Fortification Friday: Star Forts and not-so Star Forts

Our discussion of Mahan’s simple “intrenchments” brings us to the star fort today.  And I feel the star fort is the most troublesome form to discuss in public.  Not that folks get upset about the “star.”  Rather that folks have some preconceptions as to what it should look like.  If one is not particular about the term, the definition might be widely applied.  But when one is particular about the term, a lot of works that we often refer to as “star forts” are not actually star forts!  With that, allow me to get particular about this particular form of entrenchment for a bit.

First, what did Mahan say about the Star Fort, and why we should be so particular:

The star fort takes its name from the form of the polygonal figure of the plan.  [Figures below]  It is an enclosed work, with salient and reentering angles; the object of this arrangement being to remedy the defects observed in redoubts.

Note, he offered no requirement for the number of points on a star, or even that the trace somehow match up to our conceptual notion of a star.  So we have four different basic plans offered, starting with a four point star:

Plate1Figure8

Then a five point:

Plate1Figure9

And a six point:

Plate1Figure10

Oh… and the favorite of those doing the digging… the eight point:

Plate1Figure11

This latter diagram offers a good point to discuss the evolution of the star fort. The implication is that an eight point might derive from a redoubt which has salients added to the sides.  (Recall the discussion at the end of last week’s post about “remedies” for the redoubt.)  All of this sort of stretches our notion of the shape of a star when categorizing what could be called a star fort.  Again, going back to Mahan’s definition, it is the presence of reentering angles which defined the star fort, not the shape that is the result.

But there is more to this evolution thread than simply tacking salients upon a redoubt.    The form actually derived as a modification of the standard bastioned fort.  Recall during the discussion of re-entering angles, curtains, and such we highlighted the “dead space” that existed in front of a curtain wall.  One remedy applied to that was a work known as a tenaille (referring to the French word for tongs, as these works were to look like the jaws of a set of pincers).   Consider a drawing of a basic tenaille:

tenaille1

This is from a larger set, on Wikipedia, which demonstrates more evolved tenailles (and demonstrating a truism about fortifications – the longer you have the more elaborate they become).  For permanent fortifications, a tenaille was a work placed in front of the curtain which allowed the defenders a secure area from which to defend the ditch.  And you can see how from the viewpoint of the attacker, it smoothed out the face of the defense into a simple reentering angle between two salients.

The usefulness of these tenailles lead to a broader application as a stand-alone enclosed work.  These featured alternating salients and reentering angles, none less than 60º (note the eight pointed above with 90º angles complementing).  Faces were usually between 30 and 60 yards. In order for all of that to work with some balance between the salients, the resultant polygon had a certain shape… and that’s how the star was born!

But you see what I just walked you through here – the star fort’s name was derived from the resultant shape, which was the result of a particular arrangement of the angles.  We might just as properly call these tenaille fort.  But in that case we’d have a long discussion of how that polygon gave us the jaws of a pincer.  If you ask me, “star” is the easier term to use here.

But there were down sides (as always) to this arrangement. Referring to the ability of the star fort to remedy the defects of the redoubt, Mahan wrote:

This, however, is only partially effected in the star fort; for, if the polygon is a regular figure, it will be found, that, except in the case of a fort with eight salients, the fire of the faces does not protect the salients; and that in all cases there are dead angles at all the re-enterings.

And there was more….

The star fort has, moreover, the essential defect, that occupying the same space as the redoubt, its interior capacity will be much less, and the length of its interior crest much greater, than in the redoubt;  it will, therefore, require more men than the redoubt for its defense, whilst the interior space required for their accommodation is diminished.

For those reasons, by the time of the Civil War the star fort had fallen into disfavor… or as Mahan put it, “led engineers to proscribe it.”  Yet, we know from so many Civil War maps and accounts that star forts were used.  Simply put, there were places where a star fort worked for the particular defensive arrangement desired.  Places where engineers might prescribe, instead of proscribe, a star fort.

On the other hand, there are a lot of places which are described as star forts which do not meet the definition… for those of us being particular… of a star fort.  An example is Fort McHenry:

FortMcHenry

Fort McHenry was not an “according to definition” star fort.  Rather it was a pentagon with five bastions… or in other words, a bastioned fort.  Mention of such brings us to the next form mentioned by Mahan, as we look towards next week.

