No there was no intial analogy with the New Forest - it was very clearly a denisty of groves of trees like that of savanah. Vera used some empirical evidence for the way trees regenerate from the open grassey areas of the New Forest - within suckers of thorn bushes - thus protected from grazing animals- is that what you were thinking of?
No one doubts the mechanism Vera proposes (there wasn't really anything original about the mechanism)- just the scale at which it operated, and the effect on the level of closed canopy that is likely to have existed.
The great thing about Vera's hypothesis was that it stimulated disspassionate debate, with no agendas other than a scientific search for the "truth" about the structure of the original woodland cover. Vera himself hasn't clung to his hypothesis as originally envisioned, but as the evidence has come in (from studies by other people that his ideas stimulated) he has increasingly accepted that an increased level of tree cover was likely - albeit not a continuous canopy as typically believed.
Large herbivores were without question present in the "wildwood" whether you tend towards Vera's view of a more open canopy - or a traditional view of very large expanses of closed canopy. So I'm not sure how to approach your question - loaded or not!
Obviously from a previous coment you made on another topic I realise the angle you are comming from with this. I think you have misunderstood me. I have no agenda about restoring some sort of imagined, guessed at (albeit evidence based- but certainly an imperfect picture) of what the original "Wildwood" might have looked at. This is an impossibility and of questionable value anyway.
I strongly believe the benefits of, and the scale of, coppcing (and some other 'traditional' woodland management practices) are overstated in terms of benefits to biodiversity, ecological and cultural goals. - Although without doubt it is of great value at large number of sites. I realise that's a whole different topic though.
I admit that for reasons that aren't entirely evidence based, or rationally justifiable I have a desire to see more woods allowed to develop into what is currently described as "Future Natural".
But I have no desire to influence either how you manage your woods, or what you think is correct. That is your business. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone interested who holds a view, but I'm not determined to convince you my way is right or your way is wrong!
For what it's worth in answer to your question (although we still haven't checked we're defining Wildwood in the same way) most woodland ecologists think that pockets of Wildwood actually survived suprisingly late - certainly into historical times. I refer you to Oliver Rackhams writings about it.
