GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-08 > 1188148740
From: "John Briggs" <>
Subject: Re: Culloden & The Aftermath
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:19:00 GMT
Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "John Briggs" <> wrote in message
>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> They started under Mary - who was even more penurious. The cost from
>> 1558 to 1570 inclusive was 128,648 5s 9 1/2 d. (From 1571 until
>> 1603 it was between 1,000 and 2,000 per annum.)
>>> The defensive system built their is one of the finest in Britain.
>> Only in architectural terms. Militarily, it was completely useless.
> The fact that it was never attacked in her time doesnt mean it was
> useless. By the standards of the day it was state of the art with a
> classic artillery proof layout using earthern banks for defense and
> caponiers, glacis and ramparts to allow crossfire on any attackers.
I don't see any caponiers (unless you mean the flanking gun position in the
bastions). There were not any ravelins, and the glacis and counterscarp
were never properly built. The fortifications were not continued to the
sea, in order to cut off the whole peninsula, and the town wall facing the
estually and river were not rebuilt, leaving the town and bridge unprotected
from the south and west. These criticisms were made by Portinari in 1560, by
Portinari and Contio in 1564, and by Lord Willoughby d'Eresby in 1598.
|Re: Culloden & The Aftermath by "John Briggs" <>|