Have to disagree here Steve. To give an example, Jericho was a seriously fortified city, long before Joshua showed up with his band. Dating back to the Neolithic period a wall ten feet thick and thirteen feet high was found completing an entire enciente or around 10 acres and a population of 2500. The wall length was around 765 yards and required around 500 fighting men. There was also a moat ten feet deep and thirty feet wide dug into _rock_ at the bottom of the wall and a large circular tower 28 ft high and 33ft in diameter formed a centre point bulwark. Given the primitive flint tools available at the time, the effort required to build such a defensive system is mindboggling. Yet they did it and they are far, far poorer materially than a dark age culture.
What one has to realise is that fortications, as with ALL military innovation, are caused by evolution of _threat_. These people had such a high threat that it was worth their staggering labour to build a defence that would last generations and keep their culture and people safe for many years. When I look at the military evolution of a Gloranthan culture, I check out its history and the threats it has faced. These are the keys to understanding the growth of their military preparedness, not following a RW paradigm. This is why I'm opposed to saying that the Imperial are Romans or Greeks etc, cos they aren't. Their history, even their geography makes them radically different militarily.
Consider stone users facing a nomad culture or a foot raiding culture. They will eventually form primitive defences by having the outer walls of all of their houses linked to form a continuous enciente around their core areas. Even a thin wall slows down raiders. Instead of being able to wander in, charging down the street, they are forced to either assault an entrance which is a defendable spot or overcome the walls which takes TIME. Time is something a raider doesn't have.
A raider, by definition, does not have the military power to engage the main strength of the people he is raiding in battle, if he did, he wouldn't bother raiding, he'd conquer. To oppose gathered military force would be a disaster for the "raiding" group. Hence their tactics are based on speed and elusivness. The _raided_ party does not have the military power at the point of the raids impact to defeat the raiders in a full battle. Hence they develop two main counters to this:
2). Echeloned depth of defence. By ensuring that they react as a community to raid, they guarantee that they can expect support from other communities over time, which will eventually allow a build up of superior military potential that will allow victory over the raiders in the field. Therefore, they only have to hold on for a while.
This is an ongoing struggle that evolves constantly. Eventually several things can occur.
a). The raiders prove superior in aboslute military strength and decide to conquer instead. Similar to the viking Great Army in Britain.
b). The raiders are not superior militarily but destroy the regions productivity creating a wasteland, forcing them to raid deeper and further from their homelands until an equalibrium is reached due to frictional factors.
c). The raided people develop strong echeloned depth and a workable reaction system which minimises the raids to a low level. Eventually they become strong enough to launch punitive raids of their own or economically powerful enough to buy the loyalty of some of the would be raiders and set them to fighting among themselves.
The permuations are endless and are along a spectrum rather than in clearly defined boxes of possiblity.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail