Arx Occasional Papers - Fort Tigne' by Arkitettura

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

CD-ROM version contains embedded flash videos of 3D computer animated reconstructions of Fort Tigné and the Lunette d’ Arçon

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

ARX is researched, designed, produced, and published electronically by MilitaryArchitecture.comand is available (FREE of charge) in PDF format. MilitaryArchitecture.com has no affiliation to any other society or organization and is a fully independent effort. This journal focuses primarily, but not exclusively, on the fortifications of the Maltese islands, and is downloadable from MilitaryArchitecture.com website. ARX is subject to the provisions of international copyright laws.

Occasional Papers - ISSUE 1 / 2011 Copyright - Dr Stephen C Spiteri Ph.D and www.militaryarchitecture.com 2011 All drawings, graphics, and illustrations reproduced in this book, unless where specifically stated otherwise, have been drawn and produced by Stephen C Spiteri. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of the author. CD-ROM version of this PDF journal contains embedded videos. If you would like to obtain a copy for personal use please send e-mail to info@militaryarchitecture.com

MilitaryArchitecture.com was set up to focus on and promote the study of military architecture and fortification around the world. It seeks to bring together and build an extensive international corpus of information, data, and ideas – research papers, lectures, videos, forums, conferences, publications, etc., – that are freely available on the web and make these educational resources known to researchers and students through direct internet access via this website. The overriding scope is an educational one, aimed at the promotion of scholarship in the study and teaching of military architecture and the history of fortification. Military Architecture.com is committed to diffusing a proper understanding of the art and science of fortress building to as wide an international audience as possible. MilitaryArchitecture. com seeks, primarily, to focus the attention of scholars, researchers, and the public alike on the fortress as a structure, and on fortifications as a works of architecture and engineering, emphasizing the art and science, and history, of fortress design, fortress construction and building techniques, and materials, as well as provide information on modern efforts at conservation and restoration of historic fortified buildings and sites around the world. Contact details can be found at www.militaryarchitecture.com

Fort Tigné - 1792 Tousard’s Lunette d’Arçon By Dr. Stephen C Spiteri Ph.D.

The Maltese eighteenth-century fortified landscape was an exciting one. For the settecento in Malta was a period of astounding reach, where new works of fortification were introduced at a breathtaking pace and with verve, across the whole length and breadth of the archipelago. Scores of batteries, redoubts, entrenchments, and fougasses took root around the islands’ shores, while new forts and many of the existing fortified cities were re-dressed in monumental architecture and equipped with the latest sophisticated adjuncts of defence in the form of aggressive outerworks bristling with traverses, places-of-arms, and countermines. Above all, it was a time of new ideas, new shapes and forms, innovative solutions and, towards the close of the century, also a period of drastic change. Nowhere, perhaps, is this process more evident than inside Marsamxett Harbour. On one side of this little anchorage, straddling the northern flank of the fortified city of Valletta, stands Fort Manoel, the apogee of the bastioned trace, described by the Comte de Bourlamaque, fresh from the North American wars, as a model of fortification built ‘avec soin’; undeniably, the most architecturally impressive of all the major Hospitaller works of fortification ever built in Malta, with its monumental Baroque gateway, piazza, church and spacious arcaded barracks. At the other end, commanding the mouth of the harbour, lies Fort Tigné, a small low-lying structure commanded by a strange loopholed circular tower, more of a redoubt really, but effectively a precursor of the modern nineteenth century fort. Clearly, two totally different works of fortification – one portraying the supremacy of the bastioned system at the apex of nearly three centuries of evolution of the trace italliene; the other, an embryonic experimental design heralding the future; the first designed to overpower its attackers by the sheer weight of the

Above, The fortifications of Marsamxett Harbour, showing Fort Manoel (top left) and Fort Tigné (top right) facing Valletta’s enceinte. (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

solid mass of its ramparts and the flanking power of its geometric configuration, the other seeking to subdue the enemy with its concentrated firepower. The first of these works, Fort Manoel, was built in 1723 on designs muted in 1715 and inspired by the military architecture of Vauban, while the second was erected in 1792-93, in the twilight of the Order’s rule, and influenced by the then latest notions of fortress-design circulating in Europe, ideas set in motion by the original and provocative thinking of Marc René’ Marquis de Montalembert; one fort, therefore, a product of established and long-proven conventions, the other, a revolutionary concept breaking new ground. The only thing that linked the two forts together was that both were the product of French thinking and military engineering, for the main underlying and salient aspect of the eighteenth-century 3

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

fortified landscape in the Maltese islands was the fact that it was fashioned and dictated by French ideas. And indeed, ever since Frenchmen like the Antoine de Ville, Comte de Pagan, and Sebastian le Prestre de Vauban had begun to place France at the leading edge of military architecture from the second half of the seventeenth century onwards, the Order of St John found itself increasingly drawn from the Spanish into the French sphere of influence, culminating with the arrival, in 1715, of a seminal military mission headed by Brigadier René Jacob de Tigné and his assistant Charles Francois de Mondion. Both men would prove instrumental in reshaping the nature and form of Hospitaller fortifications throughout the first half of the 1700s. Fort Manoel, in fact, was the product of the collaboration between the two. Fort Tigné, on the other hand, was designed by the Frenchman Antoine-Etienne de Tousard, the last of the military engineers employed by the Order. And the Bali de Tigné, after whom the fort was named, was actually the nephew of the Brigadier.

‘crisis’, set off by Montalembert’s proposed new ‘perpendicular’ style of fortification, which entirely rejected the bastioned trace and placed great importance on the dominance of artillery, shook the foundations of Vauban’s seventy-year-old architectural ideas. Despite all the improvements that Vauban had made to the bastioned system, it remained shackled by many important defects, foremost amongst which were (i) its exposure and vulnerability to vertical, ricochet, and reverse fire that ruined the artillery of the defence; (ii) the poor communication between the main enceinte, and (ii) the badly exposed outerworks. All these defects induced some engineers to renounce the bastioned system altogether and at the head of such reformers stood Montalembert.

Above, Montalembert’s Fortification perpendiculaire – detail of the great hypothetical dodecagonal fortress of Louisville (image source: P. Prost)

Above, Marsamxett Harbour’s two main forts – from top, Fort Manoel and Fort Tigné (Image source: Author’s private collection).

But this is where the connection between the two forts ends. For the two distinct works encapsulate the great ‘debate’ that was then shaping the development of military architecture thought in the eighteenth century. On one hand stood the established traditional French engineering corps, defending the design principles of their founder Sebastian Le Prestre de Vauban with religiouslike fervour, while on the other stood the new challenging ideas put forward by the prolific interloper and cavalryman, Marc-René, Marquis de Montalembert. The ensuing military engineering 4

Montalembert’s system sought to re-shift the balance of power between offense and defence, which, owing to the ever-increasing power of artillery, had swung unmistakeably towards the superiority of attack, back in favour of defence by concentrating on the impregnability of fortification. This he sought to do by introducing a new system of fortification that (i) completely eliminated the bastion-trace and its inherent limitations and replaced it with a new form of ground plan where all lines were to be straight with all their re-entrant angles forming right angles (what he called the Fortification perpendiculair and relied heavily on a multiplicity of defensive lines and a concentration of large number of cannon placed in bombproof casemates. Two characteristic features of Montalembert’s system were the large circular multi-storey gun towers occupying the gorges of his triangular salients, which were designed both to serve as keeps as well as to engage in artillery

Above, Contemporary portraits of Antoine-Etienne de Tousard (right) and his brother Anne-Louis (left). (Image Source: Author’s private collection).

Above, Left, Portraits of Marc René, Marquis de Montalembert (1714-1800) and, right, Jean Eleonore Le Michaud d’Arçon (1733-1800) (Image source, after P. Prost)

Montalemebert’s critics retorted by claiming that his ideas were not that original after all. His casemated gun tower, for example, was based on Vauban’s Tour-bastionée, as employed in his second system. Other’s accused him of plagiarizing Jean Antoine d’ Herbort’s work, a military engineer in the service of Duke of Wurtemberg who had published his Novelles Methodes pour Fortifier les Places way back in 1735. Montalembert’s new geometrical form of the trace and his radical increase in firepower were designed to transform the fortress from a passive obstacle by virtue of its mass into an active focus of devastating fire power capable of destroying the attacker’s less numerous siege artillery that could be brought to bear against it. For Montalembert, artillery fire power became the primary element of defence and the main characteristic feature determining the effectiveness of the fortress. Indeed, Montalembert’s chief objective was, in the words of Capt. Lendy, basically to prevent the besieger from opening a breach by directing against his siege batteries, a superior fire of artillery. The French corps of professional military engineers, however, strongly resisted Montalembert’s assault on their expertise and the French engineering establishment’s refusal to rethink fundamentals eventually won the debate. But the seeds had been sown, for fundamentally, what had motivated Montalembert to develop new fortifications in the late-eighteenth century was the crisis in defensive architecture caused by seemingly unstoppable offensive tactics and the inability of the bastioned trace to redress the balance in its favour. Montalembert’s system, although never adopted

in France, went on to form the basis of the works constructed in Germany after 1815. Even various prominent French engineers, despite their vehement opposition, began to devise solutions that departed from a strict adherence to the bastioned template. The Order’s close links to France and its heavy dependence on French military thinking meant that the Hospitaller military establishment was not immune to the implications and consequences of this ‘paper war’, as the technical dispute came to be dubbed. That the residue of Montalembert’s influence and the appeal of new ideas did not take long to filter into Hospitaller Malta is clearly evidenced by Fort Tigné.

Antoine Etienne de Tousard The man who seems to have been responsible for importing these new concepts of fortification to the shores of Hospitaller Malta was Antoine Etienne de Tousard, the last of the military engineers employed by the Order of St John. Often also referred to as Stephen de Tousard (or Antonio Stefano) in modern books and some contemporary accounts, he was a serving brother who had joined the Order of St John during the reign of Grand Master Pinto de Fonseca. He arrived in Malta late in 1791 and took over the role of the Order’s resident military engineer, the so-called ingegnere della religione, from the hands of the knight Picot who had briefly stepped in (‘che fa’ le veci d’Ingegnere’) to fill the void left by another little known French engineer, the knight Henry de Mazi. The latter, although an artillery engineer, had been serving the Order for a number of years in the capacity of a military engineer. Tousard was quickly put to work and the Order’s records reveal that he was already examining entrenchments in St Julian’s Bay by February 1792. And within less than a year of his arrival in Malta, Tousard was working on the extensive alterations to Fort Ricasoli and converting 5

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

duels with enemy siege batteries, and the large casemated caponiers athwart the ditch that were powerful enough to control the fossé and destroy enemy siege batteries planted at the edge of the covertway.

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

St Lucian Tower and Battery into Fort Rohan, as well as designing and building Fort Tigné. Antoine-Etienne was the younger brother of the renowned Anne-Louise de Tousard (1749-1817), an artillery engineer and aide de camp to Lafayette, a hero of the American revolutionary wars (granted a lieutenant colonelcy and a life pension by the US Congress for his service) and author of the famous work, American artillerist’s companion, or Elements of artillery published in Philadelphia in 1809. Antoine-Etienne’s own reputation, however, would not be as fortunate as that of his elder brother. His fame would not come to hinge upon his contribution to military architecture but on the demise of the Order of St John at the hands of Napoleon Bonaparte. Indeed, Antoine-Etienne would spend much time and effort, after 1800, trying to defend himself from the accusations of treachery levelled at him by the supporters of the ousted Grand Master Hompesch and the displaced Order of St. John. Many contemporary accounts painted him in an unflattering light, out-rightly accusing him of betraying Hompesch and the Order by secretly aiding the French invasion of Malta. Indubitably, most of these allegations only materialized after 1800, and were intended to discredit him, and may, therefore, not be true at all. But certainly the fact that Tousard was quick to join Napoleon’s expeditionary force to Egypt and then went on to distinguish himself in the campaigns of 1806-09 against the Prussians, Russians, and Austrians, and eventually rose to the rank of Director of Fortifications, did little to dispel the accusations that were levelled against him.

Above, Antoine-Etienne de Tousard’s signature as ‘Commandeur’, as it appears on a plan of Fort Ricasoli of around 1792 (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

It was even said that Tousard’s name was on a list of knights whom Napoleon exempted from the general order of expulsion from Malta owing to the help and information that they had given to him six months before he invaded the island. Grand Master De Rohan, however, had held Tousard in very high regard, and had gone out of his way to raise him from the rank of servant-at-arms to that of 6

a Knight of Grace, and later to a Knight of Justice, despite the dismay and strong opposition of his more senior French brethren. At the election of the new Grand Master, following the death of de Rohan in 1798, however, he was made to vote together with other serving brother-at-arms, despite, as he later complained, his being ‘trasferito nel rango di Cav[agliere] di Giustizia con un breve Pontificio da 28 Maggio 1793 eseguito dal fu Fran Maestro de Rohan alli 25 Giugno seguente’. It was perhaps this disappointment at the antagonism of the other French knights, particularly following the death of his patron De Rohan in 1797, that may eventually have embittered Tousard and transformed his former zeal for the Order into outright disenchantment and, perhaps, betrayal.

