While the functions performed 

 by fortifications in land war re- 

 main fairly constant, their nature 

 has changed with the increased 

 mobility of heavy ordnance used 

 in the attack. In the days of bows 

 and arrows a high wall was a for- 

 midable obstacle. With the intro- 

 duction of ordnance the steep- 

 sided revetted ditch replaced the 

 exposed wall, and various devices 

 " bastions," " caponiers," and the 

 like were introduced to bring a 

 flanking fire to bear upon assailants 

 who might effect a lodgment in the 

 ditch. The garrisons were pro- 

 tected by large mounds of earth 

 called " ramparts " and " tra- 

 verses," under which they found 

 shelter in " casemates " when not 

 holding the lines of " parapet " 

 surmounting the ramparts. 



With the increased range and 

 rapidity of fire of weapons of 

 defence, barbed wire entangle- 

 ments, which give full play to such 

 weapons, replaced deep ditches as 

 obstacles. Then came the tank 

 for crossing barbed wire, and so 

 the competition proceeds, and will 

 proceed, between inventions for 

 defence and attack. Invisibility, 

 from the ground surface or from 

 the air, affords better protection 

 to garrisons than earthworks or 

 armour, and underground " dug- 

 outs " have replaced conspicuous 

 ramparts of earth piled up above 

 the surface. Heavy ordnance is no 

 longer considered secure if mounted 

 in visible fixed positions, and the 

 tendency in modern fortification 

 is to meet the mobility of siege 

 ordnance by similar mobility in the 

 ordnance of the defence. 



The functions performed by 

 fortification in sea warfare differ 

 materially from its functions in war 

 on land. Only in exceptional cases, 

 such as in narrow straits like the 

 Dardanelles or in sea canals like 

 that of Panama, can ordnance 

 mounted in forts exercise any 

 direct effect upon the movements 

 of the war vessels which decide the 

 issue of a naval war. War vessels, 

 especially those of a weaker naval 

 power or of a stronger power com- 

 pelled to maintain detached forces 

 in distant seas, require defended 

 harbours as bases from which to 

 work, and fortification, so applied, 

 may exercise a strong, though in- 

 direct, influ/nce upon the issue of 

 a sea -war. 



War vessels being built to fight 

 each ot<ier, not to fight forts, and 

 ships being conspicuous targets, 

 guns mounted on fixed platforms 

 on shore have so many advantages 

 over those mounted on moving 

 platforms at sea that no fortress 

 on the sea coast has fallen to sea 

 attack in modern times. Port 



3265 



Arthur in 1894, Wei-Hai-Wei in 

 1895, Santiago de Cuba in 1898, 

 Port Arthur again in 1905, and 

 Kiao-Chau in 1914 were all taken 

 by armies. 



Commercial harbours are some- 

 times fortified as places of refuge 

 for merchant shipping, but safety 

 at sea, rather than in harbour, is 

 the condition needed for the se- 

 curity of the vessels carrying the 

 trade of a community depending 

 upon sea commerce for existence. 

 See Text Book of Fortification, 

 Royal Military Academy, 1893 ; 

 Fortification, Sir G. S. Clarke, 

 1907. See also Bangalore and 

 Cupola, illus. 



Fortin (Fr., little fort). Small 

 detached fort. It may be either one 

 of a group or part of a general 

 fortification. 



Fort Jameson. Settlement 

 in N.E. Rhodesia. On the Tan- 

 ganyika plateau, it is about 300 m. 

 N. of Tete by road and 125 m. W. of 

 Lake Nyasa. It was until 1910 the 

 headquarters of the administration 

 of N.E. Rhodesia. 



Fort Johnston. Settlement of 

 Nyasaland, Central Africa. It 

 stands 6 m. south of Lake Nyasa, 

 and about the same distance from 

 Lake Malombe or Pamalombe. 



