Return/retour

PRELIMINARY REPORT ON DAUPHIN BASTION

BY

BERNARD POTHIER

September 9, 1964

(Fortress of Louisbourg Report H B 8)

NOTE:
Presently, the bibliography is not included here.
For these, please consult the original report in the archives of the Fortress of Louisbourg

PARAGRAPH J: 

REPAIRS, CHANGES AND ADDITIONS, 1749-1758

While at Louisbourg between 1745 and 1749, the English then had seen to the most essential repairs, as testified by Bastide's document "State and condition of the fortifications"' The French however upon their return in July 1749 found the fortress in a state of some deterioration and neglect, and though work had been undertaken by the British, much of it remained unfinished. Boucher's report, "Etat des fortifications" (24 juillet 1749, AC / C11B / 28 / 298) and the very excellent document, also by Boucher, "Estimation des réparations a faire aux fortifications, 1749" (30 Août 1749, AC / C11B / 28 / 303) are our key sources of information for reconstituting the state of our area of study,

Apart from these three reports, the sum of the correspondence confirms that the fortress was not in 1749 in a strong posture of defense.

It is well to illustrate briefly the succeeding phases of repair and addition to our front between 1749 and the beginning of the siege of 1758. The phases were tempered initially by the depleted state of the Treasury (1749-1754)t and eventually (1755-1758) by the exigencies of military preparedness.

Following reception of Boucher's "Estimation des réparations ..." of 1749.  the Minister replied in the Spring of 1750 that pending the arrival of a "distinguished engineer", work at Louisbourg must not go beyond the bounds of the most urgent repairs. The engineer in question was, of course, Louis Franquet, who during 1750 and 1751 prepared projects in keeping with Louisbourg's requirements and forwarded them to the Minister
of Marine in November 1751. At Versailles these were rejected as being too costly, and Louisbourg officials were advised to restrict new works in the Dauphin bastion area to a "demi-lune" at the point where the étang interrupted the curtain, and to strive to put the existing works state of adequate defense.

Franquet, after continuing on to Canada and then returning to France, arrived back in Louisbourg in August 1754 to begin work on the fortifications there. By 1755 however, war involving France and England was near, and the new works in Louisbourg were postponed indefinitely. Existing works were to be hastily put in a state of adequate repair, This Franquet set out to do, and these repairs marked the very first improvements to the fortifications since the return of the French in 1749. In 1755 and 1756 the Dauphin bastion front was readied and in 1758 there remained only a few incidental improvements to bring to the area.

This paragraph describes the Dauphin bastion area in July 1749, which description, with the exception of minor repairs to the buildings within the bastion, will remain valid right up until the improvements to the fortifications were undertaken in 1755 (See letter 26 July 1758, Drucourt, Guerre A1/ 3498 / 172). Then along with the minor repairs to the buildings inside the gorge of the bastion this paragraph will consider the improvements and additions brought about in 1755, 1756 and 1757.

We noted earlier that when the French returned to Louisbourg in 1749, and up until Franquet was authorized and in a position to undertake work on the fortifications in 1755, the fortress, judging from the sum of the correspondence, including Bastide's "State of the Fortifications ..." was probably not in a strong posture of defense.

The British had rebuilt the flank of the Dauphin bastion but had not finished the parapet, which according to the commander of the regular troops, was only 9 or 10 pieds thick (6 août 1758, Lahoulière, Guerre / Al / 3499 / 13). However, by 1755 it mounted 5 24-pounders (25 août 1755, Drucourt, AC / C11B / 35 / 120-)

At the flanked angle of the bastion the stone guérite, destroyed by cannon fire in 1745, still had to be rebuilt.  In 1755, but there is no subsequent reference to its ever having been rebuilt.

At the front of the tenaille of the Dauphin gate, the British had cleared the debris from the breach of 1745, and merely rebuilt the essential gate. In the finest classical tradition, the French spoke ardently of restoring the "fitting decorative features". Behind the interior revêtement of the right face of the tenaille, to the left of the gate, a wooden banquette stood, and the roof of the soldiers' guard served ad a passageway leading to it.

The tenaille's left face, adjacent to the flanked angle of the bastion, had two embrasures in 1751 (AC / C11A / 126/) which in 1755 mounted 24-pounders (AC / C11B / 35 / 120-) The Boucher document of 1749 refers to two guns "en barbette" at the flanked angle. These references may be to the same positions.

The British cavalier battery had 7 24-pounders, five to the country and two to the harbour. With the return of the French, the future of this cavalier was in serious doubt. Built of earth and rabble contained in a timber frame of vertical beams and a double wall of planks, it wasn't expected to last very long. The genouillères of the 5 embrasures facing the country were built too low, in Franquet's estimation, and consequently it happened that their fire nipped the interior parapet of the bastion, which was only 18 pieds in front (6 août 1758, Lahoulière, Guerre / Al /3499 / 13). In 1749 it was urged that it be taken down and replaced with a 16-gun battery similar to the one the French had in the pre-1745 period, but this was never achieved. Instead several important repairs were made at the Cavalier.

For all the guns mounted in our area- the bastion, the éperon, the curtain, the cavalier - new wooden platforms had to be made.

Regarding the buildings inside the bastion, their state will be considered when we study the repairs brought to them.

Throughout the whole length of the front between the right re-entrant angle of the King's bastion and the Dauphin gate, huge patches of the escarp - sometimes 2 and 2 and 1/2 pieds into the wall - had fallen to the ditch. This was the case in particular at the ditch in front of the right face of the tenaille of the gate, where in 1751 the debris from the breach of 1745 had not yet been cleared. The flank and possibly the face as well had been rebuilt by the British, so that the problem of fallen masonry did not exist in this area. The curtain which from at least 1755 mounted 2 24 -pounders was in a state of increasing ruin brought about by its masonry falling into the ditch, at least as late as 1754, as testified by a French statement, probably by the Count de Raymond, Governor of Louisbourg, found in W. 0. 34 / 18 / 111-118. All this fallen masonry had to be cleared from the foot of the escarps.

To prevent such widespread deterioration in the future, the "Estimation des reparations, 1749" urged that all escarps be covered with a two-inch revêtement of  planks, after the British example (v.g. the face of the Dauphin bastion).

The ditch in front of the ramparts was dry from the right re-entrant angle of the King's bastion to about the middle of the curtain, where the étang began. The étang extended to the shoulder angle of the Dauphin bastion, and was nourished by the swamps and rivulets beyond the glacis. From the shoulder angle ran the "cunette" (in 1751) which was 1 and 1/2 pieds deep (1758, Franquet. Génie / 14 / L. et I. R. / 53) and drained the étang into the harbour, passing in front of the face and tenaille, and through the damaged sluice at the batardeau.

The British had begun a new freestone revêtement for the batardeau, but they didn't have enough time to finish the inside wall by 1749. This, as well as the sluice, wasn't finished until, I suppose, 1756.

All along the tenaille of the Dauphin gate, the ditch was 9 toises wide (24 nov. 1751, Franquet, AC / C11A / 126 / ), the counterscarp remaining parallel to each face of the tenaille. The bridges across the ditch had been found quite inadequate as early as the French  return in 1749, as the British during their occupation had made use of only a provisional structure. But in 1751 it was still in use, and Franquet described it as "shaky". It was not till November 1752, after the structure had fallen under the weight of heavy horse-and-wagon traffic, that something was done (7 nov. 1752, Boucher, AC / C11B / 32 / 265v-). 

In 1751 the éperon had six guns mounted, 3 6-pounders (26 juillet 1758, Artillerie, AC / C11B / 38 / 107), or 8-pounders (25 août 1755, Drucourt, AC / C11B / 35 / 84) or 12-pounders (Plan 1758-12p legend) facing the quai, and three 24-pounders facing along the batardeau and profile of the Dauphin bastion glacis. In 1758, before the siege, there were 7 embrasures on the left face (1758. Etat ... le jour de la descente. AFO / DFO /Am. Sept. / 236). Franquet estimated that the structure was not high enough, and that its terreplein was too narrow to be as effective as it ought. The parapet was only 4 and 1/2 pieds thick, and 4 and 1/2 pieds high.

The curtain ran step-like ("à ressauts rampants") down from the King's bastion to the Dauphin bastion. The re-entrant angle of the latter was 32 pieds lower than that of the former, and because of this its whole length was exposed to enfilade. Franquet claimed the parapet of the curtain was both too weak (5 pieds thick according to AC/C11A/126/71, 1756, Franquet, 6 pieds according to 4 nov. 1755, Franquet, AC/C11A/126/67, and 4 pieds according to 1758, Etat ... le jour de la descente, AFO/DFC/Am. Sept./ 236) and too low. He mentioned the two traverses built by the British. Near the flanks of both bastions were the two posterns leading through the rampart from the town, both in good condition.

Across the ditch all along the front there were several patches where the counterscarp had given up its masonry to the ditch. It was urged, following repair, that the counterscarp be rough-casted, thus made more watertight, in order to maintain the water in the ditch at a high level, as regulated by the sluice of the batardeau.

On the covert way, parts of the parapet of the glacis had to be first repaired, and then roughcast. It was too low all along the front. We know from Franquet that in front of the gate it stood 10 pieds 6 lower than the parapet of the tenaille.

The palisades at the crest of the glacis all along the front generally and in front of the gate in particular had long ceased to be adequate, and the barrier posts at the sally port through the glacis had fallen. In November of 1755 Franquet mentions that all palisades are of "prusse" and "héricot", but these were only set up along the front during 1756. 

The revêtement of the profile supporting the covert way and glacis along the harbour side needed rebuilding. In 1751 neglect was beginning to make it difficult, at the tenaille area at any rate, to distinguish between the terreplein of the covert way, the banquette and its slope (AC / C11A / 126/ Franquet). This condition doesn't sound very far removed from the covert way as it stands today. over two hundred years later. 

At the edges of the étang were the two profiles of masonry, like the one along the harbour front, which supported the branches of the covert way.

From the rounded place of arms, in front of the King's bastion, to the edge of the étang, the covert way seems to have sloped downward toward the Dauphin bastion. Note that while the curtain sloped "à ressauts rampants", the covert way actually sloped "à pente douce" (1758, AFO / DFC / Am. Sept. / 236). 

The re-entrant place of arms, in front of the King's bastion, was exposed along its left face because its parapet, banquette and glacis were too low. 

Near the masonry profile on the right side of the étang was another place of arms which Franquet in 1751 described as "une espèce de place d'armes de peu de défense" (Franquet, AC / C11A / 126 /). 

The glacis on our front was never finished, we recall, and in 1751 Franquet urged lengthening it (24 nov. 1751, Franquet., AC / C11A / 126 / 86) after the anonymous memoralist of 1739 had failed to make his point (1739, Mémoire pour les ouvrages faits et à faire .., AC / C11B / 21 / 275-281). At the glacis and along the harbour the action of the sea each winter washed away a fairly large slice of the shore, and this at a mere 12 pieds from the barrier leading onto the covert way from the country.

This winds up our study of the fortifications of the Dauphin bastion area as it stood, virtually unaltered, save for its increasing deterioration at the mercy of the elements from July 1749 until the beginning of 1755. The contention of the English plan 1758-18, by Robert Walter, is that there were all told 23 guns in this area.

In the gorge of the bastion, as early as the return of the French in July 1749, repairs were brought to the several buildings by one Coeuret, a contractor whom Prévost had hired (1749, Etat des réparations..., AC / C11B / 28 / 341v-). 

Some 4 toises 4 pieds square of the shingled roof of the soldiers' guard, used as a passageway to the wooden banquette of the right face of the tenaille, was repaired, along with the lead "dalle" which collected the rain water from the roof. Sheets of lead were soldered together to insure against water leakage. In 1753 the soldiers' guard was furnished with two camp beds, a table and three benches and seven Sun racks (2 oct. 1753, Etat général ...AC / C11B / 33 / 229v-). 

The officer's guard, the right of the gate, also had a shingle roof. Inside were a trestle (-table?) ("baudet") a chair, a table, a large wardrobe and a smaller one ("complette et demie") (9 oct. 1753, Etat général... , AC / C11B / 33 / 229v-). We learn of work done about the fireplaces, the doors, the wardrobes, the floors in both the soldiers' and officer's guard. The "chevet du lit de camp" and the gun racks and their pegs are other repairs referred to in connection with the guard rooms. 

A small shed ("hangard") was erected in the gorge of the Dauphin bastion for the coal used at the guard houses. For this, and for most repairs, lumber brought from Boston was employed. 

The powder magazine was in use in 1751 (Génie / 14 / L. et 1. R. / 28) with the barrels of powder piled up to the roof. A strong gale had raised half of the wooden roof of the powder magazine. Repairing it involved some considerable masonry work to secure the rafters (chevrons) onto the body of the structure. The roof was made of boards, on which were laid wooden shingles. I should think that to know what time of year the gale occurred would give a clue from what direction strong winds, prevailed, and thus establish which side of the roof was damaged and later repaired, as described above. In 1750, some minor repair was made to the floor of the magazine. 

The barracks building in the gorge of the bastion had a shingled root in 1751. The 1753 "Etat général..." informs us that it was not in use, and that it was empty of any furnishings (AC C11B / 33 / 229v-). 

In January 1750 the Minister wrote of materials being sent to repair buildings at Louisbourg. More routine minor repairs were continued in that year at the Dauphin bastion buildings (AC / C11B / 291 276- ). Some roughcasting was done ("crépissage à pierre apparante"). For this the Minister urged that a greater quantity of lime be used in the preparation. Window panes were cleaned and re-puttied.

Work at the abandoned fortifications of Louisbourg followed shortly upon the missive which Machault, the new Minister of Marine, addressed to Franquet on 15 February 1755 ( Source?). He was instructed to put aside the new works ordered by the court the preceeding year, the demi-lunes, and to concentrate for the time being on putting Louisbourg as it stood in a position to withstand an assault. Franquet immediately agreed that as the works proposed in 1754 did not accord with the existing conditions, the best course would be to drop them altogether, In their stead, the engineer indicated his intention to effect direly needed repairs at the tenaille of the Dauphin gate, and the covert way in front, and to prolong the covert way across the étang. 

In November 1755 he wrote that that year at the right face of the tenaille the wooden banquette had been torn down and a full rampart built with terreplein, banquette and most important an 18-pieds parapet. For the latter there is some equivocity. Franquet in his mémoire of 1758 that it was during the siege that the right face of the tenaille was given greater depth (1758, Franquet, Génie / 14 / L. et I. R. / 53). The profile of the tenaille at the harbour, the revêtement of the batardeau were rebuilt as well as that first part of the counterscarp perpendicular to the beach. 

Some preparations had been made in 1754 for extending the covert way across the étang: dykes were built, measures were taken for draining the area across which the new "tenaille" would pass. The work at this very important area itself began in 1756. By July it was built up to the berm, that is four feet above water, and in September it seemed to be essentially finished. 

The parapet of the tenaille, including its two profiles, one at each end, stood a bit higher than that of both branches of the covert way which it complemented. Both the parapet and the berm were built of earth. The parapet had a revêtement made of sod. The earth was taken from the "hauteur du four a chaux" which the French were attempting to level at the time. On the berm a palisade, inclined outward, was to be erected, and just above it, on the exterior slope of the parapet, another "en fraise", that would be nearly horizontal, There is no confirmation that these palisades were planted.

At either end were the masonry profiles of the tenaille and atop these continued the parapet, to cover to some degree the covert way, the ditch, and if warranted, the breach. 

A wooden "aquaduct" was built in the ditch between the right profile of the tenaille and the profile of the covert way opposite. By means of this (which in reality was more than an aqueduct) the water level in front of the tenaille could be regulated, and the water maintained over a large area of the countryside, above the normal level of the étango It was estimated that the water level in front of the tenaille could be raised by as much as four pieds. On top of the "aquaduct" was built a small parapet facing the country. This was meant to cover communications between the tenaille, the re-entrant place of arms and the wooden footbridge built in 1755(?), that joined the latter to the postern at the re-entrant angle of the Dauphin bastion. 

There does not seem to be a record of the building of the wooden footbridge which ran from the mouth of the right postern to the re-entrant place of arms opposite. Indeed our earliest reference to it is in the "Mémoire sur l'état actual des ouvrages", 1756, which mentions the bridge as being slightly removed from the side of the flank of the Dauphin bastion in order that it, as well as those using it, may not be hindered by falling masonry, resulting from attack or simple deterioration. 

