HF-5 - Preliminary Historical Report, Royal Battery Number 2. By John Humphreys, October 15, 1964 -Section 11A

Search Website Design and Content © by Eric Krause, Krause House Info-Research Solutions (© 1996)
All Images © Parks Canada Except Where Noted Otherwise
Report/Rapport © Parks Canada / Parcs Canada --- Report Assembly/Rapport de l'assemblée © Krause House Info-Research Solutions

Researching the Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site of Canada
Recherche sur la Forteresse-de-Louisbourg Lieu historique national du Canada

Return/retour

PRELIMINARY HISTORICAL REPORT, ROYAL BATTERY NUMBER 2

By John Humphrey,

October 15, 1964

(Fortress of Louisbourg Report Number H F 5)

SECTION II N.

CORDON

The only positive evidence of the existence of a cordon on the seaward faces of the Royal Battery occurs in the initial "dévis" for the battery, drawn up in August 1723. This document mentions a quarter-round or cordon at the level of the lips of the embrazures, projecting six pouce from the revetment, and gives specifications for the quantity of "pierre de taille" needed for the construction of this cordon.[1] However, this evidence is of no concrete use, since the initial. "dévis" was evidently not followed in the actual construction of the battery.[2]

All other documentary evidence concerning the existence of a cordon at the Royal Battery is negative:

1/. In reporting the progress of the construction of the seaward revetment, Verrier does not on any occasion allude to a cordon - rather he uses the phrase "jusqu'à, la genouillière des embrazures" to indicate completion of the wall up to the lips of the embrazures, where the cordon should have been had the 1723 "dévis" been followed.[3]
2/. Similarly, in the estimate made in March 1730 for the construction of the four-embrazure extension of the left flank, no allotment of materials for a cordon is made under the heading "Pierre de taille".[4]
3/. In reporting the need for freestone repair work at the Royal Battery in 1736, Verrier makes no mention of a cordon.[5]
4/. In the specifications for the revetment in boards of the seawall faces, carried out in 1744, the existence of a cordon is not mentioned. The estimate for masonry works needed to supplement the revetment treats the portions of the wall above and below the level of the lips of the embrasures separately, but in the absence of direct mention of a cordon this would seem to be simply a convenient method of dealing with the change in slope between the main body of the wall and the parapet.[6]

Perhaps conclusive evidence is provided by the extant plans of the battery. The first existing elevations of the Royal Battery (Figures 11 and 14) dated 1725 show closed embrazures but no cordon at the level of their lips. In all other elevations (Figures 15, 16 and 17, dated 1726; Figure 8 dated 1738; Figure 18 dated 1751), no cordon is shown, merely a line at the level of the lips of the embrazures indicating the change in slope between the revetment and the merlons.

In the light of this evidence it is probably safe to conclude that no cordon existed at the Royal Battery. The only part of the seawall structure resembling a cordon was the projecting forward tip of the tablettes which topped the merlons. (Figures 8, 14, 15, 16, and 18).

SECTION II N

FOOTNOTES

1. AC C11B V.6, ff.298-308v, De Verville, 8 August 1723.

2. See Section I of this Report, pp. 3-4.

3. AC C11B V.7 f.334, Verrier, 16 December 1725.

4. AC C11B V.11 ff.80-83, Verrier, 26 March 1730.

5. AC C11B V.18 ff.271-283, Verrier, 10 November 1736.

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

Return/retour