For centuries, the redoubt was a well-established type of military fortification, however throughout 18th century America, it often became the stand-alone fortress. In North America, where military fortifications were frequently constructed in relatively remote and inaccessible locations, works built from readily available materials (typically stone, lumber and earth) tended to be more common than the ornate masonry edifices and citadels of Europe. Because of the hasty structure and nature of these building materials, most of these works were transitory, and have not survived to the present.
Redoubts were field forts. During the American Revolution they became the primary fortification of a rebel army; an army with very limited experience, means, and time to construct permanent defenses. However an important factor that necessitated the type of fortification which the Americans relied on was mainly determined by the type of mobile war fought over vast stretches of the American landscape. The rebellious citizen soldiers could not stand before the disciplined ranks of British and German troops. From the open salvo at Lexington and Concord in April of 1775, Americans discovered they could do much damage to the British from behind barriers and obstacles, firing at columns of troops more disciplined to open warfare where lines of battle converged upon the enemy.
America’s military leaders gradually developed a hit and run tactic that depended heavily on the rapid construction of earthworks from which to punish an assaulting enemy before a quick redeployment or retreat; something American General Nathanael Greene perfected during the southern campaign later in the Revolutionary War, and why the British suffered so heavily at the Battle of Bunker Hill, June 17, 1775. General Israel Putnam may have said it best just prior to the Battle of Bunker Hill when he spoke at a Council of War to discuss the construction of a fortification on the Charleston Peninsula across from Boston: “The Americans are not at all afraid of their heads, though very much afraid of their legs; if you cover those, they will fight forever.”
Yet the mobile war that favored America’s assets did not come without pain. Douglas Cubbinson, director of housing and public works at the West Point Military Academy cited, “During the early years of the war, the American forces displayed an alarming tendency to construct fortifications that were too extensive, and could not be held by the number of forces reasonably anticipated to be present for their defense. Additionally, the rambling nature of these works effectively tied down the American forces, rather than permitting them to maneuver.” The Americans did not nearly have the manpower to defend the forts constructed along the Delaware River. After months of construction, several of these large forts, redoubts, and breastworks, such as the extensive defenses around Manhattan and Fort Lee in New Jersey, were abandoned in the face of the enemy.
Only after Fort Mercer at Red Bank was reduced to one strongly fortified redoubt, did four hundred soldiers from Rhode Island fend off off over 2,500 Germans resulting in devastating casualties among the Germans and slight among the defenders. And at Fort Washington just north of New York City on Manhattan Island, the Americans tied down several regiments of some of their best troops along with desperately needed supplies, only to lose all when the garrison was stormed by British and Hessian troops.
D. H. Mahan, former professor of military and civil engineering at the U. S. Military Academy wrote, “As a field fort must rely entirely on its own strength, it should be constructed with such care that the enemy will be forced to abandon an attempt to storm it, and be obliged to resort to the method of regular approaches used in the attack of permanent works. To effect this, all the ground around the fort, within the range of cannon, should offer no shelter to the enemy from its fire; the ditches should be flanked [soldiers positioned at either end of an exposed military line] throughout; and the relief [height of paraphet or embankment surrounding the post] be so great as to preclude any attempt at scaling the work.”
“Any enclosed work of a polygonal form,” wrote Professor Mahan, “without re-entering angles, is denominated a redoubt. This work is used to fortify a position which can be attacked on all sides…” When used in conjunction with the extensive masonry military fortifications designed and constructed in Europe, redoubts were placed within the outer-works to command critical angles, or to support other portions of the outer-works. During sieges, the great French Military Engineer and Field Marshall Sebastien Le Prestre de Vauban noted that redoubts could be used to secure the siege lines against attack from the besieged garrison, or a relieving force.
