[Benjo]

One of my conclusions was that life moved a whole lot slower then--wars took years of preparation and everyone knew when they were coming.

That's interesting. I would have guessed just the opposite, that in those days all you had to do to go to war was put down your scythe and hoe and pick your spear and sword and you were in business. In contrast, when we were preparing for the first Gulf War, the military spent the better part of a year prepositioning all the tanks and other weapons and supplies.

Now that I think about it I remember cases where it took years for to prepare for wars in antiquity too. I remember readinging once that an ancient king in Iraq once spent something like five or ten years digging a canal connecting the Tigris and Euphrates. Then when he was done, his army sailed down the canal and attacked the cities on the other river. The Vikings, I remember too, when they attacked coastal cities in Britain and Europe would show up out of the fog one morning with as many as 800 ships.

[SwinneySwitch]

The Vikings attacked Paris with over 1,000 ships, according to the History Channel! (I've been watching the "Barbarians" instead of the modern demonrats.)

[richardtavor]

If you ever read about Masada, that is a classic case. It took the Romans 3 years in seige to get to the top of the fortress (where 1000 Jews committed suicide.) This delayed the ultimate destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 c.e. (The Masada attack began in 67 c.e.) The Romans had posts (for Fresh water, food and military) all up and down the valley from Masada to Jericho. I have seen evidence of Roman encampments (including catapult stones and first century skelatons) at Qumran, which overlooked the passage down to Masada (about 50 miles from Jericho.) So the people could always see the movement of the Romans and their Jewish slaves.