This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our
project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our
talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
I realise that this may not be the place to say. But logic suggests that spikes cannot have been used to form the top of a rampart. If every man carries two (and no packmules with many more), and assuming the 10cm gap between each, that means that each man would barely be able to stand behind "his" rampard section. A marching camp takes up more room (men lying down for a minimum take up more space) and so there would be more spacing between spikes until the point where there is no coherant line.
Hellfire8309:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I am not sure that I follow your argument. To take an example marching camp with conveniently round numbers: a legion of 5,000 men each require 2 square meters of space so the marching camp must enclose 10,000 square meters - such a camp, if square, is 100x100m i.e. a perimiter of 400m. That is more than 10 men and more than 20 stakes per meter of rampart. Whatever numbers you choose, it is generally true that the larger the army that makes a camp, the more men are available for each section of rampart.
Gaius Cornelius23:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I stand corrected - Your argument pointed out what i'd forgotten - the area enclosed is considerably bigger than the perimeter. My apologies for being dense.
Hellfire8317:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Question by 199.230.45.209
The sudis is listed on both
spear and
lance as a weapon. Is there more than one thing with this name?—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
199.230.45.209 (
talk •
contribs).
Sudis means only 'stake' or 'log' as far as I know. It could be confused with a type of spear only because it has sometimes be called a pilum murialis (wall spear) but this is a misnoma. So, I would say with some confidence that it is neither a
spear nor a
lance.
Gaius Cornelius14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply