Discourses on Fortifications

A geometric diagram displays a fortification angle with a line labeled 'A' indicating a line of sight or fire.

Beyond this, by projecting the exterior angle of such bastions further outward, especially by giving, as many desire, more than two-thirds of the length of the flanks to the shoulders—which, together with the orecchioni large rounded ears/flank projections, would be parallel on the inner side with the main curtain wall—it appeared that the flanks would be better covered. In fact, it is the opinion of many that defenses are increased in this way, as one can defend the opposite bastion from the space that remains in the curtain. For example, if its face is formed by a third of the main curtain, one sees that from the space remaining between that and the nearby flank, the face of the bastion is very well exposed. Since this face provides a clear view for the flanks, the fire would not, through any small error, be able to harm the opposite flank. Furthermore, even if a battery were made at the angle of the bastion such that the enemy inside could no longer be reached by a direct line, one would still have the advantage that the gunner, by hitting the corners of the batteries, could cause them great trouble with the bouncing stones. This would not happen if the faces of the bastions were not turned toward the aforementioned curtain.

But these considerations, although judged of no small moment by many, do not entirely satisfy me. It seems to me, in short, that no good comes of it, other than forcing the enemy to make a deeper battery or similar ruin in the faces of the bastions. As for increasing the defenses in this way, it is shown by many reasons to be the opposite. For instance, if one takes the defense from the third part of the curtain, one cannot say that the bastion can be defended from the remaining space of the curtain, even though it may appear possible with lines. For, if the parapet is made as high as it reasonably should be, anyone with judgment will see that the design fails. And if it is made lower, or if one wishes to raise the artillery, or if one wishes to make embrasures original: "bombardiere" across the traverse, many ill effects will follow, which can be considered from the things already said. And although it is the mark of a wise man to provide for errors, the damage that could arise from a shot arriving at the end of the opposite flank can be so slight that little account should be taken of this provision, especially since it will not be so easy to hit a two-palm corner to make stones bounce, as others think.

I am certain that if the enemy, either by chance or by design, makes the battery in such a way that the convenient corner does not remain, those inside will not be able to take advantage of this. Thus, this subtlety can almost be likened to that of others who, in order to make a greater clamor, criticizing the defenses placed on the faces of the bastions, would wish that they were recessed original: "scortinaffero". They do not realize that they are all the better prevented by the enemy from carrying out their intention. Thus, the inventors of such subtle considerations must have patience if they cannot kill a thousand men and break a hundred ladders at once.

Beyond this, if one wishes to force the enemy to make a deeper battery by projecting the exterior angles of the bastions further out, as mentioned above, one should also seek to have the defenses emerge from further out, and not from further in. To achieve this effect, it would be necessary to give the length of the flanks less, rather than more, than half to the shoulders, which many desire to be parallel with the main curtains along with the orecchione flank projection, so that the greater part of the flanks is covered. Indeed, for this effect, they also want three-quarters of the length of the flanks given to the shoulders; with these and the orecchioni coming out parallel to the aforementioned curtain, that small length of the flanks remains mostly covered, particularly the high flank.

But leaving aside that by proceeding in this way the defenses come from quite far inside, and consequently cause the error I mentioned above, I say that one must distinguish whether one wishes to cover the flank to guard it from batteries or to secure the embrasures more from being ruined. As for the first case, it seems to me beside the point to seek so many coverings if the fortress is built as it should be. One should not fear very powerful batteries in those parts, which cannot be made closer than about sixty canne a unit of measurement, approx. 2 meters from outside the ditch. Besides, by giving recoil length to the plazas, as is reasonable, and by making the parapets of earth, they could be reinforced in any case. If, by the aforementioned method, one wishes to ensure that the embrasures are less visible from the side, it seems to me that opening the orecchione so that it does not force the high and low defenses to come from further inside will cause more benefit than harm. I would always consider it much better to be able to hit the enemies from further out than to cover a little more of the length of the flanks, especially where the defenses would come from very far inside. And when I do not make embrasures in the parapets of the shoulders or orecchioni, I would give only half of the entire length of the flank to the shoulders. Nor, by opening the flank in the aforementioned way—as seen in the plan, A—will the embrasures near the shoulders and orecchioni be more visible to the enemy.