For the construction of the trace an average length of about 400 yds. (which, however, is a matter entirely dependent on the site) may be taken for the exterior side. The perpendicular, except for polygons of less than six sides, is one-sixth, and the faces of the bastions two-sevenths of the exterior side. The flanks are chords of arcs struck from the opposite shoulder as centres. An arc described with the same radius, but with the angle of the flank as a centre, and cutting the perpendicular produced outwardly, gives the salient of the ravelin; the prolongations of the faces of the ravelin fall upon the faces of the bastions at 11 yds. from the shoulders. The main ditch has a width of 38 yds. at the salient of the bastions, and the counterscarp is directed upon the shoulders of the adjoining bastions. The ditch of the ravelin is 24 yds. wide throughout.As regards the profile the bastions and curtain have a command of 25 ft. over the country, 17 ft. over the crest of the glacis and 8 ft. over the ravelin. The ditches are 18 ft. deep throughout. The parapets are 18 ft. thick with full revetments. In his later works he used demi-revetments.
For the construction of the trace an average length of about 400 yds. (which, however, is a matter entirely dependent on the site) may be taken for the exterior side. The perpendicular, except for polygons of less than six sides, is one-sixth, and the faces of the bastions two-sevenths of the exterior side. The flanks are chords of arcs struck from the opposite shoulder as centres. An arc described with the same radius, but with the angle of the flank as a centre, and cutting the perpendicular produced outwardly, gives the salient of the ravelin; the prolongations of the faces of the ravelin fall upon the faces of the bastions at 11 yds. from the shoulders. The main ditch has a width of 38 yds. at the salient of the bastions, and the counterscarp is directed upon the shoulders of the adjoining bastions. The ditch of the ravelin is 24 yds. wide throughout.
As regards the profile the bastions and curtain have a command of 25 ft. over the country, 17 ft. over the crest of the glacis and 8 ft. over the ravelin. The ditches are 18 ft. deep throughout. The parapets are 18 ft. thick with full revetments. In his later works he used demi-revetments.
Fig. 26 shows the tower bastions of Neu-Breisach, or the so-called “third system.” It is worth introducing, simply as showing that even a mind like Vauban’s could not resist in old age the tendency to duplicate defences. Here the main bastions and tenaille are detached from the enceinte. The line of the enceinte is broken with flanks and further flanked by the towers. The ravelin is large and has a keep. The section through the face of the bastion shows a demi-revetment with wide berm, and a hedge as an additional obstacle.
After Vauban died, though the theories continued, the valuable additions to the system were few. Among his successors in the early part of the 18th century Cormontaingne (q.v.) has the greatest reputation, though his experience18th and 19th centuries.and authority fell far short of Vauban’s. He was a clear thinker and writer, and the elements of the system were distinctly advanced by him. His trace includes an enlarged ravelin with flanks, the ends of which were intended to close the gaps at the end of the tenaille, and a keep to the ravelin with flanks. He provides a very large re-entering place of arms, also with a keep, the ditches of which are carefully traced so as to be protected from enfilade by the salients of the ravelin and bastion. He was also in favour of a permanent retrenchment of the gorge of the bastion. His works were printed, with many alterations, more than twenty years after his death, to serve as a text-book for the school of Mézières. This school was established in 1748, and from this time forward there was an official school of thought, based on Vauban. Cormontaingne’s work, therefore, represents the modifications of Vauban’s ideas acceptedby French engineers in the latter part of the 18th century. The school of Mézières was afterwards replaced by that of Metz, which carried on its traditions. Such schools are necessarily conservative, and hence, in spite of the gradual improvement in ordnance and firearms, we find the main elements of the bastioned system remaining unchanged right up to the period of the Franco-German War in 1870. Chasseloup-Laubat tells us that, before the Revolution, to attempt novelties in fortification was to write one’s self down ignorant. How far the general form of the bastion with its outworks had become crystallized is evident from a cursory comparison of fig. 27 with Vauban’s early work. This figure is the front of the Metz school in 1822, by General Noizet.
Since, therefore, the official view was that the general outlines of the system were sacred, the efforts of orthodox engineers from Cormontaingne’s time onwards were given to improvements of detail, and mainly to retard breaching operations as long as possible. We find enormous pains being bestowed on the study of the comparative heights of the masonry walls and crest levels; with the introduction here and there of glacis slopes in the ditches, put in both to facilitate their defence and to protect portions of the escarps.
Among the unorthodox two names deserve mention. The first of these is Chasseloup-Laubat (q.v.), who served throughout the wars of the Republic and Empire, and constructed the fortress of Alessandria in Piedmont.