This area of the ditch in 1758 contained some five pieds of water, plus the 1 and 1/2 pieds in the cunette. 

Though the tenaille across the étang was the major undertaking of the 1750 season, several other existing works of importance were renewed or repaired. 

The left face of the tenaille of the gate had its revêtement rebuilt. The single embrasure was closed, and a 15
pieds parapet was said to have been built, but this is contradicted by the "Etat... le jour de la descente", which states this face was only 6 pieds thick (1758, AFO / DFC / Am. Sept. / 236). It extended 46 pieds from the flanked angle to the beginning of the right face of the tenaille (25 juillet 1758, Grillot de Poilly,
Journal, Génie / Mss. R. 210d / 74-117). There was here, at any rate, some reinforcement achieved, and Franquet felt the front of the tenaille of the gate was in the required condition. 

The embrasures of both the face and the flank of the Dauphin bastion were repaired in 1756. The cavalier battery at the flanked angle was raised a further 4 and 1/2 pieds so that it stood 7 and 1/2 pieds above the parapet of the left face of the tenaille of the gate, and 9 pieds 2 above the parapet of the left face of the Dauphin bastion. New embrasure, of sod, were built onto this battery. In mid-July 1758, the engineer Poisson des Londes found harsh words to describe this work: "...très peu solide, ...prêt à tomber. On devait s'y attendre car il ne valait rien (1758, Journal du siège ... Génie / 15 / 4).

Across the ditch, the profiles of the covert way and glacis, first along the harbour, and at the opposite end, along the right edge of the étang, were repaired in 1756. Repairs to the counterscarp were continued, from opposite the left face of the tenaille of the gate to the re-entrant place of arms. 

In front of the covert way opposite the Dauphin gate an advanced covert way was built of earth. It was meant to give further cover to the vulnerable area of the Dauphin gate, but it was seen from all sides (1758, "Etat ... le  jour de la descente", AFO / DFC / Am. Sept. / 236). It was built 5 or 6 toises forward of the covert way, and one communicated to it through a sally port on the right face of the salient place of arms. Along the harbour its glacis had a profile supported by wicker-work (clayonnage). This advanced work stood 5 pieds 2 lower than the regular covert way. 

The re-entrant place of arms was enlarged in 1756. In 1758, during the course of the siege,  Poisson des Londes remarked that the places of arms generally were all "fort grandes" (Journal du siege, Génec / 15 / 4 ). Along the covert way the parapet was raised higher. The right face of the place of arms flanked the glacis in front of the Dauphin bastion face. In 1758 however we find the observation that all of this remained commanded from the heights outside the city (1758, "Etat ... le jour de la descente," AFO / DFC / Am. Sept./ 236). 

By the end of 1756, the repairs to the existing works were essentially finished and in 1757 it remained only to round out the improved condition of the Dauphin bastion front. 

Three traverses with passageways  were built and palisades were planted on the covert way between the re-entrant place of arms and the profile at the harbour side. These were finished in May (30 mai 1757, Franquet, AC / C11B / 37 / 287v- ), and in 1758 the front was described as "très bien palissadé" ("Etat...le jour de la descente, AFO / DFC / Am. Sept. / 236). 

By 1757, the éperon had pretty well collapsed. In 1756 it had been described as sliding away onto the harbour. By mid-June of that year Franquet had finished his improvements here: from 4 and 1/2 pieds the parapet of the left face became 16 and 1/2 pieds, thick, with 3 embrasures. It seems that the right face, facing the quai, remained 4 and 1/2 pieds thick.The parapet of the right face was raised 3 more pieds to 7 and 1/2 pieds, but our sources for the siege of 1758 do not suggest that this work was very fit (See infra, paragraph K). 

In the ditch, two "épaulements" were built to shield the entrance of the left postern, near the King's bastion reentrant angle. In front of this, in the Dauphin bastion ditch, a palisaded "caponnière" was built to defend the passage of the ditch in front of the Dauphin bastion. 

At the end of June Franquet announced triumphantly, as it were, "Tous les ouvrages qu'on a pu imaginer défendre contre les approches du bastion dauphin sont terminés" (27 Juin 1757, AC / C11B / 37 / 292-293v).

Return/retour