North American Martello Towers Author(s): Willard B. Robinson Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 33, No. 2 (May, 1974), pp. 158-164 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/988909 . Accessed: 01/08/2013 20:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and Society of Architectural Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.206.27.24 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 20:57:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 158 North American Martello Towers As with all architecturefor defense,once the effectiveness of the basic configuration was proven, the defense was WILLARD B. ROBINSON formulated; only minor changes were thereafter made, either to improve efficiencyor to adaptto a particularsite. The Museum, Texas Tech University Circular or elliptical in plan, most Martello towers had diametersof thirty or more feet-in additionto being very HISTORICALLY, military architecturehas been noted for strong, curved forms enclosed a large amount of area per its beauty and logic. Characterizedby handsome geo- length of perimeter.On an open platform at the top were metrical configurations, were unified by mounted one or more smoothbore , en , functions which organically determined their forms and usually on traversingcarriages. The facilities necessaryto their relationships.Among the numerousworks for defense support both the garrisonand the battery were contained wherein purpose beautifully and clearly generated form within, on severalfloors. was the , a work which is little military in towers were to known but which was once an to Simple form, designed effectively today, importantadjunct resist assault.Built either of stone or the walls were the defensesof several North American cities. brick, usually between six and fourteen feet thick, to provide a The Martello tower was named after a tall cylindrical bombproof enclosure,and over twenty feet high, to resist structuresituated in the Bay of Martellain .' In 1794 escalade.Then, accessto the interiorwas furnished this tower, one , became only by mounting only heavy a located ten or more feet above the famous authoritieswhen two British men- single door, ground. among military to this entrancewas a ladder or small of-war were defeated from behind its the Communication up .During wooden stair. encounter, little damage was inflicted on the Frenchwork The victims of the Bay of Martellaincident were natu- by the ships, well demonstratingthe strength of the struc- ture.2 tise on (London, 1862), pp. 375-376; and U. S., Congress, 1. The word "Martello" is evidently a corruption from the House, Joseph G. Totten, Report on Fortifications,House Ex. Doc. geographical term "Cape Martella." In virtually all nineteenth- 5, 32nd Cong., ist Sess., 1851, p. 72. See also Hilary P. Mead, century treatises on the art of fortification, the corrupted term is "Martello Towers, Coast Defense Against ," Country used to identify the architectural type. Life, 87 (10 Feb. 1940), 152-153, and, for a detailed discussion of the 2. The incident which made the Martello tower famous and battle, Sheila Sutcliffe, Martello Towers (Cranbury, N.J., 1973), PP. which evidently gave the tower its name was noted in numerous 19-21 (drawings of the Corsican tower are reproduced on pp. 18 documents on fortification. For example see Captain Lendy, Trea- and 35; a photo of a model on p. 36).

SWTWN

torw *,-?A.,

..fA 4*At# 4w &s A6 ACwQ ? lr~ ~ 19

-O A'tr r..IJA

q17

Fig. i. Tower No. 45 on the Coast of ,. Section (reproductionsof Crown-copyrightrecords in the Public RecordsOffice, London, appearby permissionof the Controllerof H. M. StationeryOffice).

This content downloaded from 132.206.27.24 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 20:57:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 159 rally impressed with the inherent strength of the work which witnessed the defeat of their vessels. Subsequently, in 1796 Martello towers were adopted as basic adjunctsto the defenses of England, and were later erected in con- siderablenumbers along the shores of Kent and Sussex,3 in responseto a threatof aggressionby Napoleon (Fig. 1). 'I Later, designs for them were imported into by English military engineers who were occupied with the defense of a land boundary on the south and a sea frontier on the east. Acting upon the need for strongerdefenses after Canada \ LIYr~ Ak'' had been won in the French and Indian War, Royal Engineers dedicated their efforts to either rebuilding de- stroyed works or constructing anew the fortificationsfor key cities as well as for their arteriesof communication. Repairs were made on the of until the 01 /yaw . A?~? walls separatingthe city from the Plains of Abrahamhad been reconstructedentirely, largely upon French founda- tions.4In addition to the main works, consisting of a series of curtains and , an outer line was proposed by Gother Mann (1747-1830), a military engineer sent to Canada to command the Royal Military Engineers from 1785 until 1791 and again from 1794 until 1804.s The projecteddefenses included a chain of advancedlunettes- / 00 works with two faces and two flanks,open at the rear.6To I AA- be located some 800 yards from the enceinte, they were intended to force an enemy aggressorto commence operationsfar away from the city. Although the need for advanced works was controversial,7 the lunettes were re- and four Martello towers were erected be- jected finally Fig. 2. Martello towers, Quebec. Plans, section, and elevation tween 1805 and 1832, about 1,ooo yards west of the city (PublicArchives of Canada,Ottawa). walls along a line running northwest to southeast. Spacedabout 450 yardsapart, the towers were all similar. The centersfor the radii of the interiorand exteriorfaces of the stone walls were offset, creating a thicknessof thirteen feet on the side facing the field and seven facing the city (Fig. 2). The strongest part of the wall therefore was oriented to the directionfrom which enemy missileswould 3. Lendy, Treatise, 375; CharlesOman, (London, 1926), p. should ever become unten- p. 24. Seventy-four Martellos were built in Sussex and Kent. come in an attack. If a tower Twenty-nine more were built north of these, along the shores of able, the lesser thicknessof the opposite side would facili- Essexand :Sutcliffe, Martello Towers, p. 6o. tate destructionfrom the of the enceinte of the The of these fortificationscan be seen in nu- ramparts 4. development Accessible at the merous manuscriptdrawings deposited in the Map Room, Public city, to prevent enemy occupation. only Archives of Canada,Ottawa; the ArchivesNationales, Paris; and second floor, two stories were contained within each the BritishMuseum, London. tower. of all Martello towers, the powder maga- 2nd ed. Typical 5. Dictionaryof CanadianBiography, (Toronto, 1945), s.v. and the were in the GotherMann. zine was in the ground story quarters 6. GotherMann, "Planof the Fortificationsof Quebecwith New second. On the platform above, cannons were mounted Works Proposed," 1 August 1804, Public Archives of Canada, behind a thick parapet.This platformwas supportedby an H1/340, Quebec, 1804. annular the centerline of the crown of which was 7. the documents the natureof this controversy vault, Among relating an were, Committee of Royal Engineersto The Earl of Chatham,14 concentricwith the inner wall line, creating interesting March 1805, Public Archives of Canada, Military Series (R.G.8, structurewith a double curvature.Below this, the lower Series and GotherMann to The Earl of c, vol. 384); Chatham,23 floors were framed conventionally with timber. March 1805, Public Archives of Canada,Military Series (R.G.8, While the towers were to defend Seriesii, vol. lo). Quebec designed

This content downloaded from 132.206.27.24 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 20:57:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 16o

,I

c: za:. - :?.:;

_--;

C; ,*;?,? i.,iv I t?

r ,^~ ?r'?:?-: ^~?e

r;

?wi

*i~,

:`?

~???;

IX?r:-

:-;?'?

;?,

Fig. 3. Branchtower, Fort Henry, Kingston, (courtesy:Amon CarterMuseum of WesternArt, Fort Worth, Texas).

This content downloaded from 132.206.27.24 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 20:57:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 161 againstland approaches,others were developed for defense . againstthe attacksof ships. AnotherMartello tower erected near Lancaster,New Brunswick, during the War of 18128 further demonstratedthe confidence of Royal Engineersin this form. Later, a chain of towers appearedon the shores of Lake Ontario. Located at Kingston, Ontario, these were among the most importantfortifications of Upper Canada.Describing the strategic importance of the city in 1819, the Duke of Wellington reported that it "is the connecting point be- i i : aa::;: ~i:??~-r tween the Upper and Lower Province. It contains the B:B Dockyard on Lake Ontario,... is the most populous Town in the Province, and . . . [is] liable at all times to be at- tacked."9In 1826 LieutenantColonel Ross of the Wright Fig. 4. Murneytower, Kingston, Ontario (National Historic Sites Royal Engineers arrived to develop plans for new forti- Service,Ottawa, Ontario). fications to replace the outmoded works that had been thrown up after the opening of the 1812 hostilities. Of an It was not until the Oregon Country dispute that work extensive system, however, only one -commen- began on the stone walls of the Martello towers. Com- ced in 1832 and named Fort with two Henry-along menced in 1846, these structures-named Cedar Island, branch towers (Fig. 3) and four Martello towers were MarketShoal, Murney, and Fort Fredericktowers-formed finally realized. The branch towers were similar to Mar- a chain of water batteries, so linked together that each tellos. With cannons mounted behind parapetson the top could support its neighbor during an attack. Differing platforms,they were designed to provide assistancein the slightly in plan with those at Quebec, the perimeterswere defense of deep ditches extending from two opposite sides elliptical at the parapet,with long and short axes of over of the redoubt to the shore where the towers were located. fifty feet.10The cylindricalinteriors had diametersranging All of this isolated the tip of the peninsulafrom the main- from thirty-three to forty feet, with the centers offset to it accessible to land land, theoretically making approach create wall thicknessesof about fifteen feet on the sides only acrossa drawbridgeover one of the ditches. vulnerableto direct attack and nine or less on the opposite