Tousard’s design Intriguing as Tousard’s career and role in the final years and demise of the Order may be, this paper only seeks to examine his involvement and contribution to Hospitaller military architecture, particularly in the design and building of Fort Tigné. Although Tousard was involved in various works of fortification during the eight years of his stay in Malta, namely in re-hauling various sectors of the enceintes of Fort Ricasoli and Fort St Elmo, as well as building a couple of small coastal batteries and entrenchments (such as the ephemeral Fort Rohan), his one real outstanding contribution to the art of fortification was the design of Fort Tigné. This contribution, however, does not come without its problems. Indeed, the design of his new fort, as was rightly noted by the late Prof. Quentin Hughes in 1993, was itself very heavily influenced by the lunettes built by Jean-Claude Eleonore le Michaud d’Arçon at Mont Dauphin, Besancon, Perpignan, and elsewhere. Furthermore, the similarity in the design and layout of the two types of works is too uncanny not to imply that Tousard must have borrowed very heavily from D’Arçon’s ideas, themselves based, ironically, on Montalembert’s concepts. I say ‘ironically’, because Le Michaud d’Arçon was practically the leader of the antiMontalembert faction, which included pretty much the whole corps du genie, in which he was greatly admired. Tousard himself was also a member of the corp du genie. Following his graduation from the school of military engineering at les Mezieres in early 1772 with the rank of first lieutenant, he was posted as engineer to Valenciennes in 1773, and then to Gex (1779) and St-Quentin (1783), where he was appointed captain in 1784. There then followed new

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

appointments to Avesnes and to Cambrai (1788) before he arrived in Malta sometime late in 1791. Tousard’s link to Le Michaud d’Arçon can be traced back to around 1779-81, when it is welldocumented that he was employed in the surveying and mapping of the French-Swiss frontier under the direction of the latter, then a lieutenant colonel. One can read in the general catalogue of the French military archives in Paris that Tousard worked under d’Arçon’s command in 1778 on the cartography of Dauphiné (Alpes). But that is all that is known about his connection to D’Arçon to date. Unfortunately, none of the historical records known to the author serve to shed any light on the relationship between Le Michaud d’Arçon and Tousard, nor on how the latter came to be exposed to D’Arçon’s works whilst he was still in France. Tousard’s post as commander of the citadel of Bitche, around the time when work began on the D’Arçon’s lunettes, however, may also mean that he was stationed hundreds of kilometres away from many of the sites where the lunettes d’Arçon were being built, except perhaps, for the one in Landau. Anne Blanchard’s dictionary of Old Regime military engineers, however, does not mention Tousard as being at Bitche and also adds that he was detached to Malta in 1792. Nor do we know anything of Tousard’s own views on Montalembert’s perpendicular and polygonal fortifications. As a product of Les Mezieres and the Corps Royal du Genie, there is a great possibility that Tousard’s own loyalties fell largely within the anti-Montalambert camp. But even this, however, is difficult to ascertain. For instance, Tousard’s designs for the overhauling of the left section of Fort Ricasoli’s land front, which he heavily impregnated with four tiers of gun embrasures (see elevations towards the end of this paper, below), as well as the existence of at least two other anonymous plans for proposed fortifications at Dragut Point, all show that Montalembert’s ‘revolutionary’ ideas were indeed circulating freely in Malta during the last decade of the Order’s rule and that these notions had surely impressed themselves upon Tousard’s thinking. Still, apart from a handful of plans and a few administrative records concerning the building process, the Order’s archives do not shed much light on how Tousard managed to introduce Fort Tigné’s novel design concept into the Hospitaller milieu. Nor do we know what many of his fellow knights, the members of the Congregation of Fortification and War in particular, really thought about the new fort, or if it was accompanied by any debate, or controversy, as often happened with the introduction of novel features that broke off from tradition and convention. The aging Bali de Tigné for one, after whom the fort was

Above, Plan of Marsamxett Harbour showing a proposal for a large fort with sea-level battery at Dragut Point clearly inspired by Montalembert. The plan is undated and unsigned but was executed before1793. (Image source: Author’s private collection - photograph given to the author by the late Prof. Q. Hughes).

named, a highly respected member of the Order, a competent military engineer in his own right, and a commissioner of fortifications who exerted a great influence over the Order’s fortifications for the best part of thirty years, was himself not much convinced by non-bastioned solutions. For example, in his criticism of the knight Domenico Antonio Chyurlia’s proposals for new coastal defences and schemes based on a combined tenaille-redan trace, which was presented to Grand Master Pinto de Fonseca in 1762, De Tigné did not refrain from dismissing his fellow knight as a ‘dilettante’ for proposing to depart from a bastioned configuration. And It is indeed surprising, too, that the building of such a novel work of military architecture in Hospitaller Malta, up until then still heavily reliant on the traditional bastioned trace, could have gone unnoticed in revolutionary France. It is truly strange to see why this unique fort fails to feature anywhere except in the works of British military engineers after 1800, who, on their part, were greatly impressed by its efficient design and ‘power of resistance’, and went 7

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Lunette with Redoubt Valletta Land Front, Malta Graphic reconstruction View from Gorge by Dr Stephen C Spiteri Ph.D. Copyright - 2011 Below, Various forms of lunettes with redoubts occupying the gorge as employed by the Comte de Pagan and in Vauban’s first and third systems. (Image source: Author’s private collection). The lunette (or St. Madaleine’s Demilune as it was often called) protecting the entrance into Valletta was built according to Vauban’s first system, with its reduit cut into the terreplein and isolated by means of a narrow ditch (see plan on opposite page). Later proposals envisaged the splaying of the inner ends of the two faces to create short flanks as in Vauban’s third system, as shown in the plan below (centre). (Image source for plans: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

Lunette (demi-lune) Covertway

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Redoubt (reduit) Inner Ditch

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

on to cite it as a model for small ‘flankless’ forts, even building a number of works clearly modelled on its design, like the coastal batteries erected on the island of Anholt off the Danish coast in 1812. As late as 1849, James Fergusson was still working on ways of improving Tousard’s design (see Essays on a proposed new system - diagram below).

Above, Detail from the frontispiece of the ‘Mémoire sur la manière d’occuper les dehors des forteresses par des moyens rapide’ , published in 1792. (Image source: courtesy of Prof. J. Langins).

Above, James Fergusson’s proposal to improve Fort Tigne’s design. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

Given that Fort Tigné, as shall be shown in due course, was a sophisticated development of the Lunette d’Arçon, for unlike the latter it was not simply an outerwork but a self-contained and veritable fort, the main question that begs to be answered revolves around the level of Tousard’s originality in the authorship of its design; To what degree did Tousard borrow and improve upon D’Arçon’s original idea? And what was his connection to D’Arçon? Had he been involved, prior to his arrival in Malta, in the construction of any of the lunettes designed and built by D’Arçon? Had he discussed his ideas on how to improve the lunettes with D’Arçon himself? But the heavy dependence of Tousard’s design on D’Arçon’s lunettes poses other interesting questions too. For one thing, how did Tousard come to be in possession of D’Arçon’s design manual when he was already in Malta at the time of its publication in 1792, if he had had no previous connections to D’Arçon? And how did these latest French ideas on fortification make their way into the hands of the aristocratic Hospitaller knights at time of such political and military turmoil, especially in the face of growing French hostility towards the Order of St 10

John? To date there are no direct answers to these questions and present historians will have to delve deeper into the historical records to provide some enlightenment on these issues.

The Lunette d’Arçon The origins of Fort Tigné are to be found in the notions and tactical requirements that helped shape the Lunette d’Arçon, and the origin of the latter, in turn, are found in the problems that military engineers faced when projecting advanced works of fortifications beyond the glacis, and the need to provide these works with protection from the body of the place. Such isolated works were primarily designed to oblige the enemy to commence siege operations at a greater distance or to defend certain areas around the main fortress which could not be seen from the parapets. The farther the outerworks distanced themselves from the protection of the main enceinte, however, the weaker and more exposed they became, and military engineers sought to device various methods to defend these detached works as best they could. Amongst the outerworks most used as advanced works were the lunettes. These came in a variety of shapes and sizes, but most were built in the form of small triangular ravelins. They were generally constructed along the capital of a bastion and given salient angles of some 60 to 70 degrees to allow them to be flanked from adjoining ravelins. Such lunettes were ordinarily given faces 60 m

The need to place lunettes farther off the main enceinte and diminish the defects of their gorge inspired D’Arçon to transform his lunettes into small heavily fortified redoubts capable of defending themselves ‘sans avoir besoin des défenses tirées des ouvreages collatéraux’. Philippe Prost, in his Les forteresses de l’Empire, states that D’Arçon worked on a first version of his lunette for the fortress of Toulon in 1778. This lunette, however, was never built although the project still exists in the archives at Vincennes. Eventually D’Arçon published his Mémoire sur la manière d’occuper les dehors des forteresses par des moyens rapides in 1792. The French military archives contain a printed instructions leaflet describing the lunette and giving details of its construction. This was printed by order of the Comité de Fortifications and may have been printed sometimes after the declaration of war on Austria in April 1792 and before the fall of the French monarchy in August, because of the mention of ‘Imprimerie royale.’ This fifteen-page instruction manual on how to build the lunette is accompanied by an engraved plan (colour-tinted in the copy in the archives). There is no mention of Le Michaud d’Arçon specifically, although the archival indication is that this is the d’Arçon lunette. The fact that the pamphlet contains a rather nasty swipe at Montalembert who, the author says, will no doubt claim it is plagiarized, makes one suspect that the booklet was definitely written by d’Arçon. (1)� Basically, D’Arçon’s lunette consisted of a pentagonal earthen work, revetted in stone, and divided into two by a large casemated traverse (‘traverse casemate’), closed off at the gorge with a circular loopholed tower (‘reduit de sureté’) of about ‘36 à 42 pieds de diameter exterieur’ and flanked by a salient counterscarp musketry gallery (‘casemate à feu de revers’) designed to provide reverse fire within the ditch along the two faces of the lunette. This musketry gallery was linked to the lunette by means of a ‘galerie sousterraine’ and itself provided access to a number of countermine

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

long and flanks 20 m deep. One of the earliest methods of preventing the enemy from occupying lunettes and erecting batteries inside them was not to allow their ramparts to be wider than 10 m whilst their terrepleins were cut by a ditch or fitted with stockades to form redoubts. This, however, still left the lunettes exposed to be turned in the rear and, to avoid such danger, their gorges came to be enclosed by loopholed walls while the passage from the body of the place was provided either by means of underground galleries (accessed from the counterscarp of the main ditch) or through doublecaponiers equipped with tambour traverses that cut along the surface of the glacis.

Plan of the Lunette d’Arçon for the defence of Toulon in 1778 (Image source: courtesy of P. Prost).

Plan of the Lunette d’Arçon as published in the “ Mémoire sur la manière d’occuper les dehors des forteresses par des moyens rapides” , 1792. (Image source: Courtesy of Prof. J. Langins).

galleries (‘rameaux de mine’) placed beneath the glacis at the salient of the counterscarp. D’Arçon also intended his lunettes to be enveloped tightly by ‘une file de fortes palisades’, placed in ‘une tranchée en contrepente avec la pente du fossé’ in order to shield them from artillery fire. 11

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Salient Counterscarp Musketry Gallery

Casemated Traverse (abris) Counterscarp

Left Face

Openings in side of Traverse

Interior ditch Ramp leading up to Terreplein

Ditch

Wall Enclosing Gorge

Left Flank

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Right Face

Left Flank

Right Counterscarp Musketry Gallery

Tower-Keep Reduit de Sureté

Lunette d’ Arçon - 1791

Mont Dauphin, France Graphic reconstruction View from Gorge by Dr Stephen C Spiteri Ph.D. Copyright - 2011

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Lunette d’ Arçon - 1791 Mont Dauphin, France Graphic reconstruction View from Salient by Dr Stephen C Spiteri Ph.D. Copyright - 2011

Traverse (abris) Counterscarp

Ditch

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Tower-Keep Reduit de Sureté

Wall Enclosing Gorge

Left Flank

Left Face

Cutaway view of the Reduit de Sureté Mont Dauphin, France by Dr Stephen C Spiteri Ph.D. Copyright - 2011

Underground shelter

Underground tunnel to countermines Underground tunnel linking lunette to main fortress 15

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Plan and sectional elevation of the Lunette d’Arçon, after Lendy, 1862. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

Above, Three views of the gorge and flank of the Lunette d’Arçon at Mont Dauphin, France, and a plan showing the location of the lunette in relation to the land front of the fortress. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

Capt. Lendy provides the following description of the Lunette d’Arçon in his Treatise on Fortification (1862): ‘...the work has the same dimension as the ordinary lunette, except that the salient angle may be made as open as deemed necessary. The gorge is closed by a loopholed wall 18 feet high, and a round tower 15 feet in diameter separated from the terreplein by a ditch 12 feet wide. The masonry of this tower is masked by the parapet of the lunette, and the top is covered by 3 feet of earth. Large openings under the cornice give a free egress to the smoke, and serve as machicoulis for the defence of the foot of the tower: loopholes are 6 feet above the ground. A 16

lower story leads to a reverse casemate constructed under the glacis at the salient of the counterscarp for the defence of the ditch. / A bombproof traverse divides the terreplein of the lunette into two, protecting it from reverse fire: it is vaulted and opens into the ditch of the tower from whence it receives light; four doors establish communication between it and the two moieties of the lunette. The ceiling of the gallery leading to the casemate is pierced to receive a movable staircase leading to steps ascending to the vault: this opening can be strongly closed after the retreat of the defenders. / The circumference of the tower touches only the line of the gorge, and the wall is directed towards its centre to receive a little flank defence: circular ramps lead from the ditch of the tower to the terreplein of the lunette, and strong barriers prevent the passage of the enemy. A double caponier, well palisaded, connects a door in the tower to the place.’ Lendy, however, was highly critical of D’Arçon’s lunette and believed that it would not have stood up to an attack by vive force: ‘the “reduit de sureté” ’ intended ‘to facilitate offensive returns’, he believed, would have been easily ‘destroyed by vertical fire or even by direct fire aimed at the extremities of the flanks’ which were weak points, while the loopholes of the reverse casemate could be rendered useless with fascines thrown into the ditch. Lendy cited Baron P. Emile Maurice de Sellon, a Swiss engineer much respected by the

Americans at the time of their civil war, for the modifications to the lunette d’Arçon which he later proposed in his Essai sur la fortification moderne au analyse compare des systems modernes Francais et Allemands (Geneve, 1845). Maurice’s proposed improvements allowed (i) the top of the tower to receive artillery (see below) by increasing its relief and providing it with a` platform, (ii) extended the ditch and glacis to enclose all of the work, and (iii) provided it with two counterscarp galleries, one in the salient and the other in the gorge. Surprisingly, however, Lendy failed to note and remark upon the great improvements that Tousard had made to D’Arçon’s design much earlier in 1792 at Fort Tigné, which were more elaborate than those that Baron de Sellon had proposed later in the course of the century. This is indeed curious, for Fort Tigné would certainly have been well known to Lendy, if for nothing else, because it had been often cited by other British military engineers.

Above, Plan and sectional elevation of the Lunette d’Arçon with suggested improvements by Baron Maurice, after Lendy, 1862. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

Most authors agree the D’Arçons lunettes were under construction by 1791-92 and that these were built at Besancon, Perpignan, Metz, Mont Dauphin, Belfort (?), Sant Omer, and Landau. Surviving

Above, Various examples of outerworks based on the Lunette d’Arçon as employed by the French in Northern Italy during the Napoleonic wars: from top to bottom, Palmanova, Verona, and Peschiera (Forte Salvi) - (Image Source: Google Earth). Left, German field manual of the mid-19th century showing a redoubt influenced by the Lunette d’Arçon (Image source: Author’s collection). 17

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

The tower keep of the Lunette d’Arçon at Besancon, built of bricks, as it survives today (Image source: Author’s private collection).

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Detailed plan for a fort on Dragut Point. This drawing does not bear the title ‘Fort Tigné’, which means that it was probably the same presentation drawing that was presented to the Congregation of Fortification and War by Tousard for approval in December 1792. The initial designs for the fort were drawn for Tousard by the Maltese draughtsman Giovanni Borg. (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

examples can be found at Mont Dauphin, Perpignan (lunette de Canet), and Besancon. Although Lendy maintains that owing to the defects of the work, most military engineers continued to prefer simple lunettes, D’Arçon’s idea was experimented with by other French engineers outside France. Indeed lunettes much similar in design were built by the French at Palmanova (9), Verona, and Peschiera (Forte Salvi) during the Napoleonic wars and, as will be shown in the course of this paper, even earlier at Malta. Tousard’s own design, however, went one step further than all the rest, since it transformed the lunette from a simple reduit and an appendage of a larger fortress into to a self-contained and veritable fort in its own right.

title Fort Tigné, but is simply shown as a proposed fort for Dragut Point, showing that this was an initial concept, a presentation drawing so to speak, and indeed various elements of the design, as will be shown below, were eventually changed by the time the fort actually reached the construction stage. The next entry in the Order’s records, dated 28 January 1793, confirmed the earlier decision and augured that the works on site would begin as soon as the weather permitted. The whole apparatus had surely been put in motion by the time of the Congregation’s meeting of 12 April 1793, which, furthermore, leaves no doubt as to Tousard’s authorship of the design; ‘Essendosi incomminciata la ridotta nella Punta di Draguta ordinate gia sin dall’ 11 Dec. 1972 secondo il piano e disegno fatto dall Ingegniere Comm. De Tousard, approvato da questo Ven. Congregazione’

A Redoubt on Dragut Point At the time of the publication of the Memoire sur la maniere d’occuper les dehors des fortresses par des moyens rapides by the Comite des Fortifications in mid-1792, Tousard had already been working in Malta for many months. His first recorded presence dates to around late 1791. It is difficult to know when or how Tousard might have either read or have been inspired by this document. There is no way, however, that he could have brought the printed instructions over with him in 1791. If the document was indeed sent to him, it could not have reached him before the end of the third quarter of 1792, at the earliest. The Order’s records, however, reveal that the first decision to build a fort on Dragut Point was taken in a meeting of the Congregation of Fortification and War (of whom Tousard was a member) on 11 December 1792: ‘ si e’ deliberato che si facessi’ una ridotta à Dragut’ This entry provides an important clue, as it already refers to the proposed work as a ‘redoubt’ rather than a ‘fort’, clearly indicating that the concept had already been worked out at this early stage. But how could an engineer have gone from D’Arçon’s basic design to the sophisticated plan of Fort Tigné in the space of a few months, unless, of course, he was already well versed and familiar with the whole concept through his earlier contacts with d’Arçon and his work? The plan that was presented to the Congregation of Fortification and War for its deliberation is probably that which can still be found in the National Library of Malta (shown below) which does not yet bear the 20

Tousard’s name is likewise recorded for posterity on a marble plaque which once marked the location of the foundation stone (see below). In the same sitting of 12 April, the Congregation agreed to ask Grand Master de Rohan for his permission to name the Fort after the Bali de Tigné. This was done not only in recognition of Bali de Tigné’s contribution of the sum of 1,000 scudi to meet the costs of the initial works but also as a sign of appreciation for his long years of dedicated service in the defence of the Order. The Grand Master willingly gave his approval and communicated his decision to the congregation during the sitting of 24 April through the Bali de Hompesch, the future Grand Master, together with the welcome news that De Rohan himself was also contributing the sum of 6,000 scudi out of his own revenues for the continuation of the construction works. This news was accompanied by the reassurance that the Grand Master would provide any other funds as required to prevent the works from becoming too much of a burden on the already overstretched common Treasury. At the same time, another knight, the Bali de Tillet, newly elected to sit on the Congregartion, donated another 500 scudi towards the same end. Two years down the line, however, De Rohan was reduced to covering the Fort’s expenses out of the provisions of the Manoel Foundation: ‘Si e’ tenuta Congregazione di Guerra nella quale si e’ letto il Chirografo di S.A. Emza per l’Unione del Forte Tigné’ alla Fondazione Manoel’. By this point in time, however, the Order was in serious financial trouble owing to the loss of its European properties and the crucial revenues derived from them. In 1795, for example, as part

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, Detail from a painting of the Grand Harbour landscape, showing the location of the Dragut promontory and its strategic importance in relation to the fortress of Valletta. The painting shows the terracing and fields which occupied the site prior to the construction o fthe fort. The promontory also posed a significant threat to the lank of Fort Manoel( Image Source: Courtesy of the National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta).

of a widespread austerity measure, the Order was forced to slash the budget of the Congregation of fortification by half, from 12,000 to 6,000 scudi, and this also included Tousard’s own salary which was halved from 600 to 300 scudi at the stroke of a pen.

The Need to fortify the Punta di Santa Maria

Pasha, which was planted there in order to bombard Fort St Elmo, whereafter, it acquired the name ‘Dragut Point’. The earliest known proposal for the fortification of the site was that put forward by the Italian military engineer Antonio Maurizio Valperga in 1670 as part of an ambitious master plan for the defence of Valletta and its two harbours, a scheme commissioned by Grand Master Nicholas Cotoner. Valperga envisaged a massive fortified city, a so-called ‘Borgo della Citta’ Piciola’, not much unlike the fort that he actually designed and built on Gallow’s Point at the entrance to the Grand Harbour (Fort Ricasoli) on the other side of Valletta.

Below, The promontory known as Dragut Point with Valperga’s proposal for a fortress (left). (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

The strategic importance of the promontory commanding the entrance to Marsamxett harbour on which Fort Tigné was erected only began to surface in the late seventeenth century as a result of the threat that it began to pose to the flank of the fortified city of Valletta. The first mention of the site as a military position of strategic value, however, dates back much earlier to the Great Siege of 1565, when the promontory, then known as Punta Santa Maria, was occupied by a battery of guns commanded by the Turkish corsair Draghut 21

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, Detail from a map of Hospitaller 18th century coastal defences, prepared around 1761-62, showing a proposal for a bastioned form of entrenchment on the northern shore leading to Dragut Point (not built) and the location of Cala Lembi Battery. (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

‘pour render l’acces [à fort Manoel] encore plus difficile propose’rent une redoute quon pouvoit costruire sur la plateau qui avoisine la pointe de l’isle de Marsamusciet la plus proche de l terre ferme de Malte’.

The new Borgo, however, never materialized, and this forced the Grand Prior of France, Philip de Vendome, in 1715, to instruct one of the engineers in his entourage, the later-famous Philip Maigret, to prepare plans and estimates for a new casemated redoubt to be planted on the site: this was to be surrounded by a covertway communicating with the sea. ( see also ‘Memoire sur les fortifications des villes, fortes et chateaux de Malte lors de la Citation faite en l’annee 1715. Attribue’ avoir ete’ fait par un Ingenieur attache’ a M. Le Grand Prieur de Vendome. Il’s’apelloit Maigrat’). In 1716, whilst on his second visit to Malta, Brigadier René Jacob de Tigné likewise proposed to build on Dragut Point, for the relatively small sum of 3,000 scudi, a large battery closed off at the gorge and designed to keep attacking ships away from the mouth of the harbour.

Another anonymous report, in most probability prepared by the knight Chyurlia in 1763, put forward a proposal for the enclosure of the whole promontory within an extensive enceinte, the main front of which was to be sited in the area then known as the ‘Madonna della Sliema ... dove e la maggiore altezza, che dal livello del mare sorge, e si alza di canne 9: e questo sito di canne 180 largo, 140 lungo, e 9 alto, che va in declino dall’uno e l’altro lato fin al canale che tocca il mare.’ This work was to have its bastions, curtains, and outerworks hewn out of rock to render them bombproof. This scheme, which was echoed in an anonymous post-1795 proposal for a new fortified city on the same promontory, with Fort Tigné incorporated as some kind of keep (see image below), however, found no support from the contemporary ‘Intendenti e Professori dell’Architettura militare’ (in most probability, the author was referring to the Bali de Tigné).

Even so, none of these batteries ever materialized and a report, presented in 1789 and citing the advice of the French military engineers sent by the King of France in 1761, underlined the need to increase the protection to Fort Manoel by building a redoubt at the entrance to Marsamexett harbour;

By around the middle of the 1750s, the knights did come around to erecting a coastal battery along the northern shores of the promontory; however, this was placed at a considerable distance from the tip of Dragut Point, nearer to the cove known as Cala Lembi. Actually, This was work was little more than

Despite Valperga’s, Vendome’s, De Tigné’s, and Chyurlia’s concerns, the defence of Dragut Point continued to feature well down the Order’s defensive priorities. It is not clear what eventually forced the knights to finally decide to embark upon the construction of the desired fort late in 1792, especially at such a difficult political and financial moment in the Order’s history. Surely Grand Master de Rohan’s grave apprehensions about France’s hostile intentions towards the Order must have played a central part in the decision. Indeed, the appearance, in 1792, of a large French fleet just off the horizon, was enough to scare the Grand Master and his knights into mobilizing the islands’ militia and prepare the coastal defences. Could Tousard have been specifically called in to help design and build the fort that had long been considered necessary to forge that vital last link in the chain of the defences protecting Valletta and its harbours?

Below, Fort Tigné in relation to the fortified enceinte of Valletta which it was meant to protect, with St Gregory’s Bastion and Fort St. Elmo visible in the background. (Image Source: Author’s private collection).

The new fort - Fort Tigné There is little doubt that the designs for the new ‘redoubt’ at Dragut Point which left Tousard’s drawing board to be presented to the Congregation of Fortification and War must have intrigued the senior knights advising the Grand Master, most of whom were mostly familiar with the bastioned system of defence. The last major fortification effort witnessed in the Maltese islands had been undertaken in the 1760s and had involved the construction of a number of bastioned-trace coastal entrenchments. This was all over by 1770, with many of the enceintes remaining incomplete largely as a result of a lack of money. Prior to this, the last real veritable major fortress to be built, was Fort Chambrai, in Gozo, begun in 1749, and likewise designed to the conventions of the French bastioned trace. It too was completed by the early 1760s. But that was more than twenty years before and no other real work of fortification had taken shape in the Maltese island since then. Those two decades had, in the meantime, witnessed the fortification ‘crisis’ that shook the French engineering establishment and launched the heated debate. It is not known what many of the knights, or the Maltese inhabitants for that matter, thought of the new work of fortification once its unfamiliar lines began to take shape on the tip of the Sliema promontory. Fort Tigné’s unorthodox design must have attracted its fair share of attention in local circles, especially amongst the many knights who considered themselves competent enough (and there were many) to decide on matters of fortifications. If it did, their opinions have not yet come down to us! However, one must appreciate that the significance of the new fort could not have been fully appreciated from outside the work itself, or from across the harbour, from where its silhouette was most readily visible. To all intents and purposes, and to the untrained eye, Fort Tigné must have appeared as little more than a small, unassuming work of fortification, especially when compared to the neighbouring and imposing ramparts of Fort Manoel, or the towering bulwarks of Valletta to its rear, given that the little fort’s novel systems of reverse flanking fire and counterscarp musketry galleries was hidden from view by the glacis. Many must have simply interpreted the ‘smallness’ of the new work as a product of the times, reflecting the Order’s dire financial situation and limited resources. The first to truly appreciate the ingenuity of the design of Fort Tigné were the British military engineers who were much impressed by it when they took over Malta’s fortifications in 1800. Strangely, none of the accounts of Napoleon’s 23

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

small coastal artillery platform armed with six 12 pounder guns and was intended largely to dissuade an invading fleet from bombarding the northern flank of the Fort Manoel rather than controlling the entrance to Marsamxett Harbour. During the military exercises of 1760, Cala Lembi Battery was garrisoned and provided with the necessary munitions at the expense of the Fondazione Manoel and the following year French military engineers proposed that it be connected to the shore inside Marsamxett Harbour by ‘une communicatione pour faciliter a la garrison de retirer au Fort Manoel, quan elle ne pourroit plus tenir.’ Cala Battery was eventually disarmed after the completion of Fort Tigné, but the structure was not demolished and continued to worry Tousard because of its proximity and height in relation to his fort.

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Salient Counterscarp Musketry Gallery

Glacis

Right Face

Left Face

Central Barrack Block (traverse / abris)

Counterscarp

Left Counterscarp Musketry Gallery

Ditch

Left Flank

Right Counterscarp Musketry Gallery

Graphic reconstruction Harbour-side view by Dr Stephen C Spiteri Ph.D. Copyright - 2009

Right Flank

Tower-Keep Caponier

Cistern

Flight of steps

Sally-port

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Fort TignĂŠ - c. 1798

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Central Barrack Block (abris) Right Counterscarp Musketry Gallery Right Face

Ditch

Glacis

Terrace Platform of Salient Counterscarp Musketry Gallery

Graphic reconstruction Landward view by Dr Stephen C Spiteri Ph.D. Copyright - 2009

Tower-Keep

Left Counterscarp Musketry Gallery

Left Face

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Fort TignĂŠ - c. 1798

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Fort TignĂŠ - c. 1798 Graphic reconstruction Harbour-side view by Dr Stephen C Spiteri Ph.D. Copyright - 2009

Left Flank with Scarp Musketry Gallery

Terrace Platform of Tower Keep

Escutcheons with Double-headed Eagle Main Gate

Sally-port

Circular Drop-ditch

Wooden Palisaded Gate

Rock-hewn Rock-hewn Traverse with Banquette

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Tower-Keep

Caponier

Flight of steps

Cistern

n Steps

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

invasion in1798 reveal that any of the French engineers or commanders paid any special attention to the structure after its surrender. Napoleon himself is not recorded to have shown any particular interest in the fort although, on the other hand, he did find the time to inspect Fort Ricasoli and Valletta’s massive system of fortifications. The first really good description and evaluation of Fort Tigné to come from the immediate post-Hospitaller period is given by General Pasley, who served in Malta during the Blockade of the French in I798: ‘This work is of a quadrilateral figure, the length of the sides not exceeding 85 yards The scarp is about 30 feet high, and casemated, with loopholes, for firing into the ditch. The parapets are of the soft free-stone peculiar to Malta, and are pierced with embrasures for cannon, at rather more than the usual intervals apart, covered over the top, interiorly, with large stones and have intermediate banquettes formed from steps of masonry. In the direction of the capital of the work, which presents a salient angle towards the country, there is a casemated barrack block, equal in height to the terrepleins, with which it communicates, and having loopholes for musquetry [musketry] on each side of it. Immediately in the rear of this there is a round tower, serving as a keep, which is about 35 feet high, and 60 feet in diameter. It is built with two stories, and has two tiers of loopholes; pierced in its exterior walls, which are about 4 feet 6 inches thick. It has a terrace and stone parapet on top, to which there is communication by means of winding staircases. The entrance to the tower is by a drawbridge. A palisaded caponier, in the near of it, leads a short distance to the harbour of Marsamxett, beyond which this redoubt is situated as an advanced work to the famous fortress of Valletta. It has a good ditch and revetted counterscarp, and countermines proceeding from a counterscarp gallery, three portions of which, namely those which are near the advanced angles of the redoubt, project back wards into the ditch, being made more spacious than the rest of it, and are constructed with loopholes, to produce a reverse and flanking musquetry, as also with airholes, at certain intervals; to carry off the smoke in firing. These galleries as well as the countermines, are connected with the interior of the redoubt, by communication galleries, sunk beneath the level of the ditch. There is a kind of covered way, not continued all round in the usual manner; but in three portions only, which are over the principal crennel galleries of the counterscarp: beyond which follows the glacis’ (Hughes, I993.). Major McKerras, writing in December I800, considered Fort Tigné a work constructed with a great deal of ingenuity and was highly impressed 30

Above, Details of the ground-level (above) and terrace-level (top) plans of Fort Tigné from the original presentation drawing which shows the initial design concept. Various details were eventually re-thought and changed. (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

by the fact that it was completely countermined. Nonetheless, he found the fort to be commanded by a height at a distance of 500 yards where the remains of an old work, the Cala Lembi Battery, afforded potential cover to besiegers and, moreover, from its want of capacity and composition, ‘particularly due to its bad masonry and the fact that it was not well covered by its glacis, Fort Tigné’

could not be ‘attended to without considerable loss or difficulty’. Another inspectional report, accompanied by a surviving plan, was drawn up by Lt. Col. Dickens in 1811 and shows the fort still, more or less, as had been left by the Knights. Colonel Lewis, writing even later in the l860s, stated that in early years of the nineteenth century British officers considered Fort Tigné to epitomise the perfection of a small fort without ‘flanking defences ... capable of considerable resistance’.

