(H. Ch.)
FORSYTH, PETER TAYLOR(1848- ), British Nonconformist divine, was born at Aberdeen in 1848. He took first-class honours in classics at Aberdeen, subsequently studied at Göttingen (under Ritschl) and at New College, Hampstead, and entered the Congregational ministry. Having held pastorates at Shipley, Hackney, Manchester, Leicester and Cambridge, he became principal of Hackney Theological College, Hampstead, in 1901. In 1907 he delivered the Lyman Beecher lectures on preaching at Yale University, published asPositive Preaching and Modern Mind. Among his other publications may be mentionedReligion in Recent Art, and articles in theContemporary Review,Hibbert Journal, andLondon Quarterly. He was chairman of the Congregational Union of England and Wales in 1905.
FORTALEZA(usually calledCearáby foreigners), a city and port of Brazil and the capital of the state of Ceará, on a crescent-shaped indentation of the coast-line immediately W. of Cape Mucuripe or Mocoripe, 7½ m. from the mouth of the Ceará river, in lat. 3° 42′ S., long. 38° 30′ W. Pop. (1890) of the municipality, including a large rural district, 40,902. The city stands on an open sandy plain overlooking the sea, and is regularly laid out, with broad, well-paved, gas-lighted streets and numerous squares. Owing to the aridity of the climate the vegetation is less luxuriant than in most Brazilian cities. The temperature is usually high, but it is modified by the strong sea winds. Fortaleza has suffered much from epidemics of yellow-fever, small-pox and beri-beri, but the climate is considered to be healthy. A small branch of the Ceará river, called the Pajehú, traverses the city and divides it into two parts, that on its right bank being locally known as Outeiro. Fortaleza is the see of a bishopric, created in 1854, but it has no cathedral, one of its ten churches being used for that purpose. Its public buildings include the government house, legislative chambers, bishop’s palace, an episcopal seminary, a lyceum (high school), Misericordia hospital, and asylums for mendicants and the insane. The custom-house stands nearer the seashore, 1¾ m. from the railway station in the city, with which it is connected by rail. The port is the principal outlet for the products of the state, but its anchorage is an open roadstead, one of the most dangerous on the northern coast of Brazil, and all ships are compelled to anchor well out from shore and discharge into lighters. Port improvements designed by the eminent engineer Sir John Hawkshaw have been under construction for many years, but have made very slow progress. The Baturité railway, built by the national government partly to give employment to starving refugees in times of long-continued droughts, connects the city and its port with fertile regions to the S.W., and extends to Senador Pompeu, 178 m. distant. The exports include sugar, coffee, rubber, cotton, rum, rice, beans, fruits, hides and skins.
Fortaleza had its origin in a small village adjoining a fort established at this point in early colonial times. In 1654 it took the name of Villa do Forte da Assumpçã, but it was generally spoken of as Fortaleza. In 1810 it became the capital of Ceará, and in 1823 it was raised to the dignity of a city under the title of Fortaleza da Nova Bragança.
FORT AUGUSTUS, a village of Inverness-shire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 706. It is delightfully situated at the south-western extremity of Loch Ness, about 30 m. S.W. of Inverness, on the rivers Oich and Tarff and the Caledonian Canal. A branch line connects with Spean Bridge on the West Highland railway via Invergarry. The fort, then called Kilchumin, was built in 1716 for the purpose of keeping the Highlanders in check, and was enlarged in 1730 by General Wade. It was captured by the Jacobites in 1745, but reoccupied after the battle of Culloden, when it received its present name in honour of William Augustus, duke of Cumberland, the victorious general. The fort was used as a sanatorium until 1857, when it was bought by the 12th Lord Lovat, whose son presented it in 1876 to the English order of Benedictines. Within four years there rose upon its site a pile of stately buildings under the title of St Benedict’s Abbey and school, a monastic and collegiate institution intended for the higher education of the sons of the Roman Catholic nobility and gentry. The series of buildings consists of the college, monastery, hospice and scriptorium—the four forming a quadrangle connected by beautiful cloisters. Amongst its benefactors were many Catholic Scots and English peers and gentlemen whose arms are emblazoned on the windows of the spacious refectory hall. The summit of the college tower is 110 ft. high.
FORT DODGE,a city and the county-seat of Webster county, Iowa, U.S.A., on the Des Moines river, 85 m. (by rail) N. by W. from Des Moines. Pop. (1890) 4871; (1900) 12,162; (1905, state census) 14,369, (2269 being foreign-born); (1910) 15,543. It is served by the Illinois Central, the Chicago Great Western, the Minneapolis & Saint Louis, and the Fort Dodge, Des Moines & Southern railways, the last an electric interurban line. Eureka Springs and Wild Cat Cave are of interest to visitors, and attractive scenery is furnished by the river and its bordering bluffs. The river is here spanned by the Chicago Great Western railway steel bridge, or viaduct, one of the longest in the country. Fort Dodge is the seat of Tobin College (420 students in 1907-1908), a commercial and business school, with preparatory, normal and classical departments, and courses in oratory and music; among its other institutions are St Paul’s school (Evangelical Lutheran), two Roman Catholic schools, Corpus Christi Academy and the Sacred Heart school, Our Lady of Lourdes convent and a Carnegie library. Oleson Park and Reynold’s Park are the city’s principal parks. Immediately surrounding Fort Dodge is a rich farming country. To the E. of the city lies a gypsum bed, extending over an area of about 50 sq. m., and considered to be the most valuable in the United States; to the S. coal abounds; there are also limestone quarries and deposits of clay in the vicinity—the clay being, for the most part, obtained by mining. Fort Dodge is a market for the products of the surrounding country, and is a shipping centre of considerable importance. It has various manufactures, including gypsum, plaster, oatmeal, brick and tile, sewer pipe, pottery, foundry and machine-shop products, and shoes. In 1905 the value of all the factory products was $3,025,659, an increase of 200.8% over that for 1900. Fort Clark was erected on the site in 1850 to protect settlers against the Indians; in 1851 the name was changed by order of the secretary of war to Fort Dodge in honour of Colonel Henry Dodge (1782-1867), who was a lieutenant-colonel of Missouri Volunteers in the War of 1812, served with distinction as a colonel of Michigan Mounted Volunteers in the Black Hawk War, resigned from the military service in March 1833, was governor of Wisconsin Territory from 1836 to 1841 and from 1846 to 1848, and was a delegate from Wisconsin Territory to Congress from 1841 to 1845, and a United States senator from Wisconsin in 1848-1857. The fort was abandoned in 1853, and in 1854 a town was laid out. It was chartered as a city in 1869. From the gypsum beds near Fort Dodge was taken in 1868 the block of gypsum from which was modelled the “Cardiff Giant,” a rudely-fashioned human figure, which was buried near Cardiff, Onondaga county, New York, where it was “discovered” late in 1869. It was then exhibited in various parts of the country as a “petrified man.” The hoax was finally exposed by Professor Othniel C. Marsh of Yale; and George Hall of Binghamton, N.Y., confessed to the fraud, his object having been to discredit belief in the “giants” of Genesis vi. 4. (See “The Cardiff Giant: the True Story of a Remarkable Deception,” by Andrew D. White, in theCentury Magazine, vol. xlii., 1902.)
FORT EDWARD,a village of Washington county, New York, U.S.A., in the township of Fort Edward, on the Hudson river, 56 m. by rail N. of Albany. Pop. of the village (1900) 3521, of whom 385 were foreign-born; (1905) 3806; (1910) 3762; ofthe township, including the village (1900), 5216; (1905), 5300; (1910), 5740. The village lies mostly at the foot of a steep hill, is at the junction of the main line and the Glens Falls branch of the Delaware & Hudson railway, and is also served by electric line to Albany and Glens Falls; the barge canal connecting Lake Champlain and the Hudson river enters the Hudson here. The river furnishes good water-power, which is used in the manufacture of paper and wood pulp, the leading industry. Shirts and pottery (flower pots, jars and drain tile) are manufactured also. The village is the seat of the Fort Edward Collegiate Institute, a non-sectarian school for girls, which was founded in 1854 and until 1893 was coeducational. The village owns and operates the waterworks. Indian war parties on their way to Canada were accustomed to make a portage from this place, the head of navigation for small boats on the Hudson, to Lake George or Lake Champlain, and hence it was known as the Great Carrying Place. Governor (afterwards Sir) Francis Nicholson in 1709, in his expedition against Canada, built here a stockade which was named Fort Nicholson. Some years afterwards John Henry Lydius (1693-1791) established a settlement and protected it by a new fort, named Fort Lydius, but this was destroyed by the French and Indians in 1745. In 1755, a third fort was built by General Phineas Lyman (1716-1774), as preliminary to the expedition against Crown Point under General William Johnson, and was named Fort Lyman; in 1756 Johnson renamed it Fort Edward in honour of Edward, Duke of York. In the War for Independence Fort Edward was the headquarters of General Philip Schuyler while he and his troops were blocking the march of General Burgoyne’s army from Fort Ticonderoga. When a part of Burgoyne’s forces was distant only 3 or 4 m. from Fort Edward, on Fort Edward Hill, on the 27th of July 1777, the leader of an Indian band whose assistance the British had sought is supposed to have murdered Jane McCrea (c.1757-1777), a young-girl who had been visiting friends in Fort Edward, and who was to be escorted on that day to the British camp and there to be married to David Jones, a loyalist serving as a lieutenant in Burgoyne’s army; it is possible that she was shot accidentally by Americans pursuing her Indian escorts, but her death did much to rouse local sentiment against Burgoyne and his Indian allies, and caused many volunteers to join the American army resisting Burgoyne’s invasion. A monument has been erected by the Jane McCrea Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution near the spot where she was killed, and she is buried in Union Cemetery in Fort Edward. Fort Edward township was erected in 1818 from a part of the township of Argyle. Fort Edward village was incorporated in 1852.
See R.O. Bascom,The Fort Edward Book(Fort Edward, 1903).
See R.O. Bascom,The Fort Edward Book(Fort Edward, 1903).
FORTESCUE, SIR JOHN(c.1394-c.1476), English lawyer, the second son of Sir John Fortescue, of an ancient family in Devonshire, was born at Norris, near South Brent, in Somersetshire. He was educated at Exeter College, Oxford. During the reign of Henry VI. he was three times appointed one of the governors of Lincoln’s Inn. In 1441 he was made a king’s sergeant at law, and in the following year chief justice of the king’s bench. As a judge Fortescue is highly recommended for his wisdom, gravity and uprightness; and he seems to have enjoyed great favour with the king, who is said to have given him some substantial proofs of esteem and regard. He held his office during the remainder of the reign of Henry VI., to whom he steadily adhered; and having faithfully served that unfortunate monarch in all his troubles, he was attainted of treason in the first parliament of Edward IV. When Henry subsequently fled into Scotland, he is supposed to have appointed Fortescue, who appears to have accompanied him in his flight, chancellor of England. In 1463 Fortescue accompanied Queen Margaret and her court in their exile on the Continent, and returned with them afterwards to England. During their wanderings abroad the chancellor wrote for the instruction of the young prince Edward his celebrated workDe laudibus legum Angliae. On the defeat of the Lancastrian party he made his submission to Edward IV., from whom he received a general pardon dated Westminster, October 13, 1471. He died at an advanced age, but the exact date of his death has not been ascertained.
Fortescue’s masterly vindication of the laws of England, though received with great favour by the learned of the profession to whom it was communicated, did not appear in print until the reign of Henry VIII., when it was published, but without a date. It was subsequently many times reprinted. Another valuable and learned work by Fortescue, written in English, was published in 1714, under the title ofThe Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy. In the Cotton library there is a manuscript of this work, in the title of which it is said to have been addressed to Henry VI.; but many passages show plainly that it was written in favour of Edward IV. A revised edition of this work, with a very valuable historical and biographical introduction, was published in 1885 by Charles Plummer, under the titleThe Governance of England. All of Fortescue’s minor writings appear inThe Works of Sir John Fortescue, now first Collected and Arranged, published in 1869 for private circulation, by his descendant, Lord Clermont.Authorities.—Plummer’s Introduction toThe Governance of England;Lifein Lord Clermont’s edition; Gairdner’sPaston Letters; Foss’sLives of the Judges.
