Paradise Lost (Again)

Close Enough

On the 23rd September 2025, it had been predicted by Pastor Joshua Mugumbo (sic), a prophet/profit resident of South Africa, that the Rapture would definitely occur. There was no doubt about his prophecy. The 23rd marked the day when the faithful in Christ would be whisked skyward in accordance with Christian lore. On this day, Christians believed that because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, they would receive atonement for their sins and therefore be cleansed of all venal iniquities. Thus, the true believer would leave behind their earthly, and undoubtedly filthy, vestments/raiments, defy gravity, and ascend to meet their saviour in the clouds.

The 23rd of September marked the 'Feast of Trumpets', a celebration of the Jewish New Year—a clear sign of the Rapture's inception. Folks drenched in obdurate stubbornness (double positive) and pride, and those who do not recognise the sovereignty of the Saviour, will be left behind. Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gypos akimbo and sundry dark folk will not participate in Jesus' manifest mercy and benevolence. They will be left in the mire and crapulence that defines those who wilfully refused to embrace Jesus' gift of eternal love. There was only one path to eternal bliss, and that was through Jesus. All other religions and beliefs were distractions put forth by Satan to misdirect and to fool the unwary. 

Many believed Pasty Mugumbo, especially in the US. TikTok videos appeared warning of impending doom. True believers began to give up their acquisitions. Cars, money and even houses were given away. What good were these chatels when one had achieved the sublime and was now resident with Jesus in paradise? Folk gathered in groups on the allotted day and waited with joy in their hearts, as on this day they would be embraced in the bosom of the Lord. Some worried that if they stayed inside, they would hit their head on the ceiling as they shot skywards, so they went outside, ensuring there was no potential obstacle preventing vertical egress.

As the allotted day approached, fundamental Christians were driven into a righteous religious fervour. When the 23rd came, they prayed mightily and waited to be taken.

Aftermath: Pastor Joshua Mugumbo was interviewed on the 25th on a Podcast (CENTTWINZ TV). During this time, he droned on about bugger all, casting out verbal diarrhoea in ritual abundance. However, no apology was forthcoming for his failed prophecy. Instead, he doubled down and simply revised the date, a common ploy of all failed Rapture prophets. God's calendar was based on the now-defunct Julian calendar, initiated by the great Julius Caesar. Today, we use the Gregorian calendar. According to Gregorian chronology, there is a 13-day difference between these calendars. Thus, the date of the Rapture has now been revised to the 7th or possibly the 8th of October. This is all very convenient, but there is a flaw in Joshua's cunning plan. When the Rapture fails to manifest on the allotted date, those adherents, still left adhering to primitive bollocks, will be left mightily disconcerted and possibly disconbobulated. There might even be a little gnashing of teeth. I'll get the popcorn.

These Rapture events are occurring at ever-increasing time intervals. I recall the late Harold Camping's prediction of Doomsday and the supposed impending aerial elevation/salvation of the faithful few. *At the time, I penned a verse of doggerel to mark this inauspicious happening. Again, he attracted followers who fervently believed in his brand of insanity. In particular, I remember one fella who was a true believer. He was so sure of the event that he had spent all his savings on billboards proclaiming the coming lofty event/ascent. These large adverts appeared throughout New York, heralding impending doom for those foolhardy enough not to believe. As he stood in Times Square to await the event prophesied to occur at precisely 6pm on 21st May 2021, he clutched his small bible in both hands with a fierce ferocity. The large digital clock in the square revealed the appointed time, and the unbelieving heathens, some in festive garb, who had gathered to partake of the carnival atmosphere, vented a large cheer as if of one voice. Our lone hero looked lost and confused. This was his chance of salvation- now lost. An escape from his miserable mortal existence did not happen. He quietly muttered, "I don't understand". A pitiful low cry hardly discerned through the raucous laughter and derision. As for Mr Camping: He went silent, but not for long... Like all failed prophets, he stated that he had miscalculated and then announced that the true date of the Apocalypse was, in fact, a day in October 2021. Many of Camping's adherents became disillusioned after the May debacle, especially those who had dispensed of their worldly goods, stopped paying rent, and gave up their employment. A few diehards (our lonely hero, mayhap?) stayed on to witness the final death knell of Camping's delusion in October. Camping died a confused and embittered man on the 15th December 2013 at the age of 92.

                                    *You made your predictions quite categorical,

Date and year were virtually undeniable.

Except your pontifications were completely unreliable,

And your followers were left bewildered, high and dryable.                

                         

                         

I am truly confused. How, in this day and age of scientific achievements and wonderments, do we still have folk in supposedly 'sophisticated' Western countries who continue to believe in these silly, primitive, nonsensical beliefs? And let's be honest: When we talk of Western countries, we're talking about the USA. This could not happen in my adopted country of New Zealand. But before I become too smug and enter the realm of intellectual superiority, I must admit that New Zealand has its own brand of insanity, termed 'Maori Science'. But worry not, gentle reader, I will devote a post to this concept in the future.

Fundamental Christianity has had, and still has, a detrimental influence on American politics, education, and science. This is a vast topic, and the controversy concerning the teaching of Evolution in schools has been a century-long battle for it to be accepted universally throughout the US. The fundamental lobby has fought hard, and often deviously, to include the teaching of 'Intelligent Design/ Creation Science' as a viable scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. We see a stain/strain of anti-intellectual poison that seeps throughout certain sectors of American society, resulting in the uncritical acceptance of Biblical babble as alternative truth. Belief in Evolution as a valid scientific theory hovers around 50% of the US population. The rest of the population seems happy to believe that God is the answer. I rest my case, for now. 

As Mad as a Bucket of Frogs in Vinegar. Part Two

Due to circumstances beyond the control of mortal man, this second post concerning my mental health has been a long time coming. I was hoping to put forth this post weeks ago. However, real life intruded, and I was subjected to a series of life events that prevented my mind from concerted application. 

I have now entered a period of mental serenity, and I have achieved temporary respite from the world's ills and the stifling oppression that previously crushed my very soul. 

In my last post, I revealed that I had been diagnosed with ADHD. At the end of my first session with the psychiatrist, he revealed that in addition to ADHD, I suffered from an additional mental malady; apparently, I also have moderate autism. I confess, I was shocked at this supplemental diagnosis. At no time during my existence have I considered autism as a possibility for my manifest neurodivergence. 

I left the good doctor's office mightily confused. That evening, I researched symptoms, signs and the diagnostic criteria associated with autism. First off, the preferred moniker is Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Recently, much research has been directed toward unravelling the mysteries of ASD, and there has been a paradigm shift in the overall comprehension of the condition. No longer is this highly complex and diverse neurological condition(s) understood in terms of the classical model of 'Functional Deficit'. Today, rigid diagnostic labels are no longer applied, and the repertoire and gradation of symptoms uniquely associated with ASD are being recognised. I'm not going to provide an exhaustive list of attributes considered diagnostic. However, I will provide my own individual experience and some of the problems and positive associations I have experienced throughout my life and the coping mechanisms I have applied to ease my troubled mind.

After extensive research, it became clear that in many regards, I am textbook ASD. The irony: Toward the end of my career, I worked on identifying the various genetic markers associated with the condition. Even though I was aware of the diagnostic features of ASD, I failed to make the connection concerning my own mental condition. This failure to 'connect the dots' is a common feature correlated with ASD. Only when it is pointed out by a third party does the link become obvious. Rigidity of thinking is a characteristic of the ASD mind. However, before my diagnosis, I knew I had a tendency to comprehend concepts in terms of 'black and white'. Therefore, I tried hard to inject nuance and subtlety into my thinking where appropriate. This was one of my many coping strategies that I had adopted to combat the perceived negative consequences of my unyielding thought processes. Clearly, insight is not always a sure guide to success.  

ASD individuals often have areas of focus or downright obsessions. This is undoubtedly the case with regard to myself.  My interest in archery borders on insanity. To date, I'm the proud owner of 35 bows of all types, brands and financial outlay. This dedication to the hobby is not normal behaviour. As can be imagined, most archers do not expend this extreme degree of allegiance to their leisure activity. Not only am I blessed with an inordinate amount of archery equipment, but it takes little prompting to bring forth a prolonged monologue on the topic. My poor family are well aware of this proclivity and know when to walk away. This might seem disrespectful, but I barely notice when in the full grip of reverie. This brings me neatly to the next point.