But to summarize the discussion of star forts – these came in four, five, six, eight- pointed varieties (and where practicality was set aside, some with even more points).  It was the integration of salients and reentering angles which defined the star fort, not the overall shape itself.

(Citations from Dennis Hart Mahan, A Treatise on Field Fortifications, New York: John Wiley, 1852, page 13.)

Fortification Friday: Let’s apply this stuff in the field – Star Fort, Winchester, Virginia

Over the last few weeks in this Fortification Series, I’ve discussed Dennis Hart Mahan’s teachings about field fortifications specific to the vertical plane – or specifically the fortification profile.  As way of a refresher, the profile defined the heights and depths of the fortification to include the parapet, ditch, and glacis.  Those terms and components in mind, let us go to the “field” to look at a real field fortification constructed during the Civil War.   A handy example, for me at least, is Star Fort in Winchester, Virginia.

Untitled

The fort is, or should be, well known to students of the Eastern Theater.  It played a role in the Second and Third Winchesters.  Thankfully, in 2007 the site was set aside for preservation and interpretation.  And that interpretation ensures we know Mahan’s teachings were manifest in the layout of the fort:

Untitled

The only plan of the fort I’ve seen is from a newspaper map from the Civil War.  But that is sufficient to provide the general outline of the fort:

IMG_5064A

We’ll get to the nature of these plans, looking at the fort on the horizontal plane, in later articles.  Certainly want to discuss the particulars of star forts, salients, and the like.  But for this installment, I’d like to focus on the fine points of the profile.  Working backwards on Mahan’s diagram, we find that Star Fort had no glacis.  Again, that component was optional.  As Star Fort was built as an artillery platform covering open ground around Winchester, a ring of rifle pits around the fort was sufficient. Though the rife pits didn’t perform the function to elevate the line off the parapet, those pits did function to provide a line of resistance some distance off the main ditch.

Star Fort does have a ditch and parapet.

Untitled

The trail around the fort strides just to the oustide of the ditch.  We might speculate as to the depth of the ditch, as today erosion has filled part of it.  But what is preserved provides some indication of the profile.  Standing on the crest of the counterscarp, one cannot look past the parapet:

Untitled

Imagine standing there with your musket, looking up at the muzzles of enemy muskets.  not a good spot to be in.  Trying to replicate the view of the defender at this point on the wall, my efforts were unsuccessful.  Standing at the edge of mowed grass, and thus off the parapet itself, I held the camera up at arms length to overlook.  Not a great view, but notice that we cannot see the ditch.

Untitled

Nope, only the ground in front of the crest of the counterscarp.   If you examine this view – or at least while I was standing on the ground that day – the geometry is still very apparent, even for 150 years of erosion.  The angle of the superior slope of the parapet ensured the defenders could cover the crest of the counterscarp without being exposed to attackers.

The view out from the parapet is better illustrated on the other side of the fort:

Untitled

Here the visitor looks past the parapet and beyond the tree line to see the houses.  Such demonstrates the ability of the fort to engage attacking targets within musket range.

The parapet’s profile is somewhat intact.  Remarkably for 150 years of wear:

Untitled

Anther point in the fort that demonstrates the geometry of the parapet is over to the south side of the earthwork.  Today there is a trail cut through the works at a returning angle.  I’m not versed well enough in the fort’s history to know if this was the sally port or just a modern cut.  But the view serves well for our purposes here.

Untitled

Notice to the left there is part of the fort’s wall.  The parapet has a saddle which appears to be a gun embrasure.  I was holding the camera at about 6 ½ feet above the ground.  And the location is at the crest of the counterscarp, or just outside the ditch.  The attacker at this point could not see over the parapet on the left.  In the center-right, where the wall is cut, we can see into the fort.  Compare those two lines.

Now from the inside looking out to where I stood:

Untitled

Again the camera is about 6 ½ feet above the ground level, but in this case what would be the banquette.  What is in view?  The ground where I stood to take the first picture at this point of the line.  Clearly Star Fort’s parapet was laid out with all the functional requirements espoused by Mahan.

Closing, let me once again mention the importance of preservation of sites like Star Fort.  This is a primary source for those studying the Civil War activity around Winchester.  We are lucky to have such a well preserved example to reference.