Fortescue’s masterly vindication of the laws of England, though received with great favour by the learned of the profession to whom it was communicated, did not appear in print until the reign of Henry VIII., when it was published, but without a date. It was subsequently many times reprinted. Another valuable and learned work by Fortescue, written in English, was published in 1714, under the title ofThe Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy. In the Cotton library there is a manuscript of this work, in the title of which it is said to have been addressed to Henry VI.; but many passages show plainly that it was written in favour of Edward IV. A revised edition of this work, with a very valuable historical and biographical introduction, was published in 1885 by Charles Plummer, under the titleThe Governance of England. All of Fortescue’s minor writings appear inThe Works of Sir John Fortescue, now first Collected and Arranged, published in 1869 for private circulation, by his descendant, Lord Clermont.
Authorities.—Plummer’s Introduction toThe Governance of England;Lifein Lord Clermont’s edition; Gairdner’sPaston Letters; Foss’sLives of the Judges.
FORTESCUE, SIR JOHN(c.1531-1607), English statesman, was the eldest son of Sir Adrian Fortescue (executed in 1539), and of his second wife, Anne, daughter of Sir William Reade or Rede of Borstall in Buckinghamshire. The exact date of his birth is unrecorded.1He was restored in blood and to his estate at Shirburn in Oxfordshire in 1551. Through his father’s mother, Alice, daughter of Sir Geoffrey Boleyn, he was a second cousin once removed from Queen Elizabeth. He acquired early a considerable reputation as a scholar and was chosen to direct the Princess Elizabeth’s classical studies in Mary’s reign. On the accession of Elizabeth he was appointed keeper of the great wardrobe. He was returned in 1572 to parliament for Wallingford, in 1586 for Buckingham borough, in 1588 and 1597 for Buckingham county, and in 1601 for Middlesex. In 1589 he was appointed chancellor of the exchequer and a member of the privy council. In 1592 he was knighted, and in November 1601, in addition to his two great offices, he received that of chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. By means of his lucrative employments he amassed great wealth, with which he bought large estates in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, and kept up much state and a large household. He took a prominent part in public business, was a member of the court of the star chamber and an ecclesiastical commissioner, sat on various important commissions, and as chancellor of the exchequer explained the queen’s financial needs and proposed subsidies in parliament. On the death of Elizabeth he suggested that certain restrictions should be imposed on James’s powers, in order probably to limit the appointment of Scotchmen to office,2but his advice was not followed. He was deprived by James of the chancellorship of the exchequer, but evidently did not forfeit his favour, as he retained his two other offices and entertained James several times at Henden and Salden. In 1604 Sir John, who stood for Buckinghamshire, was defeated by Sir Francis Goodwin, whose election, however, was declared void by the lord chancellor on the ground of a sentence of outlawry under which he lay, and Fortescue was by a second election returned in his place. This incident gave rise to a violent controversy, regarding the chancellor’s jurisdiction in deciding disputed elections to parliament, which was repudiated by the Commons but maintained by the king. The matter after much debate was ended by a compromise, which, while leaving the principle unsettled, set aside the elections of both candidates and provided for the issue of a new writ. Fortescue was then in February 1606 returned for Middlesex, which he represented till his death on the 23rd of December 1607. He was buried in Mursley church in Buckinghamshire, where a monument was erected to his memory. His long public career was highly honourable, and he served his sovereign and country with unswerving fidelity and honesty. His learned attainments too were considerable—Camden styles him “vir integer, Graece,Latineque apprime eruditus,”3and his scholarship is also praised by Lloyd, while his friendship with Sir Thomas Bodley procured gifts of books and manuscripts to the latter’s library. Fortescue married (1) Cecily, daughter of Sir Edmund Ashfield of Ewelme, by whom, besides a daughter, he had two sons, Sir Francis and Sir William; and (2) Alice, daughter of Christopher Smyth of Annabels in Hertfordshire, by whom he had one daughter. His descent in the male line became extinct with the death of Sir John Fortescue, 3rd baronet, in 1717.
Bibliography.—Article in theDict. of Nat. Biography; Lord Clermont’sHist. of the Family of the Fortescues;Hist. Notices of the Parishes of Swyncombe and Ewelme, by A. Napier, p. 390; D. Lloyd’sState Worthies(1670), p. 556;Add. MSS.12497 f. 143 (“Sir John Fortescue’s meanes of gaine by Sir R. Thikstin told me [Sir Julius Caesar]”);Hist. MSS. Comm., Marquis of Salisbury’s MSS.; Spedding’sLife of Bacon; Architectural and Archaeological Soc. for Bucks,Records of Bucks, vol. i. p. 86.
Bibliography.—Article in theDict. of Nat. Biography; Lord Clermont’sHist. of the Family of the Fortescues;Hist. Notices of the Parishes of Swyncombe and Ewelme, by A. Napier, p. 390; D. Lloyd’sState Worthies(1670), p. 556;Add. MSS.12497 f. 143 (“Sir John Fortescue’s meanes of gaine by Sir R. Thikstin told me [Sir Julius Caesar]”);Hist. MSS. Comm., Marquis of Salisbury’s MSS.; Spedding’sLife of Bacon; Architectural and Archaeological Soc. for Bucks,Records of Bucks, vol. i. p. 86.
(P. C. Y.)
1The inscription on his tomb states that he was 76 at his death on the 23rd of December 1607 (Lord Clermont’sHist. of the Family of Fortescue, 377), but according to a statement ascribed to himself, he was born the same year as Queen Elizabeth and therefore in 1533 (Bucks. Architect. and Archaeolog. Soc.Records of Bucks, i. p. 89).2David Lloyd’sState Worthies(1670), 556.3Annales, 613.
1The inscription on his tomb states that he was 76 at his death on the 23rd of December 1607 (Lord Clermont’sHist. of the Family of Fortescue, 377), but according to a statement ascribed to himself, he was born the same year as Queen Elizabeth and therefore in 1533 (Bucks. Architect. and Archaeolog. Soc.Records of Bucks, i. p. 89).
2David Lloyd’sState Worthies(1670), 556.
3Annales, 613.
FORTEVIOT,a village and parish of Perthshire, Scotland, on the Water of May, a right-hand affluent of the Earn, 6¾ m. S.W. of Perth. Pop. of parish (1901) 562. It is a place of remote antiquity, having been a capital of the Picts, when the district was known as Fortrenn, and afterwards of the Scots. The army led by Edward Baliol camped here before the battle of Dupplin (1332), in which the regent, Donald, earl of Mar, was slain along with 13,000 out of 30,000 men. The parish of Findo-Gask adjoining it on the N.W. contains remains of a Roman road, station and outpost, besides the “auld hoose” of Gask in which the Baroness Nairne was born, and which forms the theme of one of her most popular songs. The new house in which she died dates from 1801.
FORT GEORGE,a military station of Inverness-shire, Scotland. It lies 12 m. N.E. of Inverness, and is the terminus of the small branch line connecting with the Highland railway at Gollanfield junction. It occupies a sandy promontory forming the extreme end of the southern shore of Inner Moray Firth (also called the Firth of Inverness), which is here only 1 m. wide. There is communication by ferry with Fortrose on the opposite coast of the Black Isle. The fort was begun in 1748, partly after the plan of one of Vauban’s works, and named in honour of George II. Wolfe, who saw it in course of erection in 1751, was much impressed with it and thought it would, when finished, be “the most considerable fortress and best situated in Great Britain.” It covers 16 acres and contains accommodation for nearly 2200 men. It is the depot of the Seaforth Highlanders, and a military training-ground of some size and importance because the surrounding country gives ample facilities for exercise and manœuvres. General Wade’s road is maintained in good order. Fort George, it is said, had almost been chosen as the place of detention for Napoleon when the claims of St Helena were put forward. About 2 m. S.E. is the fishing village of Campbelltown, in growing repute as a seaside resort. Midway between the fort and Inverness stands Castle Stuart, a shooting-box of the earl of Moray.
FORTH,a river and firth of the east of Scotland. The river is formed by two head streams, Duchray Water (12 m.) and Avondhu (10 m.), or Laggan as it is called after it leaves Loch Ard, both rising in the north-east of Ben Lomond in Stirlingshire, and uniting 1 m. west of Aberfoyle. From this point till it receives the Kelty, the Forth continues to be a Perthshire stream, but afterwards it becomes the dividing line between the counties of Perth and Stirling as far as the confluence of the Allan. Thence it belongs to Stirlingshire to a point 1½ m. due west of Cambus, whence it serves as the boundary between the shires of Stirling and Clackmannan. Owing to the extremely tortuous character of its course between Gartmore and Alloa—the famous “links of the Forth,”—the actual length of the river is 66 m., or nearly double the distance in a direct line (30 m.) between the source of the Duchray and Kincardine, where the firth begins. The river drains an area of 645 sq. m. Its general direction is mainly easterly with a gentle trend towards the south, and the principal tributaries on the left are the Goodie, Teith, Allan and Devon, and on the right, the Kelty, Boquhan and Bannock. The alluvial plain extending from Gartmore to the county town is called the Carse of Stirling. The places of interest on the banks are Aberfoyle, Kippen, Stirling, Cambuskenneth, Alloa and Kincardine, but after it crosses the Highland line the Forth does not present many passages of remarkable beauty. There are bridges at Aberfoyle, Gartmore, Frew, Drip and Stirling (2), besides railway viaducts at Stirling and Alloa, and there are ferries at Stirling (for Cambuskenneth), Alloa (for South Alloa) and Kincardine (for Airth). The tide rises to 4½ m. above Stirling, where the river is navigable at high water by vessels of 100 tons. There is, however, a brisk shipping trade at Alloa, where the dock accommodates vessels of at least 300 tons.
The Firth of Forth extends from Kincardine to the North Sea, that is, to an imaginary line drawn, just west of the Isle of May, from the East Neuk of Fife to the mouth of the Tyne in Haddingtonshire—a distance of 48 m. Thus, according to some calculations, the Forth measures from source to sea 114 m. The width of the firth varies from ½ m. at Kincardine and 1½ m. at Queensferry to 6½ m. at Leith and 17½ m. at the mouth. The chief affluents are, on the south, the Carron, Avon, Almond, Leith, Esk and Tyne, and on the north, the Tiel, Leven, Kiel and Dreel. The principal ports on the south shore are Grangemouth, Bo’ness, Granton and Leith, and on the north, Burntisland and Kirkcaldy; but fishery centres and holiday resorts are very numerous on both coasts. Since the opening of the Forth Bridge (see Bridges) in 1890 the ferries at Queensferry and Burntisland have greatly diminished in importance. The fisheries are still considerable, though the oyster trade is dwindling. The larger islands are Inchcolm, with the ruins of an abbey, Inchkeith, with fortifications and a lighthouse, and the Isle of May, with a lighthouse. The anchorage of St Margaret’s Hope, with the naval base of Rosyth, lies off the shore of Fife immediately to the west of the Forth Bridge.
The Forth was theBodotriaof Tacitus and the Scots Water of the chroniclers of the 11th and 12th centuries; while Bede (d. 735) knew the firth asSinus orientalis(the Eastern Gulf), and Nennius (fl. 796) asMare Friesicum(the Frisian Sea).
FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT.“Fortification” is the military art of strengthening positions against attack. The word (Lat.fortis, strong, andfacere, to make) implies the creation of defences. Thus the boy who from the top of a mound defies his comrades, or shelters from their snowballs behind a fence, is merely taking advantage of ground; but if he puts up a hurdle on his mound and stands behind that he has fortified his position.
Fortification consists of two elements, viz.protectionandobstacle. The protection shields the defender from the enemy’s missiles; the obstacle prevents the enemy from coming to close quarters, and delays him under fire.