Problems with social interaction and the formation of relationships are well-known features of ASD. This can be crippling for ASD individuals. I have been spared some of the extreme aspects of the condition. Throughout my life, I have acquired very few true friends. I possess only one true friend in New Zealand, and I met him 40 years ago in England. I have lived 25 years in New Zealand and have not made a new friend during that time. This bothers me not a jot. I do not actively seek out interaction with my fellow humans, and I spend a great deal of my day either in my voluminous shed communing with my many bows or ensconced within my study reflecting on the good fortune of voluntary solitude. I do not crave fellowship. On the flip side, when on those rare occasions I am thrust into the social whirl, I do not eschew social interaction. On the contrary, some poor bugger will attract my attention and will be subject to my rather bizarre, and often socially inappropriate sense of humour. Some folk will go with the flow, while others will look perturbed and offer an excuse to be elsewhere. Occasionally, I will bag someone who is too polite to end the interaction. They stand, transfixed, as if by a penetrating, sharp object; looking pained and frightened in equal measure. On rare instances, I have the delight of finding someone who is equally strange. These sublime moments are spent in mutual admiration and intelligent intercourse (the non-messy variety). There are some very odd folk out there, and I do have a talent for ferreting them out.

I have droned on enough, and thusly, this post is at an end. Nuff said. 

.       

 

Mad as a Bucket of Frogs in Vinegar

                                                                 Predictable, Flaxen

I am about to reveal personal information to my readership that is known only to my doctors and close family. I am unknown to all who linger here, and long shall it remain. Please keep it a secret.

Mental health acronyms are everywhere, and everyone has one. PTSD is very much in vogue. In years passed, this was called 'shell shock' and was the sole preserve of those affected by their combat experience. Now, however, the condition has seeped into civilian life and is awarded to those who didn't achieve a merit badge back in the day when they were in High School. I'm being flippant, but I don't want to denigrate the horror, distress and misery mental illness causes. I should know, or know better, as my family has been marred and blighted through the generations.

My mother, at age 21, shoved her head into the gas oven in a serious attempt to end it all. By luck, she was found in time. Back in the 1950s, piped gas was generated from coal and contained significant amounts of carbon monoxide. My poor mother was sectioned and sent to the local Mental Health Facility. I could never determine how long she spent there, as the family considered the matter taboo. My maternal grandmother strenuously denied that we had that 'sort of thing' in the family. The irony: she also experienced a 'mental episode' when young. As regards the incident, all my mother would reveal was that she was subjected to electric shock treatment, which filled her with horror; she raved about the treatment until the day she died. 

The doctors diagnosed my mother as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and placed her on medication, and she was eventually released into society.

Schizophrenia can be highly debilitating and destroys lives. However, she responded well to the strong meds and father, whilst alive, skillfully managed her delusions and prevented a recurrent episode warranting readmittance; this all changed when he died. 

From an early age, I knew I was 'different' from others my age. My thinking always seemed off-centre, and I was often careless and inattentive. As I aged, odd behaviour and thinking became more apparent. By young adulthood, I realised that I had cognitive blank spots. Certain actions and behaviours that appeared natural and easy to others were extremely difficult for me. Subsequently, I developed coping mechanisms to help ameliorate the symptoms and to hide the problems from my peers and adults. As for why I was neurodivergent, as they say in the modern medical parlance, I ascribed my issues to aberrant genes from my mother. I learned that schizophrenia has a strong genetic component, and many contributing genes are responsible. Exceeding a 'bad gene' threshold results in the condition.  I reasoned that I had received a goodly amount of the aberrant genes, but not enough to present the condition. I was spared true schizophrenia, but I wasn't untouched by the genetic taint. My mind could be in turmoil, with rolling/roiling and cascading thoughts that blazed throughout my brain with chaotic glee. On the plus side, I seemed endowed with a degree of creativity and spontaneity that was denied to most. It is the muse that drives my blog content and provides it with its singular character. My self-diagnosis seemed fair to me, and as I aged, I accepted my idiosyncrasies and the perception of being different with indifference and got about the business of life. 

Coming to modern times, my two grown-up children, male and female, experienced mental health symptoms that developed with age. Eventually, they were both seen by psychiatrists for help. Both had to rely on private treatment, as the public mental health system is but a name, unless you are a juvenile and virtually impossible to access as an adult, as the bar for acceptance is set impossibly high. Unfortunately, this is not a cheap route, and Kiwis with mental health problems are left to wallow in their mental abyss due to cost.  And so it transpires that both of my beautiful children are affected by ADHD and have been prescribed the stimulant Ritalin. The outcome for both my children has been good, and they have attained a degree of peace, calm, and focus. I've noticed my daughter, who was burdened with inactivity and lacked motivation, has since become 'awakened' as if from a dream of lassitude. She now makes jewellery and trinkets and is opening her own business. As for my son, who experienced severe bouts of doubt and mental tumult is now an esteemed professional. Not only does he work full-time, but he also runs two businesses of his own design. One of his enterprises is starting to become lucrative, and he is working toward making the dizzying leap to full-time businessman. I wish him luck in his endeavours and vow to support him in his hard-fought/thought ventures. 

With two children with ADHD, likely, one or both parents are thus affected. The spotlight deservedly fell upon me, and I became concerned that my self-diagnosis (never a good thing) was in error, and so I sought medical counsel. I will not linger on the process, which in my case proved challenging and a long time a coming. Eventually, I was booked to consult with an eminent psychiatrist with a special interest and expertise in ADHD diagnosis and treatment. Like my children, I trod the private road. A toll road well worth the access fee.  

The initial session with the doctor was helpful, informative and deeply revealing. I filled in tests akimbo, and in the final part of the 2.5-hour consultation, I was diagnosed with ADHD. This came as no great surprise. However, the good doctor was not finished with his professional verdict. It transpires that I have a comorbidity. I will not reveal the additional mental issue in this post as it has started to veer into 'too long, won't read' territory. Suffice it to say, it was a shocking revelation to me and for a while, I was thrown into mental turmoil. Perceptive and long-time visitors may be endowed with the powers of psychic divination and thus can discern my cohabiting malady with grace. It was no surprise to my daughter- she knew all this time. Insight was denied to this blogger, and I had to wait nearly 70 years for disclosure.

A second post is warranted and is coming soon.  

 

 

Madame Guillotine

                                        Halifax Gibbet, Looking Mean 

I recently asked one of my readers, 'Would he rather I write about the Guillotine or Hanged, Drawn and Quartered' as a punishment?' To date, he hasn't replied, so I have decided to force the issue- I have powers beyond the ken of mortals. By the power of divination, I have picked (drum roll), the Guillotine.

The Guillotine as a form of capital punishment is forever linked with the French and, notably, the French Revolution. During the 'Reign of Terror' (1793- 1794), it is estimated that over 15,000 folk faced decapitation by this technique. This execution method was not exclusive to the French and was not first introduced during the French Revolution. Read on, gentle reader, and if not entertained, at least be enlightened.

One of the earliest mechanical beheading devices, 'The Halifax Gibbet', saw service from 1286 to 1650, in the sleepy Yorkshire town of Halifax. It was considered a more humane method than manual beheading with an axe. The device consisted of an axe head attached to a weighted block. The block and axe were fitted in grooves in two upright beams of 15 feet in extent. The block was hoisted by rope and pulley until it rested at the top of the beams. The block was secured by a pin which, when released, sent the block and axe hurtling down to sever the miscreant's noggin. This way, about 100 people were sent to paradise, purgatory, hell or oblivion, depending on the viewer's preference. Of the choices, I prefer the latter. In those days, stealing was the most common crime punishable by death. The condemned would remain in custody for three market days. During this time, the poor man was displayed to the public in the stocks as an act of humiliation and to deter others. The Scots were not to be outdone by English ingenuity, and in the 16th to the 18th centuries, 'The Scottish Maiden' in Edinburgh was readied to sever a criminal's head. The construction and execution of the device were similar to the English version, although a mite cruder.   

The German version of the mechanical kopf removal device was first used in the Rhineland in the late 18th century. By 1871, it had become the most common method of execution throughout Germany. Like the English variety, it used an axe head for the butcher's work. It differed from the French array as it was constructed of metal, unlike the Guillotine, which was built of wood. Also, the drop was decidedly short, and to compensate, the axe and block were made to be extremely heavy. Death by fallbeil became very popular during the Nazi regime (1933 - 1945), with nearly 12,000 prisoners executed by this means: rest in pieces, Sophie Scholl.  

