10-10-2006, 01:53 AM
Good points all.
That's what I thought, too. Earth ramparts have no good height-width-ratio because their profile is too 'triangular' compared with leaner stone or brick walls. This makes them rather inefficient not only in construction, but also in defense when the attackers can scale the earth walls without technical aids like ladders or siege towers.
Yes, but the amazing thing is that mud brick and rammed earth walls are on the other side pretty invulnerable against otherwise effective high tech assault tactics, namely sapping and catapult shelling! More, much more than stone and fired bricks.
Quote:...but a wall could be build higher for the same base thickness with a harder material, and height was a good thing.
That's what I thought, too. Earth ramparts have no good height-width-ratio because their profile is too 'triangular' compared with leaner stone or brick walls. This makes them rather inefficient not only in construction, but also in defense when the attackers can scale the earth walls without technical aids like ladders or siege towers.
Quote:.mud brick and rammed earth may be more vulnerable to very low tech assault (i.e. pick, dolabra, etc.) than stone.
Yes, but the amazing thing is that mud brick and rammed earth walls are on the other side pretty invulnerable against otherwise effective high tech assault tactics, namely sapping and catapult shelling! More, much more than stone and fired bricks.
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