Fort Mruli. Town of Uganda, 

 Central Africa, the former capital 

 of the district of Unyoro. It stands 

 on the Nile, 200 m. N.N.E. of 

 Entebbe, at an alt. of 3,500 ft. 



Fortnightly Review, THE. 

 London monthly review first pub- 

 lished as a fortnightly, May, 1865, 

 under the editorship of George 

 Henry Lewes. John Morley be- 

 came editor in 1867, and made it a 

 monthly. He was succeeded by 

 T. H. S. Escott (1882-88), Frank 

 Harris (1888-93), and W. L. 

 Courtney. Its contributors have 

 included Tyndall, Herbert Spencer, 

 Huxley, Leslie Stephen, Walter 

 Pater, F. Brunetiere, Tolstoy, 

 Edmund Gosse, Swinburne, Fre- 

 deric Harrison, Prof. Dowden, J. 

 L. Garvin, and H. G. Wells. 



Fort Pearson. Fort erected at 

 the mouth of the Tugela river, 

 Natal, during the Zulu War of 1879. 



Fort Portal. Chief centre of 

 the Toro district, Uganda. It is 

 an important missionary station 

 and native town situated about 

 25 m. N.W. of Mt. Ruwenzori. 

 Pop. 25,000, of whom about 50 

 are Europeans. 



Fortress (Lat. fortis, strong). 

 Military position, sited and 

 equipped so as to provide a point 

 of resistance in case of attack, and 

 act as a rallying point for troops 

 who may be compelled to fall back 

 from more exposed positions. 

 Fortresses have been a feature of 

 all warlike operations from the 



FORTRESS 



earliest times, the simplest being 

 merely enclosed by a palisade or 

 zareba such as are still found 

 among aboriginal peoples. The 

 baileys of the Saxons were usually 

 of this nature, generally situated 

 on a hill or artificially constructed 

 mound and enclosing the huts in 

 which the inhabitants lived. Dwel- 

 lers in the surrounding country re- 

 paired to these strong points in 

 time of war. The Romans usually 

 employed concentric mounds and 

 ditches to protect their camps, and 

 in many instances the Saxon baileys 

 utilised these older defences as out- 

 posts to the palisaded camp. 



With the coming of the Normans 

 the fortress was elaborated, but 

 wood remained the chief material 

 employed in the construction for 

 something like a century, when 

 stone became the general material. 

 The Norman castle usually con- 

 sisted of a large walled space 

 protected by a moat in suitable 

 localities which could only be en- 

 tered through a strongly defended 

 gate. Its general plan was main- 

 tained for many centuries, improve- 

 ments in detail being made as 

 military science progressed, as in 

 the provision of corner towers to 

 bring flanking fire to bear along 

 the walls, machicolation of the 

 latter and generally strengthened 

 construction. 



With the advent of artillery as 

 an effective weapon, the use of 

 fortresses of this nature became 

 practically obsolete, although they 

 played a part in the Wars of 

 the Roses and even in the English 

 Civil War. During this period it 

 had become the practice to fortify 

 important towns by walling them 

 in, the walls being similarly con- 

 structed to those of the courts of 

 castles. To enable such fortresses 

 to withstand artillery fire, the 

 walls were faced and backed up 

 with mounds of earth, but the 

 progress in gun construction and 

 the use of explosives in mining 

 and sapping rendered them only 

 capable of temporary resistance. 

 The general principle of con- 

 struction, that is, a line of ram- 

 parts closely encircling the position 

 to be defended, persisted until 

 towards the close of the 18th 

 century, when, in addition, an 

 outlying circle of forts was con- 

 structed in such a way that the 

 intervening country could be kept 

 under fire from their guns. 



In modern practice it is usual to 

 equip as fortresses the centres of 

 national, industrial, and military 

 resources if liable to attack, strate- 

 gic centres, lines of communication 

 where they cross frontiers, im- 

 portant river crossings and railway 

 junctions. The girdle of forts 



10 4 