8. For an illustrationof this tower,see AlanGowans, Building io. The plans of the various towers are deposited in the Public Canada:An ArchitecturalHistory of CanadianLife (Toronto,1966), Archives of Canada. For Fort Frederick, Murney, and Cedar Island pl. 7. towers, see drawing H4/450, Kingston, 1865; and H4/450, Kingston, 9. Wellingtonto Bathurst,1 March 1819, Public Archives of Can- 1846. For Market , see H4/450, Kingston, 1846, Shoal ColonialOffice ada, Records,Q Series,M. G. 11, vol. 154,P- 149. tower. i:

77. 7"* Ile& t.: 47-' nil M"

Fig. 5. Market Shoal tower, Kingston, Ontario (Public Archives of Canada, Ottawa).

This content downloaded from 132.206.27.24 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 20:57:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 162 sides.As at Quebec,the heavy gun platformswere sup- portedby circularvaults springing from a centralcolumn and the outerenclosing wall. i x. The towerswere heavilyarmed. With the exceptionof "?r tower which mounted one i?,,- -- --~i-c?-??-?i~.~1:: ... Murney (Fig. 4), only thirty- _"' ~1 '-* two pounder,all had platformsdesigned for a single ~llp~ `r, twenty-four-poundand a pair of thirty-two-poundcan- r I-r- t?i?, nons, mountedon rails. Within, "~"'- traversing thirty-two- :-c-~;e c pound carronadeswere positionedto fire throughem- which could be closedwith iron shutters.This ...:1~-?-?--:---: brasures, -?-L~)I.1I- II~P*I~LBlaV~~: : I i:: .':~-- ~~X~:-?~~ ~B~~_tiiL~~-:- :??-? was manned of ;LI by garrisons twenty-four. Althoughthe towerscould cooperatein an attack,each was a self-sufficientdefensive work, modifiedin detailac- cordingto its site. The simplest,in designif not in con- struction,was MarketShoal tower, erectedin the water on a of oakand rock, within a cofferdam Fig. 6. Fort Fredericktower, Kingston,Ontario (courtesy:Amon platform (Fig.5). CarterMuseum of WesternArt, Fort Worth, Texas). Situatedon land, the other towerswere providedwith

-,A,.,cilru Moto OW io \ • ,wov , -r rr=kr

Z-aeENo t4, t SLC ucr T mt O~vi trhlw: dw A.A lst

I rIL rlr7 X6 .

1; tias to S11416?-

...... ', , , \ . ; " ,, - ?\,(' ., _ ......

"moo

Fig. 7. Charlestontower, CharlestonHarbor, South Carolina.Plan and sections (NationalArchives, Washington, D.C.).