Chasseloup’s main proposals to improve the bastioned system were two:First, in order to prevent the bastions from being breached through the gaps made by the ditch of the ravelin, he threw forward the ravelin and its keep outside the main glacis. This had the further advantage of giving great saliency to the ravelin for cross-fire over the terrain of the attack. On the other hand, it made the ravelin liable to capture by the gorge. It is probable that this system would have lent itself to a splendid defence by an able commander with a strong force; but under the opposite conditions it has a dangerous element of weakness.Secondly, in order to get freedom to use longer fronts than those admissible for the ordinary bastioned trace, he proposed to extend his exterior side up to about 650 yds. and to break the faces of his bastions; the portion next the shoulder being defended from the flank of the collateral bastion and coinciding with the line of defence, and the portion next the salient, up to about 80 yds. in length, being defended from a central keep or caponier placed in front of the tenaille. The natural criticism of this arrangement is that it combines some of the defects of both the bastioned and polygonal systems without getting the full advantages of either.Fig. 28.—Chasseloup-Laubat.Fig. 28 shows a half front of Chasseloup’s system, of ordinary length, as actually constructed. The section shows an interesting detail, viz. the Chasseloup mask—a detached mask with tunnels for the casemate guns to fire through, the intention of which is to save them from being destroyed from a distance.
Chasseloup’s main proposals to improve the bastioned system were two:
First, in order to prevent the bastions from being breached through the gaps made by the ditch of the ravelin, he threw forward the ravelin and its keep outside the main glacis. This had the further advantage of giving great saliency to the ravelin for cross-fire over the terrain of the attack. On the other hand, it made the ravelin liable to capture by the gorge. It is probable that this system would have lent itself to a splendid defence by an able commander with a strong force; but under the opposite conditions it has a dangerous element of weakness.
Secondly, in order to get freedom to use longer fronts than those admissible for the ordinary bastioned trace, he proposed to extend his exterior side up to about 650 yds. and to break the faces of his bastions; the portion next the shoulder being defended from the flank of the collateral bastion and coinciding with the line of defence, and the portion next the salient, up to about 80 yds. in length, being defended from a central keep or caponier placed in front of the tenaille. The natural criticism of this arrangement is that it combines some of the defects of both the bastioned and polygonal systems without getting the full advantages of either.
Fig. 28 shows a half front of Chasseloup’s system, of ordinary length, as actually constructed. The section shows an interesting detail, viz. the Chasseloup mask—a detached mask with tunnels for the casemate guns to fire through, the intention of which is to save them from being destroyed from a distance.
The second name is that of Captain Choumara of the French Engineers, born in 1787, whose work was published in 1827.Two leading ideas are due to him. The first is that of the “independence of parapets.” A glance at any of the plans that have already been shown will show that hitherto the crests of parapets had always been traced parallel to the escarp or magistral line. Choumara pointed out that, while it was necessary for the escarp to be traced in straight lines with reference to the flanking arrangements, there was no such necessity as regards the parapets. By making the crest of the parapet quite independent of the escarp line he obtained great freedom of direction for his fire. The second idea is that of the “inner glacis.” This was a glacis parapet placed in the main ditch to shield the escarp; its effect being to prevent the escarp of the body of the place from being breached in the usual way by batteries crowning the crest of the covered way.
The need for Choumara’s improvements has passed by, but he was in his time a real teacher. One sentence of his strikes a resounding note: “What is chiefly required in fortification is simplicity and strength. It is not on a few little contrivances carefully hidden that one can rely for a good defence.The fate of a place should not depend on the intelligence of a corporal shut up in a small post prepared for his detachment.”
Before leaving the bastioned system it will be of interest to study a couple of actual and complete examples, one irregular and one regular. Fig. 29 shows the defences of Sedan as they were at the end of the 17th century. One sees the touch of Vauban here and there, but the work is for the most part apparently early 17th century. It will be observed that on the river side of the town the defence consists of very irregular bastions with duplicated wet ditches (see the Dutch style, below); and on the other side, where water is not available, strength is sought for by pushing a succession of hornworks far out.Fig. 30 is Saarlouis, constructed by Vauban in 1680 in his early manner, a remarkable example of symmetry. Vauban of course never thought of aiming at symmetry, which is of itself neither good nor bad, but it is interesting to note such a perfect example of the system.It must here be remarked that the reproach of “geometrical” fortification is in no way applicable to the works of Vauban and his immediate successors. The true geometric fortification, which worshipped symmetry as a fetish, marked, as has been already pointed out, the decadence of the Italian school. Vauban and his fellows excelled in adapting works to sites, the real test of the engineer.The bastioned system was the 17th-century solution of the fortification problem. Given an artillery and musketry of short range and too slow for effective frontal defence, a ditch is necessary as an obstacle. What is the best means of flanking the ditch and of protecting the flanking arrangements? If Vauban elected for the bastion, we must before criticizing his choice remember that he was the most experienced engineer of his day, a man of the first ability and quite without prejudice. What is matter for regret is that the authority of Vauban should have practically paralysed the French school during the 18th and most of the 19th century, so that while the conditions of attack and defence were gradually altering they could admit no change of idea, and their best men, who could not help being original, were struggling against the whole weight of official opposition.Fig. 30.Again, such duplication of outworks as we see at Sedan is not geometric fortification. It is a definite attempt to retard the attack, on ground favourable to it, by successive lines of defence. As to the policy of this, no axiom can be laid down. Nowadays most of us think, as Machiavelli did, that a single line of defence is best and that a second line only serves to suggest the advisability of retreat. There are also, of course, the recognized drawbacks of outworks, difficulty of retreat, of relief and so forth, and the moral effect of their loss. But the engineers of such defences as Ostend and Candia might well say, “Oh, if only when we had held on to that bastion for so many months we had had a second and a third line of permanent retrenchment to fall back upon, we could have held the place for ever.” And who shall say that they were wrong? Let us at all events remember that the leading engineers of that time were men who had passed their lives in a state of war, and that we ourselves in comparison with them are the theorists.
Before leaving the bastioned system it will be of interest to study a couple of actual and complete examples, one irregular and one regular. Fig. 29 shows the defences of Sedan as they were at the end of the 17th century. One sees the touch of Vauban here and there, but the work is for the most part apparently early 17th century. It will be observed that on the river side of the town the defence consists of very irregular bastions with duplicated wet ditches (see the Dutch style, below); and on the other side, where water is not available, strength is sought for by pushing a succession of hornworks far out.
Fig. 30 is Saarlouis, constructed by Vauban in 1680 in his early manner, a remarkable example of symmetry. Vauban of course never thought of aiming at symmetry, which is of itself neither good nor bad, but it is interesting to note such a perfect example of the system.
It must here be remarked that the reproach of “geometrical” fortification is in no way applicable to the works of Vauban and his immediate successors. The true geometric fortification, which worshipped symmetry as a fetish, marked, as has been already pointed out, the decadence of the Italian school. Vauban and his fellows excelled in adapting works to sites, the real test of the engineer.
The bastioned system was the 17th-century solution of the fortification problem. Given an artillery and musketry of short range and too slow for effective frontal defence, a ditch is necessary as an obstacle. What is the best means of flanking the ditch and of protecting the flanking arrangements? If Vauban elected for the bastion, we must before criticizing his choice remember that he was the most experienced engineer of his day, a man of the first ability and quite without prejudice. What is matter for regret is that the authority of Vauban should have practically paralysed the French school during the 18th and most of the 19th century, so that while the conditions of attack and defence were gradually altering they could admit no change of idea, and their best men, who could not help being original, were struggling against the whole weight of official opposition.
Again, such duplication of outworks as we see at Sedan is not geometric fortification. It is a definite attempt to retard the attack, on ground favourable to it, by successive lines of defence. As to the policy of this, no axiom can be laid down. Nowadays most of us think, as Machiavelli did, that a single line of defence is best and that a second line only serves to suggest the advisability of retreat. There are also, of course, the recognized drawbacks of outworks, difficulty of retreat, of relief and so forth, and the moral effect of their loss. But the engineers of such defences as Ostend and Candia might well say, “Oh, if only when we had held on to that bastion for so many months we had had a second and a third line of permanent retrenchment to fall back upon, we could have held the place for ever.” And who shall say that they were wrong? Let us at all events remember that the leading engineers of that time were men who had passed their lives in a state of war, and that we ourselves in comparison with them are the theorists.
From the end of the 16th century the Dutch methods of fortification acquired a great reputation, thanks to the stout resistance offered to the Spaniards by some of their fortresses, the three years’ defence of Ostend beingThe Dutch school.perhaps the most striking example. Prolonged defences, which were mainly due to the desperate energy of the besieged, were credited to the quality of their defences. In point of fact the Dutch owed more to nature, and more still to their own spirit, than to art; but they showed a good deal of skill in adapting recent ideas to their needs.
Three conditions governed the development of the Dutch works at this time, viz. want of time, want of money and abundance of water. When the Netherlands began their revolt against Spain, they would no doubt have been glad enough of expensive masonry fortresses on such models as Paciotto’s citadel of Antwerp. But there was neither time nor money for such works. Something had to be extemporized, and fortunately for them they had wet ditches to take the place of high revetted walls. Everywhere water was near the surface, and rivers or canals were available for inundations. A wide and shallow ditch, while making a good obstacle, was also the readiest means of obtaining earth for the ramparts. High command was, owing to the flatness of the country, unnecessary and even undesirable, as it did not allow of grazing fire.
What the Dutch actually did in strengthening their towns gives little evidence of system. Starting as a rule from an existing enceinte, sometimes a medieval wall, they would provide a broad wet ditch. No further provision was usually made on the sides of the town which were additionally protected by a river or inundation. On the other sides the wet ditch was made still broader, and sometimes contained a counterguard, sometimes ravelins and lunettes. These were quite irregular in their design and relation to each other. At the foot of the glacis would be found another but narrower wet ditch, which was a peculiarly Dutch feature; and sometimes if the town was in a bend of a river there would be a canal cut across the bend in a straight line, strengthened by several redans.
Speaking generally, they endeavoured to provide for the wantof a first-class masonry obstacle by multiplication of wet ditches, and further to strengthen these obstacles by great quantities of palisading, for which purpose the timber of old ships was used. They also recognized the inherent weaknesses of wet ditches, as, for instance, that when frozen they no longer provide an obstacle; and they studied the means, not only of causing inundations, but also of arranging to empty as well as to fill the ditches at will. Simon Stevin was the leader in this work.
Nevertheless a Dutch school of design did come into existence at this time. The leaders, early in the 17th century, were Simon Stevin, Maurice and Henry of Nassau, Marollois and Freitag. The fortress of Coevorden, constructed by Prince Maurice, of which fig. 31 shows a front, is a well-known example of this, and the section shows clearly some typical features of the school.