Before the execution by machine, decapitation was often carried out by a headsman with an axe or, less commonly, a sword. The ancient Romans used the gladius to send German tribesmen to Valhalla. In the Middle Ages, decapitation was reserved for noble folk as it was considered more humane than hanging, which was the fate of the rabble. King Henry desperately wanted to marry his mistress, but unfortunately, he was married to Anne Bolynn. So trumped charges of infidelity were manufactured. Poor Anne would die because of a passionate whim of an unstable king. However, the king did not want his former beloved wife to suffer and therefore engaged the services of a highly skilled headsman from Calais. The headsman responded to the call and cut through Anne's slender neck with a single swing of a sword as Anne remained kneeling (1536). Not all headsmen exhibited this level of professionalism, and the skill of the headsman varied enormously. Nobles executed during the French Revolution would give the headsman gelt to encourage a clean and efficient cut. Not all beheadings went to plan. Behold, Margaret Pole, whom King Henry executed for political reasons. Her crime of 'Last of the Plantagenets'  was a grievous offence to the king, and surely her head must go. Sadly, the axeman was not up to the task, and several clumsy attempts were necessary before her bonce rolled orwf.

Most folk would like to know whether residual consciousness exists after removing the head. The cut is clean, the brain is undamaged, and oxygen will remain within the structure to support cognitive behaviour.  Without continued oxygen input, it takes several minutes for the brain to die. Imagine the existential horror of knowing that your head has been removed from your body, and you are still able to frame coherent thoughts several minutes after removal. This could be an argument against the humanity of this form of execution. Indeed, a medical doctor, during the French Revolution, tried to determine whether this was the case. My personal opinion: I suspect that loss of consciousness is instantaneous after the cutting of all the blood vessels supplying the brain. What is not considered is the catastrophic loss of blood pressure following head removal. Low blood pressure alone can foster unconsciousness, so imagine the effect after the complete loss of blood pressure in a millisecond. It could be argued that an unconscious dream state might intervene for mayhap a minute or two, but I can't imagine that full consciousness exists after decapitation. The neurons would still fire until the oxygen is exhausted, then true death would intervene. I hypothesise that an internal reverie would happen without awareness of the external world. Perhaps the dark tunnel would be experienced with the bright light at the end, then oblivion. Of course, I could be wrong, and, of course, there is no objective way we could test my musings. Regardless, I'm intensely interested in the opinions of my readership. I await, my mind agape- is there a neurosurgeon in the audience?

Murder

Never More (wrong species)

I've written about ravens before, but never crows. In a previous post, I wrote about a humorous interaction between Octavian (later Augustus) and trained ravens. Check it out here. Post: Edit

Today's post is dedicated to the ravens' cousin, the crows, to redress the balance and preserve the Earth from impending Doom.

Crows are part of the Corvidae family and belong to the Corvus genus, which also encompasses rooks and ravens. Corvids are survival specialists encompassing over 120 species. The common crow is ubiquitously found everywhere (double positive). Folks oft confuse crows with ravens because of their similar physiognomy. However, these species can be distinguished based on size and feather configuration. Ravens are larger and are endowed with a pronounced feathered ruff/scruff. Ravens have a peculiar gait due to their oversized wings spanning 56 inches. In contrast, crows are embued with a modest wingspan, averaging 35 inches in extent.

Today, I will focus on crows and eschew any discussion concerning their equally fascinating cousins, ravens. Crows are very smart. Scientists who bother to put forth effort consider crows as smart as a 7-year-old child, and there is evidence that their smarts exceed that of the pongids. Not only can they fashion simple tools to obtain food, but they can also contemplate complex concepts and solve subtle problems. They have been known to place nuts in front of cars and then return to partake of the tasty kernel within the now-shattered shell. Why are they so smart and adaptable? It comes down to brain mass. They have the highest brain-to-body ratio of any bird. Owning a crow is illegal in the US, as they can be trained for nefarious purposes. Prison inmates have been known to foster crows and exploit these clever birds. Perhaps 'exploit' is too strong a word, as the crows are richly rewarded with tasty morsels. Crows have been trained to ferry in contraband such as drugs and are compensated with a delicious treat- at least crows like prison food..  

As implied in the previous paragraph, it is possible to foster a relationship with crows. Patience is a must, as crows are naturally wary of humans. Forebearance and perseverance are qualities that will pay dividends with time. Keep to a time regimen. Place unsalted peanuts, with or without shells, on the ground within sight of your chosen murder. Your soon-to-be friends will swoop down for a tasty treat, but don't get too close initially—fostering trust at this early stage is essential. Don't try to force an initial interaction. Return daily at the same time.  The crows will venture closer as time passes. The feeding should be accompanied by a whistle or a natural vocalisation. Crows will soon learn to recognise their new found friend and can even discriminate between individuals.  After many months of constant feeding, individual crows may come close and even feed from your hand. Beware, crows can harbour a grudge; if you impinge negatively on their sensibilities, expect the crows to gang up on you. A single crow that has experienced harm will communicate its ill will to others. Prepare for mob warfare. However, if you treat crows with respect and tolerance, you may receive small, often shiny, items the crow has harvested from other humans. You will truly be favoured if they deliver carrion. You have now made a friend for life, don't be put off by the smell.    

Crows, like the order of psittacines (say that after six pints of best bitter), can mimic human speech. They have a complex range of vocalisations for communication with other members of the murder; perhaps they are plotting assassinations. If only crows could tell. They share this ability with other members of the family, Corvidae. They can convey a series of complex messages and emotions using the avian speech organ, the syrinx.   

Many cultures, ancient and modern, associate crows with sinister intent. Crows are associated with dark omens, messengers between the world of the living and the dead. Crows are tricksters of the avian world and thieves of man's trinkets and baubles. There is a reason that the collective noun for crows is a 'Murder'. Crows are opportunistic omnivores and will eat what is available with gleeful gusto. They were known to follow armies with maleficent intent. The aftermath of a battle provided a bounteous feast of sumptuous carrion. The eyeballs of the fallen were devoured with particular relish. A hellish repast of bountiful proportions/portions. Unsurprisingly, this imposing, slick, black and intelligent bird is linked with a host of doleful symbolism. Their deep black eyes denote intelligence, their gaze is knowing, and the cock of their head understanding. No wonder in some cultures they are connected with wisdom. In Norse mythology, Odin sacrificed an eye for the rare quality of wisdom. A quality not earned in the classroom or bestowed with diplomas. Wisdom comes hard with years of hard living. A quiet quality not to be bestowed on all. Odin is accompanied by two crows (or sometimes ravens), Huginn and Muninn. They perch on Odin's shoulders in the morning before flying orwf to scout the world. They return, whispering to Odin about the lay of the land and the intent of man, dead or alive. 'Nuff about birds, Flaxen

BBQ

Several months ago, I attended a BBQ- yes, we occasionally have clement weather in the Wairarapa in late Autumn. I talked to a High School teacher about career prospects for her students. During the conversation, she asked what advice I would give to her students concerning education and career paths they may be contemplating. Presumably, she considered the grey hairs amongst the blond as a sign of accumulated wisdom. The problem with this presumption can be summed up by an old adage: 'There is no fool like an old fool'. Anyway, even though the question belongs to the devil himself, I decided to rise to the challenge and was promptly arrested- this last bit didn't happen. So here goes Flaxen's perceived wisdom after nearly 70 years as a sentient being (Not a ferret).

First, it is impossible to compare the current 'life' situation with when I was eighteen, 51 years ago. The world has undoubtedly changed beyond comparison, socially, economically, technologically, geopolitically and industrially, and these changes have radically impacted the job market, and not necessarily to the good.