Protectionmay be of several kinds, direct or indirect. Direct protection is given by a wall or rampart of earth, strong enough to stop the enemy’s missiles. The value of this is reduced in proportion as the defender has to expose himself to return the enemy’s fire, or to resist his attempts to destroy the defences. Indirect protection is given bydistance, as for instance by a high wall placed on a cliff so that the defender on the top of the wall is out of reach of the enemy’s missiles if these are of short range, such as arrows. This kind of defence was very popular in the middle ages. In the present day the same object is attained by pushing out detached forts to such a distance from the town they are protecting that the besieger cannot bombard the town as long as he is outside the forts. Another form of indirect protection of great importance isconcealment.
Theobstaclemay consist of anything which will impede the enemy’s advance and prevent him from coming to close quarters. In the earliest forms of fortification the protecting wall was also the obstacle, or it may be a wet or dry ditch, an entanglement, a swamp, a thorn hedge, a spiked palisade, or some temporary expedient, such as crows’ feet or chevaux de frise. The two elements must of course be arranged in combination. The besieged must be able to defend the obstacle from their protected position, otherwise it can be surmounted or destroyed at leisure. But a close connexion is no longer essential. The effect of modernfirearms permits of great elasticity in the disposition of the obstacle; and this simplifies some of the problems of defence.
Protection must be arranged mainly with reference to the enemy’s methods of attack and the weapons he uses. The obstacle, on the other hand, should be of such a nature as to bring out the best effects of the defender’s weapons. It follows from this that a well-armed force operating against a badly-armed uncivilized enemy may use with advantage very simple old-fashioned methods of protection; or even dispense with it altogether if the obstacle is a good one.
When the assailant has modern weapons the importance of protection is very great. In fact, it may be said that in proportion as missile weapons have grown more effective, the importance of protection and the difficulty of providing it have increased, while the necessity for a monumental physical obstacle has decreased.
The art of the engineer who is about to fortify consists in appreciating and harmonizing all the conditions of the problem, such as the weapons in use, nature of the ground, materials available, temper of assailants and defenders, strategical possibilities, expenditure to be incurred, and so forth. Few of these conditions are in themselves difficult to understand, but they are so many and their reactions are so complex that a real familiarity with all of them is essential to successful work. The keynote of the solution should be simplicity; but this is the first point usually lost sight of by the makers of “systems,” especially by those who during a long period of peace have time to give play to their imaginations.
Fortification is usually divided into two branches, namelypermanent fortificationandfield fortification. Permanent fortifications are erected at leisure, with all the resources that a state can supply of constructive and mechanical skill, and are built of enduring materials. Field fortifications are extemporized by troops in the field, perhaps assisted by such local labour and tools as may be procurable, and with materials that do not require much preparation, such as earth, brushwood and light timber. There is also an intermediate branch known assemi-permanent fortification. This is employed when in the course of a campaign it becomes desirable to protect some locality with the best imitation of permanent defences that can be made in a short time, ample resources and skilled civilian labour being available.
Theobjects of fortificationare various. The vast enceintes of Nineveh and Babylon were planned so that in time of war they might give shelter to the whole population of the country except the field army, with their flocks and herds and household stuff. The same idea may be seen to-day in the walls of such cities as Kano. In the middle ages feudal lords built castles for security against the attacks of their neighbours, and also to watch over towns or bridges or fords from which they drew revenue; whilst rich towns were surrounded with walls merely for the protection of their own inhabitants and their property. The feudal castles lost their importance when the art of cannon-founding was fairly developed; and in the leisurely wars of the 17th and 18th centuries, when roads were few and bad, a swarm of fortified towns, large and small, played a great part in delaying the march of victorious armies.
In the present day isolated forts are seldom used, and only for such purposes as to block passes in mountainous districts. Fortresses are used either to protect points of vital importance, such as capital cities, military depots and dockyards, or at strategic points such as railway junctions. Combinations of fortresses are also used for more general strategic purposes, as will be explained later.
I. History
The most elementary type of fortification is the thornhedge, a type which naturally recurs from age to age under primitive conditions. Thus, Alexander found the villages of the Hyrcanians defended by thick hedges, and the sameAncient methods.arrangements may be seen to-day among the least civilized tribes of Africa. The next advance from the hedge is thebankof earth, with the exterior made steep by revetments of sods or hurdle-work. This has a double advantage over the hedge, as, besides being a better obstacle against assault, it gives the defenders an advantage of position in a hand-to-hand fight. Such banks formed the defences of the German towns in Caesar’s time, and they were constructed with a high degree of skill. Timber being plentiful, the parapets were built of alternate layers of stones, earth and tree trunks. The latter were built in at right angles to the length of the parapet, and were thus very difficult to displace, while the earth prevented their being set on fire. The bank was often strengthened by a palisade of tree trunks or hurdle-work.
After the bank the most important step in advance for a nation progressing in the arts was thewall, of masonry, sun-dried brick or mud. The history of the development of the wall and of the methods of attacking it is the history of fortification for several thousand years.
The first necessity for the wall was height, to give security against escalade. The second-was thickness, so that the defenders might have a platform on the top which would give them space to circulate freely and to use their weapons. A lofty wall, thick enough at the top for purposes of defence, would be very expensive if built of solid masonry; therefore the plan was early introduced of building two walls with a filling of earth or rubble between them. The face of the outer wall would be carried up a few feet above the platform, and crenellated to give protection against arrows and other projectiles.
The next forward step for the defence was the construction oftowersat intervals along the wall. These provided flanking fire along the front; they also afforded refuges for the garrison in case of a successful escalade, and from them the platform could be enfiladed.
The evolution of the wall with towers was simple. The main requirements were despotic power and unlimited labour. Thus the finest examples of the system known to history are also amongst the earliest. One of these was Nineveh, built more than 2000 yearsB.C.The object of its huge perimeter, more than 50 m., has been mentioned. The wall was 120 ft. high and 30 ft. thick; and there were 1500 towers.
After this no practical advance in the art of fortification was made for a very long time, from a constructional point of view. Many centuries indeed elapsed before the inventive genius of man evolved engines and methods of attack fit to cope with such colossal obstacles.
The earliest form of attack was of courseescalade, either by ladders or by heaping up a ramp of faggots or other portable materials. When the increasing height of walls made escalade too difficult, other means of attack had to be invented. Probably the first of these were theram, for battering down the walls, andmining. The latter might have two objects: (a) to drive an underground gallery below the wall from the besiegers’ position into the fortress, or (b) to destroy the wall itself by undermining.
The use of missileenginesfor throwing heavy projectiles probably came later. They are mentioned in the preparations made for the defence of Jerusalem against the Philistines in the 8th centuryB.C.They are not mentioned in connexion with the siege of Troy. At the sieges of Tyre and Jerusalem byNebuchadnezzarin 587B.C.we first find mention of the ram and of movable towers placed on mounds to overlook the walls.
The Asiatics, however, had not the qualities of mind necessary for a systematic development of siegecraft, and it was left for the Greeks practically to create this science. Taking it up in the 5th centuryB.C.they soon, under PhilipClassical times.of Macedon and Alexander, arrived at a very high degree of skill. They invented and systematized methods which were afterwards perfected by the Romans. Alexander’s siegecraft was extremely practical. His successors endeavoured to improve on it by increasing the size of their missile and other engines, which, however, were so cumbrous that they were of little use. When the Romans a little later took up the science they returned to the practical methods of Alexander, and by the time of Caesar’s wars had become past-masters of it. Thehighest development of siegecraft before the use of gunpowder was probably attained in the early days of the Roman empire. The beginning of the Christian era is therefore a suitable period at which to take a survey of the arts of fortification and siegecraft as practised by the ancients.
In fortification the wall with towers was still the leading idea. The towers were preferred circular in plan, as this form offered the best resistance to the ram. The wall was usually reinforced by a ditch, which had three advantages: itConditions at opening of the Christian era.increased the height of the obstacle, made the bringing up of the engines of attack more difficult, and supplied material for the filling of the wall. In special cases, as at Jerusalem and Rhodes, the enclosure walls were doubled and trebled. Citadels were also built on a large scale.The typical site preferred by the Romans for a fortified town was on high ground sloping to a river on one side and with steep slopes falling away on the other three sides. At the highest point was a castle serving as citadel. The town enclosure was designed in accordance with the character of the surrounding country. Where the enemy’s approach was easiest, the walls were higher, flanking towers stronger and ditches wider and deeper. Some of the towers were made high for look-out posts. If there was a bridge over the river, it was defended by a bridge-head on the far side; and stockades defended by towers were built out from either bank above and below the bridge, between which chains or booms could be stretched to bar the passage.The natural features of the ground were skilfully utilized. Thus when a large town was spread over an irregular site broken by hills, the enceinte wall would be carried over the top of the hills; and in the intervening valleys the wall would not only be made stronger, but would be somewhat drawn back to allow of a flanking defence from the hill tops on either side. The walls would consist of two strong masonry faces, 20 ft. apart, the space between filled with earth and stones. Usually when the lie of the ground was favourable, the outside of the wall would be much higher than the inside, the parapet walk perhaps being but a little above the level of the town. Palisades were used to strengthen the ditches, especially before the gates.There was little scope, however, in masonry for the genius of Roman warfare, which had a better opportunity in the active work of attack and defence. For siegecraft the Roman legions were specially apt. No modern engineer, civil or military, accustomed to rely on machinery, steam and hydraulic apparatus, could hope to emulate the feats of the legionaries. In earthworks they excelled; and in such work as building and moving about colossal wooden towers under war conditions, they accomplished things at which nowadays we can only wonder.The attack was carried on mainly by the use of “engines,” under which head were included all mechanical means of attack—towers, missile engines such as catapults and balistae, rams of different kinds, “tortoises” (see below), &c. Mining, too, was freely resorted to, also approach trenches, the use of which had been introduced by the Greeks.The object of mining, as has been said, might be the driving of a gallery under the wall into the interior of the place, or the destruction of the wall. The latter was effected by excavating large chambers under the foundations. These were supported while the excavation was proceeding by timber struts and planking. When the chambers were large enough the timber supports were burnt and the wall collapsed. The besieged replied to the mining attack by countermines. With these they would undermine and destroy the besiegers’ galleries, or would break into them and drive out the workers, either by force of arms or by filling the galleries with smoke.Breaches in the wall were made by rams. These were of two kinds. For dislodging the cemented masonry of the face of the wall, steel-pointed heads were used; when this was done, another head, shaped like a ram’s head, was substituted for battering down the filling of the wall.For escalade they used ladders fixed on wheeled platforms; but the most important means of attack against a high wall were the movable towers of wood. These were built so high that from their tops the parapet walk of the wall could be swept with arrows and stones; and drawbridges were let down from them, by which a storming party could reach the top of the wall. The height of the towers was from 70 to 150 ft. They were moved on wheels of solid oak or elm, 6 to 12 ft. in diameter and 3 to 4 ft. thick. The ground floor contained one or two rams. The upper floors, of which there might be as many as fifteen, were furnished with missile engines of a smaller kind. The archers occupied the top floor. There also were placed reservoirs of water to extinguish fire. These were filled by force pumps and fitted with hose made of the intestines of cattle. Drawbridges, either hanging or worked on rollers, were placed at the proper height to give access to the top of the wall, or to a breach, as might be required. Apollodorus proposed to place a couple of rams in the upper part of the tower to destroy the crenellations of the wall.The siege towers had of course to be very solidly built of strong timbers to resist the heavy stones thrown by the engines of the defence. They were protected against fire by screens of osiers, plaited rope or raw hides. Sometimes it was necessary, in order to gain greater height, to place them on high terraces of earth. In that case they would be built on the site. At the siege of Marseilles, described by Caesar, special methods of attack had to be employed on account of the strength of the engines used by the besieged and their frequent sallies to destroy the siege works. A square fort, with brick walls 30 ft. long and 5 ft. thick, was built in front of one of the towers of the town to resist sorties. This fort was subsequently raised to a height of six storeys, under shelter of a roof which projected beyond the walls, and from the eaves of which hung heavy mats made of ships’ cables. The mats protected the men working at the walls, and as these were built up the roof was gradually raised by the use of endless screws. The roof was made of heavy beams and planks, over which were laid bricks and clay, and the whole was covered with mats and hides to prevent the bricks from being dislodged. This structure was completed without the loss of a man, and could only have been built by the Romans, whose