Page images
PDF
EPUB

"(much beyond what any former Theories have "affigned) is likewife afcertained." On which Principles it will appear, that the original Velocities of Bullets, when impelled by full Charges of Powder, and the Track defcribed by their Flight, are extremely different from what the Writers on these Subjects have hitherto fuppofed.

As the principal Difquifitions of this Work relate to the Force of Powder, and the Flight of Shells and Bullets, Mr. Robins has very agreeably thrown into his Preface a few Particulars, refpecting the Invention of Powder, as alfo the Hiftory and Improvements of Gunnery, and its Sifter-Art, Fortification; and this he was the rather induced to, as the Nature and Purport of what he afterwards advances is in fome measure illuftrated, by being compared with the Opinions that have formerly prevailed concerning thefe Matters. And tho' his immediate View is the promoting the Theory and Practice of Gunnery, yet the prefent Methods of Fortifying are fo connected with the Invention and Management of Artillery, that he judged a fhort Recital of the Origin and Changes of the modern Military Architecture would not be impertinently prefixed to an Account of those powerful Machines which gave it Birth. An Epitome of what he has favoured us with on these Heads is as followeth.

With regard to the firft Invention of Bastions, there are many Opinions amongst Authors; it being a Point yet undecided, in what Place, and at what Time, they were firft put in Practice, Some have attributed this Invention to Zifca, the Bohemian ; others to Achmet Bafhaw, who having taken Otranto in the Year 1480, fortified it in a particular Manner; which is fuppofed to be the firft Inftance of the Ufe of Baftions. But these are the Pofitions of later Writers. Those who wrote on the Subject of Fortification near two Centuries ago, feem to fup

pofe,

[ocr errors]

pofe, that Bastions were a gradual Improvement in the ancient Method of Building, rather than a new Thought, that any one Perfon could claim the Honour of. Pafino imputes the Changes in the ancient Fortifications, and the Introduction of the modern Form, to the increased Violence of the later Artillery, without pretending that it was effected at one Time, or by one Perfon. So that Mr. Robins believes we cannot with Certainty affirm more in Reference to the Invention of Baftions, than that they were well known foon after the Year 1500.

We cannot, with any greater Exactness, fix the Time when the old circular Towers were first converted into Bastions; yet probably it did not precede the Date above-mentioned.

The first Bastions were but small, and removed at a great Distance from each other: But in a few Years there were introduced Bastions much larger, and much nearer together. Probably the Citadel of Antwerp, built under the Direction of the Duke d'Alva, about 1566, was the first Inftance of this Improvement.

From this Period the modern Practice of Military Architecture may be fuppofed to have taken its Rife; most of the Improvements of the prefent Times being little more than the putting in Ufe fuch Methods as were proposed within a few Years of this Æra.

The better to determine the Pretenfions of the Moderns, and the Merit of the Syftems of Fortification now in Vogue, Mr. Robins enters into a brief Difcuffion of the various Methods which have been propofed for covering the Flanks, and confequently for fecuring the Ramparts from the Approach of an Enemy: For as it is agreed, that the principal Defence of a Fortress is its Flanks, the best Standard whereby to judge of the Merit of any B 2

Syftem

Syftem of Fortification, is the Manner in which it provides for the Safety of the Flanks, against the Efforts of an Enemy.

From what Mr. Robins has faid upon this Topic it appears, that the Covering of the Flanks was a Thing much more attended to by the ancient Engineers, than by those who have fucceeded them; and, confequently, that the Art of Fortification has not received from the Moderns thofe great Improvements, which unfkilful Writers fometimes boast of.

Our Author fhews of what vaft Importance in Fortification fecuring the Flanks is, and how negligent, with reference to that Point, some of our modern Engineers are: He exposes those erroneous Maxims whereby they have been induced to fuch a Conduct, and the ill Effects that have follow'd thereupon; and he gives us a Detail of the feveral Inventions for fcreening of the Flanks, that have been recommended at different Times, and by different Artists.

But beyond all these, he tells us, there is ftill, in a proper Soil, a more efficacious Defence; and that is, by the Means of Contre-mines.

The firft fuccefsful Application of the blowing of Mines in Sieges, he fays, was in the Kingdom of Naples, where Pietro de Navarre by this Means poffeffed himself of a Fort garrison'd by the French. But the first celebrated Use of these Mines in oppofing the Progrefs of the Befiegers, was in the Years 1666, 67, 68, at the Siege of Candia: Not but that they had been often practised in the Defence of Places before, tho' in a lefs memorable Manner; for, by the Affiftance of this Invention, principally, the City of Candia kept the whole Power of the Ottoman Empire at a Bay for three Years fucceffively. Since that Time the Advantages of the Contre-mines have been better understood. The laft eminent Instance of their great Usefulness was in the Defence of Turin, in the Year 1706;

for

for fo effectually were the Befiegers traversed thereby, that after near four Months of open Trenches, they were not in the Poffeffion of more than the Countre-fcarp, and even there eleven Pieces of their Cannon were blown up by the Defendants, but three or four Days before the Place was relieved.

Before he leaves this Head, Mr. Robins mentions with Approbation the Improvement in the Doctrine of Mines, which is contained in a Differtation annexed to the third Volume of the French Polybius, faid to be wrote by M. de Valiere, Marechal des Camps, and Captain-General of the Miners.

Mr. Robins, at the fame Time that he takes Notice of the Defects in the Writings of many of thofe, who amongst the Moderns have undertaken to form Systems of Fortification, avows the fuperior Merit of the great Coehoorn, who was undoubtedly, he fays, the ableft Fortifier that ever the World knew.

He has been affured, by those who were well acquainted with this excellent Man, that his Treatifes were far from acquiring him either the Advantages or Reputation which he might reafonably have expected from them: For that his Contemporary Engineers, wedded to their old Road, decried him, as an unfkilful felf-conceited Pretender; but that he at laft furmounted thefe Effects of their Envy and Prejudice by his Defence of Fort William at Namur, when that Place was befieged by the French: After this, which established his Reputatión, he rose apace to the greatest Military Commands, and immortalized his Name by his Conduct at the Siege of Namur under King William, and afterwards at Bon, Limburg, the Citadel of Liege, &c. Mr. Robins adds,

Befides being intrufted with the Direction of Sieges, he was employed too in the repairing and new-modelling many of the Dutch Frontiers. His laft Work, which is left unfinished, was Bergen-op

B 3

Zoom,

Zoom, which will always do Honour to his Memory.

Tho', with Regard to the modern Writers on Fortification, our Author cannot find another to place in the fame Article with the great Genius laft mentioned; yet, he says, there are two Authors on the Methods of atttacking and defending Places, who deferve the highest Applause; these are Goulon and the Marechal de Vauban: The first in a short Treatife, intitled, Memoires fur l'Attaque et la Defence des Places; the other in a Work which he prefented in Manufcript to the late King of France, of which Copies getting abroad, it was published four Years fince in Holland.

Having infifted, fo far as he judges fufficient, on the Origin and Variations of the prefent Military Architecture, our Author next difcuffes what is more. immediately connected with the Purport of the Work now before us; that is, the Invention of Powder and Artillery, with their respective Improvements, and the different Theories they have given Rise to.

The Invention of Gunpowder is usually afcribed to one Bartholdus Schwartz, a German Monk, about the Year 1320; and the first Use of it in War is commonly fuppofed to have been by the Venetians against the Genoefe, about the Year 1380. But, Mr. Robins fays, both thefe Suppofitions are false; for a Compofition, resembling Gunpowder is mentioned by Rager Bacon, as well known in his Time, near fifty Years before Schwartz; and there are indifputable Proofs of the Ufe of Artillery much earlier than the Year 1380.

Indeed, as the Time of the Discovery of Saltpetre is confeffedly uncertain, it is not to be wonder'd at, that that of Gunpowder is fo alfo; for thefe Discoveries are fo connected, that the first could hardly be long known before the latter.

The

« PreviousContinue »