At 16, I was about to graduate from High School (Stew Pony Secondary Modern). At that time, the British educational system was split into two categories: Secondary Modern and Grammar schools. Grammar schools were designed for pupils considering university training, while secondary modern schools focused on less academic careers. Regardless, most students in my class contemplated entering the trades, such as electricians, plumbers, builders, etc. And of those who applied, the vast majority managed to enter into an apprenticeship of their choice. One of my friends applied for a diesel mechanics apprenticeship while another became a draughtsman. Two other, older friends of mine job-hopped with ease. Admittedly, the jobs were basic, unskilled manual factory work. They obtained three jobs in one week and finally settled for Monk's pie factory, Brumagen. The point is that jobs and training programmes were plentiful. In addition, those exiting Grammar School education at 18 with A levels were qualified to enter the 'Hallowed Halls of Education', commonly known as universities. There, they could seek more cerebral pursuits and study toward a degree. At the time, about 5% of the UK population went forth to higher education. Contrast that with today's statistics, where 36.4% (2024 UK data) of pupils seek a university education. Universities are no longer venerable and venerated institutions of higher learning. Universities are thriving businesses touting degree courses to clueless students, knowing full well that the job prospects for vast swaths of students are grim. No matter how many students are engaged in useless degrees, the more that do, the more money the university makes. So, they produce glossy brochures exhorting the career prospects for students graduating with a Gender Studies degree. The secret: Any degree containing the word 'studies' is a scam. Also, the glossier the brochure, the worse the prospects for a job, unless you really want that McDonald's position; students, take note.         

So what advice can I offer those fresh-faced and earnest 18-year-olds contemplating critical life choices? First, a fundamental truth needs to be stated boldly. University is not the giggle it once was. There is no 'free' ride as experienced by the 'Golden One'. Loans are required for expensive tuition and living expenses, and interestingly, fees have increased exponentially since the 70s- funny that. A degree circa 1970s was a passport to the professions, even those deemed useless today. Employers considered it a stamp on your academic respectability. Of course, entry and success in the best, as in high-paying, vocational professions have always been ring-fenced. Anecdote time: Entry into medical school in the UK has always been difficult and required the highest exam results. In the 70s, I worked as a trainee in a biochemistry laboratory. One day, I became involved in a casual conversation with a colleague. The individual had recently graduated from high school and was working in the lab for a year before attending medical school. Generally, three A levels at grade A are required to gain admission to med school in the UK. As the conversation developed, my erstwhile colleague let it be known that he had gained three A levels with the commonplace grade of three Cs. Usually, the bearer of such results would be ineligible for entry, especially in the prestigious Birmingham University Medical School. He eventually proffered the information that his father was Head of the Medical School- the scales fell from my eyes. The story underlies a vital life lesson: Life is easier with connections, and specific, usually high-paying professions have a tendency to be inherited.

Let's drive the point in further and take a look at the uncontroversial figure of Hunter Biden. He passed the Bar in 1996 after a stint at Yale. He subsequently entered the gravy train and held multiple positions with varied financial returns, including consultancy, lobbyist, co-founder of various firms, and executive vice president. After being convicted of his second felony in 2024, Biden was facing potential gaol time of up to 25 years. But not to worry, his father, the president, conferred a full pardon on all his federal offences between 2014 and 2024. This benevolent presidential largesse even extends to possible offences, not yet known, committed during these ten years. Of course, Hunter is simply an incredibly gifted man, and all the 'fruits' endowed are a consequence of his intellectual brilliance and flawless moral standing. And then those of a cynical turn of mind could argue.... Those favoured few in this life, irrespective of innate gifts, are given a substantial 'leg up' in this crazy topsy-turvy thing we call life. Life is unfair, and never has it been and never will be. For most of us, there is no 'Golden Spoon'; we must rely on our own wits and steel to thrive in a capricious and uncaring world. Usually, the privilege exerted is not as blatant as exhibited in the 'Biden Affair'. In this instance, the facade crumbles, and we get a rare/raw glance of the shameless, unabashed exercise of power and grand nepotism run amok. 

The career opportunities for those currently seeking employment, degree-endowed or not, will be incredibly challenging. We are already witnessing a blood bath in the computer sciences. Computer-related programming and coding careers were previously viewed as lucrative career paths. The reality is that Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and others have been shedding tech jobs akimbo! The effect is the same whether due to AI or a downturn in the market. So, in all this carnage, I must return to the question first posed at the beginning of paragraph four. After all, up to this point I've just been spouting/sprouting word scree, commentary and scene setting. So, here goes: The answer can be stated in a few sentences: Be born in the West to a highly wealthy and influential family. That being the case, you should be okay. As for the rest and especially the poor, good luck, you will need it.

My integrator seemed mightily unimpressed by my answer and consigned me to the 'crazy old man category'. She stormed off to leave me alone with my delicious homemade burger with fried onions (sans ketchup).  

Crucifixion

A Piece of the 'True Cross'. You can tell because of the Made in China sticker on the base.

Just a quick and morbid post from me. And what could be more morbid than the topic of crucifixion?

Crucifixion is a very nasty way to go. It is forever immortalised due to Jesus' death by this method, as meted out by Roman law. Few execution techniques match its cruelty and ingenuity. Off hand, I can think of three execution techniques that match or exceed crucifixion's unremitting horror, that is, 'Flaying', 'The Boats' and 'Impaling'. I've written about the latter two techniques in this very blog- search if you dare.

The Romans were not the first to use this mode of inflicting judicial death. The Persians were fond of this execution technique, and the Carthaginians were known to crucify their unsuccessful generals. And if you have ever read accounts of the first and second Punic wars, you will become aware that the Carthaginian overlords had goodly reason to be vastly displeased with their lacklustre war heroes, Hannibal excepted, of course. The Romans probably became aware of the practice through contact with the Carthaginians and began to adopt it as a form of killing miscreants. The practice's origins go back to the Bronze Age and the Assyrians, who were overly fond of this mode of execution. Pain and humiliation were not the only purpose of this gruesome method of execution. For the Romans, this display went deeper than mere physical torture. It was foremost a psychological display and a gruesome means of propaganda. Anyone witnessing a crucifixion would get the message: 'Fuck with the Romans and die horribly, horribly'. Crucifixion, as meted out by the Romans, was not for anyone. It was generally reserved for the most heinous crimes, and Roman citizens were exempt. But the exclusion of Roman citizens from this barbaric practice would not last. In the second century AD, the punishment was extended to Roman citizens, but was restricted to the very poor- ain't that the sad truth. Crucifixion was eventually outlawed by the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, as it was deemed too barbaric (no shit). Crucifixion was replaced by the relatively merciful hanging by the neck.

After Crassus defeated Sparticus in the Third Servile War, he had 6,000 of the slaves crucified along the Via Appia (73BC). A stark lesson to anyone thinking of taking up arms against Rome. The grisly spectacle did not end with death as the bodies were left to rot on the cross to be consumed by creatures from the wild - wretched scarecrows that laid bare testament to the brute atavistic power of Rome. 

Time for a Digression

In 75BC, a young Roman nobleman was on the way to Rhodes to further his rhetorical education. Whilst sailing, he was captured by pirates. At this time, piracy was rampant in the Mediterranean. Generally, the pirates seized the vessels' goods and enslaved all on board. However, Caesar (for it is he), as a Patrician, proved to be an exception. In such cases, a hefty ransom would be demanded. Once the ransom was received, the wealthy captive would be released. The pirates initially asked for 20 talents, not an inconsiderable sum. On hearing this, Caesar laughed and haughtily stated that a man of his station was worth at least 50 talents. The pirates readily/greedily agreed. Members of Caesar's entourage set off to various places in Asia to raise the money. Caesar was left with a friend and two attendants who joined him in captivity in the pirate's lair. During his stay, Caesar acted as if he were in the ascendant. The pirates were asked to be quiet when Caesar wanted to rest. He would regale his captives with his own Elegiac and Lambic poetry, and when their praise was scant, he would berate them and call them illiterate barbarians. Indeed, 'Pirate School' hardly taught such dainty fancies and was firmly concerned with issues such as epaulette cleaning and maintenance following all day parrot presence, how to screw on your wooden leg and how to vocalise, Aarrrrrrssse...... 

Caesar's demeanour was generally imperious (how appropriate) and overbearing. He would join in the piratical games and jokingly threaten the pirates with crucifixion when released. After 38 days, the money was raised, and Caesar and his companions were released true to the piratical code of honour. Caesar quickly raised a fleet at Miletus and left for the pirate den. He captured most of them and all their spoils, including his ransom money. He imprisoned the pirates at Pergamon and hurried off to see the governor of Asia, Marcus Junius, in order to seek permission to punish the pirates. However, crafty old Junius stated that he needed more time to review the case. Caesar was not a patient man, and after several rebuttals, he decided to act with celerity, a characteristic that would come to define him in his later years. He hurried back to Pergamon, and as promised, he ordered the pirates to be crucified. Apparently, Caesar had a sentimental streak as each pirate had his throat cut prior to crucifixion- thus, they were spared the prolonged agonies of the cross. Back to the gist/grist of the post......         