Basically redoubts were forts within a main fort’s defenses. Historically, redoubts consisted of enclosed fortifications constructed outside a larger fort. Often hastily built, it relied on earthworks and or stone and wooden timbers. It’s main purpose was to shelter soldiers posted outside the main defensive enclosure or fort. They were either permanent structures made of more durable goods, or quickly thrown up to thwart an enemy’s approach to the main fortification. Redoubts in America filled a far larger role than supplement to the main defensive system; in most cases they in themselves became the main fort. The word redoubt comes from the Latin reducere meaning to withdraw, medieval Latin reductus or a refuge, and the 17th century French redoute and English redoubt, therefore a place of retreat.
By the middle of the 18th century, military art and science had advanced as a field of study. Professional treatises on military engineering and architecture gained much attention. Nearly every contemporary engineering manual described the redoubt’s construction and defensive utilization. Among the finer examples of works devoted to the ‘Art of Fortification,’ were Jean Louis LeCointe’s 1761 text The Science of Military Posts…, Lt. J. C. Pleydell’s 1768 discourse An Essay on Field Fortification, and Sir James Young’s 1766 paper An Essay on the Command of Small Detachments…” Lewis Lochlee, Master of the Royal military Academy, Little Chelsea, England, was among the most succinct and wrote in 1783 that “the redoubt is a work generally enclosed on all sides. It serves to secure a post, a grand guard, or communications; to defend a defile, a bridge, a ford, etc., and is of various dimensions, that is, of different plans and profiles. The extent of it is proportioned to the number of men who are to defend it, and the parapet [outer walls] is generally of sufficient height to cover them. The redoubt has no precise or common form…the form, indeed, is determined by the spot of ground on which it is raised, and the purposes for which it is constructed…. By redoubt…is understood a work enclosed on all sides, and formed wholly of salient angles. [an angle pointing outward with its apex toward the enemy].”
The military application and utility of redoubts can be best understood with an explanation of their design, configurations, and materials necessary. The breadth and proportions of redoubts varied greatly and depended on the size and strength of the detachment assigned for its defense. Pleydell stated, “Allowing an ordinary pace, or two feet, to each file [soldier], two deep. When cannon are intended to be placed in a field work, six paces are allowed to a field piece, and eight paces to a twelve-pounder [weight of ball]. He did recommend that the least interior circumference of a square redoubt be limited to eighty paces.
Diagram of Fort and wall. Photos by Author
Redoubts were designed with specific common features and will be explored in order: Parapet, Terreplein, Banquette, Superior/Interior/External Slopes, Embrasures, Ditch including Berm, Scarp, Counterscarp and Glasis, Palisades, Fraizes, Abbatis, and Entrance. Additional material has been garnished from Douglas Cubbison who penned an excellent article in 2004 on the redoubts at West Point, New York. Also informative was the text by J. B. Wheeler, former professor of Civil and Military Engineering at the U. S. Military Academy at West Point.
Parapet
According to Lochee, “the parapet is the bank of earth surrounding the post to be defended, and serves to cover the troops and artillery employed for its defense. The dimensions of the parapet vary according to the nature of the ground, and the purpose for which it is constructed: its breadth at the top is from two to eighteen feet; and its height within is from four to ten feet.” Wheeler described parapet as, “when a mass of earth is arranged so that the men using it as a shelter are enabled to fire over it and sweep the ground in their front with their fire…” The word parapet is derived from the Italian para petto, meaning defending the chest. Mahan wrote that “…its dimensions will vary with the kind of soil used in its construction; with the time and means that can be employed; and with the time that the work is to remain occupied…”
Height of Parapet: Wheeler stated that “the parapet must have a height sufficiently great to screen its defenders from the enemy’s view.” Mahan, and Wheeler concurred and recommend the height of the interior, “[it] should be regulated so as to intercept the enemy’s missiles and to shelter the assailed. Men of the greatest ordinary stature, in bringing their muskets to an aim, do not fire at a higher level than about five feet; therefore any mass of this height in front of them will just intercept their fire; but this mass would not shelter a man standing behind it; to effect this, in the case of the tallest men usually found in the ranks, the interior crest should be at least six feet six inches above the terreplein [the surface or floor of the fort or redoubt at the parapet’s base].” He continued that “the greatest height had been fixed at twelve feet, owing to the difficulty of throwing up a work with the ordinary means at hand, which are usually only the pick and shovel.”
