37 Siege and Fortification Technology

Introduction

From the 1600’s to the late 1800’s, the use of gunpowder had diffused throughout the Old World. Particularly in Europe and Western Asia, this had allowed for the advent of cannon artillery, revolutionizing siege warfare as cannon technology improved to the point of being strong and accurate enough to render previous fortification technology obsolete. With this change and the spread of new gunpowder empires throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa, a vicious cycle would begin where either siege or fortification technology would surpass the other, only leading to momentary advantage until the developments in the other technology would negate it.

Connection to sts

In regards to STS, this cycle of development often came hand in hand with adaptations made by society to these technologies which would similarly impact their development. The growing urbanization of societies during this time period as agriculture became more efficient would also lead to the increased importance of these technologies in defending or besieging urbanized centers. Additionally, the different focuses and ways of living for societies would heavily impact what forms of siege and fortification technology would emerge in different locations.

Europe

With the Enlightenment and Renaissance came the refinement of gunpowder technology to Europe. While cannons and basic firearms had already established themselves as suitable weapons before this era, they became quintessential elements of all European armies from this point forward. Cannons in particular were so widespread and powerful by this point that older fortifications were largely rendered obsolete. This led to a period during the 14th and 15th centuries where fortifications were unable to offer much resistance to well-equipped armies. However, in the 16th century, the roles reversed as Italian fortress architects developed the “trace italienne” style, which incorporated sloped and lowered walls to better withstand cannons and angled bastions manned with artillery of their own that used overlapping fields of fire to eviscerate attacking armies (Ostwald 2007).

While fortification technology would outpace siege technology and techniques throughout the 16th century and much of the 17th century, the dynamics of warfare would yet again be drastically reshaped, but this time primarily by one man – French military engineer Sébastien Le Prestre, Marquis of Vauban. Vauban revolutionized siege warfare as he developed exact methodologies and science for conducting sieges, as detailed in his treatise De l’attaque et de la défense des places (Quimby 2024). While sieges had been long lasting and expensive ordeals even in the previous period when siege technology had outpaced fortifications, Vauban’s methods ensured sieges of even the most well-defended fortresses could be won within a few months, which was proven by his successive victories in the War of Devolution (1667-1668), the Dutch War (1672-1679), the War of Reunions (1683-1684), and the Nine Years’ War (1688-1697) (Ostwald 2007).

Africa

Particularly on the East coast, gunpowder technology had diffused to Africa. For example, in 1650, the Omani, who held several cities along the coast of modern-day Kenya and Tanzania, had built ships with as many as 74 cannon, which they utilized to even beat the major European maritime power of Portugal (Pradines & Blanchard 2019). Thus, similar to Europe, this adoption of gunpowder technology had reshaped fortification and siege warfare. However, empires like that of Oman that showcased these changes were mostly seen in powers that originally came from outside Africa.

In terms of siege warfare, Oman demonstrated a reliance on artillery and their fleet to bombard forts into submission, as seen with the battle for Fort Jesus where the Omani constructed a battery opposite the fort in the port and successfully took the fort after bombarding it with this battery and their fleet. However, compared to Vauban who could expect a siege to be won within a few months, the siege of Fort Jesus took nine months from envelopment of the fortress for the siege to conclude (Pradines & Blanchard 2019).

With regard to fortification technology, the Old Fort of Zanzibar and the Lamu Fort were both constructed by the Omanis and offer an example of fortifications developed in Africa during the time period. In contrast to the angular bastions of European forts to maximize overlapping fields of fire, the Omani-designed forts instead used cylindrical towers and utilized rectangular plans that mapped to the urban fabric of the settlements they were built in. While this design was not advantageous in defending the forts from outside threats, these forts instead were designed to control the indigenous population (Steyn 2022). Thus, this illustrated a major difference between how forts were designed in Europe to Africa as many in Europe would be designed for defense even to the point of relocating or constructing new towns to fit the forts, whereas forts in Africa would often be designed more to allow foreign powers to better maintain control of the populations they were ruling over.

Asia

Due to the vastness of Asia in terms of its geography, cultures, and nations, the development of fortification and siege technology in Asia varied greatly during the Renaissance and Enlightenment Era. In West Asia and Anatolia, empires like the Ottomans had used gunpowder to revolutionize siege warfare, with the Ottomans being one of the first to use cannons to great success in siege warfare when they used them to conquer Constantinople in 1453. In the centuries after, they would develop other innovations such as elite infantry in the form of the Janissaries that made use of hand cannons and grenades to great effect in assaulting fortifications (Levi 2018). The two primary types of fortifications made by the Ottomans were Palankas and Havales. Palankas were mostly made on the frontier using wood and utilized bastions akin to European-style forts, however, did so in a rippling pattern instead of the jagged shapes European bastions often had. Havales were used mostly as staging grounds during sieges and were thus not meant so much for defense, but instead to aid the attackers in sieges (Özgüven 2001).