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, Detail from a photograph of Marsamxett Harbour showing Fort Tigné around the early 1860s, practically, as left by the Knights in 1798 were it not for the re-modelled parapet crowing the circular tower-keep. (Image source: Courtesy of the National Museum of Archaeology).

a feature which is totally missing in the D’Arçon’s lunettes. This was only possible because of the greater height, or relief, of Fort Tigné’s tower over the adjoining fort. This increase in height enabled the tower to serve as a sort of cavalier, allowing its guns to cover the ground before the glacis. Such an improvement over D’Arçon’s tower was also proposed by Baron Maurice, the Swiss engineer mentioned earlier, in his proposed modification of D’Arçon’s ideas. Tousard, therefore, envisaged a more active defensive role for his tour-reduit than that which D’Arçon assigned to his towers. Originally, Tousard’s tower-keep was ringed by a small parapet pierced with four embrasures. Unfortunately this parapet was dismantled during the British period and replaced by a wider sloping parapet designed to convert the structure into a Martello-type tower mounting a single cannon on a centrally-pivoted mount. Still, a close look at the original drawing presented by Tousard to the Congregation does not show any embrasures in

Anatomy of Fort Tigné - the main features A full appreciation of the influence exerted on the lunette d’Arçon and Montalembert’s perpendicular fortifications on the design of Fort Tigné, and the manner in which Tousard went on to develop the idea further, can only be arrived at through a detailed examination of the fort and its layout, and the details of the various elements that make up the work. The following section examines each of these elements individually. For this purpose, Fort Tigné has been divided structurally into four major components; namely the circular keep, the diamond-shaped body with its batteries of guns, the ditch, and the outerworks (which comprise the counterscarp galleries, countermines, and glacis).

Above, Detail of the terrace-level plan of Fort Tigné taken from the same original presentation drawing by the draughtsman Giovanni Borg, already shown above. Note that the parapet of the tower has no embrasures and that the terrace seems to be capped by a conical roof. (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

1. The Keep Undeniably, the tower-keep, or tour-reduit, of Fort Tigné is its most striking and unusual feature. This is basically modelled on the reduit de surete of D’Arçon’s lunettes but it is a much more developed and sophisticated product. To begin with, it was designed with two tiers of musketry loopholes compared to the one of D’Arçon, allowing its defenders to lay down a dense 360-degree barrage of musketry fire. Secondly, came the terrace platform with four embrasures for cannon,

Abov, Detail from a 19th century painting of Fort Tigné, showing the tower-keep as built with its original embrasured parapet still in place. (Image source: Author’s private collection). 31

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, Detail from plan and sectional elevation of Fort Tigné accompanying col. Dickens 1811 report showing the original tower-keep with its parapet, sloped terrace platform, and intermediate floor resting on timber beams. (Image source: Author’s private collection – photographed from the original plan when in the National Museum of Archaeology).

Above, Two of the three tour-reduits which were built by the knights in the early 1700s for the infantry defence of Kalafrana and M’Xlokk. (Image source: Author’s private collection). The Kalafrana redoubt (top) has a semicircular front pierced with musketry loopholes.

none of these were circular or had more than a single tier of musketry loopholes, that at Kalafrana did have a semi-circular front (see illustrations above). Above, Fort Tigné’s tour-reduit prior to its restoration (Image source: Author’s private collection).

the tower’s parapet. Furthermore, it also tends to suggest that the tower was initially designed with a conical rooftop! Unfortunately, the sectional elevation drawing which would have accompanied this plan has not survived to confirm this observation. If so, than Tousard’s tower-keep is more dependent on D’Arçon’s reduit de surete than meets the eye. That this feature was eventually dropped from his final plan and replaced by a roof-mounted platform may also suggest that the adaptation of Tousard’s initial idea may have been done to accommodate the advice, or criticism, of some other member of the Congregation. The use of a tour-reduit for musketry fire was not new to Malta. In fact, in the early decades of the eighteenth century, the knights had experimented with various designs of tower-like coastal redoubts. At least three were built in Marsaxlokk and although 32

The tower-keep at Fort Tigné was isolated from the body of the fort by its own circular ditch, which was largely rock-hewn. It was approached via a flight of steps rising from the seashore and across a place-of-arms, and then entered through a small main gate served with a drawbridge shielded by a wooden palisaded ratelier. A smaller gateway (more of a sally-port) linked the tower, via another drawbridge, to the central traverse-cum-barrack block running along the capital of the work. Internally, the tower was constructed as one large quardri-partite vault and the space divided vertically into two levels by means of an intermediate floor supported on wooden beams. Four small spiral staircases (Maltese garigori), set within the thickness of the abutments supporting the vaulted ceiling, connected the ground floor with the intermediate floor and the terrace platform above, as well as with the underground communication gallery running beneath the tower which was designed to link the fort to its counterscarp musketry galleries and countermines. The circular terrace platform was raised slightly towards its centre to help counter

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, Top, Detail of the reduit de surete of D’Arçon’s proposed lunette for Toulon (Image source: Courtesy of P. Prost). Above, Sectional elevations and plans of the same tower. (image source: P. Prost).

the recoil of the guns. The sloping platform also helped drain the roof from rain water through four ‘mizieb’, or spouts, shaped in the form of cannon muzzles. British military engineers, unfortunately, altered the platform to enable it to take a singular gun mounted on a traversing carriage, an alteration which resulted also in the reshaping of the original parapet and the addition of a small storage shed. 1a. The Main Gate The focal architectural and decorative feature of the tour-reduit of Fort Tigné was its main gate. This is an interesting feature in its own right. It introduced a novel form of architectural detailing into the gateway

Above, Top, View of the tower-keep of the Lunette d’Arçon at Mont Dauphin, and above, its vaulted interior with openings for musketry loopholes. (Image Source: Author’s private collection).

of fortifications, up until then largely dependent on the classical pilastered forms. Here, Tousard designed a relatively simple facade consisting of a blocked semi-circular arch with banded columns, often known as ‘Gibbs surround’, after the Baroque architect James Gibbs (1682-1754) who made the blocked architrave surrounds popular in Britain in the second half of the eighteenth century. This type of architectural surround is not easily elsewhere encountered around Malta. The author was only able to trace one similar design in a building in Valletta (see photograph) and it may well be that the idea was introduced locally by Tousard, although 33

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

this aspect needs to be investigated further by art historians. The commemorative marble plaque, set within the arched surround, above the crest of the door, is a heavy piece of marble, semi-circular in shape. The lead lettering of its Latin inscription reads as follows: EMANVELI DE ROHAN MAGNO MAG S ORD IEROSOLYMARI QVOD SOLITA IN MELITA MVNIFICENTIA AT ANIMI MODERATIONE HOC PROPVGNACVLVM CVM OPERIBVS EX AERARIO SVO ET SINE TITVLO NOMINIS SVI ANNO PRINCIPATVS DECIMO SEPTIMO AEDIFICAVERIT OPTIMO ET PROVEDENTISSIMO PRINCIPI IIII VIRI REI BELLICAE PONEND CVRARVNT

Above, Top, Tower-keep of Fort Tigné c. 1860, with its remodelled parapet. Also visible in the foreground is the caponier. (Image source: Courtesy of the National Museum of Archaeology). Above, Detail from sectional elevation of Fort Tigné dating to the mid-19th century, showing the tower-keep with its remodelled parapet and terrace platform. Below, View of the tower-keep and its shallow ditch as seen from the counterscarp on the harbour side of the fort. (Image source: Author’s private collection) Comparative views of the tower-keeps of the Lunette d’Arçon at Mont Dauphin (left) and Fort Tigné (right). (Image source: Author’s 3D reconstructions)

Roughly translated, it reads ‘To Emanuel De Rohan, Grand Master of the Order of Knights of Jerusalem, who, with his usual bounty towards Malta and prudence of spirit built this fortress with its works out of his own pocket and without giving his name to it in the seventeenth year of his reign. The four members of the Congregation erected this tablet to an excellent and most provident ruler.’ It is interesting to note that the inscription seeks to emphasize the fact that the Grand Master had paid for the fort even though it was not named in his honour. As if to compensate for this state of affairs, the Congregation than sought to name the refortification of St Lucian’s Tower and battery, and its enclosure within a light entrenchment (a very hasty intervention undertaken by Tousard from 1792 onwards), as Fort Rohan. There is some evidence to indicate that the main portal was originally crowned by a pair of escutcheons bearing the arms of Grand Master de Rohan and the Order. All the Order’s major works of fortification were given such a feature. These decorative heraldic elements had already disappeared from the keep of Fort Tigné by the mid-nineteenth century, as can be seen in photograph of the tower from the period, but they were still extent in the early decades of the British occupation as evidenced by the detail from the watercolour painting reproduced below, which, moreover, depicts the escutcheons held together in the claws of a doubled headed eagle. Strange as it may appear today, this was not the product of the artist’s imagination, for the use of the Austrian double-headed eagle as a support to the coat of arms of the Order and the Grand Master had actually been introduced during De Rohan’s reign in 1778. This was a direct result of Pope Pius VI’s decision to incorporate the Order

Above, Detail from 19th century painting showing part of the tower-keep and glacis of Fort Tigné, revealing the escutcheons and double-headed eagle crowing the main gate (highlighted). The drawing also shows the wooden palisades lining the parapets of the caponier (a remnant from the time of the knights) and the flight of steps leading down to the shore. (Image source: Author’s private collection). Below, Right, Medallion with the Austrian double-headed eagle of the Order of St Anthony used as a support for coat of arms of the Order of St John, taken from the elaborately engraved frontispiece of the Order’s code of laws which was published in 1784 under the title Del Diritto Municipale di Malta, loosely referred to as the Codice de Rohan. Left, Coin with coat of arms of Grand Master Ferdinand von Hompesch supported by the Austrian doubled-headed eagle of the Order of St Anthony. The eagles hold the ‘Tau’ Cross in their beaks (Image source: Author’s private collection).

of St Anthony into that of St John in 1775. The Hospitaller Order of St Anthony was a non-military Monastic Order that had been founded in 1095 and had spread over the whole of Western Europe with hundreds of hospitals. Its coat of arms consisted of a ‘Tau’ Cross supported by an Austrian doubleheaded eagle which had been granted to the Order in 1502 by Emperor Maximilian I. When the Order was amalgamated with the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, this double-headed eagle was placed as a supporter behind the coat of arms of the Order of 35

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Left, View of the main gate of Fort Tigné, after restoration with detail of commemorative marble plaque, below. (Image source: Author’s private collection). Above, View of a surround in an eighteenth-century building in Valletta, employing elements similar to Fort Tigne’s portal (Image source: Author’s private collection).

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Fort TignĂŠ - c. 1798 Graphic reconstruction Tower-keep and outerworks by Dr Stephen C Spiteri Ph.D. Copyright - 2009

Embrasures Terrace Platform

Upper Floor resting on timber beams

Musketry Loopholes Spiral Staircase

Main Portal 36

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Embrasure

Escutcheons with Double-headed Eagle and coat of arms of GM de Rohan

Marble Plaque with Latin inscription

Main Gate

Wooden Palisaded Gate

Wooden Palisades along Parapet of Caponier

Earthen Banquette

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Close-up view of the commemorative marble plaque crowning the main gateway of Fort TignĂŠ. Note the brass wheels which worked the chainand-tackle drawbridge (red box). These, however, may actually date to the British period as evidenced by the two blocked up cuttings (yellow box) in the base of the moulding enveloping the marble plaque. If this is the proper reading of these features, it would suggest that the original opening was considerably smaller and would have been served by a tamburo type of drawbridge-lifting mechanism that was favoured by the knights for small doorways in towers and sally-ports. (Image source: Authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s private collection). 38

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Two views of the Tour-reduit of Fort Tigné. The widened musketry loopholes on the lower tier date from the British period, when these were adapted to serve as windows. Most of the rusticated cladding is from relatively modern periods. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Frontal elevation of the main gateway of Fort Tigné. The yellow box marks the position where the escutcheons and doubleheaded eagle support would have surmounted the gateway. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

View of the northern side of the Tour-reduit of Fort TignĂŠ showing the small gateway designed to link the tower with the body of the fort via the blockhouse-cum-traverse running along the capital. This was served by a drawbridge. A modern platform now bridges the gap, see also opposite page, top. (Image source: Authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s private collection). 42

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Left face of the blockhousecum-traverse running along the capital of the work. Originally this only had two doorways on each side and no windows (Image source: Authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s private collection).

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, Detail showing Fort Tigné around the early 1860s. Note the guns in their embrasures, those en barbette on the left flank of the fort, as well as the caponier and flight of steps leading to it. Note also the sally-port tucked away to the left of the flight of steps, opening just near the small sheltered cove (Image source: Courtesy of the National Museum of Archaeology).

St John and also behind that of the Grand Master. Its first recorded use was by Grand Master de Rohan in 1778, and it continued to be used under Ferdinand von Hompesch until 1798, whereafter, it was replaced by the Russian doubled headed eagle until 1803. The gateway was served by a wooden drawbridge that worked on the chain-and-tackle system and was protected by a wooden palisaded gate held between two stout masonry pilasters. Neither the pilasters, nor the palisaded gate and the wooden tavolatura of the original drawbridge have survived, but the gateway facade still retains the two brass wheels that helped work the drawbridge chain, set in small slit openings just above the entrance.

2. The body of the work Unlike the Lunettes d’Arçon which basically consisted of a pentagonally-shaped ravelin, the body of the work at Fort Tigné comprised a casemated enclosure built to a diamond-shaped plan with a salient angle of 90 degrees. The work consisted of two outer faces 60 m in length and two flanks 45 m long. Both faces and flanks were built on a system of vaulted casemates and their outer walls were pierced with a large number of musketry loopholes. One of the initial plans shows the lateral casemates open to the rear where they overlook the courtyard. The casemates provided important overhead shelter for the troops from air-bursting bombs as well as providing adequate bombproof storage areas for munitions and victuals. Those on the left flank housed the artillery store, and those 44

Above, Detail of the ground-level plan of Fort Tigné, taken from the same original presentation drawing already shown above. Note that the casemates along the faces and right flank are open to the rear and that none of the casemates are linked internally to one another. This latter detail, however, does not correspond to the physical evidence. Note also the radically different concept for the caponier and its manner of communication to the shore down below. (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

on the right, the gunpowder magazine and the infirmary. A casemated traverse divided the interior of the work along the capital into two moieties and served the same purposes of the abris designed by D’Arçon. Tousards ‘abris’ however, was more than just a mere shelter for the garrison – the loopholes cut into its walls meant that it was also intended to serve more actively as a defensible barrack block and redoubt, and was clearly designed to protect the interior of the fort in conjunction with the tour-reduit. Today, this long vaulted block has its outer walls pierced with many modern doors and windows, but originally, and like D’Arçon’s abris, it only had two pairs of openings (again showing D’Arçon’s influence on Tousard’s design). Unfortunately, practically all of its musketry loopholes were hidden away under an external lining of modern cladding (although most of these loophles can still be traced

Above, View of the gorge of the casemated left face of Fort Tigné as partially restored and reconstructed to British-period terrace level. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, View of one of the vaulted casemates along the left face of the fort with its row of musketry loopholes before restoration. Note the partially-blocked up opening in the side walls. (Image source: Author’s private collection). These have now been fully re-opened, providing a continuous internal link right through the casemates on the left face of the work. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

Above, View of the interior of the scarp musketry gallery along the left flank (harbour-facing side) of the fort after restoration. The wall with doorway at the farther end of the gallery led to a small powder store – a minor alteration that dates to the British period. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

Above, View of the scarp musketry gallery along the left flank harbour-facing side) of the fort during restoration. Below, View of the left courtyard of the fort, showing the ‘abris’ or traverse that divided the work in two halves along the line of the capital. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

from the interior, despite the fact that they were sealed off with stone blocks) in order to convert the traverse into more comfortable, draught-free barrack accommodation during the British period. The sole entrance to the body of the work was through a doorway set into the gorge of the traversecum-barrack block via the rear gateway in the tourreduit and across a wooden drawbridge. Unlike 45

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, Interior and exterior views of the salient casemate with the original loopholes and large entrance opened by the British military to provide access to the ditch. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

the large open gorge of D‘Arçon’s abris, which was meant to be covered by musketry fire from the tower, Tousard’s abris was closed off with a wooden gate. A weakness in Tousard’s design meant that the courtyards on either side of the traverse could still be easily accessed via the relatively shallow ditch of the tour-reduit, which was no real physical barrier. In practice, with the defenders still manning the tower, there was little chance of this actually happening but perhaps a form of wooden palisade was used to seal off this opening, although no evidence for this has been traced to date.

Above, Three views of the casemated traverse that divides the work in two halves along the line of the capital. (Image source: Author’s private collection). Note the original musketry loopholes that were left uncovered by the British military. (Image source: Author’s private collection), also shown from the interior, below..

Tousard’s main alteration to the plan of the lunette, therefore, was to drawn in the flanks backwards from the shoulders towards the capital, thereby restricting and reducing the width of the gorge to a minimum space necessary to accommodate the e tower keep. This meant that the flanks were extended in length from the normal 20 m to 40 m while the lunette itself acquired a diamondshaped rather than pentagonal plan, making it, in effect a polygonal work. Unlike the Lunette d’Arçon, however, Tousard’s tower could not flank the adjoining walls as the flanks were made tangential to the circular keep. In a way this was not necessary,as the flanks were adequately enfiladed by the reverse fire from the flanking galleries. 2a. The Parapets As in the majority of fortresses, the most vital and exposed part of the ramparts of Fort Tigné were the parapets. At Fort Tigné, however, the parapets had little in common with the normal pattern that had hitherto been built in the other fortifications erected by the Knights, other than the fact that their superior slopes were inclined outwards and covered with flagstones. Unfortunately, none of Fort Tigné’s original parapets have survived. As a matter of fact, both the faces and flanks of the

Its advantages were quickly appreciated, particularly the wider field of fire provided by the rotating mount and the added protection that it gave its gun crew. But to be truly effective, these new carriage had to be accommodated in specially modified parapets that allowed for the traversing of the platform and at the same time screened both the gun and its crew. Basically this meant smaller opening, higher walls, thicker parapets with specially adapted inner sides to allow for the rotation of the carriage and a pivoting anchor point beneath the genouilliere to house the traversing arm of the carriage.

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

work were cleared in a tabula rasa fashion of all structures above the level of the platform, and even the platform itself, where it still survives, reveals the adaptations from the British period. At the time, what made the Fort Tigné parapets different was the form of the embrasures which they were designed to accommodate. And here again, we encounter another novel feature. For the embrasures at Fort Tigné were designed, and built, to mount more than just the simple wheeled (truck) gun carriages. In fact, they were specially designed to house traversing carriages, affuts à aiguilles, on the French pattern. In this case, however, it does not appear that it was Tousard himself who had introduced the idea into the design of the Order’s fortifications, for earlier in 1788, we find the Congregation of Fortification and War examining the ‘modelli’ (sample models) and instructions for the construction of a Gribeauval carriage. On that occasion, the Commander of Artillery was ordered to see to the construction of a prototype coastal gun mounting for an 18-pounder cannon according to the designs presented to the Congregation and to draw up an account of the costs involved, while the work was entrusted to Lorenzo Turneo ‘Capo Maestro del Fa legname dell’Artiglieria’ (master carpenter) who was eventually rewarded for his ‘fedele eseguimento di un ceppo fatta giusta il disegno di M. Griboval.’ The new traversing carriage was finished in the space of a few months and tested on 4 May 1789 in the presence of the Congregation and once again, on 11 May, in the presence of Grand Master de Rohan.

Above, Detail of the terrace-level plan of Fort Tigné taken from the same original presentation drawing by the draughtsman Giovanni Borg, already shown above. Note the indented profile of the parapets. The embrasures are not shown except on the left flank, which contains seven smaller ones. These were not built, however, as they were replaced by a low wall to enable the guns to fire en barbette. (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta). Below, Detail of the terrace-level plan of Fort Tigné taken from the 1811 plan accompanying Col. Dickens’ report showing very clearly the dispositions of the embrasures and intervening banquettes. The left flank is en barbette. Note also the four embrasures on the parapet of the circular keep. (Image source: Author’s private collection – photographed from the original plan when in the National Museum of Archaeology).

In 1788, however, the Order simply did not have the necessary resources to replace all the thenexisting gun carriages with this new model, and even less available was the money to rebuild the parapets along the many miles of fortifications so as to accommodate the new mountings. The minutes of the meeting of the Congregation of Fortification and War held on the 28 August 1789, reveal this dilemma and show that knights could only really just afford to replace those carriages that had been rendered unserviceable with the new pattern while an entry for 1795 shows that orders were given for 47

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Fort TignĂŠ - c. 1798 Graphic reconstruction Sea-facing view Copyright - 2009

Left Counterscarp Musketry Gallery

En barbette parapet on Left Flank

Drawbridge Linking Tower with body of the fort Tower-Keep

Drawbridge of Main Gate Linking Tower with Caponier

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Glacis

Barrel-vaulted Casemates

Central Barrack Block (abris)

Embrasures Openings in side of Loopholed Barrack Block

Right Flank pierced with Musketry Loopholes

Sloping Rock-hewn Ground of Ditch along Right Flank

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

the production of only one such carriage a year (‘secondo il nuovo modello’) and that the knights were to continue to make do with, and repair, the existing gun carriages. Rather than Tousard, therefore, it is most likely that the new embrasure design intended to accommodate the affuts à aiguilles was actually introduced by the knight Henry des Mazis, who was an artillery engineer and who served the Order as a military engineer of sorts up until around 1791. It is not clear, however, whether or not any new embrasures of this sort designed to accommodate these new types of carriages had been built before the arrival of Tousard in late 1791. The first work to be shown fitted with these types of embrasures is the small casemated counterguard in the ditch of Fort Ricasoli, which was begun by 1788 ( but still incomplete by 1798) and built under the supervision of the Maltese Capo Maestro delle Opere Antonio Cachia. But the parapets on this work were still under construction in 1798 Furthermore, apart from Fort Tigné, and Fort Ricasoli, the new embrasures also appear in the plans of a special battery that was erected at St Gregory Bastion on the Carafa enceinte at Valletta. Both these later works, if not actually conceived by Tousard himself, were definitely brought to completion under his supervision, as evidenced by the many plans and reports that bear his signature. Actually, from the little available evidence, it appears that the embrasures at Fort Tigné bear a close resemble to the pattern that had been developed by the French military engineer Jean-Baptiste Meusnier in France, an example of which is illustrated in one of the plates in Montalambert’s publication La Fortification Perpndiculaire, 1776-1797, Paris (see image below). These were more similar, though simpler, to those that were built for St Gregory’s Bastion in that they were partly vaulted over and covered towards their inner part, unlike those of Fort Ricasoli which were open. At Fort Tigné, however, this ‘covering’ seems to have consisted simply of a large lintel block of stone or a few voussoirs forming small arched opening. Col. Dicken’s 1811 plan of Fort Tigné, the second known British plan of the fort (the first accompanied McKerras’ report, but it has not yet been traced), already seems to show the embrasures as uncovered, suggesting that the lintels (or voussoirs) had been removed from the necks of the embrasures sometime between Pasley’s description and 1811. There is also some suspicion that the fleur d’eau battery at Senglea Point may have been also adapted to house similar traversing carriages for a 50

Above and below, Details from Tousard’s plan of the parapets and embrasures for Fort Ricsoli in 1792. These embrasures were specifically designed to accommodate affuts à aiguilles. These embrasures and their intermediate merlons with tapering stepped banquettes were practically identical to those that were built at Fort Tigné, except for the fact that those at Fort Tigné had a large lintel block laid over the inner narrow end (r neck of the embrasure) to effectively form a porthole. (Image source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

few photographs from the late 1800s do seem to imply that the inner ends of the embrasures were covered over. On the other hand the large vaulted embrasures at Fort St Angelo’s Fleur d’eau battery (demolished in a storm during the nineteenth century), and those of San Petronio Battery (also demolished) were much older and do not seem to have been part of this adaptation. A characteristic feature of the embrasure designed to accommodate an affut à aiguilles was the cavity cut beneath the genouillére (genouilliere) in order

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, Detail from Tousard’s plan of the parapets and embrasures on St Gregory’s Bastion, Carafa enceinte, Valletta (Lower St Elmo) dated after 1792. These embrasures were also specifically designed to accommodated affuts à aiguilles but were fully vaulted over in the manner adopted by Meusnier - see illustration below. (Image source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta ). Below, Detail from another of Tousard’s plan of the parapets and embrasures designed for the casemates on St Dominic’s Demi-Bastion at Fort Ricasoli, dated after 1792. These too were specifically designed to accommodate affuts à aiguilles but were fully vaulted over in the manner adopted by Meusnier (see illustration below). (Image source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta ).

Above, Jean-Baptiste Meusnier’s affut à aiguille and embrasure as illustrated in La Fortification Perpendiculaire, 1776-1797, Paris (Image source: reproduced from J. Langins).

to house the pivoting arm of gun carriage, which was itself held in place by an iron pin (aiguille = needle) inserted through a cylindrical opening in the upper face of the genouillére. This detail is clearly depicted in Tousard’s embrasures for Fort Ricasoli (see above). Another feature, was the manner in which the parapet was projected inwards on both sides of the gun emplacement to serve as a sort of traverse intended to protect the gun crew from ricochet fire. The thick intervening merlons, as a result, acquired a considerable height (at times

around 3 metres) and had to be served by relatively high multi-stepped banquettes if the soldiers were to be able to discharge their firearms effectively. Unfortunately no single example of these forms of parapets and embrasures that can be safely dated to the period have survived at Fort Ricasoli or at any other Hospitaller period fortress (although there are various British variations on the design). The left flank of Fort Tigné, facing Marsamxett Harbour, was not fitted with any embrasures at all but was left en barbette. In Tousard’s original presentation drawing, however, it is shown as having a narrower parapet pierced with seven smaller and tightly packed embrasures. Internally the flank was occupied by one long vaulted gallery pierced by a long row of musketry loopholes. This platform only acquired embrasures for a while 51

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, Possibly the only surviving embrasure built to Tousard’s pattern at Fort Ricasoli, designed specifically to accommodated an affut à aiguille. Although the embrasure has all the dimensions of Tousard’s design, it could not be ascertained if this is still an authentic emplacement dating to the Hospitaller period. It could not be confirmed, owing to the very dense and heavy vegetation, if the genouilliere contained the recess designed to take the pivoting-arm of the carriage. A couple of similar-looking embrasures on the same parapet lack this feature and seem to have been rebuilt during the British period. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

during the British period but these were eventually dismantled by the end of the nineteenth century. All the parapets and embrasures at Fort Tigné, as a matter of fact, were unceremoniously swept away by the British military to make way for new gun emplacements during the 1860s. Gen. Pasley stated that the gun embrasures at Fort Tigné were placed at more than the normal distance apart. However, the dimensions shown on all existing plans indicate that these were placed between 18 and 19.9 ft apart, which was roughly consistent with the normal distance of 18 ft that was prescribed in military text books of the time and also normally found in most of the Order’s fortifications. In a way, the manner of the deployment of the fort’s cannon shows that Tousard was not seeking to emulate Montalembert’s concentration of artillery that had been employed in his wooden coastal fortress on the Isle d’ Aix (In 1778-1781, Montalembert had built a large threetiered coastal gun fort on the island of Aix. This was to prove to be Montalembert’s only work to have ever been built). A study of Tousard’s other major work along the land front of Fort Ricasoli, on the other hand, clearly shows that he had actually sought to create a heavy concentration of artillery in the faces of the demi-bastion, faussebraye and demi-counterguard, creating four tiers of gun embrasures, two of which were protected inside casemates. It is not clear if this scheme was actually fully implemented for unfortunately, this very part 52

Above images, Author’s graphic reconstruction of the type of the type of embrasure employed at Fort Tigné , designed to accommodate an affut à aiguille. (Image source: Author’s design)

of Fort Ricasoli was demolished during the course of the infamous Froberg Mutiny, when a desperate gang of mutineers blew up a large powder magazine situated within one of the casemates. This elevation provided an unprecedented exercise in the concentration of cannon, and is not to be found anywhere else along the bastioned fronts of the Order’s fortifications. As such, it definitely shows the influence of Montalembert’s doctrine for overwhelming defensive fire on Tousard’s thinking. Montalembert’s influence on Tousard, or at least on

Early photographs of Fort Tigné do not shed much light on the configuration of the embrasures. What they do reveal, on the other hand, was that the parapets stood relatively high above the crest of the enveloping glacis. This meant that the scarp walls were unnecessarily exposed to plunging and even direct fire. Major McKerras, writing in December I800, was critical of the fact that fort was not well covered by its glacis and the same sentiment was echoed by Col. Dickens in 1811 who likewise considered the ‘Escarpe wall on two sides … not sufficiently covered by the Glacis’. Furthermore, the gradient of the glacis beyond the crest of the parapet of the detached place-of-arms was somewhat steep, and this appears to have left small areas of ground near the salient angles unseen from within the fort – a defect which can be easily noted in the early existing photographs of the fort taken prior to the devastating mutilation ensuing from the British interventions of the second half of the nineteenth century. It is difficult to comprehend how two such serious shortcomings compromising the safety of the fort were never rectified, even in the later British period. Possibly, this defect was a result of Tousard’s absence from Malta at the closing stages of the works and may, therefore, have resulted from a lack of adequate supervision. An obscure source mentions Tousard’s promotion to Chef de Bataillon on 1 germinal year III (21 March 1795), which, unless mistaken, implies that he must have returned to France temporarily during the closing period of fort’s construction. Frederick Ryan, on the other hand, states that Tousard accompanied the Bailli de Virieu to France in 1796, on a highly sensitive diplomatic mission to France at Grand Master de Rohan’s bequest.

