Not so funny perhaps, but equally oblique is the suggestion that some of the coastal fortifications of the later 17th century were actually aimed at keeping down the local populace rather than protecting or placating them. The instances usually cited are Hull and Plymouth Citadels. These suggestions generally rely on extrapolation of a supposed lingering Parliamentarian/republican loyalty and parallels with the use of citadels in an imperial/colonial context such as the Spanish Netherlands or Commonwealth Scotland. However, there was some very interesting textual and structural evidence for this intent at Hull cited in PMA for 1997. It is an intriguing theory, but there are very few (if any that I can think of) examples of inland towns that were held for Parliament in the Civil War having a similar garrisoned citadel.
I'd personally be very interested if anyone had any suggestions on this interpretation,
John
________________________________________
From: Military archaeology and architecture [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Shepheard [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 21 November 2009 18:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Cunning Plan!
In message <[log in to unmask]>
KENNETH HAMILTON <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Contrary to that there is the case of the fort at the mouth of the
> Yare at Great Yarmouth. Barring one short lived battery in the late
> 18th century, all of Yarmouth's sea defences were aimed at placating
> the populace rather than actual defence.
I've often wondered if there wasn't a similar intent behind Ironside's
1940 plan.
The country was at a very low ebb, emotionally, following Dunkirk and
there may have seemed very little hope of thwarting a German invasion.
His plan, whilst it used vast amounts of scarce resources, at least
gave the population a hope of repelling the invaders and involved
everybody, civilians and military alike, in working together on a
scheme for the common good.
Having said that parts of the plan had very good defensive strategies
and would almost certainly have held up enemy units for a considerable
time. Overall, though, there seems little hope that it would have
worked with the limited manpower and weaponry available at the time.
His plan is often criticised as being a very static form of defence
and this is the reason given for Brooke taking over the role of CinC
after a comparatively short period. Yet, if you look closely at
Ironside's planning, it did involve mobile columns which would have
been brought to bear in the most threatened areas and there use the
static defences. Probably his main reason for this was the shortage of
trained and able personnel available to him.
Chris Shepheard
--
Chris Shepheard writing as himself
[log in to unmask]
from far west Surrey www.chrispics.co.uk
|