Return/retour

PRELIMINARY HISTORICAL REPORT, ROYAL BATTERY NUMBER 2

By John Humphreys 

October 15, 1964

(Fortress of Louisbourg Report Number H F 5)

SECTION II 

EPERON

The first mention of the possible construction of an éperon at the salliant angle of the Royal Battery was made in Verrier's letter to the Minister dated 7 February 1740.[1] Verrier reported that Forant was of the opinion that the battery did not possess sufficient elevation on its seaward face, the lips of the embrazures being only seven to eight pied above ground level, and was thus susceptible to escalade attack. Verrier had pointed out to Forant that such low embrazures were common in maritime batteries, since they allowed the battery's cannon to fire at the water-line of hostile vessels, but Forant insisted that the faces should be covered by some manner of flanking work. Verrier thereupon suggested that this might be accomplished by means of a small bastion built in front of the salient angle. Such a projecting work would have two flanks loopholed at ground-level; a wooden gallery around these flanks would provide a platform upon which soldiers could be placed behind the parapet, thus giving a double fire, and in this fashion each face of the battery could be defended by sixteen fusiliers. Verrier sent with his letter an estimation of the expenditure involved [2] and a plan of the proposed bastion, reproduced in the Plans Appendix as Figure 9.

Bigot, in a letter to the Minister of the same date, repeated Forant's observations on the battery's vulnerability to scaling attack, but gave the height of the embrazures as six to seen pied above ground level, having examined the situation in person with Forant and Verrier.[3]

Forant for his part wrote to the Minister the following day, giving in detail his argument that the seaward faces of the battery were open to a nocturnal escalade attack.[4] He stated that the embrazure lips were six to eight pied above the beach level, and noted that large holes in the face where the roughcasting had fallen off would serve as natural ladders for an attacking farce. He mentioned also that soldiers from the battery who had gone absent without leave were accustomed to return unobserved in this manner. To counter these defects he recommended the elevation of the whole platform on the two main faces,[5] and remarked that Verrier proposed the construction of a small bastion at the salient angle, where the embrazures were lowest due to the elevation of the beach.

No further mention of the projected éperon was made until 1744; on 30 October of that year Verrier sent to the Minister the provisional toisé of the Work of the entrepreneur Muiron for the establishment of an éperon at the salient angle, this project apparently forming part of the general overhaul of the battery undertaken on Duquesnel's orders during 1744-1745. [6]

This éperon, however, bears little resemblance to that projected in 1740, as the following dimensions - drawn from the provisional toisé - will show:

• Foundation and elevation of the éperon

Masonry                                                                                             t.p.po.

Total length of the two sides .......................................... 13-3-6

Reduced height ................................................................  2-2 3         34-5-7

Reduced width .................................................................   1-0-6

• The two faces

Total length .....................................................................   3-3-6

Height ..............................................................................   3-0-0        11-3-10

Width ................................................................................   1-0-6

• Remainder of the sides of the éperon established on 
  the old wall of the faces- For one -

"L" ....................................................................................   1-2-6

"L" .....................................................................................  1-0-0         0-3-4

Reduced height ..................................................................  0-2-6

Further detailed dimensions of the éperon may be found in the provisional toisé, which is reproduced in the Research Notes Appendix to this Report. At this time the whole exterior of the éperon was revetted with two-pouce pine boards, the interior of the parapet of the éperon was revetted with one-pouce planks, and its merlons and parapets were turfed.[7]

Writing on 18 November 1744, Verrier, while forwarding the provisional toisé of the work done that year at the Royal Battery, gave some account of the construction of the éperon.[8] He stated that, along with other repairs, Duquesnel had had the éperon first proposed in Forants time established at the salient angle of the Royal Battery and noted that the éperon was finished and its wooden revetments completed at the time of his writing.

The éperon thus constructed during 1744 appears to have been of the configuration shown in Figure 10 (B), which shows the new works done at the battery during that year. It takes the form of a forward extension of the battery's main gun-platform, with two embrazures on each of its flanks, covering the battery's two seaward faces. The conjecture that the éperon was actually completed in this form is upheld by a reference made during the 1745 siege, which describes the battery as having two flanks of two guns each pointing against the town.[9] These would of course have been the right flank of the battery itself and the right flank of the éperon.

That the éperon continued to exist after the siege is evidenced by Franquet's memoire on the Royal Battery, dated 20 November 1751,[10] in which he described the éperon as covering the faces of the battery. Further proof is given in the description of the battery which accompanied his letter of 14 December 1751,[11] in which the two "faces" (i.e., actually flanks) of the éperon are said to possess four embrazures in all. The same description also mentions the fact that the guns platform of the éperon was contiguous with that of the two large faces of the battery, in such a manner that there was no banquette from one embrazure to the next, an observation borne out by a plan of the battery dated 1751 (Figure 19). There is no evidence to confute the supposition that the éperon remained in the condition shown in this plan until the demolition of the battery by the French in 1758.

SECTION II G

FOOTNOTES

1. AC C11B V.22 ff.252-252v, Verrier to Minister, 7 February 1740.

2. AC C11B V.22 ff,253, Verrier, 7 February 1740.

3. AC C11B V.22 ff.144-146, Bigot to Minister, 7 February 1740.

4. AC"C11B V.22 ff.27-28, Forant to Minister,, 8 February 1740.

5. See this Report, Section II J.

6. AFO DFC Am. Sept. Ordre No.202, Verrier, 30 October 1744.

7. Ibid. See also this Report, Sections II B and II C.

8. AFO DFC Am. Sept. Ordre No. 209, Verrier to Minister, 18 November 1744.

9. An Accurate Journal and Account of the Proceedings of the New England Land Forces During the Late Expedition Against the French Settlements on Cape Breton to the Time of the Surrender of Louisbourg, p.13.

10. AC C11A V.126 Pièce 88, Franquet, 20 November 1751 / Min.Guerre Com. Tech.du Génie, Art 14 Carton 1 Pièce 38 / AC C11B V.31 ff. 182-195, Franquet.

11. AC C11B V.31 ff.157-172v, Franquet, with his letter of 1.4 December 1751.

Return/retour