3. The Outerworks The most crucial element in the defence of the fort, and the one aspect contributing to the whole revolutionary aspect of the design, were the three counterscarp musketry galleries designed to provide reverse flanking fire along the four faces of the fort inside the ditch. These musketry galleries, however, were more than simply counterscarp positions as

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

the Hospitaller military establishment at the time, can be seen in another unsigned and undated plan (c. pre-1793) put forward for the defence of Dragut Point and the Sliema promontory (first reproduced by the late Prof Quentin Hughes) which shows a large fort with casemated redoubts and sea-level batteries (see supra). This intriguing scheme has not attracted much attention or academic comment to-date and deserves further study.

Above, Detail from another of Tousard’s plans showing the parapets and embrasures on the face of St Dominic Demi-Bastion and faussebraye on the seaward side of the land front of Fort Ricasoli, dated after 1792. This proposal for a rebuilding of the elevation was then an unprecedented exercise in the concentration of cannon, and was not to be found anywhere along the bastioned fronts of the Order’s other fortifications. It clearly reveals the influence of Montalembert’s doctrine for overwhelming defensive fire on Tousard’s thinking. (Image source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta). Below, Two other details from the same plan of Fort Ricasoli’s land front, showing a sectional elevation through St Dominic Demi-Bastion and its faussebraye, the layout of these ramparts and their immediate outerworks, dated after 1792. (Image source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

they projected outwards from the counterscarp into the ditch, forming short flanks. Each had two reentrant faces, pierced with 21 musketry loopholes and a further 4 on the two short flanks (a total of 50 loopholes per lunette). The casemated interiors of the musketry galleries were ventilated with air-holes (11 per face - i.e., one for every two loopholes) 53

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, An early 19th century painting of Fort Tigné , with Valletta in the background, showing the left salient placeof-arms with its parapet and two-stepped banquette. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

Above, Detail from the ground-level plan of Fort Tigné taken from the same original presentation drawing by the draughtsman Giovanni Borg, showing one of the three counterscarp musketry galleries and the countermines radiating from it into the glacis. Note that the casemated gallery is shown as divided into three rooms on each wing. In actual fact these were built as one continuous vaulted gallery. (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta). Below, Author’s drawing showing a general layout of one of Fort Tigné ’s counterscarp musketry galleries with its combined network of countermine tunnels and firing chambers, as well as the underground tunnel which links the outerwork to the fort. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

Above, From top to bottom, Left counterscarp musketry gallery today: View from within the fort of the left counterscarp musketry gallery, in the process of restoration. Above, View of the musketry loopholes and the smoke ventilation openings as can still be found on the left counterscarp musketry gallery, after restoration. View of the interior of the left counterscarp musketry gallery, prior to restoration. (Note the smoke-escape shafts opening just above the spring of the vault. Image source: Author’s private collection). 54

Above, Detail from Col. Dicken’s 1811 plan, showing a sectional elevation through the salient counterscarp gallery, one of its a countermines, and the underground communication tunnel providing access from inside the fort. (Image source: Author’s private collection – photographed from the original plan when in the National Museum of Archaeology).

which opened externally at certain intervals on the faces of the galleries directly above the loopholes. These were designed to carry off the toxic smoke from the musketry fire. The flanks, apparently, may have had a small sally-port that allowed access into the ditch. As in Montalambert’s casemated batteries, the loopholed musketry faces of the counterscarp galleries were placed perpendicular to each other. The counterscarp galleries, which were vaulted internally, could only be reached from inside the fort by means of underground tunnels that emanated from the tower keep. The three galleries were also linked to one another by means of short communication tunnels – a detail which is not present in Tousard’s original design. A series of countermine galleries radiated outwards from the interior walls of the vaulted galleries and spread out beneath the adjoining glacis (see illustrations below). Each set of countermines was fitted with 11 firing chambers (forni) – providing a total of 33 countermines. The same underground tunnel that linked the fort to the counterscarp galleries, however, became a liability in the event of a siege, for the moment any one of the three galleries was overrun by enemy troops there was no way of stopping the besieging soldiers for undermining the fort and its tower, or even erupting into the tower-keep itself. Tousard

The terraces of the three counterscarp galleries present a very curious feature. At first glance they give the impression that these were designed as places-of-arms, fitted with banquettes, prepared platforms for artillery, and side traverses. However, they were not connected to any sort of covertway or pas de souris whatsoever and were totally inaccessible from the rest of the fort. A study of the vaulted ceiling of the surviving counterscarp gallery shows that there was no vertical link from the interior either. In other words, these positions were totally isolated from the rest of the fort and there was no possible way that they could be reached from inside the work, or from any another part of the perimeter, except, externally, from across the glacis – definitely not a healthy solution as far as the defenders were concerned! One reason that could explain why Fort Tigné was not given a chemin couverte may lie in the fact that that such a feature would have served to lower the height of the counterscarp and expose the scarp even further. Actually, this was usually cited as one of the standard reasons why advanced lunettes were not generally fitted with covertways (see Lendy). Still, none of the British engineers’ reports ever sought to explain how these isolated places-of-arms at Fort Tigné were truly meant to function! It would tend to suggest that Tousard may not have really thought this particular concept through! Of the three counterscarp galleries, only one has survived in a relatively unadulterated state – the left gallery on the Marsamxett Harbour side of the fort. Sadly, the salient and right galleries were heavily altered and mutilated by the British military when they sought to adapt them to serve as accommodation for the guncrews of the battery of BL guns built on the seaward side of the glacis in the 1890s. Most of their countermines, however, are still accessible.

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

must surely have been aware of the danger posed by this communication tunnel and the need to interrupt the passageway by means of armoured metal gates (pierced with loopholes) and other barriers - devices which were never implemented either before 1798 or after. In the Lunette d’Arçon, Le Michaud had sought to tackle the problem by fitting a retractable staircase (‘pont à bascule’) into the abris so as to isolate the entrance into the lunette from the underground tunnel.

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Fort TignĂŠ - c. 1798

Graphic reconstruction with cutaway showing the Right Counterscarp Musketry Gallery and its partly rock-hewn Countermines radiating out beneath the Glacis by Dr. Stephen C. Spiteri Ph.D. Copyright - 2009

Earthen Glacis Terrace Platform of Right Counterscarp Musketry Gallery

Countermine Galleries

Main Gallery leading to Countermine branches

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Right Face

Vaulted Interior of Counterscarp Musketry Gallery

Earthen Glacis

Firing Chambers

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

its widest, it spanned some 26 metres, and stood around 6m (30 ft) high at the counterscarp, making it relatively very wide and low in relation to the scarp, especially when compared to the ditches of Fort Manoel and those of the other bastioned harbour fortifications. Such a wide and low ditch would not have been very successful in protecting the outer walls of the fort from plunging fire, even for relatively very low trajectories. The early plans of the fort show that the tower-keep was surrounded by its own ditch which served as a sort of drop-ditch within the overall ditch. The two sides of this small circular ditch, where they overlooked the flanks of the fort, were fitted with banquettes and made to serve as traverses. It would appear that the level of the ditch along the flanks sloped downwards from the direction of the keep, creating a sort of glacis for the two ‘traverses’ provided by the low counterscarp of the drop-ditch of the keep.

Above, Top, View of the mutilated form of the salient counterscarp musketry gallery, reshaped by the British military to serve as guncrew accommodation, during restoration works. The terrace was cut down and sloped but the left arm still appears to have retained its parapet and two-stepped masonry banquette. (Image source: Author’s private collection) . Above, View of the right counterscarp musketry gallery, reshaped by the British military to serve as guncrew accommodation, after restoration works. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

Above, Two views of the countermine galleries emanating from the salient counterscarp musketry gallery. The photograph on the left shows the small ‘forno’ or firing chamber, where the gunpowder charge would have been placed. (Image source: Author’s private collection)

Together, the three counterscarp galleries could lay down a murderous reverse enfilading within the ditch. At Fort Tigné, the ditch was practically all rockhewn except for a few areas of the counterscarp. At 58

4. Glacis and caponier Enveloping the fort on all sides, was a shallow earthen glacis, beneath which, as already mentioned above, were cut a number of countermine galleries and tunnels. Along most of the inner harbour side of the fort, which practically formed the gorge of the work, the glacis was cut off by the cliff-face of the promontory, at the foot of which stood a shallow rocky shelf. This short stretch of foreshore was manipulated to accommodate the seaward approaches to the fort from Valletta. This route provided the principal link and access point to the fort. Indeed, as in all of the Order’s harbour fortifications, the main entrance was designed to be accessed directly from the harbour side, this being always the shortest and quickest route from city to its surrounding fortified outposts and outerworks.

Below, View from Valletta showing Fort Tigné around the early 1860s. Note the vast stretch of glacis on what was then still an open promontory devoid of any buildings. (Image source: Courtesy of the National Museum of Archaeology).

Above, Detail from Col. Dicken’s 1811 plan, showing circular tower with its terrace platform and embrasures as well as the wide caponier serving the seaward side of the structure. Note the T-shaped cuttings in the glacis opening from within the parapets of the caponier. Their purpose is unclear. (Image source: Author’s private collection – photographed from the original plan when in the National Museum of Archaeology). Below, Detail from a plan of Marsamxett Harbour and its surrounding areas, showing Fort Tigné in its initial configuration without the flight of steps linking the caponier to the shore below. This plan too, may have accompanied Tousard’s original presentation to the Congrgation of Fortification and War in 1792. (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

A large and solidly-built flight of steps linked the foreshore to the upper level of the fort via a rather wide caponier which was fitted with its banquettes and wooden palisades. This caponier, which was wide enough to double-up as a place-of-arms, served to link the gateway to the stairway. The parapets of the caponier on both sides were interrupted, roughly half way along their length, by an opening leading to what seems to have been T-shaped cuttings in the glacis – reminiscent of later-period riffle-pits. The scope of this feature is not clear even though it is almost invariably shown on all plans, including the early British period plans. The left feature was eventually cut open to provide access to the main entrance via a country track 59

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, Diagram showing the basic lines of musketry fire flanking the Lunette d’Arçon. Compare this with the extensive fields of fire which Tousard introduced into the design of Fort Tigné, below. The yellow arrows show that central abris in both the Lunette d’Arçon and Fort Tigné had two exits on each side. (Image source: Author’s 3D reconstruction).

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Detail from Giovanni Shranz’s painting of rough seas at Tigné Point, showing the position of the commemorative foundation plaque fitted along the escarpment just to the right of the flight of steps leading up to the fort. (Image source: Courtesy of Nicholas De Piro, Dictionay of Artists who Painted Malta).

arriving from the across glacis. The original stairway, on the other hand, was demolished during the course of the Second World War but has recently been rebuilt. Strangely, Tousard’s initial plans of the fort do not show this flight of steps but, instead, proposed what appears to have been meant to be, albeit unclearly, a sloping caponier designed to descend steeply down to the shore. It is not possible from the available evidence to ascertain if this original solution was actually adopted, and then replaced by the flight of steps. Perhaps, the design was altered during the course of the fort’s construction, or shortly after, for the flight of steps is already in place by 1798. Most probably, the initial design simply did not envisage a formal physical link to the foreshore and must have relied on the sally-port that led to the underground tunnel – again emilating another feature dependent on D’Arçon’s lunette. As works progressed, however, Tousard must have been obliged to add the stairs to facilitate access to the fort. Next to the flight of steps, to the right, stands a large water cistern. Originally it was vaulted over but today it only survives as an open rectangular cutting in the foreshore bearing traces of the bittumatura that was used to render it waterproof. This was one of two cisterns which supplied the fort with its water supply. By the end of the century, the Order seems to have began toying round with the idea of enclosing of the whole Sliema promontory within an extensive fortified enceinte designed to accommodate a new city, and using Fort Tigné as the inner keep. An undated anonymous concept plan proposal (see below) shows a medium sized-fortress designed with a tenaille-trace type of land front enceinte that 60

was surely not inspired by Vauban’s bastioned trace. Indeed, the use of a central redan along the land front seems to be influenced by Montalembert’s concept of perpendicular fortification. Furthermore the land front also features a mezalectre, a variant of the bastion that also adhered to the principle of perpendicular fortification. The glacis separating the fort from the built up areas was to be turned into a large esplanade or garden. There is no indication as to who the author of this scheme could have been. Whether this was Tousard himself or some other architect intent on demonstrating a new concept for a fortified city with a radial urban plan has yet to be determined. The drawing itself is roughly executed and may have been prepared primarily to convey an initial idea for a new city, possibly to be presented to the newly elected German Grand Master, Ferdinand von Hompesch after his election in 1797, with the intention of soliciting his approval for the scheme. Whatever the original intention, the idea was quickly set aside as the Order of St John, indeed, the whole island, was soon overcome by the tragic events of 1798.

