On 05/12/2014 15:05, Jan Vandenheede wrote:
> Some more thoughts:
> - Maybe the findings at Belz-Kerdruelland will eventually support my hypothesis abou non movable stone shields.
Jan unfortunately the idea of these being shields is or anything
defensive is not credible.
A defensive structure is one that gives a huge advantage to those defending.
So, e.g. a wall allows one side to hide whilst the others are in the
open. It also slows down the attacking force putting them at an extreme
disadvantage as they can be fired on for some time as they slowly scale
the wall. So, you have a few attackers climbing up, unable to both climb
and wield weaponry & shields.
So a defensive structure gives a small group of defenders the ability to
repel a large group of attackers
In contrast an area of stones doesn't really benefit the defenders:-
1. In hand-to-hand combat, it provides no benefit to the defender which
is does not also give to the attacker
2. In distant fighting - it would shield the defenders only for a brief
few seconds - perhaps 5-10seconds before the attackers closed between
distant fighting and hand-to-hand.
3. It would be a handicap if the attackers chose to attack one small
section on "the line" ignoring the rest - because the stones would block
movement along the line by the defenders whilst the attackers were in
the open and could move freely.
4. It would be a severe disadvantage if the attackers chose not to
attack "face on" - or just attacked nearby buildings - because the
defenders could not "turn to face" their opponents.