This content downloaded from 132.206.27.24 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 20:57:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 163 caponniersfor flank defense against a close-in assault.The Fort Frederick tower, now the Royal Military College Museum, was the largest and strongest (Fig. 6). Often called a redoubt rather than a tower, it had four levels 77, instead of the usual three. Four caponniers enabled the garrison to defend the base of the tower. These were per- forated with rifle ports and were partially protected by a low mask of . it' Towers also appeared along the sea frontier of the . To guard the harbor of Newport, Rhode Island-one of the best in the country for wind-driven vessels-a circular tower was built upon an imposing height overlooking the East Passage into Narragansett Bay, opposite . Commenced shortly after the turn of the nineteenth century and romantically called "Fort Dumplings," the work was described in 1811 as a "tower of stone, with ,which will contain thirty or forty men ... [but is] in an unfinishedstate."11 For the defense of CharlestonHarbor, South Carolina, a Martello tower was erected sometime between 1806 and the end of the War of 1812 (Fig. 7).12 Engineers' drawings show it was a small symmetricalwork, over forty feet in diameter. Obviously because of the difficulty of turning vaults with compound curvature, the interior structure was wood Fig. 8. Martellotower, Tybee Island, Georgia (from B. J. Lossing, rather than it masonry, although in 1833 was proposed PictorialHistory of theCivil War). that the work be changed to stone. Within a few decades, however, more extensive defenseswere erected around the bay and the tower lost its importance. Moving down the was never realized.15The New Orleans tower, erected at coast to Tybee Island,Georgia, another masonry Martello the mouth of Bayou Duprd, was commenced in 1830 and tower with the usual stores, "securequarters for the men, was designed to control one of the approachesto the city and a platform for cannon" was described by Benson J. from MississippiSound. It mounted fifteen pieces of ord- in Lossing his PictorialHistory of the Civil War (Fig. 8).13 nance and requireda wartime garrisonof fifty men. Hexag- Evidently constructed during the same period as the onal in form, it consisted of a brick shell, with an interior Charlestontower, in 1823 this work was reportedto be in a structureof wood. healthy situation and in good repair.14 Among the last towers to be erectedon the continent-if Other towers were similar in concept but different in not indeed the final-were two works at , Florida form, perhaps because of limited availability of skilled (Fig. 9).16 Intended to augment the strength of Fort masons.Designed by Simon Bernard(1779-1839), a French Taylor (begun in 1844) in defenseof the harbor,these were military engineer serving the United States, identical tow- set up early during the Civil War17 and reflected the re- ers were included among rather extensive systems of de- finement of form and detail that characterizedmany works fense for both Mobile and New Orleans. The Mobile for defense erected during the middle decadesof the nine- work, projectedto defend Grant'sPass and Pass au H~ron, teenth century. Like numerousother Gulf Coast permanent fortifications, they had thick enclosing walls of brick, which were partially shielded by earthworks covering a

11. AmericanState Papers:Military Affairs, (Washington,D.C., 186o), I, 309. 12. AmericanState Papers:Military Affairs, m, 249. Between 1 15. Bernard'splans for the towersare in the CartographicBranch, January18o6 and the end of the war, $20,212.33 was spent on its National Archives,Washington, D.C. construction. 16. Numerous plans for these are depositedin the Cartographic 13. (Philadelphia,1866), n, 125. Branch,National Archives,Washington, D.C. 14. Report Concerning Fort Jackson, 1823, National Archives, 17. U.S., Congress,House, House Ex. Doc. No. 1, vol. 2, part 1, Washington,D.C., Record Group 77, Entry 223, n.p. 49th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1886-1887,p. 39.

This content downloaded from 132.206.27.24 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 20:57:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 164

...... r T, 4r, Or~ rh AtA

I."

.a' ** 49W**-

cI ik

, ii f

Am?%fA* -S~*e .

Fig. 9. Martellotowers, Key West, Florida.Plans, sections, and eleva- tions (National Archives,Wash- ington, D.C.).

or counterscarpgallery. The Key West towers closely re- defense of the base of the walls. As with the circular sembled the tours-modleswhich had been favored by elliptical towers, the walls which were exposed to the Napoleon for coast batteries.18In concept they were similar cannons of enemy ships were thicker than those facing to Martellos, except they were square.19Like the tours- land approaches. modeles,the walls of the Americanworks had thick masonry These towers and those preceding them in both the the ,with machicolationson each side, to allow for the United States and Canada became obsolete during Civil War. Thick masonry walls, heavy as they were, of missilesfired from 18. For a of the see Treatiseon could not withstand the impact large description tours-modd~es, Lendy, the Fortification,p. 377. accuraterifled cannons, which were well proven during 19. Official documents on the Key West towers label them conflict. After the war, most American works fell into "Martellotowers." for House See, example,U.S., Congress,House, However, in Canadamost of the Martellotowers Ex. Doc. No. i, vol. 2, part 1, 49th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1886-1887, disrepair. P. 39. have been preserved.

This content downloaded from 132.206.27.24 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 20:57:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions