My wall will not encompass the entire table that I plan to game on. Instead I have the vision of a Long wall section running along the length of the gaming mat - with at least two towers, a gate, and finally some walls running to the edge of the map to make it appear as though there is an assault on the gateway and sides of the main wall. The whole area will be modular and easy and hopefully light to pack up and carry!
And so I began my prototype - the wooden palisade wall. Here are the initial images:
I used wooden dowels, plasticard and cardboard for this prototype. Super glue made it stick quick. I will be using various other materials but these were the cheapest and fastest ones to use in the beginning.
While building the wall and sharing my start with others in Facebook groups and forums, I started to notice something very particular about my wall. While it looked like it would make for a great Palisade at near ground level, I saw some pictures online of how other folks had done up their walls...
I am not sure who made this - just a google image. Let's call it Model Google Image 1
It then dawned on me - I'm building a wall off of images I've seen from all over. But what about ACTUAL ancients representation? What about the era I plan to war-game? A palisade wall with sharpened stakes could be used in a myriad of various periods, but how specific do I want to be?
All these thoughts came to me once I saw this particular image. Then the gears started turning and I revamped my prototype entirely.
Here you can see that I've chopped up a length of the plasticard and instead shortened it. I've build higher layers, specifically 4 smaller pieces, followed by three bigger, and finally three larger. The intent was to make a higher base that I can build upwards with and have an incline of earth leading up to it. There would be a further mound in front of the wall, gang planks and support on the defenders side to defend the walls with stability.
So as I redid the design, I found that this was more desirable in being a) tall and intimidating b) more reflective of the Romans I war-game with and their wooden forts...
But then myriad other questions and design came to mind - and I've been drawing diagrams, chatting with fellow wargaming friends (Thanks Gus and Alex and others specifically for your input!) and generally plotting out how I can make the tower better and more realistic.
Here's the notes summarized and just me hashing out some of my thoughts.
1) The Age.
I play Punic War Republicans. The Punic Wars spawned from 264 - 148 BC and a lot changed in that era with warfare and how combat was going down, not just with the Romans, but all sides. The third Punic war was fought some near 100 years time before Caesar's forts and between each Punic war there were 50 year gaps more or less. I think many people have the image of Caesar and Imperial Roman stone/wood forts when they think of Roman fortifications. The Battle of Alesia comes to mind when I think of wall forts that were hastily built by Caesar with his ingenious engineers and tactics.
So the question that first comes to mind is: How would the Republican Roman's have built forts? And I mean pre-Marian reform Romans. There are walled stone cities, such as Rome, that changed greatly when the Romans later improved their "Roman Cement" as it was called, but prior to this, how well would have Romans been building their field / wood defences? We know in Caesar's time and on, plenty of troops essentially became engineers and builders while on campaign. Legionnaire and Auxiliary were expected to build things so many of them basically did become an engineer of sorts. Troops also began carrying equipment out to the fields, like the Sudis, as they mobilized and they knew how to build up camps depending on their location - they even began using concrete in areas that would not have stability!
Prior to these field engineers though, from what I have researched it seemed that Consuls leading earlier republican armies had dedicated engineers for siege and defeneces. The Hastati, Principes, and Triarii were drawn from various wealth and ranks (later just age), and there is no mention that I've found that they themselves carried all the supplies needed, or the tools to build such camps. Baggage trains were a thing , and the so called "Marian Mules" of the late republic did not yet exist - So we have a) Later Republican and Early Imperial Romans that carried there own packs and equipment and did all the fielding VS b) Earlier Republican Troops that were called upon by rank to serve a consul and fought for a season and eventually went home. These earlier troops supplied most of their own gear (save the pile, swords, and scutum that the Senate brought in), whereas the Imperials had more standardization on everything in comparison. You have a much larger pool of men to draw from in later years, compared to earlier years where Rank, wealth and age affected everything (and you had to be some form of land owner too, I believe!)
So that leads me to the next question of the era: What proof of forts were there? It seems there were little in the ways of Romanized forts mentioned in history. Livy in his works does mention in the Second Macedonian war that both the Romans and Macedonians used Palisades to fortify their camps - but to what extent? We know that the Roman one's were superior according to Livy - as the Romans found their enemies walls to be too spaced out and easy to uproot, and that the Roman soldiers brought in smaller, more secure palisade to build their encampments.
From Livy 33 5 - [5] Both the Macedonians and the Greeks made use of stockades, but they did not adapt their materials either for convenience in carrying or for defensive strength. [6] The trees they cut down were too large and too branching for the soldiery to carry together with their arms, and when they had put them in position and fenced their camp with them the demolition of their rampart was an easy matter. [7] The large trunks stood up apart from one another and the numerous stout branches afforded a good hold, so that two, or at the most three, men by pulling together would bring a tree down, making at once a gap as wide as a gate, and there was nothing at hand with which to block the opening. [8] On the other hand, the stakes which the Romans cut were light and generally forked with [9??] three, or at the most four, branches, so that, with his arms slung at his back, the Roman soldier could carry several of them together comfortably. [10] Then again they fix them so close together in the ground and interlace the branches in such a way that it is impossible to discover to which particular tree any of the outside branches belong, and these are made so sharp and so closely intertwined that there is no room [11??] left for inserting the hand, nothing can be got hold of to be dragged away, nor if there were would the enemy succeed in doing so because the branches are hooked together like the links of a chain. [12] If one happens to be pulled out, it leaves only a small opening and it is very easy to put another in its place.
Ultimately my question remains: How accurately should I try to depict a "Roman Fort" and for what Era? Do I build one in the Republican Age? Do I make one that it follows what Caesar built or the Later Imperials? Do I allow some leeway for artistic licence? Did other enemies outside the Greeks, like Carthaginians, build any sort of similar fort? I will most likely be using the fort in the Republican Roman era - where less fortification evidence exists, but truly, based upon Livy, they must have had some form of defence or walled encampments/fortifications they rose up to protect their troops or enforce law in certain areas.
That wraps it up for the age.. Next I'd like to consider the various points of the actual wall, gate, and other parts of the fort. Here is an example picture I'd like to share that will lead into my next bit of this blog.
This picture is from Park In the Past: http://www.parkinthepast.org.uk/the-roman-fort-project Looks like a UK theme park.
2) Palisade Walls Mounds and Ditches
I am not going for the stone variant here - I am going for a wooden fort! Therefore Palisade is obviously what I am working with. I've already determined the thickness of wood I like to use for each individual stake. But some questions to me still are up in the air. Do I want to a) Sharpen their tops like seen in the google example above or do I make them flat topped? b) Do I want to allow for that typical medieval type rampart where you have a raised square followed by a dip square (the name of this feature is totally lost on me) at the walls edge? Or do I want just a straight wall of palisade?
With the last real life photo I posted, which is apparently a reenactment park of some kind, I disagree with the spacing of the walls on top of the mound. It's indicated in early sources the romans built them rather close together, so much that not even a hand can stick between them. Height wise I quite like this example. What I am wondering though is if sharpened stakes or flat stakes are more appropriate? One the one hand sharpened stakes look intimidating and scary, but if you have a force behind a wall on a platform defending the wall, wouldn't it be hazardous to impale yourself over these stakes? Would it be safer to make them flat? I like the aesthetic of Model Google Image 1 that I shared earlier but I wonder if the walls are too sharp and since we're looking at Romans here, wouldn't their engineers, even in the republican's earlier era, be a bit more accurate? I have yet to decide how they will appear.
For the mounds, I decided it was essential. Celtic Hill forts made great use of mounds - they build on a hill, that was sloped, and then they had ditches going downward between another ditch or even another set of wall. Romans seem to have done the same thing except they'd either build the mounds, make use of the terrain area, and create their own mobile , or semi permanent wooden walls this way. There definitely has to be a ditch between the main wall with palisade and a secondary mound in front of the Roman wall. Gus had the great idea of adding mud and stakes and spikes in it, just as it would probably be. One reason he suggested that Romans could build anywhere is that they could fill up their ditches with water and traps where as Gauls and "Barbarians" had to use forts and high points to control water flow since they didn't have the technology to move It around.
In any case, the mount and ditch must be covered in rocks, flora, and other vegetation to make them hard to ascend. spikes and traps between each of them in a ditch just makes sense. With the combination of enclosed palisade and hard to scale mounds of earth, it seems almost impossible to allow for a direct wall assault without losing many, many soldiers.
Finally, the mounds should not be too steep! It was pointed out to me by a few folks that if the mound was too steep on either side, weathering would allow for walls and structures to slowly collapse as the mound of earth would slowly give way to the weight from the walls above it.
3) Towers
Towers are a must have, and I think I will build them on each corner of the wall. There will also be a tower above the main gateway. These will be built into the wall, and not separate I think. The towers will overhang the fronts of the walls slightly. which will allow a sort of platform that extends out beyond each ditch. That means that archers or slingers in the towers can not only have a 360 degree point round each tower, but also have a line of sight down the length of each ditch allowing for anyone trying to go through it to further be pelted by rocks and stones. The towers themselves will either have stairs or some form of ladder leading up into them. They will be the most imposing pieces on all the walls, and the highest. I think instead of doing the typical straight log palisade look I will incorporate the Roman style as shown in the examples above, wth that X type wooden shape build into the wall's side. If not, then it will just be straight up palisade.
4) Defender Platforms
This I am still a bit of odds with. According to some friends as well as depicting, it looks as if there's a number of ways to build this. The first mentioned to me was earthen works - particularly this was mostly a Celtic, greek thing. On the other side of the wall you had flat earth, while at the palisade you see the slop going down, making it hard to reach. That means defenders fought behind the wall on flat earth where their homes or camps were. Alternatively, there would still be a mound, but there'd be a single long platform sitting on top of the mound. I've seen numerous people build their Roman forts this way, in both real life and in 28mm.
An example of this from Dicky Boyd Builds -
However, I think what I'll probably do is the third idea - raised platforms that use larger wooden dowels to support them up along with extra reinforcements to hold them above both the mount and to sit against the wall. In my initial pictures I sort of made a rough idea of what it might look like with the Roman Principes. But here are some better examples:
Again with this example, the platform is on a raised point, and you can see structural integrity with a pole stuck into the earth. For mine I'd want more poles I think. Also multiple access points. My fort will be a lot bigger than this one.
Another google found image. I love how the wall stands on top of a hill, and I love the platforms, but I think its a tad too high and not reliant on the mound enough. Actually it seems there is no mound. This is a beautiful set up nonetheless!
5) Gate and Walkway
Since there would be a ditch surrounding the whole of the fortress, then ideally you'd want to have a gangplank or walkway to walk over it for the defenders. On a flat wargaming table this would be challenging especially if I want to make it modular and carry it around. If I had more space and supplies it could be on a raised surface, a separate gaming table, but for my purposes I think Dicky Boyd Builds had a good idea again.
The walkway is suspended on a raised mound, which goes over the "ditch" and leads up to where I'd put my gateway. Something like this would suffice and allow for a place for the attackers to get to.
As for the gate itself, a tower above it would certainly be there. The gate itself - I am mixed on opinions.
Here we have a model example- a gate with a single door that opens on both sides.
Here we have another wall and gate example - this time there are two doors, with a central section separating two doors.
What sort of door would I use? I am not sure yet, but I will play with both ideas.
The door itself should not be directly at the edge of the wall, but instead, should sink back a bit under the gate tower and the wall's mound. This would allow for the tower above to have some holes that look directly down at anyone approaching it, so that arrows, rocks, oil and other stuff can be dumped directly on them. I think this is a very medieval approach, but would have applied to ancient warfare as well. It just sort of makes sense. As mentioned, the gate tower would jut out bit further than the wall to allow shooting and range attacks at anyone foolish enough to enter the ditches.
As for the mounds, I see in many examples of wood working that are set up along the ends of the mounds, that hold the earth into place, to make an open area for the people to get in and out. This will be there for certain and makes sense no matter what type of fort is build on a mount of earth for support
In conclusion
This project isn't going to be one done overnight and will not be done any time soon I am sure. There is a lot of research and measurement and materials involved to make this appear the way that appears best for representation in my books. It may also seem that I'm being overly picky about the placement, but for max realism is what I tend to enjoy doing.
I've read that many roman forts had a standard build from caesar's time on - but there was no hard set rule. The Romans adapted and overcame many challenges and implementing differences and adapting to certain scenarios was normal or them. I believe no single Roman Fort (any fort in the world, really) would be exactly the same and building would vary from age to age and from place to place. Materials available and the landscape would affect the building greatly. This allows for some artistic licence in the designing of these fortifications in some points. There's tons of stuff that simply is unknown as well, but a bit of engineering, reading into history, and even common sense that has to be applied I believe.
It will probably evolve a lot as I go on - and I am already enjoying the shape and form this is taking. Looking forward to the next update about this project!
Thanks all who may have read this. Cheers!
No comments:
Post a Comment