastery over nature is pure Roman attitude, and even in the late empire, when a writer records that there were 'no more lions in Thessalay, no more Hippo's in the Nile", he laments the loss of opportunity for spectacle and the consequent demonstration of power, but at no time regrests what his ancestors had done. In any case, the Romans saw the outside world as a mysterious place, guided by vengeful and fickle divine beings, who needed placating. Even crossing a river was potentially trespassing on a gods domain and risked being swept away by an angry river god. Note how difficult it was to persuade Roman legions to cross the English Channel, even after Caesar had done it - both Caligukla and Claudius had minor mutinies to deal with. All in all, the loss of a dog meant little if life was bountiful and pleasant afterward.

Whether these individuals are warlords has a further qualification - are they acting for themselves or on behalf of the state? Washington was an army leader and elected president, Jackson an army general, and Eisenhower a national army general and allied commander. None of these acted without state consent or direction. Crassus was also a sneaky and successful investor, buying land in Rome at a very reduced offer when tenetments burned or collapsed, leaving their owners 'over a barrel' with no rent incomes.

Hadrian had ambitions to enclose the empire and r'omanise' it, to encourage Roman civilisation as he saw it. That resuklted in conflict with the Judaeans who wanted to retain their culture and religion. In particular, Hadrian had promised to rebuild Jerusalem after if had been destroyed in the Jewish War in 72ad. Unfortunately he decided instead to rebuild the city as a fresh new Roman city, Aelia Capitolina, which incensed the Judaeans because they regarded that as reneging on the promise, which then inspired a rebellion.

Dining was of course for the wealthier Roman, and what comes across is that the Romans appreciated novelty or suprises (good grief, stuffed vine leaves again?). Sometimes entertainment was laid on and even a private gladiatorial bout for the delight of the party-goers could take place where-ever they had room. The thing is though that a lot depended on circumstance. I don't imagine a formal dinner, even with wealthy senatorial types, would be the same experience in a large urban villa in Rome and the commanders house in a provincial fort on the far frontier.

Legionaries were paid according to political and financial decision. In one case, a Caesar ruled that any newly recruited soldier would be paid the older lower rate, basically to save cash. It didn't make him popular. As for pillaging, there are anecdotes of Roman soldiers getting creative about that. Certainly in the Pannonian Mutiny the first thing the l;egionaries did when they heard that discipline was out the door was raid local villages. On the other hand, a late empire vexillation mounted ambushes on German villages by crossing rivers covertly using shields to float themselves. Alsothere are comments made by writers about soldiers getting greedy. Cicero sympathises with his friend because his donkey was taken, whilst Juvenal tells us that complaining abiout theft by legionaries was only going to get you beaten up. He also relates a stroy about how a thug, possibly an off duty oldier, takes his sword .

Sacrificial cults are nothing unusual in human behaviour. Blood rites were common around the mediterranean. As it happens, the British used to sacrifice each other too.Along with every other celtic peoples.

Help... I'm confused.... What are people talking about?

Europe got off scot free? I'd love to put you straight on that but forum rules prohibit discussion of modern eras. No, you really did miss the point. What I was telling you that simply because an idea seems easy and digestible to you does not make it right. Every so often someone comes along and tries to boil everything down to a simple quote or equation (I've done that myself) but the inherent problem with doing that is that it ends up as an excuse for laziness - why learn all those complicated facts and extrapolations when a simple sentence will do? That simple sentence teaches you nothing, it's merely a label to cover a crack. The crack is still there of course, dark, dangerous, and probably likely to cause a failure of your simplistic intellectual construct under pressure.

The Romans liked the idea of humble agrarian ideals because it showed that their leader wasn't a power hungry man, and led by virtue of civic responsibility (which of course was absolute bunkum - it's rare for someone to be so motivated - most leaders lead because they want to, and because they profit from doing so). The same reasoning was used on estates of wealthy landowners. The front gardens were kept neat and tidy by slaves apparently happy in their work. The hard labout was hidden behind the house with retinue of oppressed menials. The idea is therefore emphasised by Roman writers to inform the reader what a good man the subject was (in his opinion). What it doesn't represent is some sort of generic icon. However, I will concede that the concept of rural bliss is a common feature of the Roman psyche, however contrived or artificial, and the idea that tilling the land brings responsibility for defending was a guiding principle behind the militia armies of the eralier Republic, which would therefore underline connections with republican sentiment, even in Imperial times. A false 'golden age' syndrome, you could say. That doesn't make him right.