The elements of the plan are those of the early bastioned trace, but we find added both ravelins and lunettes, very regular in design. There is also the ditch at the foot of the glacis, and surrounding the rampart of the enceinte a continuous fausse-braie. This work, which partook of the nature of both boulevard and counterguard, served several purposes. It was desirable that the weight of the rampart should be drawn back a little from the edge of the ditch, and the fausse-braie filled what would otherwise have been dead ground at the foot of the rampart. It also afforded a grazing fire over the ditch, which was very important, and which the rampart supported by a plunging fire.
The elements of the plan are those of the early bastioned trace, but we find added both ravelins and lunettes, very regular in design. There is also the ditch at the foot of the glacis, and surrounding the rampart of the enceinte a continuous fausse-braie. This work, which partook of the nature of both boulevard and counterguard, served several purposes. It was desirable that the weight of the rampart should be drawn back a little from the edge of the ditch, and the fausse-braie filled what would otherwise have been dead ground at the foot of the rampart. It also afforded a grazing fire over the ditch, which was very important, and which the rampart supported by a plunging fire.
Coehoorn (q.v.), the contemporary and nearest rival to Vauban, was the greatest light of the Dutch school. Like Vauban he was distinguished as a fighting engineer, both in attack and defence; but in the attack he differed from him inCoehoorn.relying more on powerful artillery fire than systematic earthworks. He introduced the Coehoorn mortar. His “first system,” which was employed at Mannheim (fig. 32), is reproduced for the sake of comparison with the Coevorden front designed a hundred years earlier. Among other points will be noticed the combination of wet and dry ditches; the very broad main ditch with counterguard; the roomy keep of the ravelin; the expansion of the fausse-brais into an independent low parapet; and the powerful flanking fire in three tiers.
The “tenaille” system and the “polygonal” system which grew out of it are mainly identified with theGerman school. That school, says von Zastrow, does not, like that of France, represent the authoritative teaching of anGerman school.official establishment, but rather the general practice of the German engineers. It was founded on the principles of Dürer, Speckle and especially Rimpler, and much influenced in execution by Montalembert. “The German engineers desired a simple trace, a strong fortification with retrenchments and keeps, bomb-proof accommodation and an organization suitable for an offensive defence.”
These had always been the German principles. Already in the 16th century the Prussian defences of Kustrin, Spandau and Peitz had large bomb-proof casemates sufficient for a great part of the garrison. The same thing is seen in the defences of Giogau, Schweidnitz, &c., built by Frederick the Great. These works show various applications of the tenaille system. In 1776 Frederick became acquainted with the work of Montalembert, and his influence is seen in the casemates of Kosel.
Whether through the influence of Albert Dürer or not cannot be said, but while the bastion was being developed in France the tenaille and the accompanying casemates from the first found acceptance in Germany, and thence in eastern and northern Europe. De Groote, who wrote in 1618, produced a sort of tenaille system, and may have been the inspiration of Rimpler. Dillich (1640), Landsberg the elder (1648), Griendel d’Aach (1677), Werthmuller (1685) and others advocated both bastion and tenaille, sometimes in combination; the German bastion being usually distinguished by short faces and long flanks.
Rimpler, who was present at the siege of Candia (taken by the Turks in 1669) and died at that of Vienna in 1683, exercised a great influence. He had been struck by the weakness of the early Italian bastions at Candia, and published a book in 1673 calledFortification with Central Bastions, which was practically the polygonal trace. Zastrow thinks that Rimpler inspired Montalembert. He left unfortunately no designs to illustrate his ideas.
Landsberg the younger (1670-1746), a major-general in the Prussian service, who saw many sieges, also had a great influence. He appears to have been the first who frankly advocated the tenaille alone, chiefly on the ground that the flank, which was the most important part of the bastioned system, was also the weakest. Fig. 33 shows his system, published in 1712.
It was, however, ultimately a Frenchman, Marc René Montalembert (q.v.), who was the great apostle of the tenaille, though in his later years he leaned more to the polygonal trace. He objected to the bastioned trace on many grounds; principally that the bastion was a shell trap, that the flanks byMontalembert and Carnot.crossing their fire lost the advantage of the full range of their weapons, and that the curtain was useless for defence. He took the view that the bastions with their ravelins constituted practically a tenaille trace, spoilt by the detachment of the ravelins and cramped by the presence of the curtains and flanks. His tenaille system consisted of redans, with salient angles of 60° or more, flanking each other at right angles; from which he gave to his system the name of “perpendicular fortification.”
Lazare Carnot (q.v.), the “Organizer of Victory,” was, infortification, a follower of Montalembert, and produced in 1797 a tenaille system (fig. 34) on strong and simple lines.
