ARX Military Architecture and fortification

ARX- ONLINE JOURNAL OF MILITARY ARCHITECTURE

1 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7


2 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

ARX - FORTRESS EXPLORER

Fortress Malta 360 is a publicationthat focuses all its attention on themilitary architecture of Malta. It seeks tocapture a representative cross sectionof the great diversity of shapes, forms,and textures that make up Maltasunique military architecture ensemble.It does so by playing on the visualpower of military architecture,Vitruvius venustas. This bookrevolves around the artistic aspect ofthe subject, not its military merits, Itfocuses on those architectural

features that are truly unique to Malta -such as the quality and feel of thebeautiful honey-coloured local stoneover drab [and universal] concreteshapes fabricated from importedcement, wrought iron, and other alienmaterials. All the photographs werespecifically chosen for their artistic andsculptural qualities, even though greateffort was made [given the specialrequirements and format of thepublication] to present them in someform of a chronological order so thatthey could still reflect the salientdevelopments in the art and science offortification. Unfortunately, not all theforts tended to photograph well, andvarious important examples, had to beomitted either because of thecacophany of on-going constructionworks or because of their very poorstate of repair after nearly half a centuryof total abandonment. Fortress Malta360, is a book about fortifications asmonumental works of architecture, asstructures and buildings.

MIRANDA PUBLICATIONS326 x 322 mm170 pagesISBN 978-99909-85-34-4

Text by Dr. Steghen C. SpiteriPhotography by EnricoFormica

CLICK PHOTO TO ACCESS WEBSITE

ARX is published by the FortressExplorer Society (FES) and is onlyavailable (FREE of charge) in PDFformat.

This journal is downloadable onlyfrom the Fortress Explorer Websiteand is subject to the provisions ofinternational copyright laws.

The Fortress Explorer (FE) Websiteis an informational portal dedicatedto the promotion of the subject ofMilitary Architecture andFortification, with a particularemphasis on the Maltese Islandsand on the rich Hospitaller militaryheritage spread around the shores ofthe Mediterranean.

ARX is designed and produced byDr. Stephen C Spiteri Ph.D.


3 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

THE'CASTELLU DILA CHITATI'the medievalcastle of thewalled town ofMdina

by

Stephen C. Spiteri

One of the least understood of all theworks of fortification to have stoodwatch over the Maltese islands inantiquity is the castellu di la chitati (1)- the medieval castle of the old town ofMdina. The arcanum that surroundsthis ancient stronghold stems primarilyfrom the fact that it was dismantled wayback in the 15th century and what littlehad remained of the building thereafter,eventually disappeared altogether in themetamorphosis that accompanied theHospitaller re-fortification of themedieval town into a gunpowderfortress throughout the course of the16th, 17th and 18th centuries. This,coupled with the limited nature ofcontemporary documentary information,has ensured that the true form andfeatures of the medieval strongholdhave been lost to the point that now

only archaeology can hope to reallyfigure out. Whilst acknowledging thesevere limitations imposed by anyapproach that falls short of a fullarchaeological investigation, this paperseeks to re-examine the existingdocumentary, cartographic and physicalevidence unearthed to-date in order tosuggest a rudimentary model of Mdinasmedieval stronghold. Undoubtedly, thegreatest contribution to-date to thestudy of Mdina and its medievalfortifications has been the masterlyworks of Architect Denis De Lucca andof Prof. Stanley Fiorini and Dr. MarioBuhagiar.(2) This paper onlyundertakes to re-evaluate the evidenceand some of the conclusions presentedso far in the light of my own researchinto medieval military architecture andcastle typologies. It has long beenrecognized that the medievalfortifications of Mdina consisted of twomain defensive elements - a fortifiedtown and a castle. Gio. Francesco Abelapointed this out in his DellaDescrittione di Malta as far back in1647. (3) Contemporary medievalarchival documentation has been shownto differentiate between the two entities,referring to the town as the castrumcivitatis malte and the castle as thecastellu di la chitati (4) (nonetheless thedistinction between the two issometimes dropped). The word castrumwas originally applied to large fortifiedRoman military camps but came to beused to describe most walled towns orother fortified settlements of a non-purely military nature throughout themiddle ages. The castellu, or castellum,

on the other hand represents the lowLatin diminutive of castrum and refersto a type of fort, although it also cameto be applied to a specialized fortifiedstructure that appeared with theformation of a new social organizationin the middle ages.(5) At Mdina, thesetwo fortified entities seem to have beenclosely interwoven, such that the wallsof one were coterminous with those ofthe other. (6) Together they occupied arelatively small area at the tip of astrategically sited plateau - part of thesite which once served toaccommodate a much larger Roman, andearlier Punic, fortified town. (7) Thissite, standing as it is at the very heart ofthe island, was a natural focal point ofrefuge commanding clear views of thegreater part of the islands coastline.Inhabited since prehistoric times, itappears to have originated as one of theislands fluchtorte (8) establishedduring the insecure Bronze Age perioduntil it eventually rose in importance asa settlement to become the dominatingadministrative and political centre inPunic and Roman times.Given thiscontinual process of occupation andsettlement, the first difficulty besettingthe study of the medieval defences ofMdina is precisely that of establishingsome kind of date for the transformationof the Roman city into the medievalfortress. As yet, this is still very muchan obscure process. The abandonmentof the greater part of the larger Romanenceinte for a smaller and more easilydefensible perimeter was a commonenough phenomenon throughout theMediterranean in the troubled and

An imaginative depiction of the Roman city of Melite, after Gian Frangisc Abela (17th century).


