loop-holed walls connecting these works were covered by a rampart
and parapet, or entirely replaced by a simple parapet. Many of the
embrasures were revetted with the common boiler iron ships' water-tanks
filled with earth. The same material was sometimes used for traverses.
Rope mantelets were used to protect the artillerists at the pieces from
rifle balls and small grape. Great attention was given to the
construction of bombproofs to cover the men from vertical firing. These
were sometimes under the rampart and the second line of defence (where
there was one), often under special traverses, or entirely under ground,
and occasionally excavated in the solid rock. Some had fireplaces and
chimneys, and were well ventilated. Interior slopes were revetted with
gabions, crowned by fascines and sand bags. Gabions were also employed
to repair the damage caused by the enemy's artillery. Abattis, military
pits, caltrops and spikes, stuck through planks, and explosive machines
were employed in front of different parts of the defences. Mines were
resorted to in front of the Flag-staff Bastion to retard the French
approaches. They were made in rocky soil with craters from twelve to
fifteen feet deep. The Russian counter-approaches generally consisted of
fleches, united by a simple trench.

Captain McClelland, one of our officers sent to the Crimea, from whose
valuable Report most of the foregoing details are gathered, adds the
following remarks upon these works of defence:--

"From the preceding hasty and imperfect account of the defences
of Sebastopol, it will appear how little foundation there was for
the generally-received accounts of the stupendous dimensions of the
works, and of new systems of fortifications brought into play. The
plain truth is, that these defences were simple temporary fortifications
of rather greater dimensions than usual, and that not a single new
principle of engineering was developed. It is true, that there were
several novel minor details, such as the rope mantelets, the use of
iron tanks, etc., but the whole merit consisted in the admirable
adaptation of well-known principles to the peculiar locality and
circumstances of the case. Neither can it be asserted that the plans
of the various works were perfect. On the contrary, there is no
impropriety in believing that if Todtleben were called upon to do
the same work over again, he would probably introduce better c