John Atkinson schrieb:
> > I'd argue that Teutorburger Wald qualifies too
The Germans were poorly equipped with swords. They mostly had to rely
on spears/javelins, often wood-tipped ones. Many also had to make do
with wooden clubs. Examples of these (they look like baseball clubs) have been
found near the battle site.
The Romans were also much better equipped with body armour
.
But the Germans could exploit terrain and fortifications.
Greetings Kal Heinz
The Germans were poorly equipped with swords. They mostly had to rely
on spears/javelins, often wood-tipped ones. Many also had to make do
with wooden clubs. Examples of these (they look like baseball clubs) have been
found near the battle site.
*Lighter equipped is better in the bush.
The Romans were also much better equipped with body armour
*That was completely water logged by days of heavy rain.
.
But the Germans could exploit terrain and fortifications.
*Indeed, they even built camouflaged earthen ramparts at the points of ambush.
Don M schrieb:
> The Romans were also much better equipped with body
Waterlogged mail?
Greetings Karl Heinz
From: <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de>
> Don M schrieb:
If it's Lorica Segmentata, then it's the heavy tunic underneath, and the
leather over that, rather than the metal strips which are the outermost layer.
Especially the leather straps - wearing armour in the rain can
be a problem. Note that much of the Roman armour used brass hinges that were
rivetted on, the amount of leather is quite small.
Of course, wet weather would affect the Germans even more... given the German
climate, they may even have kept their leather lacings
permanently damp. as the rest of their armour - such as it was - was