0|P ag e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
Mellie침a Ridge Defences British Field Fortifications in the North of Malta at the turn of the Twentieth Century By Dr. Simon Mifsud MD
The Northern shores of the Maltese Islands were always a source of preoccupation to the British military authorities in Malta. The many shallow bays and inlets defended by the old and ruinous Hospitaller fortifications were ideal sites for the debarkation of troops for any enemy wanting to invade Malta. To this effect, in 1873 the British addressed this problem by constructing a network of entrenchments along the Great Fault. The North West Front, as this defensive position was first called (later changed to the Victoria Lines), was intended to serve as a first line of defence against any enemy forces landed in the north of the island. By the beginning of the twentieth century, however, the British defensive strategy had begun to shift towards a policy of preventing the enemy from actually landing, primarily by repulsing invading forces on the shores, thus abandoning the old fortress defensive 1|P ag e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
scheme centred around the defence of the Grand Harbour from a landward siege or naval bombardment1. This situation was very similar to that which the Order of Saint John faced in the early decades of the eighteenth century when the Knights embarked on a construction programme of coastal batteries, redoubts and entrenchments designed to prevent any enemy from gaining a foothold on the island. The British followed more or less the same principles albeit with a slower inland to coastal progression. The 1903 ridge defences adopted the same high ground policy of the North West Front but brought the first line of defence closer to the northern shores of the island. Eventually the coastal defences of the 1930s i.e.: the pillboxes and beach posts managed to bring the British’s defensive powers right to the island’s shores limiting the space available for the enemy to land on and invade from.
Trenches – A Brief History Technological advances and more lethal artillery required the need for better development of defensive systems. The trenches were the answer to such technological developments since fighting on open ground would have led to heavy casualties. Trenches provided adequate protection from accurate enemy fire directed at troops caught out in the open field, deprived of any forms of natural shelter. The concept of digging into the ground to shelter troops was widely practiced in the Crimean War, the US Civil War and the Russian-Japanese War, reaching its climax in the First World War. From the turn of the twentieth century onwards, it is of great interest to note how the empires abandoned the idea of building strong permanent forts in favour of the concept of temporary field fortifications. As already described, this also happened in Malta, when the British abandoned the Victoria Lines and the old defensive scheme of Grand Harbour fortifications in favour of field fortifications (i.e.: trenches, pillboxes & beach posts). The introduction of trench warfare in the First World War, and the capability of barbed wire and field fortifications in causing significant hindrance to mass enemy advances, propelled important changes in military architecture. Furthermore, as more resources were being spent on artillery, the cheaper field fortifications fitted in perfectly with this trend.
Location of the Mellieħa Ridge Defences One of the northernmost positions created to take advantage of the topographical features was that on the ridges of Mellieħa. A set of eight infantry trenches were hewn into the rock along the cliff face overlooking Mellieħa Bay and Anchor Bay in order to occupy the most strategic points and to create a line of defence along the same ridge. The soldiers reached these trenches by a series of foot paths protected by streches of high rubble walls2. 2|P ag e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
Image 1: The location of the eight infantry trenches that form part of the Mellieħa Ridge Defences. (Image Source: Google Earth). The area surrounding these trenches bears a number of interesting limestone blocks. These blocks were War Department boundary stones, marker stones to indicate that the area of land belonged to the British military authorities. Similar blocks can also be found at irregular intervals along the Dwejra Lines and next to St. George’s Barracks; Pembroke.
Image 2: A War Department boundary marker. (Image Source: Author’s Collection).
3|P ag e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
Design The eight trenches were excavated and cut out into the living rock. The garigue environment of the Mellieħa ridge i.e.: an environment that mostly consists of rock with small shallow areas of soil provided no alternative methods of construction, except for excavating the trenches in the bedrock. The local terrain and the method of construction gave rise to a unique set of trenches that are not commonly present throughout the British colonies. In most situations, defensive trenches were generally dug into the soil and revetted with wooden planks, corrugated steel and sand bags to prevent the parapet walls from collapsing3. One interesting feature of these 1903 trenches is that most of them only incorporated fire bays i.e.: straight sections and very few traverses i.e.: trenches/walls dug at an angle to the lines of the trench. In the battles of the First World War in 1914, the normal design for a front line trench incorporated equal use of fire bays and traverses. This design had the advantage that if the enemy managed to take over a section of the trench, the rest of the trench would be protected from enfilading and ricochet fire as the traverses would hinder any fire from reaching the other soldiers in the different sections of the trench. The reason why the British military authorities did not employ such a design to the 1903 Mellieħa trenches is probably related to the location and the geography of the landscape surrounding these trenches; being located on top of a ridge made it very difficult for the enemy to take over these trenches, so the use of traverses was not particularly essential in these cases.
Image 3: One of the Mellieħa infantry trenches that consisted of a single straight section without the use of any traverses. (Image Source: Author’s Collection). 4|P ag e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
Image 4: The type of traverse encountered within one of the trenches. (Images Source: Author’s Collection).
Structure These infantry trenches were very simple in design and construction. They basically consisted of a rock-hewn trench about one metre wide with a small rubble wall parapet fitted with a number of loopholes for rifle fire. The structure and function of these trenches are almost identical to that of the North West Front stop walls. Just like the North West Front stop walls were topped by loopholes, the Mellie ħa ridges were topped by trenches with rubble wall parapets.
5|P ag e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
Image 5: Cross-section of a typical infantry trench and a view of Ta’ Qasam Barrani infantry trench. (Image Source: Stephen C.Spiteri, British Military Architecture in Malta, Malta, 1996).
Images 6a and 6b: The Binġemma Stop Wall and a section of the Mellieħa infantry trenches. The similiarity between the two structures indicate that they shared a common function. (Image Source: Author’s Collection). 6|P ag e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
The trenches were excavated by hand and in certain instances aided by the use of explosives. One of the Mellieħa 1903 trenches still retains evidence of what seems to be the remains of a fornello implying that explosives might have been used in the initial stages to clear the large boulders, after which the trench excavation would have been completed by hand.
Image 7: Evidence of what is thought to be the remains of a fornello within one of the infantry trenches. (Image Source: Author’s Collection). The parapets of these trenches varied in form but in general consisted of a simple typical Maltese rubble wall, pierced at regular intervals with rifle loopholes. The parapet wall was held in place by the friction forces between the various rubble stones, but in order to solidify the structure, cement was used to bond the various components together. Indeed, the only rubble wall parapets that have survived to this day are actually those in which cement was used. The loopholes were generally outlined with neatly cut ashlar masonry stones or rubble stones that had been reshaped and smooth surfaced accordingly. In order to make shooting easier, some of these trenches had a firing banquette on which the soldiers could stand on whilst firing whereas others had an elbow rest on which the soldiers could steady their arms whilst shooting. The trenches were built to allow the soldiers to fire their rifles whilst being sheltered and protected behind the rubble wall parapet. The parapet apart from sheltering the soldiers from any incoming projectiles also rendered the trenches more camouflaged, blending them in with the surrounding landscape of field walls. Interestingly enough, this concept of camouflaging defensive structures with rubble wall features was used again in the perimeter wall of Fort Campbell and in the 1938 pillboxes and beach posts4. 7|P ag e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
Image 8: The rubble wall parapet. (Image Source: Author’s Collection). One of the main problems associated with these cut out trenches was the fact that they could easily become water logged during periods of heavy or prolonged rain. Such an event would have rendered the trenches unsuitable to use. In order to remedy this situation most of the trenches employed a number of features in order to ensure adequate drainage of rain water. The principle employed was basically always the same; the floor of the trenches was inclined so as to allow the rain water to flow along by gravity and exit the trench through a covered canal or opening.
Images 9a and 9b: In both of these cases, the ground of these two infantry trenches was inclined to allow the water to flow out by gravity and exit through a spout hewn along the cliff face or through a small crevice along the cliff face. (Images Source: Author’s Collection).