There were a variety of ways crucifixion could be conducted. The wooden cross setup, so beloved by Christians, was a favoured technique. Variants existed; sometimes, a single upright may have been used, and if the executioner was feeling lazy, a local tree would have served. There was variation in how the culprit was fastened to the cross. Jesus is depicted as having his hands secured by nails, whilst a single nail fastens both feet. Experiments with cadavers have shown that hands secured in such a way tend to tear through due to the 'dead weight'. And so it was reasoned that this was never a method, and victims were nailed through the wrists to prevent tear through from happening. And again, experimentation concluded that this was a stable and viable technique for securing hands. However, the recent discovery of an ossary in Israel has confounded this view as the bones clearly show that the bones within the box show clear evidence of nails through the palms. Thus, by placing the arms over the crossbeam and then placing nails through the hand, the support afforded by the overlapping arms would prevent the hand from ripping through. In addition, extra support could be provided by tying the arms to the beams. In fact, it is a rare event to find nails in the 'tomb' of a crucifixion victim. The nails used in this barbaric process were viewed as having magical healing properties and were sold on to merchants by the soldiers. The nails were often ground to make a mystical healing balm.   

Manner of Death

Crucifixion was an extremely unpleasant method of execution. The position of the body meant that whilst hanging free, a great deal of pressure was placed on the chest and diaphragm. This posture impeded breathing, and a breath could only be stolen by placing weight upon the hands and feet as a means to pull up the body to ease the restriction. Only then could the crucified individual draw breath. This move placed great pressure on the secured arms and feet, causing searing pain. This position, therefore, could not be maintained for long, and the body would soon slump. For the victim to breathe, this cycle would have to be repeated endlessly until exhaustion took over and the individual suffocated. Also, the inability to conclude the breath sequence led to a buildup of carbon dioxide in the blood, further provoking the agony. It is said that a strong man could last three days before succumbing. The torment engendered by this form of execution is unimaginable. The bible relates that Jesus died after a scant six hours. This is entirely plausible as Jesus had been scourged before crucifixion and was already ensanguinated and weak at the time he was fixed to the cross.    

Here endeth the lesson/lesion

Darwin: Introduction

Alfred Russel Wallace sporting a beard you could lose a ferret in

I am a great proponent of evolutionary theory, which Charles Darwin expounded 166 years ago. Although there have been debates about trifling aspects of the theory, the solid bedrock of 'Natural Selection', resulting in the transformation of species over a vast span of time, remains. Until some other theory comes along best fitted to the data, Darwin's fundamental insight remains unsullied.  

I'm about to embark on a series of posts regarding Evolution Theory with a particular emphasis on its Natural History. This is an ambitious series. Darwin and his theory are often studied in isolation. Darwin's theory appears in biology books as accepted dogma, and the author moves on. Of course, science books teach science and often leave out the crucial historical steps leading up to a seminal discovery. However, Darwin did not live in an intellectual vacuum. Evolution was in the intellectual 'air' and ripe for discovery in the mid-19th century. All the pieces of the puzzle were present; however, it required the genius of Charles Darwin to put them together in beautiful accord. Intriguingly, his contemporary, Alfred Russell Wallace, independently developed the theory, although he quickly stated that Darwin's analysis was primary. Poor Wallace has been lost to history's wasteland; few remember him today. 

Darwin rushed ' On the Origin of Species' to print after he received a letter from a fellow naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace. At the time, Wallace was engaged in biological research in the jungles of Borneo. The letter was a shock, outlining evolutionary processes resulting from differential survival and reproduction due to natural selective forces. Darwin and Wallace's concepts were similar but differed in several crucial regards. While Wallace emphasised selection at the 'group' level, Darwin envisaged the 'individual' as the unit of selection. In addition, Wallace envisaged environmental factors as paramount in the selection process. Although Darwin acknowledged the importance of the environment as an evolutionary force, he also emphasised the importance of predation and intra-specific competition within the species. A final point of difference between the men concerns the importance of 'Sexual Selection'. Darwin correctly noted the critical importance of sexual selection or mate preference as a force for individual change. Darwin's conception of the theory, with its provision for additional complexities, has been shown to be fundamentally correct. 

Wallace's independent discovery spurred Darwin into a frenzy of writing. Secluded in his study, Darwin wrote his seminal work in just under nine months. He had planned a much larger tome with an exhaustive, and to his mind, a complete exposition of his theory, making it watertight. The 490 pages of the first edition were a compromise and left out much of his research. Regardless, the book became a best seller, and the first run of 1,250 copies was sold out on the first day, prompting a second run of a further 1,500 copies.     

As said, Evolutionary Theory was in the air in the mid-19th century. And as Darwin was about to discover, after the publication of 'Origin' in 1859, a number of individuals would come out of the woodwork to claim credit and primacy for developing the theory. This would cause Darwin great distress as he had to examine each claim for credibility and validity. Of course, he attracted his fair share of cranks and charlatans. However, in the deluge of mail Darwin received following the book's publication, there were credible scientists with something important to say. Apart from Wallace, however, none of the claims seriously threatened Darwin's fundamental insight. On a different note, Darwin received criticism for not citing innovative thinkers from the past who had the intellectual honesty to publish evolutionary ideas. This was fair criticism and acknowledged by Darwin. His omission was a consequence of the rushed nature of the work.

Wallace's letter forced Darwin to a rushed publication. Darwin was a meticulous researcher who sat on his theory for twenty years. Over the intervening years, Darwin's friends beseeched him to publish his results, but Darwin's painstaking nature prevented him from rushing into print.      

Darwin was arguably the greatest scientist of the 19th century. He unlocked the last great puzzle facing humanity. Before Darwin, theists' best argument for the omnipotent, omniscient supernatural deity was undoubtedly the answer to the perplexing question: How was it possible to produce the complexity of the natural world, that is, the elaborate intricacy of organic organisms, by natural means? Even the most basic bacterium is an immaculate web of biochemical majesty. How could this complexity come about by natural processes? The alternative: God did it. Thoughtful men acknowledged the obtuse absurdity of the problem. They knew that relying on the theist argument involving an invisible supernatural entity acting by means unknown, causing natural 'things' to come into existence, was intellectually unsatisfying. However, how could this degree of complexity observed in nature occur naturally? No wonder intelligent, educated folk relied on supernatural intervention. But here is the rub and the deadly dichotomy. Those same smart, educated folk were well aware that the theist explanation was no explanation at all and tantamount to superstitious magic and wand waving. Surely, there must be a naturalistic, fundamental explanation devoid of supernatural content.

Darwin's genius lay in the assemblage of the diverse puzzle pieces to provide a naturalistic and intellectually satisfying answer. And the answer turned out to be deceptively simple. It was so simple, in fact, that no one had thought of it before. Natural selection operating over aeons could modify the simple to the complex with remorseless, unrelentless force and potency. The irony: Darwin was not a trained biologist. In fact, his MA degree gained at Cambridge University was a prerequisite for entry into the clergy. Before his Cambridge education, he had spent two years at Edinburgh University, supposedly studying medicine. It is here that Darwin was exposed to a smattering of biological, chemical and geological training. However, given his shotgun approach to science and the curtailment of his clinical studies, Darwin never received a formal qualification in medicine or science.

The next post in this series will be an askew glance at the men who influenced Darwin, the men who provided the puzzle pieces. Darwin quickly remedied his error of citation in subsequent editions. Some of the men I mention were omitted from Darwin's survey. Their influence on theory was indirect due to their impact on later thinkers, and therefore, will be included for completeness. I suspect this work will require several posts, as there is much to cover. So, hold on and hang on to your hats. Tis is going to be a wild ride with a few hot gypsies thrown in, Hola!  

My Vintage Compound Bow

 

Fred Bear's 'Whitetail Hunter' Compound Bow Rendered in Sepia*

As my regular reader knows, I'm an avid archer and run a small online business selling bows and archery accessories with my son. I am compulsive, and if I become interested in a topic or pastime, I tend to become obsessed and absorbed, to my wife's horror. For instance, at last count, I own 33 bows of all types. Although most of my bows are traditional horse bows, English longbows and flat bows, I also own modern recurves and even compound bows. In fact, I own two modern compound bows. I admit that these types of bows are not my primary focus; however, I appreciate them for their efficient modern features and performance. That said, there is something atavistic and soothing to shoot a bow without sights, an arrow shelf and fancy embellishments. 

