When I say “blockhouse” many of you might be thinking about favorite childhood playsets:
Certainly suitable for the defense of the bedroom in the face of the elite Confederate Plastic Brigade, or perhaps the indigenous Plastikawi tribe. But… something that could not hold against the Green Army Men armed with bazookas and flamethrowers.
Kidding aside, the playset fort is pattered after real structures from American history. The blockhouse was not unique to America, as it was a form brought over by Europeans. However, the blockhouse became the preferred fortification on the North American continent from colonial times right up to the 20th century. Blockhouses work well in situations where the enemy is unlikely to possess anything larger than light artillery. The interior of the blockhouse was easily adapted into living quarters. Conversely, living quarters (houses) might be easily adapted into a blockhouse. Those, and other qualities, made that form of fortification popular on the frontier.
The popular image of a blockhouse is something made of wood. But stone, or even adobe, might be used instead. Since wood was in abundance on the early American frontier, we tend to see a lot of structures like this one:
This is recreation of Fort King George, Darien, Georgia (a place with many, many layers of history). In this particular case, the blockhouse served several roles – a high observation platform over the marsh, a platform for covering fire to protect approaches to the fort, and, in the event the works were overwhelmed, a final defense for the fort’s garrison.
It is that last function that Mahan had in mind when considering interior arrangements for field fortifications. Blockhouses were a structure that could be used for what he called “safety redoubts”:
Safety Redoubt. In enclosed works a place of retreat, into which the troops may retire in safety after a vigorous defense of the main work, will remove the fears of the garrison for the consequences of a successful attack of the enemy, and will inspire them with confidence to hold out to the last moment.
This interior work, which may be very properly be termed the keep, can only be applied to works of large interior capacity. It may be formed of earth, or consist simply of a space enclosed by a defensive stoccade, or palisading. In either case it should be about four feet higher than the main work, to prevent the enemy from obtaining a plunging fire in it from the parapet of the main work.
Let us pause here before going to Mahan’s formal introduction of the blockhouse. This “hold out to the last” is a notion steeped in 19th century presumptions about how a siege would play out. A garrison “holding out” would force the enemy to make a direct attack on the parapet… in other words, to get up close, personal, and… well… very violent with the defender. And in that violent melee, the defender was not exactly in a position to call a “time out”.
The safety redoubt, or keep, was a place to retreat and, more importantly, force a pause in the action. And from the keep, within that pause, the defender might negotiate a cessation of the fight, with honor. Thus we see how that might allay fears of “consequences” for the garrison.
That in mind, Mahan offered his preference for the keep:
The best arrangement for the keep is the construction termed the block-house. This work is made of heavy timber, either squared on two sides or four; the pieces which form the sides of the block-house are either laid horizontally, and halved together at the ends, like an ordinary log-house, or else they are placed vertically, side by side, and connected at the top by a cap-sill. The sides are arranged with loop-hole defenses; and the top is formed by laying heavy logs, side by side, of the same thickness as those used for the sides, and covering them with earth to the depth of three feet.
Mahan offered this figure as an example of a blockhouse:
This perspective is looking at the blockhouse along with a cross section of adjacent works and structures. Rather busy. This section is along the line a-b from Figure 44:
The combined caption reads:
Figs. 43,44. Shows the plan and section of a block-house of upright timber. The plan is made to exhibit a portion of the top complete; the timber covering the top; the arrangement of the cap pieces; a plan of the loop-holes; and a plan of the camp-bed. Fig. 43 exhibits, in a like manner, a cross section of the block-house and ditch; with interior and exterior elevation.
We will go into the particulars for construction in later posts. What is important to identify here is the functional nature of this blockhouse. Just as with the colonial-era Fort King George, we see a blockhouse adjacent to a ditch and other defensive structures. One might say the blockhouse filled up the fort’s interior.
For an attacker, this presents a serious tactical problem. One might defeat the defender on the parapet. But the parapet would be a dangerous place to make a living with the blockhouse overlooking all. So you see where a “pause” would be in order.
Keep in mind, within this discussion of keeps, Mahan was not stating or suggesting that blockhouses only be constructed within and in conjunction with elaborate field works. Rather that he offered that a blockhouse was a structure that served well as a keep inside a larger set of works. We see that usage applied by his students during the Civil War. Looking back again to Fortress Rosecrans:
We see Redoubts Schofield, Brannan, T.J. Wood, and Johnson within the interior. One wartime report described the arrangement as, “… strong against attack, being defended by large keeps, which deliver their fire upon every part of the interior.” I would further add that most of the lunettes on the perimeter of this vast fortress included blockhouses. So there were multiple “keeps” within a depth of the defense. Keep in mind the scale of this fortress. The safety redoubts, named above, were armed with 30-pdr Parrotts and 8-inch siege howitzers. The Confederates would need to bring a large amount of iron in order to suppress the fort’s garrison.
But the size of this work was perhaps its weak point. After the Army of the Cumberland moved further south, through the summer of 1863, there the need to keep this fortification in order was taxing, in terms of manpower. An 1865 report suggested all be reduced to simple blockhouses covering the bridge and depots.
That circles back to the point about blockhouse usage. As said before, Mahan was not suggesting the only place to use a blockhouse was as a fort’s keep. But as his text was focused on field fortifications, the focus was on that function. We will see blockhouses enter the conversation in regard to detached defenses in particular. Furthermore, the post-war instructions would place more emphasis on the detached, singular blockhouse.
(Citations from Dennis Hart Mahan, A Treatise on Field Fortifications, New York: John Wiley, 1852, pages 62-3; OR, Series I, Volume XLIX, Part 2, Serial 104, page 502.)