Thickness of Parapet: The thickness must protect those behind it against the enemy’s missiles. Wheeler stated that “the rule is to make the thickness of the parapet one half greater than the penetration of the projectile into the same kind of earth as that of which the parapet is made. The amount of penetration will be different for different earths and will vary with the range, the caliber of the guns, and with the kind of projectile used.” Therefore, thickness was determined by the size of the enemy’s weapons, the horizontal distance between the interior and exterior crests, and regulated by the material used for the parapet; the kind of attack, and its probable duration.
Lochlee recommended: “When 2 feet broad at the top, it is capable only of resisting musket shot. When the parapet is 3 or 4 feet broad at the top, it can resist a three-pounder, when 4 or 5 feet a six-pounder; and when 7 feet, a twelve-pounder. When 18 feet, it is capable of resisting the shot of the larger cannon,” such as twenty-four pound and higher siege cannon and projectiles thrown by frigates and battleships. British Engineer Lt. Pleydell provided similar recommendations: “It should therefore be known, that a ball from three to six pounds weight, will enter three or four feet into earth newly cast up; and a twelve-pounder eight feet. This, at once, determines the thickness of the breastwork. The height of the parapet within, to form a complete covering for the men, should at least be six feet.” As to protection from musket fire we again turn to Wheeler: “Two feet is about the limit of penetration of the bullet, fired from the rifled musket, at close range, into ordinary earth. A thickness of three feet will give protection against musketry fire.” Most engineering officers followed simple logic: It is well to remember that it is far better to make the parapet too thick than not thick enough.
As stated, the defensive fortifications constructed by the American forces were often temporary and hastily built either in the presence of the enemy or just prior to their arrival. The parapet of the redoubt thrown up over night on Breed’s Hill during the Battle of Bunker Hill proved to be of a proper height and dimensions to fight off two general assaults of the British while protecting the defenders. Most of the British casualties occurred during the three assaults made upon the works and most of the American casualties occurred after the third attempt by the British was successful and the parapet was stormed. In the first Battle of Charleston, June 28, 1776 which resulted in an American victory, the fortification protecting the harbor was hastily constructed. The parapet’s spongy consistency of palmetto logs proved to absorb much of the heaviest projectiles fired from the British fleet while the American guns slowly and methodically devastated the anchored ships.
Terreplein
Wheeler wrote, “designates the surface on which the men stand in readiness to defend the parapet, and at the same time are screened from the enemy’s view. The terreplein may be the natural surface of the ground, it may be above the surface, or it may be below it, as the bottom of a trench. In ordinary field fortifications, the terreplein is the natural surface of the ground. When the terreplein is above the natural surface of the ground, the latter is termed the parade or terre-parade-plein.
Banquette or the English Firing Step
When the parapet was heaped or constructed high enough to screen the men on the terreplein from the enemy’s view, but was too high for men to fire over, arrangements were made. According to Lochee: “the design of the banquette is to elevate the men, that they may see over the parapet to fire upon the enemy. As the design of the banquette is to elevate the men, it necessarily follows, that the banquette must be raised within four and a half feet of the summit of the parapet. The space of four and a half feet allowed for the breadth of the banquette is absolutely necessary for forming upon it the men who are to defend the parapet. This space allows the parapet to be lined two deep.” French military engineer LeCointe proposed a higher banquette: “You must make the parapet four feet higher than the banquette.” Pleydell suggested one slightly smaller of four feet.
Mahan reommended the ‘thread of banquette’ to be four feet three inches below the parapet’s crest. His reasoning is that it admits men of the lowest ordinary stature to fire conveniently over the parapet. He gave specifics on the width and slope leading up to the banquette:“Its width is two feet for a defense with one rank; and four feet for two or three ranks; because the third rank does not fire and therefore placed on the banquette slope, the base of which is twice the altitude, to render the ascent convenient.” He also gave the correct dimensions of steps if the banquette was too high up the parapet for a slope: “…the rise of the step should be nine inches, and its breadth twelve inches.”
