>I can't agree for several reasons:
>1. Romans made fortifications on the spot during marches (AFAIK 1.5 m
>deep, the excavation piled 1.5 m high and on the top of it 3 m stakes).
>This perfectly defendable type doesn't cost very much (more so if this
>clears the surroundings of trees for acres). And due to the resemblance
>of Lunars and Romans, it is a known type.
That required a well trained full time unit of soldiers so while some units of the Lunar army could achieve the same I can't think of any other Gloranthian culture which could do the same. They didn't clear any trees either - each legionary carried a stake for the wall so I rather doubt the 3 metre height.
>2. I know that Celts in Germany and Germans used this fortification type
>extensively. Don't know about the Celts in other places.
>3. Your Clan in KoDP uses this fortification type extensively.
>
>When I spoke of fortifications, I didn't mean brick and mortar (When I
>read my posting again, it's clear to me why you had this impression - I
>asked for this misinterpretation with my example of English castles).
>Sorry if I used the wrong word.
>The palisade type would be common and affordable IMO. For raiders as
>opponents, nothing more is needed.
>And to the least, motte and bailey is also sufficient as warding against
>non-flying raiders.
Motte and bailey castles like the earthwork forts of Briton and Irish Celts were places of refuge, much smaller than the villages where people normally lived. Raiders would not normally attack them, concentrating on stragglers and collecting any valuables left behind in the village and farms.
Fortified towns and cities did exist in the ancient world but only where a civilisation had sufficent surplus to afford such things and in any case were of little benefit to the majority of the population who lived outside the towns.
Powered by hypermail