Brigadier-General William Twiss, February 1805 [1]
As part of the coastal defence scheme two large, circular batteries of 11 guns each were planned and eventually built at the Seahouses in Eastbourne, and at the eastern end of Dymchurch sea wall.
This page is intended to expand the information already given on the Eastbourne Redoubt and Dymchurch Redoubt pages by looking a bit more closely at the general design. Eastbourne Redoubt has been highlighted here due to there being more information and photographs available. The launch of this page also coincided with the 200th anniversary of the laying of the first stone at Eastbourne Redoubt in April 1805.
The basic design can be appreciated from the aerial photograph at right; a circular (annular, to be precise) brick 'doughnut' with 24 casemated rooms opening out onto a central parade ground with the gun platform (terre plein) on top.
A defensive ditch surrounds the fortress, flanked with five caponiers (covered passages across the ditch from which the defenders could fire on any enemy attempting to cross the ditch). The only entrance to the Redoubt was across a wooden drop bridge, seen on the left of the photograph. Move your mouse over the photo to see the gun positions numbered.
Some details of the original design were changed: on 15 April 1805 Twiss wrote to Lt-General Morse to ask permission to alter the plans to make the walls vertical, as opposed to battered (sloped). He also advised having casemates under the entire rampart (not just part), as the cost of building up a mound of earth was not much less. [2] Twiss estimated that 36 casemates could be built under the rampart, [3] but in the event, only 24 full-size casemates were constructed. The inclusion of 21 smaller wedge-shaped store rooms (and three staircases) between them was probably to allow the main barrack-rooms to be of a regular shape.
The casemates were formed by creating arches vaulting from brick piers; the cavity between the arches was filled with beach shingle. Move your mouse over the photograph at left to see inside a casemate and the shingle in the cavity between the arches.
Most casemates were used as barracks and could house 10 soldiers; in 1870 there was accomodation for 4 officers and 176 men. [4] Several casemates were used for other purposes; there was a cookhouse, an artillery store, a magazine and ablutions. Latrines were later provided just inside the gate [see below].
An ordnance yard was situated a short walk from the Redoubt in Seaside; this included a hospital, gun-shed, barracks and space for camping troops.
The original armament was the 24-pounder cannon, identical to that used on the Martello Towers. The Redoubt was possibly later rearmed to mount 32-pounders (seen right) and again in about 1860 to have an armament of three 110-pounder Rifled Breech-Loaders (RBL), two 68-pounder Muzzle-Loading Smooth-Bores and five 8-inch Muzzle-Loading Smooth-Bores. [5]
Although Eastbourne Redoubt has eleven gun positions, the No.1 gun emplacement seems to have been left empty. The reason for this is not clear, but the emplacement is of a different design to the others in that there is no embrasure to allow weapony to fire through the wall, but simply a parapet to fire over.
The embrasures require the gun carriage to pivot at the muzzle end, rather than the breech end, as was the case on Martello Towers.
An undated plan of the Redoubt [6] shows all eleven positions as employing a semi-circular parapet rather than angled embrasure.
The same plan also shows latrines situated outside of the Redoubt on the other side of what is now Royal Parade.
The latrines just inside the Redoubt's gate therefore seem to be a later addition, probably installed when the Redoubt was connected to the local water supply and sewer by the Eastbourne Waterworks Company. This was done prior to June 1887. [7]
The photograph at left shows the latrines beside the gate and the parapet of No.1 gun emplacement.
On the 1887 plans the latrines are divided into both men's and women's; the door to the latter is seen in the photo. It appears that the latrines replaced shingle-filled masonry and an expense magazine/banquette intended for No.1 gun.
To return to the issue of the gun emplacements, closer inspection of the brickwork of Nos. 2,3, 9, 10 and 11 gun positions reveals a line that divides newer-looking brickwork from what appears to be original, supporting the idea that the embrasures were a modification. The photo at right shows the right-hand merlon (side wall) of No.2 gun. The brickwork to the right of the corner consists of both red and yellow bricks, whilst that on the left is mostly red (with a few blue/grey) bricks, indicating that it is of a different period. Nos. 4-8 gun positions do not have two distinct sets of brickwork.
Although the original parapet allowed a 126° field of fire compared to the 90° of the embrasures, the latter afforded far more protection to the gun crew, and this might have been the reason behind the alterations. Certainly the 1859 Committee on Defence recognised that guns that fired over a parapet could be "easily silenced by riflemen." [8] When the work was carried out is uncertain; it might have been during construction or perhaps not until some years later. It seems that the embrasure arrangement was not employed at Dymchurch Redoubt.
No.1 gun position was probably not altered as there was no gun mounted to benefit from embrasures; however, the parapet was still useful for infantry to man by standing on the banquette upon which the gun's racers were originally intended to have been laid.
The photograph below shows how the Redoubt fitted into the local sheme of defence, which included flooding of the marshland behind the coast to hinder the progress of invading troops. Inundated areas are shown in blue; these are based on shaded zones on a map that accompanied the 1870 Report on Coast Defences. [9] It's not surprising that the Environment Agency's flood map shows a similar area still at risk. The main roads are shown in yellow. [Note: these are only representations and are not entirely accurate; it's hard trying to translate them from the 1813 map to a modern one and then onto an aerial photograph taken at an angle!]
Away to the left (out of shot) the cliffs of Beachy Head rise up; the land in between is defended by a cavalry barracks and Tower 73. The 24-pounder cannon had a range of about a mile (depending on elevation and powder charge), effectively the distance between the Redoubt and Tower 73.
The defences were intended to prevent the French from advancing into the interior and moving along the roads leading to London. Note how the Redoubt can cover the long stretch of road known as 'Seaside', with help from the neighbouring Martello Towers. (The entire area covered by the photograph at right is actually within range of the Redoubt's original 24-pounder guns!)
Even if the marsh was not inundated (it was almost certain that there would not be enough time to achieve this before an invasion force landed, and it would have been a very unpopular measure with the local population), the enemy's route to the interior would have been blocked by static fortification as well as mobile cavalry forces and other troops in local barracks.
It was on 15 April, 1805 that Twiss wrote to Morse that: "I hope to lay the first stone of our large Battery at the Sea Houses tomorrow or Wednesday" [10] signalling the start of building work probably on either the 16th or 17th. Further reports following the progress of Eastbourne Redoubt will appear on the appropriate Foundation to Firestep page.