Superior, Interior, & Exterior Slope
When a soldier stood on a banquette heaped high enough to fire over the parapet, engineers knew that it would be inconvenient to do so. Therefore, as Lochee explained, “for the purpose of discovering the enemy in his approach, and of more effectually leveling at him, the top of the parapet is made sloping towards the country.” Wheeler described: “The upper surface of the mass is therefore sloped off at a convenient inclination, and joined to the banquette tread by a slope, against which the soldier can lean in an easy position. This upper surface, or top of the mass, is termed the superior slope, and the surface connecting it with the banquette thread is called the interior slope. The surface connecting the superior slope with the ground in front is called the exterior slope. Mahan cautioned as to the proper dimensions of the slopes stating that the superior slope (top of the parapet) “not be greater than one-fourth, nor less than one-sixth of the base of the slope;” in other words the base should be four to six times the height. Lochee succinctly stated “some engineers never allow this slope or plunge to have more than two inches for every foot in the height of the parapet, for fear of weakening too much the upper part of the parapet…” As to the interior slope, according to Mahan, “The interior slope receives a base equal to one-third its height. This is a result of experience, which has shown that it is the most convenient for the soldier in leaning forward to deliver his fire over a parapet.”
Embrasure
Cubbinson simply explained embrasures as “openings incorporated into a work when it was equipped with artillery pieces. Rarely, artillery pieces were installed to fire directly over the top of the parapet, this circumstance being referred to as en barbette. Most commonly, embrasures were cut through the parapet to enable the artillery to fire from behind the protection of the parapet.” According to Lochee, “The dimensions of the embrasure depend not only on the nature of the soil, and the height and thickness of the parapet, but also on the caliber of the piece, the height of the wheels, and the construction of the carriage.” Wheeler gave a highly detailed and calculated description on page fifty six of his text on the proper dimensions of these embrasures which were basically trapezoids. He made the following recommendations: “The bottom of the embrasure, termed the sole, is two feet nine inches, or four feet above the ground, on which the wheels of the carriage rest, according to the size of the gun; it slopes outwards to allow the gun to be fired under an inclination, the base of this slope should never be less than six times the altitude; the interior opening, termed the mouth, is from 18 inches to two feet wide, according to the caliber of the gun, and is of a rectangular form; the embrasure widens towards the exterior, which widening is termed the splay...”
It is recommended that the muzzle of the gun should enter at least six inches into the embrasure to prevent the blast from injuring the sides, termed cheeks, of the embrasure. Wheeler stated, “the height of the cheeks, or sides, must not be more than four feet… in some cases, be necessary to raise the ground on which the wheels rest.” The parapet of a battery is termed the epaulment. That part of the interior face that lies below the gun chase (or barrel) is termed the genouillere. That part of the parapet or mass of earth between two embrasures is called a merlon. Embrasures were generally cut out after the epaulment was thrown up. When the gun was fired often in the same direction, the ground under the wheels were soon worn into ruts. To prevent this, often platforms of timber were constructed, usually in a rectangle, though in some cases, where a wider field of fire was desired, the form was a trapezoid.
Ditch, Berm, Scarp, Counterscarp & Glacis
Accordingly, the height of a redoubt’s parapet had been specified at a minimum of six feet. If no other arrangements were made to this, a determined enemy could have climbed and mounted it. To offset this, a ditch was incorporated at the base of the outside wall to raise the vertical face of the parapet making it far more difficult to scale. We turn to Lochee: “The trench dug at the exterior foot of the parapet is called [the] ditch. At the same time that it serves to furnish the earth necessary for raising the parapet and banquette, it contributes to increase the difficulty of approach. The dimension of it depend on the dimensions of the parapet and banquette; its depth should, if possible never be less than six feet. Mahan stated that “its depth should not be less than six feet, and its width less than twenty feet, to present a respectable obstacle to the enemy. It cannot, with convenience, be made deeper than 12 feet; and its greatest width is regulated by the inclination of the superior slope…”
“The ditch’s slope nearest to the parapet,” described Lochee, “is called [the] scarp, and that opposite to the parapet, is called counterscarp.” Mahan continued, “the slopes of the scarp and counterscarp will depend on the nature of the soil, and the action of it of frost and rain. The scarp, [the slope closest to the base of the parapet] is less steep than the counterscarp; because it has to sustain the weight of the parapet. It is usual to give the slope of the scarp, a base equal to two-thirds of the base of the natural slope of a mound of fresh earth whose altitude is equal to the depth of the ditch; the base of the counterscarp slope is made equal to one half the same base.”
A small level space between the ditch and the parapet, which served to keep the parapet from sliding in the ditch, was referred to as the berm. Wheeler described it as “the horizontal surface which connects the exterior slope of the parapet with the ditch. The berm coincided with the natural surface of the ground in ordinary field fortifications.” Pleydell wrote, “two feet are sufficient for the breadth of the berm.” Mahan gave greater detail, “The berm is a defect in field works, because it yields the enemy a foot-hold to breathe a moment, before attempting to ascend the exterior slope. It is useful in the construction of the work for the workmen to stand on; and it throws the weight of the parapet back on the scarp, which might be crushed out by this pressure. In firm soils, the berm may be only from 18 inches to two feet wide; in other cases, as it marshy soils, it may require a width of six feet. In all cases, it should be six feet below the exterior crest; to prevent the enemy, should he form on it, from firing on the troops on the banquette.
The mass of earth occasionally heaped on the opposite side of the ditch, with the upper surface, arranged with a gentle slope to the front was called a glacis. Mahan wrote, “If, owing to the command, the fire should pass higher than three feet above the crest of the counterscarp [slope on the opposite side of the ditch], it would then be necessary to construct a glacis in front of the ditch. It must be so arranged that it can be swept by the fire of the work, and be commanded by it at least five feet.”
Palisades
Stakes of vertical poles, called palisades, were added as an additional defense to redoubts. LeCointe simply wrote regarding their positioning, “…fix pickets [sharpened stakes] quite round his post.” Lochee wrote, “Palisades are stakes of strong split wood, of about seven or eight inches broad, three or four inches thick, and eight or nine feet long, of which three or four feet are sunk into the earth. They are pointed both at the top and bottom, and that they may be of greater strength, they are fastened to a horizontal rail within two feet from the top, and are generally placed so close to each other, as only to admit the muzzle of a piece between them. Their greatest distance from each other is never so great as to afford room enough to creep through them.” Pleydell added, “Palisades, used in fortifying the ditches, are nine or ten feet long, and six inches broad, pointed at one end…”
Palisading is a row of palisades set in the ground, either vertically, or slightly inclined towards the enemy. Wheeler wrote,“To plant the palisades, a trench is dug three feet deep; they are then placed about three inches asunder, with an edge towards the enemy. Each palisade is nailed to a strip of thick plank, termed a riband, placed horizontally about one foot below the ground; another riband is placed eighteen inches below the top. The earth is firmly packed in the trench… As an obstacle, it is best placed at the foot of the counterscarp; the points being twelve inches below its crest, or else covered by a small glacis.” The palisade becomes an efficient obstacle, “it is under the fire of the work; covered by the enemy’s fire; will not afford a shelter to the enemy; and cannot be cut down without great difficulty.
Fraise
Fraise is the term given to palisades that are fixed to the parapet. Lochee stated, “Palisades fixed to the parapet are called fraizes. They have the same dimensions and attached to the parapet as palisades. They also have a similar function: “The stakes are sufficiently close to each other; they do not afford room enough to creep through them. To strengthen the fraize, the stakes are fastened to two sleepers [ribands], one of which lies upon the level ground, and the other lies within the body of the parapet.”