Archery was a very effective form of tactical asset in ancient times. However archers rarely have any adequate defense other than riding on a horse, which required additional skill. The Romans did evolve an armoured mounted archer in the late empire which saw limited use. Finding archers was another matter of course. Unlike certain medieval kingdoms, there was no social requirement for people to practice the skills necessary that I'm aware of.

Hardly a description of Tiberius, and quite why you imagine Pierce Brosnan or Barak Obama are beachbums is beyond me. You have some very strange preconceptions there. Not least that you're comparable to Tiberius. No. No, you're just not. Sorry.

Religious emphasis changed quite a lot over the course of the empire, thus I don't think we can easily assert that 'tripartitie theory' applies to a question of iconic sympathies. It's as well to remember that gods were invariably local as well as pantheonistic, however aligned or interpreted. Also we have the persistence of foreign cults at all levels of society. The Roman Empire was after all not anything like as culturally homogenous as people often believe. It consisted of a variety of disparate peoples all under Roman governorship, with considerable cultural diversity. Since this empire revolved around the idea of of personal loyalty rather than nationalism, of localised worship and government, and that we have evidence of the requirement to observe dynastic divinity, the only common feature across the Roman empire is the guy running it.

World War Two. The British had brought in a great many commonwealth troops who returned with considerable self esteem and desire to see independence, plus Britain was economically knackered and unable to invest in colonial administration, or for that matter, colonial subjugation, plus the world was changing and since political movements inspired and supported by the communist bloc were struggling toward independence - not always for the benefit of their people - there were forces acting on Britain it could not contain. The post-war situation regarding the United Nations and the supremacy of America in victorious democracy also contributed - Britain could not justiofy appearing as an aggressor or colonial conqueror any more.

No, they didn't, and instead the imperial cult fulfilled that vacancy. Some Caesars were more charismatic, some never made the grade, a few got deified after their deaths, and one or two assumed godly status because they felt like it. The Romans were on the whole a superstitious bunch and evidence of votive offerings suggest rathr less sarcasm than you infer. Also bear in mind the number of offerings bearing the name of someone the offerer wants to curse - something I suspect the offerer thought of very seriously.

Tiberius is not known for harsh taxation, but he did reform provincial taxation to correct abuses and curtailed public expenses - a sort of austerity measure to restore financial order, which made him unpopular because it also meant no games for the plebs to enjoy. I don't associate Tiberius with Sweden or beachbumming.

It didn't always work. The German tribes in ad9 were not going to become Roman clients easily, and for that matter, please note that Hadrian's Wall was a defensive line on both sides, north and south - the area to the south, whilst ostensibly Roman territory, was never as settled as southeast England and represented a politically senstive zone. Similarly there were areas around the empire that were not fully loyal to Rome and responded to rebellions - such as Judaea, wehich had fundamental cultural and religious issues with Roman society. The main reasons that Rome did not expand much further was the difficulty of control. As the frontier got further away, so communication took longer, and opportunities for local rebellion increased dramatically. Note that the majority of rebellions against Rome started far away, and not always in places that didn't like Rome. There was for instance the Gallic Empire encompassing Britain and Gaul, set up by an ambitious individual who decided it was easy to break off a part of the empire for himself than try to rule the whole thing. As for the comment about gingers, Romans weren't concerned at all about racial appearances, just how latin you were. Besides, trade with Ireland would have indicated that there wasn't enough to justify another major campaign involving a sea crossing at such a distance from Rome. After all, most legionary legates were a suprisingly shy animal - a successful general is a dangerous beast - his army will by loyal, practised, and keen to see their beloved leader take the throne - that was why Domitian summoned Agricola home before Scotland was conquered and challenged his loyalty.

Well, strictly speaking, beachbums have no job or responsibility. Tiberius was the Caesar of Rome irrespective if he avoided getting down and dirty in Rome (according to Suetonius, he preferred to get down and dirty with nymphs in the garden and toddlers in the swimming pool).

Tiberius had no involvement in Jesus. That was handled locally by the governor of Judaea and the native government. As for being hated, that had more to do with his lack of sponsorship of public entertainment than taxes (Tiberius didn't care much for the arena). Not sure calling him a beachbum is accurate though - he was Caesar after all, and quite wealthy.