A couple of years ago, my son-in-law gave me a vintage compound bow made in the 1970s. The first compound bow was patented in 1966, so my bow represents a very early iteration. Indeed, my bow differs markedly from the compound bows on sale today. In the 70s, the technology was still in its infancy, and the modern variety has evolved significantly to become the masterful piece of engineering we see today.

Once I had the bow in my possession, I placed it on a bow rack in the barn and let it gather dust. Anyway, the other day, I decided to examine my serendipitous gift for some reason that remains inexplicable to me. I noticed that the bow sported the Bear name and Logo. The Bear company is a highly respected bow manufacturer founded by Fred Bear nearly a 100 years ago. After gently cleaning and waxing, I checked the bow for wear and damage. The mechanics of the bow are fine, and the limbs are without delamination or damage. The bow is in excellent condition, barring minor aesthetic demerits that are inconsequential to its operation. I placed a few arrows through the bow to judge its performance, especially compared to its modern counterpart. 

Due to the modern compound bow's short axle-to-axle design, grasping the string with the fingers is virtually impossible due to its acute angle when drawn. To mitigate this issue, the string is fitted with a D loop, allowing it to be drawn with a hand-held mechanical aid. My vintage bow has a longer axle-to-axle configuration and is designed to be drawn without a mechanical aid. The draw weight of the modern compound bow can be adjusted by moving the cables' position with respect to the cams, allowing multiple draw weights up to 70 lbs to be achieved. I estimate that the draw weight on my 'prototype' bow is about 35 lbs. Initially, I could not discern how the draw weight could be altered. However, after a thorough inspection, I observed two small free-moving wheels on either side of the riser. I suspect the draw weight can be increased by moving one of the cables onto the wheels- I see no other way of adjusting the bow.

Unlike the modern variety endowed with a myriad of bushings for the attachment of fancy sights, arrow rests, and accommodation for stabiliser rods, my bow is bereft of adornments. Again, compared to its more evolved kin, the bow is less complex regarding cable and cam configuration.   

The Shooting Experience: I was pleasantly surprised by the shooting experience. There was no hand shock, and the draw was smooth. Even without sights, the bow was reasonably accurate at 30 metres. Arrow speed is comparable to a fast modern recurve. Of course, the modern compound bow throws the arrow considerably faster, as expected.  Overall, a great shooting experience and I'm highly impressed with the build quality of the bow as it as stood the test of time and shoots just as well when it came out of the box about the time I was sporting long blond hair, platform boots, a cheese cloth shirt and flared jeans (may Woden forgive me).  

*Notus Bene: This image is a stock photo garnered from the netty. To be honest, I was too lazy to take a photo of the bow in my collection (big fat Arse).        

K2-18b

James-Webb Telescope in Relative Repose

Are we alone in the universe? Whether alone or in a universe teeming with life, both prospects are equally terrifying. To date, we have zero definitive evidence for the existence of life outside our terrestrial bubble. SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is an international research institution set up specifically to search for life in the universe and has been running for the past 41 years. Currently, it is estimated that over 50 billion US dollars have been spent on what many folk would contend is a fruitless and ultimately useless programme. The money would have been better spent on practical projects helping to sort out, or at least contributing to and ameliorating, the many problems affecting humanity. I will not become mired in the controversy here; suffice it to say that, in my opinion, it is money well spent.

Various techniques are employed in the search for extraterrestrial life. My primary interest concerns 'life forms' outside our own solar system. In contrast, a sister research programme focuses on the possibility of life within the solar system. Of course, in this instance, the emphasis is on detecting lower life forms, akin to our Earth-bound bacteria. Indeed, our companion planets and our moon appear essentially inhospitable to life. An absolute requirement for the formation and propagation of life is the presence of liquid water. Liquid water only forms under restrictive physical conditions, and water, in liquid form, has not been unequivocally observed on planets within our solar system. However, there are indications that liquid water may exist on Jupiter's moons. Interest has centred upon Jupiter's satellite, Phobos, and the possibility exists that water may be present under occluding bodies of surface ice. Furthermore, other celestial bodies within our solar system might be viable candidates for the presence of life. I won't be discussing these possibilities today, as the purpose of this post is a tad more ambitious.

Today, I want to concentrate on the search for life outside our solar system. It is sobering to think that only within the last 30 years have we been able to detect planets belonging to stars within our Milky Way galaxy. Planets are commonplace, and most stars have their own collection of orbiting planets.   

Two methodologies are employed in the search for extraterrestrial life. The most ambitious involves looking for advanced technological signs that would indicate the presence of highly advanced organisms at least as advanced as ourselves. There is also a more modest sister programme. In this instance, the researchers are looking for general biomarkers. It is possible to detect the presence of chemicals in a planet's atmosphere using spectroscopy. I'll not discuss spectroscopy here, although its discovery and methodology are worthy of a separate post. For our purposes, it is sufficient to state that the device analyses electromagnetic emission spectra. By examining the spectra for specific absorption profiles, it is possible to determine the chemical composition of the source of the electromagnetic radiation. This is a powerful tool with applications in astronomy, biology, chemistry and physics.

There are a variety of organic compounds associated with life, albeit simple life. These chemicals usually cannot be formed by known inorganic, physical processes; therefore, their presence can be used as a general marker for the presence of life. A number of planets outside our solar system have recently provided promising results using spectroscopy. Although the results are indicative, they are often equivocal. However, in a recent paper, researchers claim they have detected a planet with a very strong set of biomarkers. Again, it needs to be stressed that these markers do not indicate advanced life and, if confirmed, are likely to be associated with primitive non-complex life forms. A Cambridge University team examined the atmosphere of a planet aptly named K2-18b and discovered a set of chemicals usually associated with simple bacterial organisms. This is another great discovery for the James Webb telescope. To date, it represents the strongest evidence for extraterrestrial life. However, it needs to be stressed that additional work is required for validation. 

The planet in question lies 124 light years from Earth and is roughly 2.5 times the size. In addition, the planet lies in the so-called 'Goldilocks Zone '.  This implies that temperatures on the planet are compatible with the formation of life and indicate the presence of liquid water. The atmosphere is analysed as the planet passes across its small red dwarf sun. Two chemicals have been detected, dimethylsulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS). Both of these chemicals are associated with phytoplankton found in the seas on Earth. If the results are confirmed,  the implications are profound. Intriguingly, the analysis suggests that the chemicals are in very high concentrations. These high concentrations are impossible to replicate in our terrestrial setting by non-biological means. From the report, the latest measurements provide a three-sigma certainty, which is tech jargon for a 99.7% certainty. Although this result provides strong evidence for DMS and DMDS, further confirmatory work is required before everyone gets too excited.

So what does all this mean? Even if the work is confirmed, this does not necessarily prove that life exists on K2-18b. While it is true that DMS and DMDS have previously only been linked to biological processes in a terrestrial setting, this does not rule out the possibility of a non-organic origin. There may be unknown physical forces responsible for this unusual chemical profile. Current research is focused on the possibility of producing DMS and DMDS under laboratory conditions without recourse to biology- watch this space. 

Although the results from this study provide the best evidence of extraterrestrial life, so far, extreme caution needs to be exercised. DMS has been detected on comets, which may suggest production by physical and chemical means alone, although past biological processes can not be ruled out. Let us assume that after the Astrobiologists have performed their due diligence, the results can only be interpreted as indicating the presence of life, albeit simple bacterial life. Of course, in reality, there is never absolute certainty in science, only a level of statistical validity.  With that caveat out of the way, let's speculate. The presence of extraterrestrial life would have fantastical implications. It would confirm our strong suspicion that independent life is possible elsewhere in the universe and suggest that the formation of life is inevitable given the right physical conditions. Our Milky Way Galaxy contains at least 100 billion stars, most of which contain orbiting planets. From a 2015 study, scientists have estimated that, on average, 1 to 3 planets exist within the habitable zone of their host star. Each of these planets is a possible incubator for life. Therefore, our galaxy should be teeming with life. Again, it must be emphasised that this does not necessarily mean we are inevitably dealing with the presence of sophisticated, technologically advanced life. I suspect that the probability of advanced life is extremely rare for reasons I will expound in a future post.   

References     

Nikku Madhusudhan et al. ‘New Constraints on DMS and DMDS in the Atmosphere of K2-18b from JWST MIRI.’ The Astrophysical Journal Letters (2025). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc1c8 

 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society on March 18, 2015.