Above, View from above of the cutting in the rocky foreshore to the right of the flight of steps which was excavated by Tousard to serve as a cistern. This was vaulted over. (Image source: Author’s private collection). Below, Plan showing a proposal for a new fortified city with Fort Tigné as its keep. (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, View of the newly reconstructed flight of steps linking the foreshore to the fort. The sally-port can be seen to the left of the stairs, cut into the bedrock. This provided access to the underground communication tunnel that linked the tower-keep (via four spiral staircases) to the three counterscarp musketry galleries. The rock-hewn cistern lies on the foreshore immediately to the right of the flight of steps. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

Method of Construction Like all fortification projects, the first steps in the process leading to the construction of Fort Tigné was the acquisition of the land on which the fort was to be built, once the exact location was identified and an outline plan of the fort established on paper. In the case of Fort Tigné, the stretch of land on which the fort was built, or at least a considerable part of it, seems to have been privately owned and, as such, had to be duly expropriated by the Order. Maps of the promontory from late eighteenth-century show the site to have been occupied by a number of fields, with at least three farms, and was traversed by a long and straight country road running along

the centre of the promontory. The archival records show that the land which was taken over by the Order for the building of the fort and its glacis belonged to the brothers Matteo and Felice Attard, and the latter’s children who, apparently, were still petitioning for compensation as late as 1797. The minutes of the Congregation of Fortification show that the issue was finally decided in favour of the Attard family during the sitting of 3 June 1797: ‘Sono intervenuti gli uditori, e si e’ proferita la sentenza a favour di Matteo Attard, Giuseppe, Gregorio, Annunziato, Antonia e Grazzia fratelli e sorella, figli del fu Felice Attard, fratello di ditto Matteo per sito occupato per il Forte Tigné’. A second possible owner of lands in the area expropriated for the fort and its zone of servitude could have been Arcangelo Dalli. Another piece of land in the vicinity of the fort was that belonging to Lorenzo Speranza. Actually this was situated along the road leading to the Cala Lembi Battery and in 1796, Tousard was sent there to investigate a request by Speranza for the building of ‘alcune stanze piccole’ … ‘nel terreno posto in contrada del Forte Lembi’. Tousard did not advise against the new buildings which he believed did not pose any threat to the fort . 61

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

An important activity undertaken during this initial stage of the construction works was the ceremony commemorating the laying of the foundation stone, normally a recordable event in the history of the building of a work of fortification, which ceremony usually involved the burying of some coins or medals specially minted for the occasion. A plaque, now affixed to the wall near the north-west salient of the fort, but which may have actually stood on the wall to the right of the flight of stairs leading up form the shore (as can be seen in the painting by Giovanni Schranz), states that this foundation-stone laying ceremony took place on 9 May 1792: EX MVNIFICENTIA M.MAG. EMANVELIS DE ROHAN OPTIMI ET PROVIDENTISSIMI PRINCIPES AB RENATO IACOB DE TIGNÉ ATQUE EDVAR DV TILLET EQVITT M CRVCIS BENE DE ORD HIEROS MERENTIBVS VLTRO SVPPEDITATIS ANTONIVS STEPH DE TOVSARD COMMEN ET PRAEF MACHIN EIVSDEM EQVEST ORD DEVM OPTIMVM MAXIMVM PRECATVS VTI CAEPTA PROSPERARET SPATIVM PROPVGNACVLO NOVO EXSTRVENDO SOLLEMNITER DICAVIT INIECTIS QVE IN FVNDAMENTA STIPIBVS AERIS ARGENTI NONIS MAII ANNO AERV VLG MDCCXCII LAPIDEM AVSPICALEM OPERVM STATVIT

Above,Top, Detail from map of the Grand Harbour by de Palmeus (1751), showing the terrain around Dragut Point prior to the construction of Fort Tigné . The Attard family may have occupied the property closest to the tip of the promontory along the central country lane cutting across the headland. (Image Source: Courtesy of Dr Albert Ganado). Above, Detail from another map of Marsamxett Harbour and Fort Manoel, dated to around the early 1730s, showing the country lanes, terraced fields, and farm buildings close to Dragut Point. This plan seems to provide a more accurate representation of the area than that illustrated in the Palmeus map shown in the previous illustration. The Attard family house may be that shown enclosed by the white box. The map is slightly damaged and does not show the tip of the promontory. (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

The next step would generally have involved the surveying of the area and the tracing on site of the layout of the fort. No details of this exercise have survived but one of the plans in the National Library does appear to have belonged to a surveying exercise (but possibly undertaken towards the end of the process) that was intended to fix the exact position of the work from a number of established points, such as Cala Lembi battery - which was measured as being T (toises?) 223. 4.8 (roughly 450m) away from the salient of the work – and the seashore. The plan also provides the heights above sea level (‘altezza sopra il mare’). 62

Loosely translated it states that ‘By the bounty of Grand Master E. De Rohan, a most excellent and provident ruler, the first expenses having been provided by Renato Iacob de Tigné and Eduar du Tillet, Knights Grand Cross, benefactors of the Order of St John, Antonius Stephen de Tousard, commander and chief engineer of the same Order, having prayed God most excellent and most high that he might allow to prosper that which has begun, solemnly dedicated the site where a new fortification was to be built and having put into the foundations silver coins on the ninth of May of the year 1792 of the present era placed an inscription in perpetual memory.’ This is rather confusing, however, given that the Order’s records clearly indicate that the whole process was only put in motion in December 1792 and that work on the fort did not commence before 1793. As a matter of fact, the special bronze medals which were struck to commemorate the construction of Fort Tigné and were placed in its foundation stone are dated 1793 and not 1792. It can be safely assumed, therefore, that the date on the plaque is evidently a mistake and should have been meant to read 1793. Interestingly, the rder’s records also reveal that an official inauguration ceremony was also held on 9 July 1795, following the completion of the fort. The Grand Prior of St. John’s Conventual Church, Fra Menville blessed the new fort in the presence of a small congregation

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, Commemorative plaque marking the laying of the foundation stone. This plaque is affixed to the scarp wall near the salient angle of the work. This was not its original location, however. (Image source: Author’s private collection). Below, Commemorative medallion with inscription issued in 1793 to mark the laying of the foundation stone of Fort Tigné. (Image source: Can. Calleja Schembri, Edouard-Henri Furse. Memoirs Numismatiques de l’Ordre Souberain de Saint Jean de Jerusalem (1885) - Courtesy of Chev. J Sammut)

Above, Top, Bali Francois René Jacob de Tigné, in whose honour the fort was named. Below,Grand Master de Rohan, who ended up dishing out most of the funds.

of knights headed by the Grand Master, amongst whom was the now-ailing, 79-year old Bali de Tigné.

Construction Process Little is known of the actually process and pace of construction of the Fort. To date we have no information as to the many technical and logistical aspects of the construction process: the size of the work force, the source of building materials, and the nature of the engineering decisions that would have accompanied the design and implementation of a work of fortification, its adaptation, and building on site. The records, to date, have revealed little in the form of information on this process, aside from the fact that Tousard may have been absent during a critical period of the fort’s construction, owing to his being sent abroad by the Grand Master on a special diplomatic mission. The Order’s official records show that the fort was ready to be armed by February 1795, that is, practically two years after the 63

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, Portion of the interior wall of one of the casemates, showing various masons’ marks. Below, Some examples of mason’s marks as found at Fort Tigné. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

Above, Survey plan of Fort Tigné, undated but possibly from around 1794 or slightly later. (Image Source: Courtesy of the National Library of Malta). Below, Table showing the large variety of 40 different mason’s marks found all around Fort Tigné and its outerworks. No other work of fortification erected by the Knights contains such a rich variety and quantity of mason’s marks. (Image source: Courtesy of Mr Kenneth Incorvaja).

commencement of works. This is a relatively long period of time for a fort of its dimensions, and as such, is difficult to explain even by the Order’s often relaxed standards employed in works undertaken in times of peace, especially given Grand Master de Rohan’s specific desire, as relayed by Bali de Hompesch to the Congregation of Fortification during the meeting of 24 April 1793, ‘che si termini il più presto possibile’. The Spinola coastal entrenchments, for example, which stretched for some 1.5 km, begun in 1767, took only three years to build and comprised a work force of some 362 men. The comparatively long gestation period of Fort Tigné can perhaps be explained by a dearth of resources necessary to finance and sustain an ongoing effort. However, the presence of an inordinately large number and variety of masons’ marks still to be found all over the original surviving sections of the fort does tend to imply that the works were attended by a relatively large workforce; which only makes the long gestation period even more difficult to explain. Indeed no other work of fortifications displays such a rich display of masons

Interestingly, in his instructions to Vaubois on 9 June 1798, Napoleon ordered his general to blockade the Fort at Dragut Point because he was informed that the fort was not yet completed. What elements of Fort Tigné where still incomplete by 1798 is difficult to ascertain but Napoleon surely had access to reliable information, for among his acknowledged informers was the Chevalier Le Fay, the commander of the Order’s fortifications. Most probability, Napoleon’s information concerned the outerworks, which as already mentioned earlier, had a number of defects. In charge of the works on site was Antonio Cachia, the Capomastro delle Opere of the Order (The equivalenet of the director of the modern-day works department) who also represented the interests of the Congregation of Fortification and War. Capomaestro Cachia was a veritable architect in his own right, one of the small group of twelve local architects licensed to carry out this profession. He was the elder cousin of Michele Cachia, the architect and self-appointed military engineer who helped the Maltese insurgents set up their many batteries and fieldworks during the insurrection against the French in 1798-1800. Assisting Cachia as Soprastante (overseer of the works) on site at Fort Tigné was another Maltese architect, Francesco Sammut from Birkirkara. A testimonial dated 12 October 1794, signed by Antonio Cachia, confirms that Sammut had been tried out (‘esperimentato’) for this role for the first time at Fort Tigné, having previously performed various other jobs under Cachia’s direction. ‘Io infrascritto, attesto per la verità qualmente avendo piena cognizuine dell’ abilità di Mas.o Francesco Sammut per averlo da più anni pratticato in diverse fabriche …. E per averlo io esperimentato nel Forte Tigné in qualità di Soprastante il quale esegui tutti quei lavori secondo le misure, e gli ordini datigli …’. The existing proposed plans of the fort appear to have been drawn by a draughtsman by the name of Giovanni Borg. On 16 December 1792, the Congregation of War agreed to assign Borg a salary of 200 scudi per annum on Tousard’s recommendation: ‘e’ accordato a’ Borg duecento scudi l’anno sull’istanza fatta dal Sig. Ingegnere, coll’obligo di

Above, The date 1794, found carved on the rock-hewn wall of the underground communication gallery situated beneath the fort where it leads to the right counterscarp musketry gallery. (Image source: Courtesy of Mr. Kenneth Incorvaja)

ervire sotto gli ordini del medesimo da disegnatore e fare tutt’altro, che per servizio delle fortificazioni gli verra da lui comandato’, which other duties would have probably involved site measurements and quantity surveying. Borg, unfortunately for Tousard, died shortly afterwards, leaving the engineer with no other option but to find another qualified assistant to take his place: ‘Il Sig. Ingegnere ha reso conto, che essendo morto Gio. Borg, nominato per suo Disegnatore, ha preso un altro’. The identity of the new draughtsman appointed by Tousard, and perhaps responsible for the working drawings of the forts (including others of Fort Ricasoli signed by Tousard after April 1793) is not immediately revealed by the records. However, a note in the minutes of the meeting of the Congregation of Fortifications held on 20 October 1794 reveals that by that time a ‘disegnatore’ by the name of Enrico Ittard (possibly one of the sons of Stefano Ittar, the renowned architect of the fine monumental building that now houses the National Library in Valetta) was occupying the position: ‘Essendosi ritornato dal Congedo il Disegnatore Enrico Ittard, gli sono stati concessi a grazia scudi cento cinquanta dal danaro della sua pagha che non percepi nel tempo di sua assenza’

Building Materials The stone employed in the construction of Fort Tigné’ comprises largely Globigerina limestone (tal-Franka) which implies that this may have been 65

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

marks, in all some 40 different marks (see table below). A graffiti in the one of the communication tunnels excavated beneath the fort marks the year 1794, thereby showing that structure and its outerworks must have already been in a very advanced state of construction well before 1795.

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

quarried either from the ditch of the fort itself or from quarries in the vicinity. Major McKerras, in 1800, noted that walls were built of ‘bad masonry’ implying either the use of a poor quality stone, which could have been the case if Tousard was obliged to extract the stones by quarrying on site, or that the fort, owing to its very exposed position, had suffered considerably from erosion and salt-water in the seven years of its existence. This aspects, however, still needs to be studied further. Writing in 1811, Col. Dickens stated that a very small part of the fort had been ‘cut out of the Solid Rock and the remainder … formed of but indifferent masonry’, presumably referring to the rusticated stonework, for an important feature in the construction of the fort was the use of rustication. Rustication was achieved by projecting stones with sunken joints or grooves and the effect was usually produced by chamfering or rebating each block of stone. The stone surfaces were also pick-worked or simply chiselled or chipped off to produce an uneven and textured effect. This treatment had the effect of conveying an air of deliberate roughness and, indirectly, an illusion of strength to a wall. Its use in fortification went back to classical times when it was employed both for aesthetic purposes as well as to help imbibe rampart facades with a degree of monumentality. Moreover, in small works of fortification, it was also utilized to help express and emphasize the ‘mass’ of a building and project a sense of greater inherent strength and resistance. The knights of St John began to adopt rustication in their fortifications for the first time in Malta in the course of the early eighteenth century, but they reserved it largely for small coastal defensive works such as batteries, redoubts, and entrenchments. It was last employed extensively in the coastal entrenchments built in the course of the 1760s. Its use at Fort Tigné was largely because this work, owing to its size, was classified as being more of a redoubt rather than a major fort, despite its official designation. Today, little survives of the original rusticated masonry, since many of the walls were hacked away and refaced with British-period cladding (likewise rusticated). An examination of the various revetments exposed during the course of recent restoration works reveals that rusticated masonry was also employed in some areas of the inner skins

Right, Detail of the walls inside one of the countermines of Fort Tigné. Note the mason’s marks and the daubs of red paint used to mark the stones during the quantity-surveying exercise undertaken by the Order’s agrimensori following the completion of works. (Image source: Author’s private collection). 66

Above, Surviving examples of the original rusticated masonry at Fort Tigné, Note the mason’s marks. Note also the reddish soil-based bonding mortar. (Image source: Author’s private collection). Below, A large stretch of original rusticated masonry. These stones, however, were used to form the inner face of a revetment wall that was later hidden by the terreplein. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

of revetment walls that were meant to be covered up and hidden with terreplein. Generally, such internal revetments were built more economically out of roughly-shaped ‘zmarrat’ stones, a sort of coursed rubblework. That fact that tooled drafted masonry was employed in such secondary walls implies that the builders had probably made use of a surplus amount of pre-produced stocks of rusticated stone. Interestingly, the use of such drafted masonry where not really required can also be found in another work of fortification completed during Tousard’s time – namely the casemated interior of the demicounterguard at Fort Ricasoli, begun around 1788 under the direction of the Bali de Tigné. Below, Detail from D’Hennezel’s artillery inventory of Fort Tigné drawn up during the French occupation. (Image source – Courtesy of the National Library of Malta).