soldiers were all skilled workmen.Although these towers were provided with bridges by which storming parties could reach the top of the wall, their main object was usually to dominate the defence and keep down the fire from the walls and towers. Under this protection breaching operations could be carried on. The approaches to the wall were usually made under shelter of galleries of timber or hurdle-work, which were placed on wheels and moved into position as required. When the wall was reached, a shelter of stronger construction, known as a “rat,” was placed in position against it. Under this a ram was swung or worked on rollers; or the rat might be used as a shelter for miners or for workmen cutting away the face of the wall. The great rat at Marseilles, which extended from the tower already described to the base of the tower of the city, was 60 ft. long, and built largely of great beams 2 ft. square, connected by iron pins and bands. It was unusually narrow, the ground sills of the side walls being only 4 ft. apart. This was no doubt in order to keep down the weight of the structure, which, massive as it was, had to be movable. The sloping roof and sides of timber were protected, like those of the tower, with bricks and moist clay, hides and wool mattresses. Huge stones and barrels of blazing pitch were thrown from the wall upon this rat without effect, and under its cover the soldiers loosened and removed the foundations of the tower until it fell down.In order that it might be possible to move these heavy structures, it was usually necessary to fill up the ditch or to level the surface of the ground. For this purpose an “approach tortoise” was often used. This was a shelter, something between the ordinary gallery and the rat, which was moved end on towards the wall, and had an open front with a hood, under cover of which the earth brought up for filling the ditch was distributed.The missile engines threw stones up to 600 ℔ weight, heavy darts from 6 to 12 ft. long, and Greek fire. Archimedes at the siege of Syracuse even made some throwing 1800 ℔. The ranges varied, according to the machine and the weight thrown, up to 600 yds. for direct fire and 1000 yds. for curved fire. At the siege of Jerusalem Titus employed three hundred catapults of different sizes and forty balistae, of which the smallest threw missiles of 75 ℔ weight. At Carthage Scipio found 120 large and 281 medium catapults, 23 large and 52 small balistae, and a great number of scorpions and other small missile engines.Screens and mantlets for the protection of the engine-workers were used in great variety.In addition to the above, great mechanical skill was shown in the construction of many kinds of machines for occasional purposes. A kind of jib crane of great height on a movable platform was used to hoist a cage containing fifteen or twenty men on to the wall. A long spar with a steel claw at the end, swung in the middle from a lofty frame, served to pull down the upper parts of parapets and overhanging galleries. The defenders on their side were not slow in replying with similar devices. Fenders were let down from the wall to soften the blow of the ram, or the ram heads were caught and held by cranes. Grapnels were lowered from cranes to seize the rats and overturn them. Archimedes used the same idea in the defence of Syracuse for lifting and sinking the Roman galleys. Wooden towers were built on the walls to overtop the towers of the besiegers. Many devices for throwing fire were employed. The tradition that Archimedes burnt the Roman fleet, or a portion of it, at Syracuse, by focusing the rays of the sun with reflectors, is supported by an experiment made by Buffon in 1747. With a reflector having a surface of 50 sq. ft., made up of 168 small mirrors each 6 by 8 in., lead was melted at a distance of 140 ft. and wood was set on fire at 160 ft.The development of masonry in permanent fortification had long since reached its practical limit, and was no longer proof against the destructive methods that had been evolved. The extemporized defences were, as is always the case, worn down by a resolute besieger, and the attack was stronger than the defence.
In fortification the wall with towers was still the leading idea. The towers were preferred circular in plan, as this form offered the best resistance to the ram. The wall was usually reinforced by a ditch, which had three advantages: itConditions at opening of the Christian era.increased the height of the obstacle, made the bringing up of the engines of attack more difficult, and supplied material for the filling of the wall. In special cases, as at Jerusalem and Rhodes, the enclosure walls were doubled and trebled. Citadels were also built on a large scale.
The typical site preferred by the Romans for a fortified town was on high ground sloping to a river on one side and with steep slopes falling away on the other three sides. At the highest point was a castle serving as citadel. The town enclosure was designed in accordance with the character of the surrounding country. Where the enemy’s approach was easiest, the walls were higher, flanking towers stronger and ditches wider and deeper. Some of the towers were made high for look-out posts. If there was a bridge over the river, it was defended by a bridge-head on the far side; and stockades defended by towers were built out from either bank above and below the bridge, between which chains or booms could be stretched to bar the passage.
The natural features of the ground were skilfully utilized. Thus when a large town was spread over an irregular site broken by hills, the enceinte wall would be carried over the top of the hills; and in the intervening valleys the wall would not only be made stronger, but would be somewhat drawn back to allow of a flanking defence from the hill tops on either side. The walls would consist of two strong masonry faces, 20 ft. apart, the space between filled with earth and stones. Usually when the lie of the ground was favourable, the outside of the wall would be much higher than the inside, the parapet walk perhaps being but a little above the level of the town. Palisades were used to strengthen the ditches, especially before the gates.
There was little scope, however, in masonry for the genius of Roman warfare, which had a better opportunity in the active work of attack and defence. For siegecraft the Roman legions were specially apt. No modern engineer, civil or military, accustomed to rely on machinery, steam and hydraulic apparatus, could hope to emulate the feats of the legionaries. In earthworks they excelled; and in such work as building and moving about colossal wooden towers under war conditions, they accomplished things at which nowadays we can only wonder.
The attack was carried on mainly by the use of “engines,” under which head were included all mechanical means of attack—towers, missile engines such as catapults and balistae, rams of different kinds, “tortoises” (see below), &c. Mining, too, was freely resorted to, also approach trenches, the use of which had been introduced by the Greeks.
The object of mining, as has been said, might be the driving of a gallery under the wall into the interior of the place, or the destruction of the wall. The latter was effected by excavating large chambers under the foundations. These were supported while the excavation was proceeding by timber struts and planking. When the chambers were large enough the timber supports were burnt and the wall collapsed. The besieged replied to the mining attack by countermines. With these they would undermine and destroy the besiegers’ galleries, or would break into them and drive out the workers, either by force of arms or by filling the galleries with smoke.
