Northern Neil

I do not believe to the same degree, though. Moral values derided in the UK for decades still seem to be quite prevalent in the US.

...and from me too! No excuse unfortunately hope you had a good one!

...I did. The UK has for decades had a particular problem when it comes to mindless violence. This happened to a lesser degree a few months ago when peaceful protests were hijacked by thugs intent merely on having a good time wrecking as much as they could. Where I live in Lancaster in the North of England I am out of the troubled areas. Nonetheless, Even this quaint, historical market town I live in has its violent undercurrents, and there is no way I would venture out into the town centre on my own after midnight. Students from the local university, theoretically our future teachers, scientists and economists, can regularly be seen drunk, comitting low level vandalism and shouting insults at (usually solitary) individuals who happen to be walking on the same street. Violence at all levels simply seems to be condoned as a fact of life, and particularly the lower level sort (jeering, insults, minor vandalism )seems to be condoned on our media, and even made light of. The most prominent example, of course, being the London 2012 Olympic logo, which was directly inspired by 'Street Graffiti Art' - or put simply, vandalism. Contrast this with my recent experiences walking through Paris and Hamburg, at 02.00, a guitar on my back, without even a suggestion that I would be in danger. This country, if I may use an American idiom, sucks.

This fort is very visible from the motorway (M6). It is about half an hours drive from my house, and in the early 80's I was lucky enough to do a 'field walk' of the site with the Lancaster Archaeological society. We didn;t turn up many finds, though!

The exodus story is inconsistant in one major respect - during the reign of the pharaoh referred to in the Bible, Egypt was in its Empire phase, and had sovereignty over all the lands of Palestine including what would later become Judaea. So how could the Hebrews 'escape' at all? This however gives credence to the idea that the Hebrews were quite a willing, functional part of the Egyptian state (as hinted at in the 'Joseph' tale). Maybe they were re-settled in Palestine, in much the way that Romans settled citizens in newly conquered territory? Wouldn't it be a devestating revelation if the 'god' who gave this land to the Hebrews was actually the Pharaoh - a living god? Perhaps they merely duffed up the locals and occupied their land, a story retold by successive generations as a major military victory over the Canaanites?

There are many examples of archaeological sites in Britain which are contemporary to the Roman occupation, but were built to more 'traditional' styles. Most of these are in the North and West, but still clearly within the Roman province itself, and by no means on the margins. Associated with these settlements are significant amounts of Roman consumer goods, so the inhabitants were not by any means rejecting Rome or its culture. My view is that economics rather than an unwillingness to Romanise played a part here; the locals simply could not afford to have builders from relatively distant towns rebuild their settlements in Roman style, so they built in the way they were used to. The Roman administration probably did not care about this, and certainly would not have wasted money building Roman style houses for them, just for appearances sake. Put simply, these were poorer parts of the province, so 'modern' building styles passed them by. I think the area was important, but military presence was not necessary after the initial invasion phase. There were a lot of mining operations in the area, and the locals were happy to receive Roman trade goods and coin in return for valuable metals. Sorry if this all sounds rather prosaic, but people are people in any age and then as now, economics and personal gain/financial security probably had far more influence on people than any stubbornness or resistance to Roman culture.

sorry - yes, that was a typo - I have actually visited it! Anyway, my point being, as it is aligned north - south, as opposed to being scewed or slightly offset, it does indeed function as a sundial. This I find no great mystery; the same applies to the building I work in, and its skylight in the dining room! Ok, now to watch the Yale lecture...

I checked out that list, and indeed, some of them make me shudder - especially when nouns and adjectives suddenly start cropping up as verbs. On the other hand, and being totally fair, some Americanisms were actually extant in 18th century English - for example, the word 'gotten', which appeared on the list. A similar word is sidewalk. With regard to these examples (and many others) American English actually uses the correct, original form. What better way to explore this subject than to read Mother Tongue, a history of the English language, by Bill Bryson, American writer and British resident?

I think the guidebook is refering to the cross hall of the Principia. Although probably correct, it is still an assumption, as I believe there is no direct evidence that cross halls were used in this manner. Although cross halls in legionary fortresses were probably large enough to fulfil this role, IMHO the cross halls of auxilliary forts may be a bit on the small side.

Oh no, sir! I refute your argument thus. I think I have come across the sundial hypothesis before. The oculus does indeed enable one to use the building as a sundial, and quite an accurate one, as the building faces due south. Probably an intended consequence of the otherwise functional oculus. If, as CN says the exterior was surrounded by wings of related buildings, an interesting thought occurs. Maybe the Pantheon is the prototype for late Roman and Byzantine churches, and ultimately mosques?

hmmm... it could have been used for 'cupping' - I believe thats what the process is called, by which a glass vessel is warmed and the open end placed over a part of the body, often to draw various fluids. It would probably work as a breast pump employed in this manner, but to me the bowl of the object looks far too fragile. a perfume / oil bottle, maybe?

I wonder if this was a deliberate 'error' by Mr. Scarrow, to point out to the general reader that different kinds of unit often had different rank structures? I seem to remember also that 'Decurion' was some sort of lower senatorial position, particularly in the late empire.

Indeed so. Unfortunately, Wargaming and military modelling seems to have its own glossary of terms, often unrelated to proper academic forms, which occasionally seep into common usage. At times ( usually when selling my models on Ebay!) I am required, in order to make myself understood, to use totally different and inaccurate terms. So, Legionaries become 'heavy infantry', Auxillia ( despite wearing armour roughly the same weight) become 'medium infantry', milecastles become 'Mileforts' and turrets become 'watch towers'. The list is endless. Rant over.

Related to this question is the fact that Rome's army was more advanced and disciplined than most of its foes, the exception being the Macedonian Phalanx. Still, they no doubt had the logistical and disciplinary edge over most of their opponants, and also a technological one up until the 4th - 5th century, when I suspect Roman fabricii managers, out to make a quick buck, possibly sold much equipment to barbarians. One thing I would like to ponder though - was this superiority on a par with the superiority of, say, colonial armies against Zulus, Arabs, Apaches etc, or was the advantage much less marked?

'I remain troubled by two nice Nerva's but perhaps that ruler was special to the soldier. We can never know such things for certain.' This view in turn puzzles me - if this is thought to be an ancient coin collection, I would have thought that the presence of two coins from the reign of Nerva would be very strong evidence to support the hypothesis! Much the same as if someone now keeps a Victorian silver halfcrown, or a Morgan silver dollar.

According to Spiegel online, the main tourist attraction of the village of Fucking (aparently pronounced 'Fooking') is its sign. I wonder why...

In my younger and fitter days, I spent a lot of time with Regia Anglorum, the Anglo - Norman re enactment group. Frequently I would wear a full mail hauberk, sometimes for an entire day, and spend much of that time on my feet either walking or 'fighting'. We became tired at the end of the day, but hardly exhausted, and of course the more we did it the easier it became. Occasionally we would join up with re enactment societies from later medieval periods to provide a large spectacle, with some modification to our kit to fit in. On encountering some of the 15th century re enactors, we of course expressed the old chestnut 'how do you function with all that weight of armour' or something similar. Asked this probably 1000 times already, the man at arms in full plate rolled his eyes heavenward, and told me that his plate armour was very well made, and also very light. It actually weighed only 2/3 what my full chain mail rig weighed ( about 30 pounds ). He then did a very convincing display in which the full movement of the articulated plate was demonstrated, finishing off by doing a cartwheel.

I wonder to what extent these days the efficacy of Roman troops actually is exaggerated. Sure, the general public who are only mildly interested if at all probably assumes that in their day, the legions were unbeatable, largely due to TV and films. However, battles such as Cannae, Teutobergerwald and Adrianople figure in quite a lot of non - academic literature, and even TV and films are coming round to the view that Rome didn't win all the time ( as seen in 'Centurion'). (I would also consider Frigidus as a defeat of the legions, as Theodosius 'The Great' had mostly German mercenaries on his side.)

Indeed so. However, the modern state does encompass the vast majority of Greek speaking people, exceptions being Cyprus, and enclaves in eastern Turkey. Most if not all ethnic Greeks would have disappeared from the area now covered by the republic of Macedonia in the centuries following the first slavic invasion in 602. Thus, it is plain silliness for the Slavic speaking Republic of Macedonia to claim Alexander as 'theirs' simply because their nation covers what used to be a portion of the original Macedon. In much the same way, it would be silliness for Germany to claim Burgundy from France, simply because it is named after a tribe of Germans who fleetingly settled there.

That would be the divine Vesta Curry of Florida USA (1875 - 1961), wife of Amos L. Curry? (Thanks to ancestry.com) Good choice, but no - a famous UK producer of instant curries, risottos and chow mein. Cheap, nasty and totally scrumptious!

Here is a You Tube clip of my band, Zazous Anglais, with yours truly ( seated Right and just out of shot most of the time) playing the solo guitar on a Parisian Waltz called 'Chez Jaquet, and pulling some funny faces. As well as Gypsy Jazz I listen to, and play, Rockabilly, mainstream Jazz and 50's Rock n' Roll.

Time travel into the future is possible if travel at speeds approaching light speed is achieved. For example, a theoretical space ship travelling at 90% light speed would get to Alpha Centauri and back almost instantaneously from the point of view of the crew; however, on return all their friends and relatives would have aged 9 years. I seem to remember something in quantum theory called the 'many worlds theory' which allows infinite but slightly different versions of our world to exist side by side, but to be forever inaccessible. Maybe a time traveller into the past, by changing events, would simply access one of these many alternative futures? Going back to the original question, I believe that if a government did find a way of travelling into the past, it would be folly to change things that happened more than a decade or so ago. The further back in time an event occurs, the more profound an effect it has on the future, no matter how seemingly unimportant. Just think: Altering the outcome of the korean war would not, neccessarily, effect our own existance (unless you live in Korea). Preventing a peasent or slave couple from having children in 3000 BC could however result in a totally different future for all of us - and a different 'us' as well!

I think I would probably curry favour with Vesta.

Regarding Brough Cumbria, There is the visible remains of the fort platform of VERTERIS in the corner of which there is a fine Norman castle. It is only a short hop over the border from North Yorkshire - is that the Brough you mean? Alternatively, in York itself there are numerous fragmentary remains of the legionary fortress including an almost complete 4th century tower, a bathhouse, and substantial remains of a multi-angular corner tower. Also there are several good museums, with lots of Roman material. The mediaeval walls are impressive, too.

One of the saddest facts of this story is that two thirds of the Great British Public