Mahan is more specific as to the location and function of the fraise: “The best position for a fraise is on the berm, or a little below it, so as to be covered by the counterscarp crest. The part of the fraise under the parapet is termed the tail, and is about five feet long. To make a fraise, a horizontal piece of four inch scantling, termed a cushion, is first laid parallel to the berm; each palisade is nailed to this, and a thick riband is nailed on top of the fraise near the end… The point of the fraise should be at least seven feet above the bottom of the ditch, and should not project beyond the foot of the scarp, so as not to shelter the enemy from the logs, stones, etc., rolled from the parapet into the ditch.” By the time of the American Revolution, the famed ‘grenadier’ companies of regiments no longer carried their namesake, grenades. However early fortification engineers recorded that the fraise permitted hand grenades thrown from within the redoubt to bounce off them and into the ditch which would be occupied by a scrambling enemy. The fraise also made it more difficult to throw hand grenades from the ditch into the redoubt’s interior.
Abbatis
An abbatis was constructed as an obstacle to an attacking force, to delay it while exposed to fire from the redoubt, and was therefore laid out from the ditch and across what would be considered a ‘killing field’ of exposed terrain. Similar to palisades or fraises which were dug into the parapet or near, these obstacles would fan out from the ditch’s counterscarp and glasis. Lochee stated, “It consists of hewn trees with the points of their branches turned towards the enemy, and to increase the danger and difficulty of forcing it, the trees are not only placed close to each other, but the branches are stripped of their leaves and twigs, sharpened at their extremities, and interwoven one in another. The trunks of the trees are generally sunk three or four feet into the earth, and the principal branches that lie on the ground are fastened down by stakes.” Similarly, LeCointed added, “Surround your post with a breast work of trees, with their trunks buried about three or four feet in a ditch…You may sharpen their points, and take off all the leaves, place the trees as near each other as you can, so that the branches may twist into one another, and see that they point a little towards the enemy.”
Mahan wrote, “Abattis (also spelled abbatis or abatis) are placed in front of the ditch; in this position they must be covered from the enemy’s fire by a small glacis. They are sometimes placed in the ditch against the counterscarp… this is an excellent obstacle in a wooded country, and admits of a good defense, if a slight parapet is thrown up behind it. The parapet may be made of the trunks of trees laid on each other with a shallow ditch, or trench, behind them; the earth from which is thrown against the trunks.” This description best portrays North America’s wooden country in which both parapets of redoubts and obstacles relied heavily on timbers for their construction.
Entrance
Lochee wrote, “the entrance, which is made in the side or face least exposed has no greater breadth than is absolutely necessary for passing and re-passing, and is commonly defended from within by a traverse [an earthen embankment, the same height as the parapet, built across the terreplein – floor of the redoubt – to prevent it being swept by enflilade fire]. Pleydell similarly stated, “The entrance should always be made in the face least exposed to an attack. It is five paces wide to give room for the cannon to pass, but if none are to be put into it, three or four paces are sufficient.” The French engineer Vauban said, “The bridge for entrance into the redoubt ought to be ten or twelve feet broad, when you would bring the cannon into it; otherwise five or six feet of breadth will suffice.” Pleydell discussed defense of the entrance, “The entrance of the redoubt ought likewise to be secured with a good barrier, a kind of open gate, made of crossbars about seven feet long, and six inches thick, which troops may fire through with small arms, or with two or three chevaux-de-friese [friese of pointed stakes attached together and driven into the ground as obstacles]” Wheeler wrote that the “entrance is obtained by a covered passage leading under the parapet. It is constructed by using frames.”
Redoubt Construction
Cubbinson succinctly stated, “Although a redoubt could be constructed of masonry, in North America they were almost always constructed of earth [and timber]. Frequently, the earth would be placed within a framework of wood. The wood could consist of interlocked hewn trees (similar to a log cabin), fascines (tightly bound bundles of sticks about six feet in length staked into position), gabions (essentially small woven baskets typically 3-4 feet in diameter, staked into position and filled with dirt), or hurdles (essentially woven vertical mats). Once the framework of wood was in place, it would be filled with earth from the ditch, and other available rubble, which was pounded firmly into position. Sometimes, earth was simply used, then covered with cut squares of sod spiked into place to hold the dirt. In cases of extremity, the dirt was simply piled up and tamped down, as was done in the case of the redoubt on Breeds Hill at the Battle of Bunker Hill.” Lochee noted, “In a stony or gravelly soil, the banquette and lower part of the parapet are to be raised with whatever earth can be got, but the upper part of the parapet is to be raised with fine mold, that the troops may not suffer more from the stones flying about, than from the bullets of the enemy.”
Shape of the Redoubt
Again turning to Cubbinson, “One of the most important aspects of a redoubt is that although the classic configuration was square; they were specifically intended to be adapted to the terrain that they were defending.” Lochee, who exhaustively addressed how different redoubt shapes could be laid-out and utilized, specified: “The redoubt has no precise or common form, but may be a square, a rhombus, a trapezium, a trapezoid, a pentagon either regular or irregular, a circle, or any other form. The form, indeed, is determined by the spot of ground on which it is raised, and the purposes for which it is constructed. When there is no essential reason to the contrary, the form is commonly a square.” Pleydell, who devoted nearly his entire work to an examination of how the shape of a redoubt was adapted to the terrain, dictated: “It is not at all necessary redoubts should be traced exactly square, they are full as serviceable made in the figure of a rhomb, or with one side longer than another. This method, so far from being defective, becomes absolutely necessary when the ground neither allows, nor indeed requires, works to be exactly regular. Generally speaking, it is the spot redoubts are to be constructed on, as well as the lying of the ground near them, which should determine their figure.” Both Lochee and Pleydell discussed at great length how redoubts were integrated with each other, and with other types of field works such as fleches, batteries and breastworks, to command important ground.
American Revolution
By the start of the War of American Independence, a healthy interest in military art and science was well founded in the fourteen colonies, and a large number of military treatises were readily available for purchase. Cubbinson stated, “At the early Battle of Bunker Hill, the cornerstone of the American defenses on Breed’s Hill was a large, square earth redoubt that the American had constructed in a single night of prodigious labor. This redoubt was approximately 136 feet square, contained a redan (salient angle) facing to the south (in the presumed direction of British attack), and an entrance to the north (reverse). The devastating casualties inflicted upon the British Army when it attacked this redoubt served as a demonstration of how effectively such works could be defended. Given this early success, the Americans almost immediately began to utilize fortifications as an integral component of their military plans. Redoubts were incorporated with great regularity into American defensive positions constructed between 1776 and 1777. Literally miles of fortifications were constructed to defend New York City during 1776. As an example of the extent of this massive fortification effort, eighteen redoubts have been documented in association with the defense of Fort Washington on Manhattan Island alone.” Unfortunately, nearly all of these redoubts have been destroyed by the expansion of New York City in the ensuing decades.
Major Redoubts during the American Revolution
Boston: Breeds Hill on Charlestown Peninsula – single redoubt built in one night on June 17, 1775 – successfully defended until overrun on third British assault. New York City: Multiple redoubts throughout southern Manhattan connected by breastworks and batteries – abandoned, Fort Washington redoubts and batteries guarding the Hudson River – attacked and lost along with garrison, Fort Lee – across the Hudson from Fort Washington was abandoned on approach of British. Hudson River Valley – both forts were defended, lost, and reclaimed: three at Fort Montgomery at Anthony’s Nose north of Popolopen Creek begun March 1776, Fort Clinton on high ground to the south of Montgomery – breastworks and one large redoubt north and another southwest begun August 1776. Delaware River region of Philadelphia constructed early in the war: Billingsport on the New Jersey side of the river – reduced to a single redoubt and was abandoned when British approached, Fort Mercer at Red Bank New Jersey – reduced to one redoubt and successfully fought off a large Hessian force later abandoned, Fort Mifflin on Mud Island in the Delaware – put up a stiff resistance and abandoned. Valley Forge: two lines of fortifications – outer line of large square redoubt flanked by redans and breastworks and inner line consisting of a number of redoubts connected by breastworks (it was this strong defense that deterred the British from attacking.