Baptism of fire – 1798 Fort Tigné is also unique because of all the many fortifications built by the Knights, it was one of only a handful of forts to really put a spirited, prolonged, and effective resistance against Napoleon’s troops during the French invasion in 1798, and this, despite its small size. In all the accounts of the French invasion, it is Fort Tigné which really acquitted itself most courageously in defending the Order’s honour. Apart from the determination of its commanding officer to hold out at all cost, the other main reason for this defiant resistance lay in the very principles of defence which had shaped its design and construction – the doctrine of overwhelming firepower propagated by Montalembert – which equipped it with numerous embrasures and rows of musketry loopholes that enabled its garrison to discharge their guns and muskets well-sheltered and protected from incoming enemy fire. Indeed, the little fort packed a tremendous amount of fire power its size. At the time of the French invasion it was armed with 28 guns (practically one for each embrasure) and 12 mortars: 12 x 24-pdrs 6 x 18-pdrs 6 x 12-pdrs 4 x 4-pdrs 12 mortars (six shell-firing and six stone-throwing (petreros). This seems to have been the same armament which had been sent to equip the fort once it was declared ‘in stato di ricevere l’artiglieria’ in February 1795. The guns were actually redeployed from other forts and batteries around the harbour wherever they could be spared (‘da dove stimeranno più vantaggioso’) according to the instructions of the Commander of Artillery. 67

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Above, View of one of the massive lintels employed at the entrance of the firing chambers within the countermines. Note the large mason’s mark. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

The unit of measure used in the design of the fort was the French toise ( 6.395 feet). French military engineers in Malta preferred to use this measurement in the design of their projects although, on the ground and in their dealings with the master masons on site, all measurements and computations were actually undertaken in Maltese cane (Canna Maltese or qasba -2.292 yards or 2.095 metres). The faces of the casemated ramparts were 30 toise long (roughly 60 m). The flanking arms were tangential to the circumference of the tower which had an interior dictated by a grid of 8 toises. Tousard adopted the true arch vault (semi-circular vault) for all the casemates while the towers intermediate floor of stone slabs rested on a bedding of timber beams.

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Thomas Freller states that only 15 of the 28 guns were actually serviceable at the time of the French attack, that is, practically 50 percent of the ordnance, but does not indicate which of the various calibres were inoperative. Still, this figure appears to be slightly exaggerated. In any case, the guns which would have been really critical in the situation were the 24- and 18-pdrs (a total of 18 guns). It was these ‘counter-bombardment’ weapons which allowed the fort to effectively hit back at the suppressing French guns on equal terms. And indeed, as will be shown below, it was these very guns which featured mostly in the account of the resistance put up by the fort. The subsequent French artillery inventory of the fort, carried out in 1799 by the French commander of artillery, D’Hennezel, shows that the complement of cannon had by then been reduced to 21, with a reduction of five 24-pdrs and the replacement of the six 12-pdrs by four 10-pdrs. This redeployment of the guns may have been motivated by the need to remove or replace any unserviceable ordnance. The man who was destined to direct the defence of Fort Tigné during the dramatic days of the Napoleon’s invasion was the Bavarian knight Joseph Maria von Rechberg.(2) He was assisted by the Spanish artillery officer Camaño. It appears that, initially, the fort was designated to be placed under the command of Tousard himself, but he was immediately replaced once rumours began to spread around questioning his loyalty. The garrison consisted of a troop of Maltese Cacciatori, a volunteer light infantry regiment of Chasseurs (raised in 1777), a number of bombardiers (gunners) from the man-of-war Santa Zaccaria, together with an unspecified number of Maltese country militiamen. The first defensive shots were fired by the troops stationed on the left place-of-arms (closest to the country road) against a group of French soldiers disguised as civilians who were seen approaching the fort on foot, presumably on a reconnoitring sortie early on 10 June (Freller 107). Then the fort’s guns opened fire to support a naval attack by a galley, two galeottes and chaloup which sallied out of the Grand Harbour under the command of General Soubiras in a desperate attempt to attack the French ships and boats landing their troops at St Julian’s Bay and at St George’s Bay. In the evening, the Fort’s guns opened fire once again, this time against some French ships seeking to sail into Marsamxett harbour, and successfully obliged them to beat a hasty retreat. This forced General Vaubois, in command of the attack along this sector of the front, to land some artillery and position them against the fort in the 68

Above, Contemporary drawing purporting to show the Commander of Fort Tigné (shown in the background) around 1798. The Commander is shown wearing the blue uniform with red facings of an artillery officer of the Order. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

hope of suppressing the place. Napoleon, in his instructions to Vaubois (through Berthier) on 9 June 1798, had instructed his general to blockade the Fort at Dragut Point. As a result, and all throughout the following day (11 June), the French guns, assisted by the cannon on some of the French ships-of-the-line and frigates, rained a continuous hail of shells and bombs on the fort. Indeed, some parts of the fort facing the sea still retain what appear to be the imprint of French naval cannon shot). Around midday, the French also tried to install a battery under the cover of a church and its surrounding country houses which stood on a nearby hill (possibly the church of Porto Salvo) but the heavy return fire from the fort’s 24- and 18-pdr guns (which is said to have gone on for about two hours under the direction of Camaño) knocked down most of the structures, obliging the French to reposition their battery to another site. This time round, the French gunners sought to place their howitzers in an area behind the hill. By the evening, the continuous firing had consumed most of the fort’s limited stock of munitions. Somehow, amid all the chaos and confusion, the resourceful Rechberg managed to locate and transport, all the way from the Polverista in Floriana (first by coach, and then by boat), a large quantity of gunpowder and other supplies. That evening, the besieging French troops began torching some houses and gardens in the neighbouring areas of Sliema and Gzira, hoping to demoralize the defenders. General Vaubois remarked that a ‘fort of such a kind as Fort Tigné’

Above, Possible evidence of the French naval bombardment of Fort Tigné in June 1798. One of a number of spehircal shot marks to be found along the northern seaward-facing walls of the Fort, where the original masonry still survives. This example is located on the flank of the left counterscarp musketry gallery and faces the sea. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

could not ‘be taken when it is defended by brave soldiers’ (Hardman). But, as the political situation, and morale, in the city to the rear of fort began to crumble, Rechberg and his troops found themselves increasingly isolated and unable to communicate with their comrades in Valletta. Unaware of the surrender negotiations going on behind the scenes, however, the Fort continued to hold out and braced itself for a second day of bombardment, which commenced early in the morning. The defenders kept up their resistance but sometime around noon some soldiers in the Fort noticed that French flags were flying over Valletta, Floriana, and right across the creek at Fort Manoel. This caused a great degree of consternation, particularly amongst the militiamen, whose families were in the city, and who, as a result, wanted to surrender. Rechberg reacted by ordering them to lay down their arms and leave the fort, as a result of which the garrison was reduced to a mere 80 men. By late afternoon, munitions were once again running low. Moreover, the continuous French bombardment was having its toll on the fort itself which was slowly succumbing to the damage being inflicted by the French guns, with a number of its casemates being heavily battered and on the point of collapse. At this point, realizing the hopelessness of their predicament, Rechberg and his troops decided to try to escape under the cover of darkness. What happened after is not clear, but not long afterwards Rechberg was in French custody, and presumably many of his soldiers too. The Fort was definitely in French hands on 13 June. No figures have turned up to reveal the number of

Spoliation and decay ‒ The 19th and 20th centuries With its damage made good, Fort Tigné remained in British use practically unaltered right up to the middle of the nineteenth century. By l8l5, it was armed with thirty guns, twelve I8-pdrs, fourteen 24-pdrs and four 24-pdr carronades, and in l844 it was reckoned that the fort required a garrison of two hundred men. Rearmed sporadically from the l840s onwards, by I860 it appears to have been equipped mainly with 68-pdrs while the circular keep itself mounted a single gun on a traversing platform. The use of the tower as a gun emplacement, in a manner similar in concept to the earlier Martello Towers employed by the British throughout many of their naval stations, had in fact necessitated considerable alterations to the original features of the tower, particularly the parapet, which was significantly splayed downwards and outwards to provide the gun with a greater depression, while the four old embrasures were swept away and a small expense magazine was built on the roof. In I867, a Below, Detail from the short letter dated 6 September I800, sent by Captain CJ. Riddell to his brother following his deployment to Fort Tigné . (Image source- Courtesy of Mr. Tarpey).

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

casualties that were suffered by the garrison during the course of the two-day bombardment. Nor does one find any reference to the works that would have been necessary to repair the heavy damage to the fort given the degree of bombardment to which it is said to have been subjected. The British took formal possession of the fort on 5 August I800. In a letter to his brother dated 6 September I800, Captain CJ. Riddell claimed he had the honour of taking possession of Fort Tynice (Tigné) with I00 men and was the first to hoist the British flag on this island .

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

new magazine was designed to be built within the salient angle of the fort but this was later cancelled.

Above, Plan of Fort Tigné drawn by Col. Lewis, showing its armament around 1864, undertaken as part of an island-wide exercise intended to document the defensive ordnance. The fort is shown armed with eighteen 32-pdr guns (two on traversing carriages) and four 10-inch guns en barbette, as well as a singular 32-pdr gun on central pivot traversing carriage mounted on the circular towerkeep. (Image Source: Author’s private collection). Below, View of Fort Tigné from the early 1870s, showing its newly re-constructed parapets fitted with casemates and armoured embrasures for 9-inch RML guns and other ordnance. Note that the barbette battery has been replaced by a raised parapet pierced with four vaulted embrasures. (Image source: National Museum of Archaeology).

With the development of new and more powerful coastal artillery, Fort Tigné came to be increasingly seen as being too small and ineffective for the strategic importance of the site that it occupied. The small size of the fort and its restricted internal space did not easily allow for the mounting of the new heavy ordnance that was then crucial for the defence of the harbour. The first major destructive interventions involved the dismantling of the original parapets and embrasures on the right flank and face of the fort and their replacement by new armoured embrasures, built in hardstone, for six 9-inch RML guns. These works, although authorized in 1866, commenced in 1870 and where completed by 1875. Other significant alterations followed along the remainder of the enceinte as the century wore on. A new gateway, for example, was cut through the scarp of the right face, inside the ditch to provide access to the fort via a large breach that was cut through the counterscarp and the glacis. By 1885, the British military was actually toying around with the idea of demolishing the fort and replacing it with a larger work. Thankfully, in 1888, Maj. Nicholson and Capt. Goodenough deemed it unnecessary to demolish the work completely and only proposed

Above, View of the steel racers which once supported the traversing carriages for two 9-inch RML guns placed inside a casemate. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

Above, Rough sketch plan of Fort Tigné drawn by Francesco Sammut sometime after 1800, following the cessation of hostilities and the lifting of the blockade. The plan probably indicates Francesco’s involvement in the repairs made to the fort after the blockade. Sammut had also worked as overseer of works during the construction of the fort in 1793-95. (Image source: Courtesy of Perit Andre’ Zammit).

that its ramparts be cut down to the level of the glacis. As a result, the new breech-loading guns were placed on the glacis but this not prevent the salient and right counterscarp galleries from being heavily modified in the process as they were converted to guncrew shelters and magazines. Some damage was also inflicted during the course of aerial bombing in the Second World War, and the structure was finally robbed of all its remaining dignity when it was decommissioned in the post war period and given over to public use – a seemingly innocuous gesture that only really served to expose the fort to a further process of vandalism and rampant misuse.

Conclusion As has been amply demonstrated in the course of this paper, Fort Tigné was a sophisticated and unorthodox work of military architecture for its time – surely, one of the most interesting and innovative works of fortification built by the knights in Malta during the course of the eighteenth century. Although borrowing heavily from D’Arçon’s lunettes, and clearly influenced by some of Montalembert’s ideas on the concentration of fire-power and protective casemates, as well as his concept of perpendicular fortifications, Tousard went on to masterfully adapt and improve the borrowed ideas to suit both the local conditions and the tactical requirements of the site, creating in the process what can safely be regarded as one of the first truly polygonal forts ‒ an embryonic precursor of the type of fortress design that would come to dominate the military architecture of the nineteenth century. Although the heavy mutilations which were inflicted by the British military in their attempts to upgrade and secure the harbours’ defences for the safety of their fleet thoughout the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have served to rob Fort Tigné of most its authenticity and proper legibility,

it has still not lost its significance as a truly unique work of military architecture. Thankfully, the recent years have witnessed a reversal of this predicament as the fort is being expertly and painstakingly restored, regaining, as a result, a considerable part of the dignity that it rightfully deserves as an important, indeed prominent, feature in Malta’s unique fortified landscape. Author’s Note This paper is the subject of ongoing research and further study. Full reference and notes will be duly provided when it is eventually published in a new edition of Fortresses of the Cross. Acknowledgements The Author would like to thank the following scholars and researchers for their assistance, namely Prof. J. Langins, Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto, for information on D’Arçon and his lunettes; Dr. Emilie d’ Orgeix for generously taking the trouble to look up and send me copies of important documents, and for providing me with contacts; Isabelle Warmoes (Musée des Plans Relief, Paris) for information on D’Arçon and his work; Arch. Philip Prost (for his valuable book), Arch. L. Sapienza for his information on Fort Tigne; Arch. Svetlana Sammut and Midi plc (for allowing me to photograph the fort during restoration works), Arch. Andre’ Zammit (for information on Antonio Cachia and Francesco Sammut); Chev. J. Sammut (for information on commemorative medallions); and Ms Maroma Camilleri at the National Library of Malta for access to Tousard’s orignal plans and documentation. I am also greatly indebted to the late Prof. Quentin Hughes who imbibed me with a fascination for this fort, and its history, particularly the intriguing issue of its dependence of its design on the Lunette d’Arçon. Notes. 1. This information on D’Arçon was kindly made available to the author by Prof. Janis Langins. 2. Information on the defence of Fort Tigné in 1798 and the Knight Rechberg was taken from Thomas Freller and G. von Trauchburg, The Last Knight of Malta (Malta, 2010) 71

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

Sectional elevation through the left face of the fort showing raised parapets and other British alterations. (Image source: Author’s private collection).

ARX - OCCASIONAL PAPERS - ISSUE 1 / 2011 - FORT TIGNE 1792

www.militaryarchitecture.com your STEPPING STONE to the WORLD of historic fortifications and MILITARY ARCHITECTURE a unique online resource with thousands of links to: > academic articles and papers > fortification sites > videos, documentaries and podcasts > 3D reconstructions of fortifications > free downloadable journals and publications

Join our growing readership and subscribe to our online newsletter