FOR ( Mfl ) ■ FOR
The Chevalier St. Julien, a very ableengineer, has published a method, bywhich, he asserts, that works may beconstructed not only at a less expensethan others require, but in a mannerthat must render his defence or attackmore formidable. He has likewise in-vented a new method for the defence ofsmall places, which is preferable to thefirst, although it is not without faults.According to his system, the reach ofthe musket is taken from the center ofthe • curtain. To this end he directs,that a covert lodgment, 7 feet high, and10 toises wide, be constructed from thatspot to the gorge of the half-moon, orravelin. Cannon is disposed along thefaces, and a gallery is erected for themusketry, which likewise serves as apassage to the ravelin.
Francis Marchi, a gentleman of Bo-logna, in his folio edition, has furnishedus with upwards of 160 different methodsof constructing fortifications.
The Dutch uniformly pursue the systempublished by Marollois.
Bombelle lias likewise establishedthree sorts of fortification, the greatroyal, grand royal; the mean, moyenroyal; and the little royal, petit royal.
Blondel has published a system of for-tification, which he divides into tw-oprincipal heads ; the great, whose exte-rior side contains 200 toises; and thelittle, where the side does not exceed170 toises. His reason is, because heobjects to the line of defence havingmore that 140 toises, which is the fur-thest reach of musketry, or less than120 toises, to prevent an unnecessaryincrease of bastions. The invention hascertainly great merit, but its adoptionmust prove expensive in all its practicalbranches. It must, moreover, be mani-fest, that the four long batteries whichare supportedby flanks of hisconstruction,must serve as so many scaling ladders,or steps, to the besiegers, the instant theyhave effected a breach by cannon shot,or by shells.
In 1689 a work was published, enti-tuled:
Nouvelle maniere de fortifier Us places ,tiree des methodes da Chevalier de Ville,du Comte de Fagan, et de M. Vauban,avec des remarques sur I'ordre renforce,sur les desseins du Capitaine Alarchy,et sur ceux de M. Blondel, suivies de deuxnouveaux desseins, which are describedby James Glenie, Esq. page 79, in his
Succinct Account. This work is full ofstrong reasoning, from the result ofwhich the author has formed a newmethod, containing, indeed, nothing ori-ginal, hut giving references to wlmt hasalready appeared, and disposing the dif-ferent parts in so judicious a manner, asN to sh^w how a place may be renderedstronger, and he subject at the same timeto a less expense. This writer dividesfortification into three parts, the great,the mean, and the little.
There is a second and third methodproposed anonymously, and containingmere simple designs. That method towhich a modern author gives the pre-ference over the system of Neuf Bri-sach, contains little useful information,and contributes less to the real art offortifying places.
Donato llosetti, a Canon belonging toLivoumia, professor of mathematics inthe academy at Piedmont, and mathe-matician to the Duke of Savoy, haswritten upon a method of constructingworks in what he calls fortification d re-born, or fortification in reverse; socalled not only because the re-enteringangle of the counterscarp is opposite tothe flanked angle; but because, in hisidea, it will he necessary to attack itfrom the reverse side of other works.His system is very simple, and does notrequire a sacrifice of much money, orstand in need of many men to defendthe works : although lie can, on his side,pour as much tire upon the enemy, ascould be furnished by more complicatedmethods.
Antonio de Herbart, major of artilleryin the Duke of Wurtemburgh’s service,in 1735, published a treatise on fortifi-cations with square angles, which liecalls angular polygons.
Monsieur de Montalembert has latelyendeavoured tc bring arches, which areso much condemned by the Chevalier deVille, into repute. He treats the sub-ject in a maimer, and upon principles sosimilar to those proposed by Antonio deHerbert, that it is almost impossible toseparate the two systems. M. de Mon-talembert asserts, that the science offortification, as it is established, andtaught at present, can only be valued bythe public on account of its illusion. Helooks upon the use of bastions as theeffect of prejudice; he rejects themwholly, and substitutes in their room afront of angular tehailles, polygons with2 M "