In 1812 Carnot offered three systems. For a dry and level site he recommended a bastioned trace; but for wet ditches and for irregular ground, tenaille traces. Both of these latter differ from his 1797 trace in that the re-entering angle is reinforced by a tenaille whose faces are parallel to the main faces and reach almost to the salients. There are also counterguards in front of the salients, whose ends overlap the ends of the tenaille. (N.B. To avoid confusion between thetenaille traceand thetenaille, it should be noted that the latter is a low detached parapet placed in front of the escarp of the body of the place, partly as a shield, and partly as an additional line of defence. It is used in front of the curtain in the bastioned trace, and in the re-entering angle in the tenaille trace.)Other important features of Carnot’s work were: a continuous general retrenchment, or interior parapet, following more or less the lines of the main parapet; the use of the detached wall in place of the escarp revetment; and the countersloping glacis. This last (of which Carnot was not the inventor), instead of sloping gently outwards from a crest raised about 8 ft. down to the natural level of the ground, sloped inwards from the ground-level to the bottom of the ditch. The advantage of the additional obstacle of the counterscarp was thus lost to the defence. On the other hand, the besiegers’ saps, as they progressed down the glacis, were exposed to a plunging fire from the parapet.
In 1812 Carnot offered three systems. For a dry and level site he recommended a bastioned trace; but for wet ditches and for irregular ground, tenaille traces. Both of these latter differ from his 1797 trace in that the re-entering angle is reinforced by a tenaille whose faces are parallel to the main faces and reach almost to the salients. There are also counterguards in front of the salients, whose ends overlap the ends of the tenaille. (N.B. To avoid confusion between thetenaille traceand thetenaille, it should be noted that the latter is a low detached parapet placed in front of the escarp of the body of the place, partly as a shield, and partly as an additional line of defence. It is used in front of the curtain in the bastioned trace, and in the re-entering angle in the tenaille trace.)
Other important features of Carnot’s work were: a continuous general retrenchment, or interior parapet, following more or less the lines of the main parapet; the use of the detached wall in place of the escarp revetment; and the countersloping glacis. This last (of which Carnot was not the inventor), instead of sloping gently outwards from a crest raised about 8 ft. down to the natural level of the ground, sloped inwards from the ground-level to the bottom of the ditch. The advantage of the additional obstacle of the counterscarp was thus lost to the defence. On the other hand, the besiegers’ saps, as they progressed down the glacis, were exposed to a plunging fire from the parapet.
Carnot was also, like Coehoorn, a great believer in the mortar; but while Coehoorn introduced the small portable mortar that bears his name, Carnot expected great results from a 13 in. mortar throwing 600 iron balls at each discharge. He endeavoured to prove mathematically that the discharge of these mortars would in due course kill off the whole of the besieging force. These mortars he emplaced in open fronted mortar-casemates, in concealed positions. Fig. 35 shows in section one of these mortar-casemates, placed between the parapet of the retrenchment and a detached wall.
The leading idea of Montalembert was that for a successful defence it was necessary for the artillery to be superior to that of the enemy. This idea led him to the adoption of casemates in several tiers; in preference to openThe polygonal trace.parapets, exposed to artillery fire of all kinds, high angle, ricochet and reverse. In considering the defects of bastions he had arrived at the conclusion that for flanking purposes two forms of trace were preferable; either the tenaille form, connecting the ravelins with the body of the place, or the form in which the primary flanking elements, instead of facing each other with overlapping fire, as with the bastions, should be placed back to back in the middle of the exterior side. Fig. 36 is an example of this. The central flanking work resulting from this arrangement is the caponier of the early Italians, reintroduced and developed; and with it Montalembert laid the foundation of the polygonal system of our own time.
Montalembert was one of the first to foresee the coming necessity for detached forts, and it was for these that he chiefly proposed to use his caponier flanking, preferring the tenaille system for large places. In abandoning the bastioned trace he was already committed to the principle of casemate defence for ditches; and the combination of this principle with his desire for an overwhelming artillery defence led him in the course of years of controversial writing into somewhat extravagant proposals. For instance, for a square fort of about 400 yds. side, he proposed over 1000 casemate guns; and one of his caponier sections shows 10 tiers of masonry gun-casemates one above the other. Confiding in the power of such an artillery, he freely exposed the upper parts of his casemates to direct fire.
Montalembert is said to have contributed more new ideas to fortification than any other man. His designs must be considered in some ways unworkable and unsound, but all the best work of the 19th century rests on his teaching. The Germans, who already used the tenaille system and made free provision of bomb-proof casemates, took from him the polygonal trace and the idea of the entrenched camp.
The polygonal system in fortification implies straight or slightly broken exterior sides, flanked by casemated caponiers. The caponier is the vital point of the front, and is protected in important works by a ravelin and keep. The essence of the system is its simplicity, which allows of its being applied to any sort of ground, level or broken, and to long or short fronts.
The final period of smooth bore artillery is an important one in the history of fortification. It is true that the many expensive works that were constructed at this time were obsolete almost as soon as they were finished; but this was1815-1855, entrenched camps.inevitable, thanks to the pace at which the world was travelling. After the Napoleonic wars the Germanic Confederation began to strengthen its frontiers; and considering that they had not derived much strategic advantage from their existing fortresses, the Germans took up Montalembert’s idea of entrenched camps, utilizing at the same time his polygonal system with modifications for the main enceintes. The Prussians began with the fortresses of Coblenz and Cologne; later Posen, Königsberg and other places were treated on the same lines. The Austrians constructed, among other places, Linz and Verona. The Germanic Confederation reinforced Mainz with improved works, and reorganizedentirelyRastatt and Ulm. The Bavarians built Germersheim and Ingolstadt. While all these works were conceived in the spirit of Rimpler and Montalembert, they showed the differences of national temperament. The Prussian works, simple in design, relied upon powerful artillery fire, and exposed a good deal of masonry to the enemy’s view. The Austrians covered part of their masonry with earth and gave more attention to detail.