Breaches in the wall were made by rams. These were of two kinds. For dislodging the cemented masonry of the face of the wall, steel-pointed heads were used; when this was done, another head, shaped like a ram’s head, was substituted for battering down the filling of the wall.
For escalade they used ladders fixed on wheeled platforms; but the most important means of attack against a high wall were the movable towers of wood. These were built so high that from their tops the parapet walk of the wall could be swept with arrows and stones; and drawbridges were let down from them, by which a storming party could reach the top of the wall. The height of the towers was from 70 to 150 ft. They were moved on wheels of solid oak or elm, 6 to 12 ft. in diameter and 3 to 4 ft. thick. The ground floor contained one or two rams. The upper floors, of which there might be as many as fifteen, were furnished with missile engines of a smaller kind. The archers occupied the top floor. There also were placed reservoirs of water to extinguish fire. These were filled by force pumps and fitted with hose made of the intestines of cattle. Drawbridges, either hanging or worked on rollers, were placed at the proper height to give access to the top of the wall, or to a breach, as might be required. Apollodorus proposed to place a couple of rams in the upper part of the tower to destroy the crenellations of the wall.
The siege towers had of course to be very solidly built of strong timbers to resist the heavy stones thrown by the engines of the defence. They were protected against fire by screens of osiers, plaited rope or raw hides. Sometimes it was necessary, in order to gain greater height, to place them on high terraces of earth. In that case they would be built on the site. At the siege of Marseilles, described by Caesar, special methods of attack had to be employed on account of the strength of the engines used by the besieged and their frequent sallies to destroy the siege works. A square fort, with brick walls 30 ft. long and 5 ft. thick, was built in front of one of the towers of the town to resist sorties. This fort was subsequently raised to a height of six storeys, under shelter of a roof which projected beyond the walls, and from the eaves of which hung heavy mats made of ships’ cables. The mats protected the men working at the walls, and as these were built up the roof was gradually raised by the use of endless screws. The roof was made of heavy beams and planks, over which were laid bricks and clay, and the whole was covered with mats and hides to prevent the bricks from being dislodged. This structure was completed without the loss of a man, and could only have been built by the Romans, whose soldiers were all skilled workmen.
Although these towers were provided with bridges by which storming parties could reach the top of the wall, their main object was usually to dominate the defence and keep down the fire from the walls and towers. Under this protection breaching operations could be carried on. The approaches to the wall were usually made under shelter of galleries of timber or hurdle-work, which were placed on wheels and moved into position as required. When the wall was reached, a shelter of stronger construction, known as a “rat,” was placed in position against it. Under this a ram was swung or worked on rollers; or the rat might be used as a shelter for miners or for workmen cutting away the face of the wall. The great rat at Marseilles, which extended from the tower already described to the base of the tower of the city, was 60 ft. long, and built largely of great beams 2 ft. square, connected by iron pins and bands. It was unusually narrow, the ground sills of the side walls being only 4 ft. apart. This was no doubt in order to keep down the weight of the structure, which, massive as it was, had to be movable. The sloping roof and sides of timber were protected, like those of the tower, with bricks and moist clay, hides and wool mattresses. Huge stones and barrels of blazing pitch were thrown from the wall upon this rat without effect, and under its cover the soldiers loosened and removed the foundations of the tower until it fell down.
In order that it might be possible to move these heavy structures, it was usually necessary to fill up the ditch or to level the surface of the ground. For this purpose an “approach tortoise” was often used. This was a shelter, something between the ordinary gallery and the rat, which was moved end on towards the wall, and had an open front with a hood, under cover of which the earth brought up for filling the ditch was distributed.
The missile engines threw stones up to 600 ℔ weight, heavy darts from 6 to 12 ft. long, and Greek fire. Archimedes at the siege of Syracuse even made some throwing 1800 ℔. The ranges varied, according to the machine and the weight thrown, up to 600 yds. for direct fire and 1000 yds. for curved fire. At the siege of Jerusalem Titus employed three hundred catapults of different sizes and forty balistae, of which the smallest threw missiles of 75 ℔ weight. At Carthage Scipio found 120 large and 281 medium catapults, 23 large and 52 small balistae, and a great number of scorpions and other small missile engines.
Screens and mantlets for the protection of the engine-workers were used in great variety.
In addition to the above, great mechanical skill was shown in the construction of many kinds of machines for occasional purposes. A kind of jib crane of great height on a movable platform was used to hoist a cage containing fifteen or twenty men on to the wall. A long spar with a steel claw at the end, swung in the middle from a lofty frame, served to pull down the upper parts of parapets and overhanging galleries. The defenders on their side were not slow in replying with similar devices. Fenders were let down from the wall to soften the blow of the ram, or the ram heads were caught and held by cranes. Grapnels were lowered from cranes to seize the rats and overturn them. Archimedes used the same idea in the defence of Syracuse for lifting and sinking the Roman galleys. Wooden towers were built on the walls to overtop the towers of the besiegers. Many devices for throwing fire were employed. The tradition that Archimedes burnt the Roman fleet, or a portion of it, at Syracuse, by focusing the rays of the sun with reflectors, is supported by an experiment made by Buffon in 1747. With a reflector having a surface of 50 sq. ft., made up of 168 small mirrors each 6 by 8 in., lead was melted at a distance of 140 ft. and wood was set on fire at 160 ft.
The development of masonry in permanent fortification had long since reached its practical limit, and was no longer proof against the destructive methods that had been evolved. The extemporized defences were, as is always the case, worn down by a resolute besieger, and the attack was stronger than the defence.
Through the dark ages the Eastern Empire kept alive the twin sciences of fortification and siegecraft long enough for the Crusaders to learn from them what had been lost in the West.Byzantium, however, always a storehouse of military science,Middle ages.while conserving a knowledge of the ancient methods and the great missile engines, contributed no new ideas to fortification, so far as we know. In practice the Byzantines favoured multiplied enceintes or several concentric lines of defence. This of course is always a tendency of decadent nations.
In the West the Roman fortifications remained standing, and the Visigoths, allies of Rome, utilized their principles in the defences of Carcassonne, Toulouse, &c. in the 5th century. Viollet-le-Duc’s description and illustrations of the defences of Carcassonne will give a very good idea of the methods then in use:—