In South Asia, fortifications had seen a level of modernization due to the use of gunpowder, notably with the addition of a fausse braye, a lower wall outside the main wall, and surrounding ditches that combined with the fausse braye inhibited the movement of attackers and gave another point of defense to the defenders. Additionally, these were designed mostly to defend against mines and small arms rather than the artillery armies European fortresses were meant to defend against, resulting in less of these efforts to modernize. Notably, the gradual and continued improvement of gunpowder siege technology combined with the construction of most fortifications being done by traditional masons rather than military engineers like Vauban is thought to have led kingdoms in South Asia, particularly in Deccan, to focus more on urban settlement patterns given trying to keep up with improving siege technology appeared futile (Sohoni 2015). This demonstrates a considerable example of science, technology and society connecting with one another as societal factors and the pace of science led to a limited deployment of certain technology, such as gunpowder-based artillery.

In Southeast Asia, people would fight as ferociously to defend themselves and their homes as any other continent, however, there were numerous instances of native populations abandoning defenses in favor of launching counter attacks. Additionally, while the mainland would begin constructing fortifications more akin to those of Europe in part due to colonial influences, the fortifications of the archipelago varied greatly from trenches and timber fortresses to larger fortresses comparable to European fortresses of the era. These fierce methods of defense were often embraced as longer, resource-intensive sieges were difficult for attackers to maintain in areas with such low populations and rebellions were often likely for native powers with their forces busy with sieges (Charney 2004).

In East Asia, particularly in China, the walls of most towns and cities were already thick enough at the time of gunpowder’s adoption that the use of large cannons to demolish fortifications was not as advantageous as in Europe. Therefore, siege warfare relied far less on larger guns that could create passages through fortifications and instead on smaller cannons that could shoot over fortifications to destroy buildings and defenders inside the walls (Andrade 2019). This demonstrated a form of path dependence as the previous reliance on thick walls led to siege and fortification technology developing to suit this method of protection. Additionally, while there was some effort to develop artillery fortresses akin to those in Europe, these were not widely adopted at least in part due to the relative peace within the region that made such fortifications too expensive to devote resources to (Andrade 2019).

Conclusion

By examining the development of siege and fortification technology in the Enlightenment and Renaissance, it can be noted that such technology is heavily linked to society as the costs of one technology triumphing over the other would often lead to attempts to reverse the dynamic. Additionally, in cases such as the difference in purpose between European and African forts it can be concluded that the relationship between societies can lead to technology manifesting in different forms, such as forts that were designed not for defense but to ensure compliance, and path dependence like China’s use of thick walls for defense could lead to drastically different technological outcomes.

References

Andrade, T. (2019). “Siegecraft in Ming and Qing China”. In The World of the Siege. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004395695_010

Charney, M. (2004). Southeast Asian Warfare, 1300-1900. Brill.

Levi, S. C. (2018). Asia in the Gunpowder Revolution. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-186

Ostwald, J. (2007). Vauban under siege: Engineering efficiency and martial vigor in the War of the Spanish Succession. Brill.

Özgüven, B. (2001). The Palanka: A Characteristic Building Type of the Ottoman Fortification Network in Hungary. Proceedings of the XIth International Congress of Turkish Art, Netherlands, 4(34), 1-12. https://www.academia.edu/9386891/_The_Palanka_A_Characteristic_Building_Type_of_the_Ottoman_Fortification_Network_in_Hungary_EJOS_Electronic_Journal_of_Oriental_Studies_Proceedings_of_the_XIth_International_Congress_of_Turkish_Art_Utrecht_The_Netherlands_no_34_Vol_IV_Y%C4%B1l_2001_1_12

Quimby, Robert S. (2024). Sébastien the Priest of Vauban . Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sebastien-Le-Prestre-de-Vauban

Pradines, S., & Blanchard, P. (2019). From Zanzibar to Kilwa : Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Omani Forts in East Africa. Fort, 47, 39-69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343797763_From_Zanzibar_to_Kilwa_Eighteenth_and_Nineteenth_Century_Omani_Forts_in_East_Africa

Sohoni, P. (2015). From Defended Settlements to Fortified Strongholds: Responses to Gunpowder in the Early Modern Deccan. South Asian Studies, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/02666030.2015.1008818

Steyn, G. (2022). Sites, shapes and status of some historic forts on Africa’s south and east coasts/Terreine, vorms en stand van sommige historiese forte aan Afrika se suid-en ooskuste. South African Journal of Art History, 37(1). https://link-gale-com.libproxy.clemson.edu/apps/doc/A748796000/WHIC?u=clemsonu_main&sid=bookmark-WHIC&xid=9239711e