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 I:

THE BRITISH OCCUPATION, 1745-1749

Once Louisbourg was captured the most pressing task of necessity was to put the battered fortress into proper condition. After the city fell essential repairs were immediately undertaken under the engineer John Henry Bastide.

Though the most important work should have been to patch the breach at the tenaille of the Dauphin gate, this was not effectively undertaken until late summer in 1746.

The engineer made several further recommendations for renewing the fortifications. He expressed his opinion that the ramparts were built too low, and urged that they, and their platforms and parapets, be raised to insure a more effective command over the hillocks in front of the Dauphin bastion. Further to this latter object, he also urged that these hillocks be scarped so as not to allow the besieger to approach the fortress under their cover. We do not know whether these recommendations were approved, and if so, whether they were carried out.

At the front of the tenaille of the Dauphin gate, though the debris had not been cleared from the ditch, the whole front was levelled and rebuilt as recommended by Bastide. A document on the state of the
fortifications (14 July 1749, N. S. A /34 / P. 156-165) assures us that the front "has been made good", but the right face, that of the gate, was in 1751 only six pieds thick. If the four or so pieds of the wall was doomed well in advance of the siege of 1745, it is difficult to imagine to what degree 2 or more pieds would prevent a breach being made there in 1758.

The gate was "intirely repaired" (idem.) but most of the decorative features remained in abeyance (v.g. the attique and bavette). The bridges and their accoutrements were repaired in a provisional sort of way (24 juillet 1749. "Etat des fortifications ...,AC / C11B / 28 / 298- )

The flank of the bastion was levelled and rebuilt. Bastide felt that the fortifications generally were built "too upright". The excessive weight of the irregular rough stone revêtements standing with a slope of 1/6 was the most serious reason Bastide felt caused whole sheets of masonry to fall to the ditch every winter. The flank was rebuilt with a 1/4 slope from the foundation to the cordon. It stood 4 pieds higher than the cordon did at the re-entrant angle. The merlons and the seven embrasures were better secured against the effects of
frost and thaw by strong oak frames, The parapet was not completely finished by July 1749, nor was the escarp planked for added protection from the elements.

The face of the Dauphin bastion was considerably altered as well during this four-year period. In fact the indication "rétablie dans toute sa longueur et hauteur" almost implies that the unit was levelled and rebuilt, just like the flank (Idem). At any rate, the parapet was certainly rebuilt, possibly higher than previously, as recommended by Bastide, in order to gain some advantage over the hills neighbouring the Dauphin bastion. For the first three quarters of its length, the face was the same height as the flank, but for the last quarter, approximately, it was 2 pieds higher. The flanked angle of the Dauphin bastion stood 26 pieds lower than the right re-entrant angle of the King's bastion. Six embrasures were put through the parapet in the face (the French had had no embrasures save the provisional ones erected during the siege), and for each embrasure, a platform of pine. The escarp was covered with a revêtement of planks.

At the flanked angle, the two embrasures at the barbette battery were also restored ("rétablis").

Bastide levelled the French horseshoe battery in the bastion and replaced it in 1746 with a smaller cavalier battery, which curved near the flanked angle of the bastion, along the face, and the left face of the tenaille of the gate. On the latter face, it touched the wall opposite the entrance of the officer's guard. This was no more than a plank covered frame filled with earth and stone, much of it from the destroyed French battery mounted with embrasures. While the latter instrument had been conceived by the French to cover the South-east portion of Louisbourg harbour, the new English cavalier was pointed landward, and situated above the ramparts, designed by its height, to command the hillocks in front of the bastion. The cavalier had seven guns altogether. of which five pointed landward and two over the South-west harbour area (25 August 1755, Drucoury AC / C11B / 35 / 84- ), but by 1749, the English had not finished building the embrasures.

We have a record of repair work done in 1747 to the officer's guard by masons and carpenters (5 August 1747, Military Affairs at Louisbourg,  Library of Congress reel. no. 6). Their outer walls, on the ditch side, were taken down and rebuilt, along with the tenaille, This series mentions as well repairs to the "prison at the West Gate" (idem., no. 7). The British claimed both guard houses had been "intirely repaired" (14 July 1749, N. S. A / 34 / P. 156-165), but as early as their return in 1749, the French repaired the several buildings in the gorge of the Dauphin Bastion.

1Beyond 1747. there is no further record of work at the Dauphin bastion until the two documents of July 1749 which describe, on the one hand, the "state of the fortifications" at the moment of the return of Louisbourg to the French (this document was prepared by the departing English), and on the other, the "Etat des fortifications ..." prepared by the returning French. These two documents in some respects are contradictory, such as in recording the degree of completion or perfection in a given area.

The English repaired the powder magazine and replaced the wooden roof atop its masonry vault, but in 1749, the French found it, and the barracks building, in bad condition for want of proper maintenance.

The éperon, as early as 1745, had a palisade built around it. I haven't been able to determine whether this was ATOP the rampart of the éperon, or in the water BESIDE it.

There surely was a great deal of debris to remove from the ditch, in front of the tenaille of the Dauphin gate, and the flank particularly. No mention of this is made by the British, though I presume this was accounted for in the work or restoring and rebuilding these areas. On the other hand, it is well to recall in advance that among the tasks recommended to be done at the return of the French was the clearing of the ditch, generally of the debris from the escarps.

The batardeau had given way at the sluice, and the British had to take it down and rebuild it. They covered the freestone revêtement on the harbour side with planks, just as it was before 1745. On the ditch-side, the revêtement was only raised some four rows of freestone when the British were notified to stop all work pending transfer of the fortress in 1749.

The curtain suffered heavy damage during the siege. From their positions, the New Englanders could batter at will this exposed area which the étang deprived of the protection of a covert way. During the occupation no work of repair was effected here. The British merely built two traverses along the curtain to offset the damages caused by enfilade. Above the traverse nearest the King's bastion two embrasures and accompanying platforms were put through the parapet.

On top of the damage wrought on the exposed curtain during the siege, the inclemency of the elements and neglect, caused serious added deterioration in the four years of the British occupation. The ditch in front remained as late as 1754 full of debris fallen from the escarps of the curtain.

In their haste to maintain Louisbourg in a ready state of defense, the British were not able to do any work beyond the ditch, to the covert way and glacis.

During this period the British seriously treated the fortress as a stronghold valuable to their interests in North America. They immediately undertook to stall any attempt on the part of France to regain her lost prize: an expedition like that of the Duke of Anville was anticipated as a certainty.

They continued their works of repair and renewal right up until, following the publication of the terms of the treaty of 1748, they ceased their labours and awaited the return of the French to Louisbourg.

Return/retour