Return/retour

DAUPHIN BASTION

Preliminary Report

(1720 - 1745)

BY

MARGARET FORTIER

(Under the supervision of B. C. Bickerton)

January, 1966

(Fortress of Louisbourg Report H B 6)

NOTE:
Presently, the illustrations and graphs are not included here.
For these, please consult the original report in the archives of the Fortress of Louisbourg

CHAPTER 7

CIRCULAR BATTERY

The construction of the circular battery of the Dauphin Bastion was, as far as Verrier was concerned, of extreme importance. It was his opinion that without this work the inside of the Port of Louisbourg could, not be defended. The Royal and Island Batteries had been designed to protect the Port's entrance, but some defence was necessary in the event an enemy ship slipped by these two works. This void would be filled by the circular battery. [78]

In 1727 the battery was projected with 17 embrasures. These were backed by a wooden platform which extended the entire length of the battery and was only slightly narrower than its terreplein. The parapet of the battery meets the east side of the soldiers' corps de garde, but the platform stops short of this point. No ramp is shown leading up to the battery from the interior of the Bastion. [79] (Plate 1)

A profile accompanies the above plan, but the point at which it was taken is not indicated. The fact that it passes through the barracks suggests that, if it proceeded in a straight line, the profile passed through the middle of the battery or a point close to it. The distance from the north wall of the barracks to the base of the slope of the battery's terreplein scales to 47 pieds. Further dimensions can be obtained from the profile by means of scaling:

The earth on which the -platform is set appears on the profile to be lower than the terreplein exposed behind the battery. The latter seems to be level with the platform.

Part of the circular battery was excavated. by June, 1728, [80] and five months later the revetment of the battery stood at the level of the embrasures. [81] During the 1728-1729 winter, work was to be done on the cut stone so that the embrasures might be formed the next spring. [82]

A profile taken in 1729 would provide several measurements for the circular batter if scaled. However, for several reasons most of these measurements cannot be trusted. The profile is one of those, previously described, which are too small and imperfectly drawn to be of substantial value. To make matters worse the profile proceeds in a zigzag course and cuts the battery at an angle. The turn the profile takes in the interior of the Bastion makes it impossible to determine the exact relationship between the battery and the left face, while the angle followed through the battery itself (from a point behind the fifth embrasure from the right to the right side of the sixth embrasure from the right) distorts any width measurements which might have been obtained. It is possible that the peculiar course of the profile had no effect on the various heights obtainable, so these may still be of some use,[83]

It was reported at the end of 1729 that the masonry of the battery had. been completed. [84] By July of the following year the platform was in place. [85] Finally, in December of 1730, the battery itself was declared to be finished. [86]

A profile taken in 1730 may be scaled for the battery's approximate dimensions. Again the distance between the left face and the battery is impossible to determine. Unlike the projected profile of 1727, this profile shows the portion of the terreplein occupied by the platform to be on the same level as the part exposed to view. The terreplein of the battery does not slope down gradually toward the interior, but stops suddenly at the interior revetment of the battery's rampart. [87] (Plate 4)

All three profiles thus far cited [88] and one too small to be scaled [89] show the level of the fausse braye before the battery to be approximately 5 to 6 pieds lower than the interior of the Bastion. This difference in elevation will be discussed later. (Plates 2-5)

In January, 1732, fourteen 24 pound cannon which had recently arrived from France were mounted on carriages which had been made two years before and placed on the battery.[90] Four of these cannon were said to be able to batter the beach.[91]

The embrasures of the circular battery were subject to the same rough treatment at the hands of the weather as those of the left flank. It would seem only likely that this work's proximity to the sea occasioned even further damage since the waves of a stormy sea might well have played against the battery. A layer of sod was, therefore, to be placed on the merlons of these embrasures as well as on those of the flank.[92] It would appear that it must also have been necessary to apply rough casting to the wall of the battery.[93] Both sodding and rough casting were completed by October, 1737.[94]

The original platform apparently in a poor condition, the Intendant, M Bigot, negotiated for planks to be used in the erection of a new platform.[95] The necessary materials arrived in October of 1741, and the work, was to be carried out the next spring,.[96] There is no record of the new platform having been completed

An Englishman reported in 1745 that, as of  November 1744, there were 16 embrasures in the circular battery, but only 10 guns were located on the work. These guns were said to be 48 pounders. The wall of the battery, it was added, were very thick, but were in such a bad condition that some part fell down with every shot fired. [97] While the observer may have been correct in the number of cannon on the battery, he seems to have been in error as regards their size. Every other reference to the carrion of this battery reports that they were 24 pounders. [98]

The physical features of the battery present many questions. The first of these involves the actual shape of the structure. It seems certain that both "circular" battery and "horse shoe', battery are misnomers. The part of the battery which begins at the corps de garde is too straight to ever be part of a circle, and the curve in the battery is too subtle to resemble a horse-shoe. From the plans, it appears that the battery began as if it would continue in a straight line bypassing the left reentrant angle. However, after proceeding approximately 1/3 of its eventual length, the battery curves back toward the reentrant angle. (All Plates; Figure 14)

The number of embrasures in the battery is not entirely clear, but it would. appear as if 16 were the correct figure. The plans show several alternatives:

It is plain that the figures 16 and 17 are the most probable answers. More plans of the Dauphin Bastion alone show 16 embrasures than show 17. And, in 1749 Boucher spoke of rebuilding the battery - knocked down by the English - complete with its 16 embrasures. [99] (Figure 14)

The next problem involves the width of the platform in relation to the terreplein. Several plans indicate that part of the terreplein projected behind the platform. [100] (Plates 1, 4, 5 -) However, there are even more which show the platform even with the end of the terreplein. [101] (Plates 2, 3, 6, 7: Figure 14) Either possibility is entirely reasonable provided the ramp went to the platform in the second instance.

Most  plans show the platform continuing all the way to the corps de garde. They differ, however, on the relation between the width of the building and that of the battery. Some plans show the corps de garde to be only as wide as the parapet. This could not possibly be accurate since this building was over 19 pieds wide,[102] and the parapet was probably about 8 pieds wide. On other plans, the corps de garde appears as wide as the battery. [103] (Plate 2) This too seems incorrect since the platform was approximately 18 pieds by itself. [104] Thus the most accurate representation would seem to be that which shows the corps de garde extending about 3/4 of the width of the battery. [105] (Plates 4,5: Figure 3,14)

The ramp which led from the interior of the Bastion to the battery was located, according to the plans, to the right of the center of the battery. Apparently rather short, this ramp ran perpendicular to the battery's rampart. Either side seems to have had a masonry revetment but nothing specific is known of these walls or any other feature of the ramp. [106] (Figure 14)

The use of measurements given at a later date is always dangerous, but provided caution is observed some of those offered by Boucher in 1749 might prove useful. The engineer wished to rebuild the battery as it was before. If the dimensions are accepted, the fact that no alteration of the original plan was contemplated must also be accepted. It is with serious reservations, therefore, that any such measurements must be taken. In the absence of anything more contemporary, however, they might prove useful. [107]

It will be noted that the platform was not the same length as the wall. This discrepancy most likely resulted from the estimate of the masonry needed to reach all the way to the left reentrant angle. Added to this is the fact that the outside measurement of a wall is always somewhat larger than an inside measurement. The difference between the two figures, therefore, does not mean that the platform would not extend the entire length of the battery.

Return/retour