Return/retour 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
PRELIMINARY HISTORICAL REPORT, ROYAL BATTERY NUMBER 2
By John Humphreys
October 15, 1964
(Fortress of Louisbourg Report Number H F 5)
SECTION II - ROYAL BATTERY ALTERATIONS
SECTION 11A - LEFT FLANK MODIFICATIONS
On 19 June 1732 the Minister approved of the completion of the four additional embrazures and the epaulement for three mortars on the extended left flank of the Royal Battery. [1] In October of the following year seven 36-pounder iron cannon and three brass twelve-inch mortars were ordered to be supplied to the Royal Battery during 1734, [2] and wood was taken into provision for the construction of four 36-pounder gun carriages and mortar carriages to furnish the new left flank. [3] There is no evidence that these mortars were mounted, as the request for them was repeated in 1736 [4] and 1741. [5]
In 1744 Duquesnel ordered a number of alterations to be made at the Royal Battery, including the revetting of the masonry with planks and the establishment of a battery for four mortars on the left flank. [6] Verrier was of the opinion that the construction of this battery was not necessary, as the redoubt that he had made by the prolongation of the left flank (he refers presumably to the-establishment of the four additional embrazures in 1731, described in Section I of this report) was large enough to accommodate two mortars without interfering with the service of the cannon in the left flank battery.[7] The tone of this assertion suggests that no mortars were actually mounted at the Royal Battery at the time of Verrier's writing, a conclusion strengthened by his assertion that the two mortars to be placed at the battery might be used against the town in the event of their capture in a surprise attack.[8]
The mortar battery projected by Duquesnel was to have had a ditch "in front" of it, [9] and it was partly because of the weakening of the battery's defences caused by the incomplete construction of this battery and ditch that the Royal Battery was abandoned so precipitately to the New England forces in 1745.[10]
In the provisional toisé for the reveting of the battery in planks, issued by Verrier on 30 October 1744, [11] the following dimensions are given for the left flank:
t. p. po.
"L" .................................. 10-4-6
"L" ................................... 4-0-0
Depth .................................0-3-0
"L.E." ............................ 40-0-0
"L." ................................. 1-1-0
Depth .............................. 0 2-5
Volume ............................37-3-4 Cubic Units.
Length ............................. 4-1-8
Height ............................. 2-1-6
Reduced width ................. 0-2-6
Length ...............................2-5-0
Height ...............................0-2-6
Width .................................4-1-3
"L" ................................... 4-1-8
"L" ................................... 1-2-0
Width ................................ 0-1-6
Length .............................18-4-6
Height ............................. 1-4-10
Reduced Width ................ 0-5-0
Length ............................ 17-4-0
Height ............................. 0-2-6
Reduced width ................. 0-1-3
"L".................................. 17-4-0
"L" ................................. 1-2-6
Width ............................. 0-1-6
Length ........................... 6-5-6
Height ........................... 0-5-6
Width ............................ 1-0-0
"L" .................................. 1-4-0
"L" ................................... 1-3-0
Height .............................. 0-5-0
Total length .................. 20-3-0
Height ........................... 0-4-2 [12]
No dimensions are given for the loopholed wall surrounding the rear of the mortar battery and extending from the extreme end of the flank to the innermost edge of the terre-plain of the covered way.
The fact that six embrasures are referred to on the left flank in the above description (this number is given again in an account of the state of the battery in 1751 [13]) indicates that the modifications made to the flank in 1744 involved not only an increase in its length, but also a reduction in the number of its embrazures. This would appear to have been a part of Duquesnel'e plan for strengthening the merlons of the battery by decreasing the number of embrasures on each flank and face.
This conjecture is borne out by an examination of the plans of the battery in the Ottawa files. The earliest date, intended to serve for the project `of 1726 (Figure 1), shows the battery without its flanks, which, as described in Section I, were added in 1727. [14] These flues are first shown in the plan from which Figure 2 was taken, and which may with fair certainty be dated late 1726 or early 1727. The two flanks are identical in this plan, mounting two embrazures apiece in front of one-piece rectangular gun-platforms. A second plan for the recessed flanks, probably drawn up in 1727, was used for the construction of Figure 3. This plan shows a modified flank design incorporating three embrasures per flank instead of the previous, two. Later plans of the battery (for example, Figures 7, 9, and 10 (A)) show that the three embrazure scheme was carried out on the right flank, which subsisted in that condition until 1744-1745, but whether the left flank was ever actually constructed in this configuration is open to doubt, since Verrier decided to extend the left flank, adding an additional three embrazures and making room in the rear of the battery for two mortar emplacements. [15] Two plans exist showing this project for a three-embrazure prolongation (Figures 4 and 5), although they differ somewhat in detail.
There is no evidence, however, that these plans were ever fully realized, as Verrier once more altered his opinion, and came to the conclusion that a four-embrazure extension was needed, thus forming a seven-embrazure flank, as described in Section I of this report. [16] What appears to be the original design for this work, which was to have been done in 1731, is shown in Figure.6. The flank was completed in 1732, and its definitive seven-embrazure form is shown in Figure 9, which is drawn from a .plan of the battery dated 1740. This evidence is confirmed by a plan made in 1744, and reproduced in Figure 10 (A), showing the left flank with a configuration corresponding almost exactly with that given in the 1740 plan.
Duquesnel's scheme for the extension of the left flank beyond its 1732-1744 length, in order to incur rate four mortars instead of two, is represented in Figure 10 (B); in this plan the flank is shown straightened, the embrazures-reduced in number from seven to six, two additional mortars added on a platform at the rearward extremity of the cannon platform, and a ditch, apparently revetted, dug in front of the flank battery. These works were incomplete at the time of the attack on the town in 1745, and there is no evidence of their having subsequently been brought to the state, of completion indicated in Figure 10 (B). Presumably after the abandonment of the battery by the French, its use and occupation by the English, and the French decision upon regaining possession of Louisbourg to limit the battery's garrison, [17], it was not considered worthwhile to bring Duquesnel's project to its perfection. In 1758 the left flank probably was of the configuration indicated in Figure 19, which was taken from a plan dated 1751. Six embrazures are shown on the left flank, which is devoid of the mortar extension planned by Duquesnel, and whose dimensions approximate to those given in the revetment specifications of the flank in October 1744. [18]
In conclusion I should remark that it has been reported that evidence has been found at Louisbourg of a masonry wall foundation projecting at an angle from the shoulder angle of the left face of the Royal Battery. There is no evidence of any construction on the flank answering this, description, but I would tentatively suggest that the masonry found may have been the foundation of the exterior facing of the "straightened" flank wall constructed in 1744. If this indeed is the case, then the masonry, represented by the dotted line, in Figure 10 (d), should form an angle of approximately 16-18o with the "crooked" flank wall of the battery as constructed in 1732.
SECTION II A
FOOTNOTES
1. AC B V.57-2 ff.751-755, Minister to Verrier, 19 June 1732 / See also Section I of this Report.
2. AC C11B V.14 ff.225-226v, Le Normant, 19 October 1733.
3. AC C11B V.14 ff.165-167v, Le Normant to Minister, 22 October 1732.
4. AC C11B V.18 ff.226-227v, Le Normant, 20 October 1736.
5. AC C11B V.23 ff.46-48, Duquesnel to Minister, 19 October 1741.
6. AFO DFC Am. Sept. Ordre No.202, Verrier, 30 October 1744.
7. AFO DFC Am. Sept. Ordre No.209, Verrier to Minister, 18 November 1744.
8. Ibid.
9. AFO DFC Am. Sept. Ordre No.206, Verrier, 4 November 1744.
10. A Journal of the Late Siege by the Troops from North America against the French at Cape Breton, the City of Louisbourg...etc. James Gibson, p.33.
11. AFO DFC Am. Sept. Ordre No.202, Verrier, 30 October 1744.
12. Ibid.
13. AC C11B V.31 ff.157-172v, Franquet, 15 December 1751, with Franquet's letter to the Minister dated 14 December 1751.
14. See Section I of this Report.
15 . Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. See Section III of this Report
18. AFO DFC Am. Sept. Ordre No.202, Verrier, 30 October 1744.