8|P ag e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
An interesting observation in one of the trenches was the fact that in certain instances the firing banquette did not solely serve as a standing platform to improve the soldier’s firing, but it also allowed soldiers walking along the trench to keep their feet out of the flowing rain water. Hence banquettes also served to direct the rain water towards the water spout, by keeping flowing rain water contained inside the water drain. The importance of keeping the walking surface of the trenches dry was also highlighted in the trenches of the First World War by the use of wooden duckboards. These prevented the soldiers from walking onto the wet muddy trench floors and from getting trench foot. These findings highlight the importance of effective water drainage in even the simplest British fortifications. In addition, since the Maltese trenches were cut out from rock, they required less maintenance when compared to the trenches that were dug out from the soil. Rainfall and shell shock made trenches dug out from soil collapse more easily, so constant maintenance was essential. The Maltese rocky garigue meant that the trenches required less maintenance, but this came at a disadvantage since it was more laborious to cut out the trench. Furthermore if a shell hit the Mellieħa trenches, the rocky garigue would not have absorbed the momentum of the shock as well as soil; hence making the rock splinter and generate dangerous shrapnel.
Further Development The Mellieħa ridge defences remained unchanged until 1935. When Fascist Italy invaded and conquered Abyssinia (Ethiopia), the British feared that Malta was next in line5. This initiated a cascade of events, which resulted in existing defences being strengthened and the erection of new defences with increased fire power. After the Abyssinian crisis of 1935, the Mellieħa infantry trench on the right hand side of Mellieħa Parish Church was modified with the inclusion of an open and a covered machine gun table, an observation post, and a semi-underground accommodation bunker with an ammunition recess6.
9|P ag e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
Image 10: Graphic reconstruction of a typical 1903 infantry trench by Dr.Stephen C Spiteri. (Image Source: Courtesy of Dr. Stephen C Spiteri Ph.D.). These additions to this infantry trench are amongst some of the earliest examples of military structures built with reinforced concrete in Malta. Concrete alone was not enough to resist the stresses inflicted by exploding projectiles, but when reinforced with a steel mesh, it provided great resistance against impact forces7. From this time period onwards, concrete and steel became the staple elements of military structures, replacing the stone-upon-stone construction of earlier defences.
10 | P a g e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
Image 11: View of the modified 1903 infantry trench located on the right hand side of the Mellieħa Parish Church. (Image Source: Stephen C. Spiteri, British Military Architecture in Malta, Malta, 1996).
Image 12: A view of the semi-underground concrete accommodation bunker incorporated with one of the 1903 infantry trenches. (Image Source: Author’s Collection).
11 | P a g e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
Image 13: One of the rooms inside the semi-underground accommodation bunker. Note the central column that is supporting the roof of this room. (Image Source: Author’s Collection).
Image 14: The small entrance at the rear of the accommodation bunker and trench complex. (Image Source: Author’s Collection). 12 | P a g e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
The other 1903 infantry trench to be extended during the Abyssiniancrisis was that at TasSellum. This complex had the unique feature of exhibiting trenches dug at different levels along the Tas-Sellum ridge each with its own set of firing power.
Image 15: View of the modified 1903 infantry trenches at Tas-Sellum. (Image Source: Stephen C. Spiteri, British Military Architecture in Malta, Malta, 1996).
Image 16: The lower trench of Tas-Sellum ridge defence complex. (Image Source: Author’s Collection). 13 | P a g e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
It is at this point in time that the infantry trenches become more interesting. While the pillbox’s roots are derived from the caponier, some of the features that can be found in the 1938 pillboxes can also be traced to these trenches. A case in point is the rubble wall cladding adopted from the rubble wall parapet of the trenches. There are also other structures that share a very similar typology. For example, the observation post of the 1903 trenches consisted of a small concrete construct with three horizontal observation slits, in which only one man could fit to observe the surroundings in a sheltered spot. The design of this observation post could have easily been retained and with some minor modifications, developed into the observation cupola that was used on the roof tops of the 1938 pillboxes. However the similarity between these structures could also imply that they were built during the same time period.
14 | P a g e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
Images 17a (previous page) and 17b: The observation post built within one of the 1903 Mellieħa infantry trenches and a pillbox’s observation cupola. The similarity between the two structures could either signify that the cupola originated from the observation post or that these two structures were built during the same time period. (Images Source: Author’s Collection). Another structure that highlights the link between the 1903 ridge defences and the pillboxes is the Għajn Żnuber pillbox. The Għ ajn Żnuber pillbox is a form of hybrid structure.This pillbox is basically a covered trench with seven rifle loop holes facing the shallow inlet and a covered machine gun post protecting the pillbox’s flank in case of the enemy outflanking the pillbox4. In addition, the pillbox was also connected to a small shallow semi-underground room which was defended by two rifle loop holes. In principle, this complex is very similar to the 1903 Mellieħa infantry trench on the right hand side of the Mellie ħa Parish church.
15 | P a g e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
Images 18a (previous page) and 18b: Għajn Żnuber pillbox. (Images Source: Stephen C. Spiteri, British Military Architecture in Malta, Malta, 1996 and Author’s Collection respectively).
Image 19: A view inside the Għajn Żnuber pillbox. Note the presence of three collapsed rifle loopholes (missing their loopholed armoured shields) and the machine gun emplacement. (Image Source: Author’s Collection).
16 | P a g e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
Yet as World War II became more imminent, the importance of these trenches dwindled; as from March 1939, more land began to be purchased from civilians or ceded by the government to the War Department for the intensive pillbox and beach post building scheme. Almost all of the vulnerable bays and inlets together with strategic inland positions were dotted with these defensive structures.
The Trenches Today The Mellieħa infantry trenches document a rare and interesting type of fortification typology borne out of the particular conditions and defensive needs. Although simple in design and lacking the sophisticated features of more permanent defences, they nonetheless deserve to be preserved and restored. Many of these however, lie in a derelict state. Since they are built on top of a ridge, they are continuously exposed to the full force of the destructive elements of nature. Even the ground itself on which the trenches were built is not very stable, and certain parts of the cliff face have collapsed bringing down with them part of the infantry trenches.
Image 20: Part of the eastern cliff face of San Niklaw Valley collapsed and brought down with it a section of the trench. (Image Source: Author’s Collection). In other instances, the effects of man worked in synergy with those of nature and as a result some of the trenches ended up being filled with rubble and rubbish and this in turn supported the growth of various plants and vegetation. Fortunately one of the 1903 trenches was devolved to the Mellieħa Local Council in 2009 and it is hoped that this will one day lead to its conservation.
17 | P a g e
www.militaryarchitecture.com
Acknowledgements The author is indebted to Dr. Stephen C. Spiteri and Mr. Godwin Hampton for their assistance and advice in the compilation of this study.
Sources & references 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
J. Catania (ed), Mellieħa – Though the Tides of Time (Malta, 2002) Jimmy Muscat, Il-Mellieħa – Photographs with a Story (Malta, 2009) http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldwari/a/Trenches-In-World-War-I.htm Stephen C. Spiteri, British Military Architecture in Malta (Malta, 1996) J. Greene & A. Massignani, The Naval War in the Mediterranean 1940-1943 (Great Britain, 2002) 6. Charles Debono, Wartime Mellieħa , Volume 1 (Malta, 2014) 7. Stefania Buħaġiar, Concrete Conservation – An Analysis of a British Historical Pillbox (Malta, 2011)
The Author Simon MIFSUD (MD) is a medical doctor at Mater Dei Hospital, Malta. He has received his education from Savio College, Dingli, St. Aloysius College, B'Kara, and the University of Malta. Dr. Mifsud is a keen researcher of fortifications and military architecture and his interest in these subjects has resulted in various contributions to MilitaryArchitecture.com. Amongst his published papers are Fort Campbell (2012), and G ħajn Ħadid Tower and Aħrax Tower (2012). Dr. Mifsud has also delivered public lectures on the fortifications of Mellie ħa.
18 | P a g e
www.militaryarchitecture.com