Northern Theater: Ticonderoga New York – series of seven new redoubts constructed around the old French fort in 1776 & 1777, Mount Independence across the lake from Fort Ticonderoga – series of redoubts to control the high ground around Ft. Ticonderoga, abandoned at the approach of British forces, Bemis Heights near Saratoga New York – a series of infantry redoubts and batteries connected by breastworks built in Sept. & Oct. 1777 which blocked the British advance and forced two battles just to the north resulting in the British army’s surrender, Fort Stanwix in the Mohawk Valley New York – star redoubt with corner bastions successfully defended in 1777.
West Point, New York: Fort Arnold – large redoubt (renamed Fort Constitution after Arnold’s treachery in 1780), Fort Putnam large redoubt with a series of four redoubts built above and around the fort, three redoubts that protected river batteries and obstructions at Constitution Island.
Southern Theater: Fort Sullivan later Fort Moultrie – large square redoubt with corner bastions – successfully defended on June 28, 1776 against British fleet, lost during the Charleston Siege in the spring of 1780, Single redoubt at Star fort -Ninety Six South Carolina, occupied by British and successfully defended against Americans under Gen. Greene.
Redoubt and defenses at Savannah Georgia – constructed by the British – 1,200 feet of redoubts and breastworks on the plains outside the city – successfully defended against American and French forces, Redoubts constructed by the British at Yorktown – the famed Number 10 redoubt was stormed on Oct. 14th 1781, leading to the British army’s surrender.
Western Theatre: Three forts or basically large redoubts lined the Ohio River along the frontier – Forts Pitt, Henry, and Randolph, Holidays Cover Redoubt in western Virginia constructed in 1774, Fort Laurens in the Ohio country built in 1778, Other redoubts of note – Forts Detroit, St. Joseph, Petit Fort, Estill Station in Kentucky.
For more information on field fortifications on Forts and Redoubts, click the link to the following article on Revolutionary War Journal
For Further Reading on Forts and the American Revolution, check out these free previews on Amazon
Check out similar articles on Revolutionary War Journal pertaining to artillery and cannon during the American Revolution
SOURCES
Fraser, Capt. T. The Defense of a Position Selected as a Field of Battle – Royal Engineer Prize Essay. 1875: A. W. & J. P. Jackson Printers, New York, NY.
Griffith, Paddy. The Vauban Fortifications of France. 2013: Bloomsbury Publishing, London, UK.
Historic Structures Report The Redoubts of West PointDouglas R. Cubbison January 2004
http://www.hudsonrivervalley.org/library/pdfs/articles_books_essays/westpointredoubts_cubbison.pdf
LeCointe, Jean Louis. The Science of Military Posts; For the use of regimental Officers… 1761: Printed for T. Payne, London, England.
Lochlee, Lewis. Elements of Field Fortification. 1783: T. Cadell & T. Egerton, London, England.
Office of the Chief of Military History. Selected Quotes of United States Military Leaders. 1964: Dept. of the Army, Washington D. C.
Mahan, D. H. A Treatise on Field Fortification, Containing Instructions on the Methods of Laying Out, Constructing, Defending, and Attacking Intrenchments [Correct Spelling]… 1861: John Wiley Publisher, New York, NY.
Pleydell, Lt. J. C. An Essay on Field Fortification: Intended Principally for the use of Officers of Infantry… 1768: J. Nourse Bookseller to His Majesty & 1790: Printed for F. Wingrave, London, England.
Wheeler, J. B. The Elements of Field Fortifications for the Use of the Cadets of the United States Military Academy, at West Point, New York. 1893: D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, NY.