How do Roman defenses stack up against Medieval ones? Were they

>>2691255
Seeing so much of them remain what do you think?

>>2691255
Pretty good actually when William the Conqueror encountered the fortifications of Londinium he was forced to make a deal with the defenders rather than risk being fucked up in an open assault or a siege. Hence the stupidity that is the City of London is still loosely defined by the confines of those very fortifications

>>2691255
Roman fortifications advanced quite a bit after the crisis of the third century. Most stuff built before 270 AD. was not meant to resist long sieges and wouldn't look that impressive to Medieval folks.

I

>>2691255
Look up the Saxon shore. I think you'll find it relevant.

>>2691573
No, no you won't.

>>2691255
Very poorly.

>>2693159
Fag

>>2693159
Ok, Rodney.

>>2691255
>ctrl+f: Theodosian Walls
>0 results.
There's your answer.

>>2691255
Often they were superior. Later medieval forms began to outclass the Roman one, not structurally, but in terms of design. Roman fortresses from the later empire were very defensible. A detachment of about 30 or 40 soldiers armed to the teeth with artillery weapons could hold off a massive force for months. See the forts of the Litus Saxonicum.

>>2694252
I don't understand what you're trying to say.

>>2694252
This.

>inb4 Byzantines were not Roman

The Theodosian Walls construction began before the empire was even divided (as if matters), the east was still distinctly Roman in the early 5th century when they were finished, and its denizens were recognisably Roman. Repairs were made to it by chariot racing fanatics after it was damaged.

>>2691474
>>2691494

Really? Can you guys recommend sources for those?