The German development of the polygonal system at this time is not of great importance, since the great masonry caponiers were designed without sufficient consideration for the increasing powers of artillery. One example (fig. 37) is given for the sake of historical comparison. It is a front of Posen.
“The exterior side of the front is about 650 yds. (600 metres) long. It is flanked by a central caponier, which is protected by adetached bastion.... The main front is broken back to flank the faces of the bastion from casemates behind the escarp, as well as from the parapet.“The central caponier forms the keep of the whole front and sweeps both the interior and the ditch by its flanking fire. It has two floors of gun-casemates and one for musketry, and on the top is a parapet completely commanding alike thePosen.outworks and the body of the place. It contains barrack accommodation for a battalion of 1000 men, and has a large inner courtyard closed at the gorge by a detached wall. The caponier is itself flanked by three small caponiers at the head, and one at the inner end of each flank.“The escarp of the body of the place is a simple detached wall; that of the detached bastion is either a detached wall with piers and arches, or a counter-arched revetment. At the salient of the bastion there is a mortar battery under the rampart, and a casemated traverse for howitzers upon the terreplein. The flanks of the bastion are parallel to those of the caponier, and at the same distance from it as the faces.“Masonry blockhouses, loopholed for musketry, are provided as keeps of the re-entering and salient places of arms. In the latter case they have stairs leading down into a counterscarp gallery, which serves as a base for countermine galleries, and is connected with the detached bastion by a gallery under the ditch. The counterscarp is not revetted if the ditch is wet.“The angle of the polygon should not be less than 160°, in order that the prolongation of the main ditch may fall within the salients of the detached bastions of the neighbouring fronts, and the masonry of the caponiers may thus be hidden from outside view.” (R.M.A.Text-book of F. & M.E., 1886.)
“The exterior side of the front is about 650 yds. (600 metres) long. It is flanked by a central caponier, which is protected by adetached bastion.... The main front is broken back to flank the faces of the bastion from casemates behind the escarp, as well as from the parapet.
“The central caponier forms the keep of the whole front and sweeps both the interior and the ditch by its flanking fire. It has two floors of gun-casemates and one for musketry, and on the top is a parapet completely commanding alike thePosen.outworks and the body of the place. It contains barrack accommodation for a battalion of 1000 men, and has a large inner courtyard closed at the gorge by a detached wall. The caponier is itself flanked by three small caponiers at the head, and one at the inner end of each flank.
“The escarp of the body of the place is a simple detached wall; that of the detached bastion is either a detached wall with piers and arches, or a counter-arched revetment. At the salient of the bastion there is a mortar battery under the rampart, and a casemated traverse for howitzers upon the terreplein. The flanks of the bastion are parallel to those of the caponier, and at the same distance from it as the faces.
“Masonry blockhouses, loopholed for musketry, are provided as keeps of the re-entering and salient places of arms. In the latter case they have stairs leading down into a counterscarp gallery, which serves as a base for countermine galleries, and is connected with the detached bastion by a gallery under the ditch. The counterscarp is not revetted if the ditch is wet.
“The angle of the polygon should not be less than 160°, in order that the prolongation of the main ditch may fall within the salients of the detached bastions of the neighbouring fronts, and the masonry of the caponiers may thus be hidden from outside view.” (R.M.A.Text-book of F. & M.E., 1886.)
We have now reached a period when the “detached fort” becomes of more importance than the organization of the enceinte. The early conception of the rôle of detached forts in connexion with the fortress was to form an entrenchedThe detached fort.camp within which an army corps could seek safety if necessary. The idea had occurred to Vauban, who added to the permanent defences of Toulon a large camp defended by field parapets attached to one side of the fortress. The substitution of a ring of detached forts, while giving it the greater safety of permanent instead of field defences, gave also a wider area and freer scope for the operations of an army seeking shelter under the guns of a fortress, and at the same time made siege more difficult by increasing the line of investment. The use of the detached fort as a means of protecting the body of the place from bombardment had not yet been made necessary by increased range of artillery.
When these detached forts were first used by Germany the scope of the idea had evidently not been realised, as they were placed much too close to the fortress. Those at Cologne, for instance, were only some 400 or 500 yds. in advance of the ramparts. The same leading idea is seen in most of these forts as in the new enceintes;i.e.a lunette, with a casemated keep at the gorge. The keep is the essential part of the work, the rampart of the lunette serving to protect it from frontal artillery fire. The keep projects to the rear, so as not only to be able to flank its own gorge, but to give some support to the neighbouring works with guns protected from frontal fire. This is a valuable arrangement, which is still sometimes used. The front ditches of the lunettes were flanked by caponiers. Some of the larger forts were simple quadrangular works with casemate barracks and caponier ditch defence.
In 1830, in Austria, the archduke Maximilian made an entirely fresh departure with the defences of Linz. The idea was to provide an entrenched camp at the least possible cost, whose works should require the smallest possible garrison. With this object Linz was surrounded with a belt of circular towers spaced about 600 yds. apart. The towers, 25 metres in diameter, were enclosed by a ditch and glacis, and contained 3 tiers of casemates. The masonry was concealed from view by the ditch and glacis. On the top of the tower was an earth parapet, over which a battery of 13 guns fireden barbette. In order to find room for so many guns in the restricted space, the whole 13 were placed parallel and close together on a single specially designed mounting.
This new departure was received with a certain amount of approval at the time, which is somewhat difficult to account for, as a more faulty system could hardly be devised; but the experiment was never repeated.
The credit for much of the clear views and real progress made in Germany during this period is due to General von Brese-Winiari, inspector-general of the Prussian engineers.
France, for a few years after 1815, could spare little money for fortifications, and nothing was done but repairs and minor improvements on the old lines. Belgium, having some money in hand, rebuilt and improved in detail a number of bastioned fortresses which had fallen into disrepair.
In 1830 France began to follow the lead of Germany with entrenched camps. The enceinte of Paris was reconstructed, and detached forts were added at a cost, according to von Zastrow, of £8,000,000. The Belgian and German frontiers of France being considered fairly protected by the existing fortresses, they turned their attention to the Swiss and Italian frontiers, and constructed three fortresses with detached forts at Belfort, Besançon and Grenoble. The cost of the new works at Lyons was, according to the same writer, £1,000,000 without the armament. Here and elsewhere the enceinte was simplified on account of the advanced defences. That of Paris, which was influenced by political considerations, was a simple bastioned trace with rather long fronts and without ravelins or other outworks; the escarp was high and therefore exposed, and the counterscarp was not revetted.
As regards the detached forts there was certainly a want of clearness of conception. Those of Paris were simply fortresses in miniature, square or pentagonal figures with bastioned fronts and containing defensible barracks. Those of Lyons were much more carefully designed, but the authors wavered between two ideas. Unwilling to give up the bastion, but evidently hankering after the new caponiers, they produced a type which it is difficult to praise. The larger works were irregular four- or five-sided figures with bastioned fronts; and practically the whole interior space was taken up by a large keep, with its ditch, on thepolygonal system. The smaller works, instead of a keep, had defensible barracks in the gorge.
During the period 1855-1870 a considerable impulse was given to the science of fortification, both by the Crimean War and the arrival of the rifled gun. One immediate result of these was the condemnation of masonry exposed to artilleryPeriod from 1855 to 1870.fire. The most important work of the period was the new scheme of defence of Antwerp, initiated in 1859. This is chiefly interesting as giving us the last and finest expression of the medieval enceinte, at a time when the war between the polygonal and bastioned traces was still raging, though the boom of the long-range guns had already given warning that a new era had begun. Antwerp is also associated with the name of General Brialmont (q.v.), of the Belgian engineers, whom posterity will no doubt regard as the greatest writer on fortification of the latter half of the 19th century.
We give in figs. 38, 39 and 40 the general plan of the 1859 defences of Antwerp, the plan of a front of the enceinte, and itsAntwerp.sections, as showing almost the last word of fortification before the arrival of high explosives.
The defences of Antwerp were designed, as the strategic centre of the national defence of Belgium, for an entrenched camp for 100,000 men. The length of the enceinte is about 9 m. The detached forts, which on the sides not defended by inundation are about 1¼ m. apart and from 2 to 3 m. in front of the enceinte, are powerful works, arranged for a garrison of 1000 men. They have each a frontal crest-line of over 700 yds. and are intended for an armament of 120 guns and 15 mortars.
The general arrangement of the fronts of the enceinte should be compared with the earlier German type of Posen. It will be noticed that while the large casemated caponier at Posen breaks the enceinte and flanks it both without and within, at Antwerp the caponier is detached—a much sounder arrangement—and flanks the front only. The defence of the faces rests on the width of the wet ditches and on the flanking power of the caponier; there is no attempt to add to it by fausse-braie or detached wall. The dimensions are everywhere very generous, allowing free movement for the troops of the defence; the covered way is 22 yds.wide and there is a double terreplein on the face. The parapet of the face is 27 ft. thick. The masonry of the casemate guns in the caponier, first flank and low battery, is protected by earth,à laHaxo.
The general arrangement of the fronts of the enceinte should be compared with the earlier German type of Posen. It will be noticed that while the large casemated caponier at Posen breaks the enceinte and flanks it both without and within, at Antwerp the caponier is detached—a much sounder arrangement—and flanks the front only. The defence of the faces rests on the width of the wet ditches and on the flanking power of the caponier; there is no attempt to add to it by fausse-braie or detached wall. The dimensions are everywhere very generous, allowing free movement for the troops of the defence; the covered way is 22 yds.wide and there is a double terreplein on the face. The parapet of the face is 27 ft. thick. The masonry of the casemate guns in the caponier, first flank and low battery, is protected by earth,à laHaxo.
In 1859 Austria acknowledged the influence of the new artillery with some new forts at Verona. The detached forts built by Radetzky in 1848 were only from 1000 to 2000 yds. distant from the ramparts. Those now added, of which fig. 41 is an example, were from 3000 to 4000 yds. out.
In the same year the land defences of some of the British dockyards were taken in hand. These first serious attempts at permanent fortification in England were received with approval on the continent, as constituting an advance on anything that had been done before. The detached forts intended to keep an enemy outside bombarding distance were roomy works with small keeps. The parapets were organized for artillery and the ditches were defended by caponiers or counterscarp galleries. The forts were spaced about a mile apart and arranged so as to support each other by their fire.
The sieges of the Franco-German War of 1870 are alluded to in the section below dealing with the “Attack of Fortresses.” As regards their effect on the designs of fortification the most important thing to note is the distance toPeriod from 1870 to 1885.which it was thought necessary to throw out the detached forts. These distances were of course influenced by the character of the ground, but for the most part they were very largely increased. Thus at Paris the fort at St Cyr was 18,000 yds. from the enceinte; at Verdun the distances varied from 2300 to 12,000 yds.; at Belfort the new forts were from 4500 to 11,500 yds. out; at Metz 2300 to 4500; and at Strassburg 5200 to 10,000. One result of these increased distances was of course to increase very largely the length of the zone of investment, and therefore the strength necessary for the besieging force.
As regards the character of the works, the typical shape adopted both in France and Germany was a very obtuse-angled lunette, shallow from front to rear. The German type had one parapet only, which was organized for artillery and heavily traversed, the living casemates being under this parapet. The ditch defence was provided for by caponiers and a detached wall (see fig. 42).
The French forts had two parapets, that in the rear being placed over living casemates (in two tiers, as shown in the section of fig. 43 by a dotted line), and commanding the front one. There was a long controversy as to whether the artillery of the fort should be on the upper or the lower parapet, the advocates of the upper parapet attaching great importance to the command that the guns would have over the country in front. The other school, objecting to having guns on the skyline, preferred to sacrifice the command and place them on the lower parapet, as in fig. 43, the infantry occupying the upper parapet. It will be observed that the bastioned trace is abandoned, the ditches, like those of the German fort, being defended by caponiers.
While a great deal of work was done on these lines, a very active controversy had already begun on the general question as to whether guns should be employed in forts at all. Some declared that the accuracy and power of artillery had already developed so far, that guns in fixed and visible positions must needs be put out of action in a very short time. The remedy proposed by these was the removal of the guns from the forts into “wing-batteries” which should be less conspicuous; but soon the broader idea was put forward of placing the guns in concealed positions and moving them from one to another by means of previously prepared roads or railways. Others declared that there was no safety for the guns outside the forts, and that the use of steel turrets and disappearing cupolas was the only solution of the difficulty. General Brialmont, who had by this time become the first European authority on fortification questions, ranged himself on the side of the turrets. The youngerschool were largely in favour of mobility and expressed themselves eagerly in a shower of pamphlets.
It was at this juncture that a new factor was introduced, namely, the obus-torpille, or long shell with high-explosive bursting charge. With its appearance we say good-bye to the old school and enter upon the consideration of the fortification of to-day.
II. Modern Permanent Fortification
Modern fortification dates by universal consent from 1885. The Germans had begun experiments a year or two before this, with long shell containing large charges of gun-cotton. But it was the experiments at Fort Malmaison in FranceHigh-angle fire with long shell.in 1886 that set the military world speculating on the future of fortification. The fort was used as a target for 8-in. shell of five calibres length containing large charges of melinite. The reported effects of these made a tremendous sensation, and it was thought at first that the days of permanent fortification were over. Magazine casemates were destroyed by a single shell, and revetment walls were overturned and practicable breaches made by two or three shells falling behind them. It must be remembered, however, that the works were not adapted to meet this kind of fire. The casemates had enough earth over them to tamp the shell thoroughly, but not enough to prevent it from coming into contact with the masonry, and the latter was not thick enough to resist the explosion of the big charges. Other experiments were made in the same direction in Germany, Holland, Belgium and Austria. The Germans used shell containing from 60 to 130 ℔ of high explosive.
After the first alarm had subsided foreign engineers set about adapting their works to meet the new projectiles. Revetments were enormously strengthened, and designed so that their weight resisted overturning. Concrete roofs were made from 6 to 10 ft. thick, and in many cases the surface of the concrete was left bare so as to expose a hard surface to the shell without any earth tamping. The idea of cupolas and shielded guns gained ground, and is now practically accepted all over the continent of Europe. In many cases the main armament, in some only the safety armament (see below), is in cupolas in the forts.
But meanwhile Europe had been flooded with literature on the subject, and the whole policy of fortification as well as its minutest details were discussedab ovo. The extremists of both sides revelled in their opportunity. Some declared that, with the use of heavy guns and armour, fortresses could be made stronger than ever. Others held that modern fortresses were far too expensive, that their use led to strategic mistakes, and (arguing from certain well-known examples) that extemporized field defences could offer as good a resistance as permanent works.
European military opinion generally is now more or less agreed on the following lines:—