Hi, Paul -
If Spanish shipping was the issue, then the Jamestowne fort design baffles
me.
In lookng at it form the point of view as defending against warships, the
whole siting and design then makes little sense to me.
They built the fort with its long, and weak, wooden wall at the edge of and
parallel to the river, thereby exposing it to the heavier broadside of a
ship's guns. And, as designed, they would not even have been able to bring
the full weight of their own cannon to bear.
Oh, well...
At the SHA, there was a professor there from, I think, the Univ. of
Leichster. The U. offers a distnace learning PhD program which would have
allowed me to focus on my military interests. US schools seem to have
dismissed the distance learning opportunites at that level. Bottom line
was, however, that at 3,000 pounds tuition a term, it was just a pipe
dream.
Cheerio!
Carl Barna
Lakewood, CO
"paul.courtney2"
<Paul.courtney2@N
TLWORLD.COM> To
Sent by: [log in to unmask]
HISTORICAL cc
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask] Subject
> Re: Vauban-Jamestowne
02/05/2007 10:22
AM
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
Point taken but as Martins Hundred shows they could have used triangular
bastions which were well established on the Continent. The fort design
at Jamestown was clearly chosen- they must have known all about the
theory of triangular bastions at this date from both military books and
experience- and they were presumably geared as long suggested to firing
at Spanish shipping
paul
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Paul -
>
> Jamestowne did not have triangular bastions, but curved ones, which left
> dead zones that could shelter attackers. Vauban's angular bastion
> construction eliminated that flaw.
>
> Carl Barna
> Lakewood, CO
>
>
|
