Re: Re: re: 67 – Anglo Saxon Construction

Home Forums Questions and Feedback re: 67 – Anglo Saxon Construction Re: Re: re: 67 – Anglo Saxon Construction



Relying on my vast Agricola (board game) knowledge, I know stone structures are better than wood and clay.  ;-)

How so? I guess this statement is relative to a particular context. Yes, stone will most likely last longer but stone was also incredibly hard to work and took more manpower and money to construct. If you are looking at Roman villas, some of them were vast. Imaging how much effort went into building one of those compared to a series of hardy wooden structures in a village. Trees were way more abundant than they are these days (not much forest left in Britain) and while both types of material-use has pros and cons, nothing lasts forever anyway so providing it served its purpose can we really say one is better than another? So, in effect, it essentially comes down to preference at the time of those building the structures.After the Romans left the gradual move from the bigger towns and stone buildings to the more rural villages and smaller wooden structures became more apparent. This shows that the Anglo-Saxons preferred building in wood, which simply worked better for them. In that context wood is better. It very much depends how we look at it, but I think taking an historical approach to the subject rather than using modern ideals keeps an open mind  ;)