        

Carrhae II

Surena Sporting a Cool Tan and Hair Style

 Carrhae- Analysis and Aftermath

The battle of Carrhae was a decisive loss in the annals of Roman history. Of the confident army that crossed the Euphrates in 53 BC, 20,000 were dead, 10,000 captured, and only 5,000 made it back to tell the tale. 

Many leading Romans opposed the campaign, including Cicero, who claimed it was a war without cause. This was true, as a treaty existed between the two empires. Others claimed it was a war of aggrandisement, allowing Crassus to achieve military success equal to the other Triumvirs, Pompey and Caesar. Again, this is also true. His campaign route was also criticised. His senior officers strongly suggested that the invasion should occur through Armenia to secure that nation's significant military aid. Crassus coldly rejected the offer. He likely wanted an exclusive victory. A victory reliant solely on his own merit and the subsequent glory, Crassus didn't want to share. In this regard, Crassus was no different from a class of Romans on the treadwheel of the Cursus Honorum. The act of provoking war and chasing personal fame was inbred into aristocratic Romans. Honour and accolades awaited. The Parthians were a mere vehicle for Crassus's soon-to-be Triumph in Rome. But first, he had to swat away those pesky Parthians. Of course, the Parthians had other ideas and a well-honed battle plan.

The Roman political system was built for ambitious aristocrats to obtain money and secure honour, which could only be achieved by the force of arms. In this regard, Crassus was no different from Caesar, Pompey, and many other Romans. The clamour of approbation would have vanished if Crassus had achieved a solid military result.    

Crassus's worst mistake was not acquiring intelligence about his enemy. He had little knowledge of how the Parthians waged war and made no effort to rectify his mistake whilst on campaign. Crassus suffered from the belief that the Roman military system, once unleashed, was unbeatable. His gravest fault was hubris. Not acquiring crucial military information concerning your enemy is unforgivable in a commander, and Crassus would suffer accordingly. The Roman way of war consisted of set-piece infantry battles; however, the Parthians did not oblige in this instance. The Romans, unfamiliar with this type of warfare, as it consisted of cavalry archers adroitly managed, suffered accordingly. Surena showed his mastery of logistics by using camels as arrow bearers to replenish his mounted archers- the arrow barrage would continue to nightfall. The Parthians were skilled mounted archers who could shoot frontally and backwards on the feigned retreat. Although the Romans were heavily armoured and protected by the large scutum, inevitably, the arrows would find a mark. Publius' cavalry sortie was ill-considered. It was quickly surrounded and destroyed after being lured away from the main body of troops. It is telling that when Publius exhorted his cavalry to attack, his men protested, exhibiting their pierced hands and feet. 

Crassus was too trusting of his native guides and failed to unearth their motivations for providing help. In fact, they had been planted by the cunning Parthians to purposely lead the Romans astray (silly Crassus).  He was lured into the waterless desert, a terrain perfect for Surena's horse archers. The treacherous Arab guide, Ariamnes, also assured Crassus that the opposing Parthian army was relatively small in number and posed little threat to the mighty Roman legions. Again, during Crassus' final retreat, he was lured into unfavourable marshland by treachery.

No doubt, Crassus was a fool for not accepting Armenian help. The Armenians could supply 36,000 troops, and an invasion from Armenian territory benefited the Romans. Surena would have had difficulty enacting the battle on favourable terms due to the hilly terrain, which was totally unsuited for cavalry. Also, the Armenians knew the territory well and would have guided the Roman army along the most advantageous route into the Parthian heartland. Furthermore, the Armenians were well aware of the battle order of the Parthians and their reliance on horse archers. This knowledge would have served the Romans well and helped formulate troop dispositions. Although the Romans had encountered horse archers before, these experiences were little more than skirmishes. The battle of Carrhae was the first time a Roman army faced a massed cavalry army entirely devoted to archery.

Crassus was complacent. The Romans had previously faced off against eastern armies and generally had defeated much larger armies with relative ease. Crassus, therefore, underestimated the Parthians—a grievous fault in any general. Ultimately, his overweening confidence contributed greatly to his downfall. This is particularly puzzling as Crassus was no novice to war. Indeed, he was deemed a competent soldier and was responsible for finally ending the Third Servile War led by the legendary Sparticus. However, this victory occurred decades ago in 71 BC.     

Aftermath

This was a decisive Roman defeat, and with the defeat came lost prestige. Also, seven Eagle Standards carried by the legions had been lost to the enemy, a major disgrace for Rome. The standards were finally returned in 20 BC after negotiations with the Parthians mediated by Augustus.

The Triumvirate of Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar had been a difficult political balancing act. Crassus' death changed the political dynamic, and soon, Caesar and Pompey would go to war to vie for ultimate power in Rome. The scene was set for the dreadful and debilitating Civil War of 49-45 BC. The aftermath signalled the death of Republican Rome and the introduction of Imperial Rome. In addition, Rome's ambitions in the east were curtailed, and the Parthians took advantage of the defeat by invading Rome's ally, Armenia. This placed the Parthians in a favourable position to invade Roman-held Syria. Initially, they were beaten by Cassius, he of Caesar assassination fame. Over the next two decades, Parthia invaded the Roman East at will, occupying Syria twice. The Parthian victory ended the concord between these two great empires and placed the Roman province of Syria under grave danger for decades.

Conclusion

Crassus's bid for vainglory not only ended in personal tragedy but also brought grave consequences for Rome. Rome's perceived invincibility was no more. It also precipitated the collapse of the Republican system that had served the Romans well for many centuries and hurried the arrival of one-man rule. The defeat broke the peace with the Parthian Empire, and the following incursions by the Parthians into Roman-held territory would be the source of much mischief and calamity for the Romans for years to come. Thus, Crassus' defeat had profound implications for Rome and ultimately would set the scene for great misery, death and destruction.

Footnote

Suruna, the Parthian general at Carrhae, did not survive long following his great victory. Unfortunately, he was seen as a threat to the incumbent Parthian monarch, Orodès II, and was thus unceremoniously dispatched.   

 

  

Carrhae Part I

Parthian Shot

Rome of 59 BC was in a state of political flux. The Republican system was coming to an end. Ambitious Romans were vying for ultimate rule. The first Triumvirate, which consisted of Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey, was an informal association between these talented, rich and powerful men. Crassus was the richest man in Rome, while Pompey was a highly successful general. Caesar was the junior member of the group, but the other two recognised Caesar's undoubted political and burgeoning military ability. The idea of the Triumvirate was to influence and dominate the political scene using their wealth and political reach. They utilised this combined power to ensure each member was assigned a province to maximise their political ends. In 55 BC, Crassus secured the governorship of Syria. At this time, Caesar was busy conquering Gaul while Pompey was sent to govern Spain,

Although Crassus was extremely rich and immensely influential on the political scene, he wanted to increase his gravitas by a spectacular military victory. He felt inferior to his two political colleagues in this regard. Pompey was an acclaimed general with many important victories under his belt, and Caesar was making a name for himself during the conquest of Gaul. That said, Crassus was no military slouch himself, although his greatest feats were decades ago- he needed to burnish his military reputation with a great victory.  It was no secret that once ensconced as the governor of Syria, Crassus intended to provoke war with the powerful Parthian empire to the east. Thus, in the autumn of 54 BC, Crassus crossed the Euphrates River with an army of 50,000 men. He quickly overcame several towns in Mesopotamia. Many of the towns in the region contained a large Greek contingent sympathetic to Rome, greatly aiding his success. After leaving garrisons in the subdued towns, he retreated back over the Euphrates and retired into winter quarters. Crassus was puzzled. During the campaign, the Parthian army was nowhere to be seen, leaving the Roman army unmolested.

Whilst in winter quarters, Crassus was approached by the king of Armenia. The king offered to supply 36,000 men for the campaign if Crassus invaded Parthia from Armenian territory. Undoubtedly, the wily Armenian king hoped his help would aid in annexing territory from the Parthians. The alliance made good military sense, but was rejected by Crassus. Perhaps Crassus did not want to share and dilute his military victory by invoking the help of a foreign power. Thus, Crassus crossed the Euphrates again in the summer of 53 BC. It was hoped that this time he could provoke the Parthians to battle, undoubtedly securing a decisive Roman victory and bringing glory and accolades that Crassus thought were rightly his. However, the Parthians had other ideas. A traitorous Arab guide persuaded Crassus that the best route was through desert territory, but this was a ploy to draw out the Romans into a waterless wasteland.  

The Roman way of making war was the standard Western method of war inherited from the Greeks. Large infantry armies would face off and engage while cavalry occupied a subordinate role. Here, Roman discipline, training and arms would prevail over the ragtag Eastern army. Once again, Roman arms would sweep all before it- a new Roman province would be born. While marching east, Crassus' scouts encountered a Parthian army on its way to battle. Crassus' day of glory had arrived. But unlike his expectations, he was not to face an infantry army. The army, 10,000 strong, was mostly comprised of mounted horse archers. The remaining contingent consisted of heavily armoured horsemen (Cataphracts).           

To counter the archers, Crassus had his men form an open square. In this way, he sought to avoid envelopment as he continued his march. The archers surrounded the Romans and shot volley after volley into the Roman square. The large scutum carried by the soldiers protected them well from the arrows, but an arrow would occasionally find a foot or hand. Crassus surmised that the arrow storm would soon end as the archers exhausted their supply of missiles. However, the cunning Parthian general, Surena, had ensured that his men would be well supplied as he had organised teams of camels laden/burdened with replacement arrows. Crassus hadn't bargained for this continuous barrage, and the casualties were starting to add up. It must have been infuriating for the troops as they could not reply. At this stage, Crassus reasoned that the only way to get to grips with the enemy was to utilise his cavalry. Under Crassus' son, Publius, the cavalry stormed out of the square. In response, the archers took flight and retreated. As the archers retreated, they twisted and delivered a backwards parting shot. This technique became known as the 'Parthian Shot'. The retreat was a feint, and soon Publius and his men faced archers and heavy Parthian cavalry. The Roman troop became surrounded, and in desperation, Publius beseeched one of his men to kill him lest he fall into the clutches of a cruel enemy. The defeat became known to Crassus when a lone Parthian rider paraded in front of the Roman line holding Publius' severed head.   

At the sight of his son's detached noggin so carelessly displayed, Cassius suffered a bout of 'Nervous Prostration' and lost the will to command.  Two legates took control and issued orders for a night march back to Roman-controlled territory. As night fell, an eerie silence descended upon the Roman camp as the Parthians called a halt to all offensive activities. The Romans took advantage of the lull and set out in the dark, desperately seeking to reach friendly lines. It was a pitiful sight as the wounded were abandoned, knowing that morning would bring certain death.   

By the morning, the battered remnants of the Roman army had reached the Roman-held town of Carrhae. During the night march, wounded men and stragglers had been left behind only to fall into the hands of a vengeful enemy in the morning. Eventually, the Parthian general, Surena, arrived outside the town and demanded that Crassus be sent to him in chains. It was deemed that the town could not be defended from the Parthians, and Crassus decided that his men should split up into separate groups and make a forced night march to reach the Euphrates. However, a traitorous guide led Crassus's ragtag army into a swamp. Under these dire conditions, the Romans took refuge on a hill. In the morning, Crassus agreed to treat with the Parthians. Surena offered safe passage from Parthian territory if Crassus signed a peace treaty. During the meet, the Parthains placed Crassus on a horse draped in rich trappings, clearly mocking Crassus for his wealth. The Roman party recognised the insult, and a fight broke out between the opposing troops, and during the melee, Crassus was killed. It is said that molten gold was poured down Crassus' mouth, but this report is likely hyperbole on behalf of the reporter.    

This post is already too long, and I haven't started on my analysis. It will have to await until the next post, coming soon.            

Ancient Folk and Big Stones

This post was inspired by a YouTube video I watched about a Mesoamerican site earlier today.

The author was examining the massive granite blocks at the site, some of which weighed 120 tons. In addition, these stones had been quarried 2.5 miles from a mountain, moved across a river, and then moved uphill to their final resting place. This feat of engineering would be a challenging endeavour today, given modern engineering tools and technology. Yet, a pre-metal culture managed this problem on multiple occasions.  Graham Hancock etal would argue that this was not the work of Mesoamerican Indians but a lost civilisation (c12,000 years ago) applying advanced technology. This is a serious argument that needs addressing. 

Some support the proposal that there were technologically advanced civilisations before our present system. These civilisations existed thousands of years ago (?12,000) but were destroyed by a cataclysmic event, erasing all trace except for the monolithic stones that stand today. They often point to various authors of ancient pedigree who discuss and narrate oral traditions that existed in their day. The most famous of these authors is Plato and his presentation of the lost Atlantis.   

Let us look at the claims objectively. Anatomically modern humans have existed for about 300 thousand years. These folk were as intelligent as anyone gracing Tipton High Street today (may the gods help us!).. The first civilisation, which we know, occurred around the 4th millennium BC in Mesopotamia. We might ask what humans were doing before this time, and, given the time involved, why didn't a civilisation arise before this period and flourish?  And when I mean civilisation, I mean a highly technologically advanced civilisation, perhaps even more advanced than today. Is this unreasonable given the time scale involved? Remember, much of our technical advances have been achieved over a relatively short period of 200 years. All traces of a civilisation from 12000 years ago would now be lost. Metals would corrode and deteriorate, and even persistent plastic would degrade. The only structures left are the colossal stone works that we observe today, scattered throughout the globe. It is a compelling argument, but it suffers from two fundamental problems.

Any technologically advanced civilisation requires a substantial energy source. That energy resource must come from fossil fuel exploitation—coal, oil, and oil-refined derivatives such as petrol. Natural sources of energy simply won't do the job. They are too dispersed and geographically isolated. Before the introduction of nuclear fission, oil/petrol was by far the best energy resource we had. This is because these products, especially petrol and diesel, are highly energy-dense. For instance, the energy available in a litre of petrol is 33 megajoules and is only exceeded as an energy source by diesel (39MJ/L). It is hard to comprehend how an advanced civilisation would not have exploited the large reserves of fossil fuel at least during its initial stage of development.  Now here is the rub: there is no evidence whatsoever that fossil fuels were extensively extracted until the industrial revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries. No doubt, coal was mined by the ancient Chinese and the Romans, but not to the extent that would be required to fuel the vast energy requirements of the 19th century and beyond. The same applies to oil utilisation. In certain regions, natural oil deposits bubble to the surface, and the ancients capitalised on these easily obtained resources. The point is that there is no geological evidence for extensive mining of coal or oil extraction by an unknown, very ancient, advanced civilisation. If there had been heavy exploitation from a lost age, c10000 BC, it would have certainly left a 'geological imprint' readily observable today.

My second point also relies on geology to a large extent. It is hard to consider an advanced civilisation without metallurgy. There is only so much that can be achieved with stone and wood. Metal and metal ore mining is a game changer in the evolution to become an advanced technological civilisation. Imagine a combustion engine made of wood and stone.. Metalworking is essential, particularly the science of blending metals to form alloys—alloys with particular and peculiar properties designed to overcome a specific engineering problem. Again, as with the energy issue, there should be evidence of large-scale ore exploitation going back to before known civilisation, and this is simply not the case. Gold and copper appear in their pure form on the surface or in river beds and thus were utilised by humans (c7000 BC). The first mining shafts to extract copper ore were found at Rudna Glava in the Balkans (c4000 BC), and by 3800 BC, copper mines had been excavated on the Sinai Peninsula. By 2800 BC, tin was also mined, bringing forth the amalgamation of copper and tin to herald in the Bronze Age. Iron was first mined and utilised by the Hittites (1500 BC), and further processing of iron to steel came forth in the 11th century BC. Aluminium extraction and widespread usage did not occur until the end of the 19th century. While bauxite, the ore containing aluminium, was mined for various uses in the ancient world, its extensive mining did not come about until modern times. Thus, there is no evidence in the geological record for extensive metal ore mining before known ancient cultures and certainly not the exploitation required to maintain a highly developed technological society. The evidence is in the stone. 

My final point concerns perceptions relating to our ancient ancestors. For Hancock and similar folk, an insulting stain spreads throughout their thesis. There is an underlying insinuation that known ancients were somehow inferior in intelligence to ourselves, and of course, to a lost civilisation from 12000 years ago. And this is not the case. The ancient Egyptians, the Mayans and other ancients were smart, and though they might not have had our advanced tech, they were not devoid of advanced ingenuity. Nuff said. What do my readers think?