How many battles can you name that were fought in the middle of forests?
Not many, if any.
The reason why is the trees tend to benefit the defender greatly. They
are great places to hide in and ambush your enemy. Perhaps if you have
no forest to ambush someone, because it has been cut down for
agriculture, you could build your own?
Not saying that is what Carnac is all about, but at least the argument
could be there.
On 12/8/14, John Wood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>Michael Haseler wrote:
> Jan unfortunately the idea of these being shields is or anything
> defensive is not credible.
> Whilst it might seem incredible it might not be improbable.
> It is an interesting proposal and to we shouldn't be too judgemental
> when considering the interpretation. It is as good as most.
> I think a question that might need to be addressed would be the manner
> of the tactics and weaponry used in the warfare of that age.
> On 12/8/14, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 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
>> 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.