4 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

insecure times that followed thecollapse of the Roman empire,characterized by a significant shrinkagein urban populations. Inevitably, theancient city itself came to beresponsible for much of the character ofthe subsequent fortress for it providedthe site, possibly a large part of thelateral walls and most of the buildingmaterials for the construction of themedieval ramparts. The lack of anyprecise knowledge of this process oftransformation, however, has seen mosthistorians take refuge behind thepopular notions that accredit theestablishment of Mdinas medievalenclosure to either the Arabs or theByzantines, or both. Determining thisparticular point, however, is offundamental importance to the study ofthe medieval fortifications of Mdina,and is particularly crucial to understandthe nature and development of thecastellum. Archaeological evidencetends to suggest that the medieval frontwas definitely in existence by the lateArab period. The presence of a lateMuslim cemetery extra muros not farfrom Greeks Gate (near the Romantown-house), together with thetoponymy of Mdina itself, (derived fromMedina, Arabic for fortified city) hasalways been taken as proof that it wasthe Arabs who had redefined the cityslayout, establishing its present form.(9)However, this need not necessarily bethe case for the Arab occupation ofMalta seems to have beenaccomplished over a period of timefollowing a succession of brazen raidsfrom nearby Sicily. Archaeologicalremains at Tas-Silg, for example, haveshown the presence of variousdestruction layers and hastily builtdefensive walls around the Byzantinestructures dating to around the 8thcentury. (10) The same process ofretrenchment may have occurred at thetown of Melita, where the Byzantine

garrison, under increasing Arabpressure could have been compelled torationalize the defence of the large townreducing it to more defensibleproportions over a period of a fewdecades by pulling back the front to anarrower part of plateau, exploiting anydefensive topographical features tosuch effect and reinforcing it with a fort.A Byzantine origin, then, could implythat the latter medieval castle, ratherthan having been built de novo inSwabian times, as has been suggested,(11) may have probably emerged fromthe foundations of a Byzantine fort.Thiswould explain why the medieval castleoccupied the same plane as the townand was actually incorporated into themain enceinte. Unlike the CastrumMaris and the Castrum in Gozo, therewas no attempt to raise the Mdinacastle to a domineering height over itsadjoining burgum - an importantcharacteristic feature of most veritablefeudal strongholds. It is evident thatthe layout at Mdina did not respect theestablished feudal hierarchy wherebythe smaller castle commanded the largertown even though the Norman garrisonwould have been surrounded by apredominantly Muslim population andwould have sought a measure of safetyin such a formula. True, the nature ofthe plateau did not provide the

opportunity but this could have beenquickly remedied by the construction ofan artificial mound - a common enoughpractice with Norman keeps. That thispractice was not sought in Mdinasuggests that the Normans must havefound a existing fort and reutilized andadapted it for their own needs. Indeed,the process of re-adaptation seems tohave been still in progress under theChiaramonti well into the 14thcentury.(12) One must add, however,that the castle did occupy the highestpart of the medieval front but there wasonly a small marginal drop between thetwo extremities, and this would haveentailed little defensive advantage.As amatter of fact, the qualities of the siteare much in keeping with the nature of aByzantine military fort of thepyrgokastellon (purgokastellon) type.This, although housing the governorand his garrison, would not have been acastle in the true later sense of the wordbut a predominantly militaryestablishment concerned primarily withdefence rather than political control.The word is coined from pyrgos, Greekfor tower, and castellum, Latin for fortand typifies a nodal strongpoint, similarto the Frankish keep but designed toreinforce the weakest part of theenceinte as prescribed by Procopius.

Mid-sixteenth century plan of Mdina showingthe system of double walls on the land frontstiffened with two corner bastions. Plan alsoshows a proposal for an internal perimeter.


5 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

(13) In the words of T. E. Lawrence, theGreeks put their keeps and castleswhere they were wanted, the Frankswhere they would be impregnable. (14)And truly, the southeast corner markedthe most sensitive part of Mdinasenceinte, overlooking the ascendingapproaches from the surrounding plainsup the Saqqajja. One can find anexcellent parallel in the Castello Gioiadel Colle in Puglia, founded by RichardSeneschal, brother of Robert Guiscardon a pre-existing Byzantine fort whichwas later enlarged by Roger II andrebuilt by Frederick II around 1230.The

Arabs on their part are traditionallyascribed with having begun theexcavation of the main fosse thatisolated the castrum from the rest of themainland. Significant efforts toestablish the ditch as an effectivedefensive feature, however, were stillunderway during the mid 15th centuryso the Arab intervention could not haveinvolved much more than theexploitation of an existing naturaldepression.(15) as a matter of a studyof the bed-rock beneath the bastionwalls does reveal a drop between thetwo extremities of the front in the

direction of Greeks Gate. But apartfrom the presence of a few roundedwalls towers, as depicted in early 16thcentury plans, there is very little elsethat can possibly point to theirhandiwork in the formation of thecastellu. Arab preference was forcitadels rather than castles - largefortified and turreted enclosures. Still,any available Byzantine kastron wouldhave been readily utilised - witness thecitadel of the fortress of Tripolicaptured by the Spaniards in 1510. (16) Arab influence in the development ofthe medieval fortifications of Mdina,however, can be traced in otherelements. Documentary sources, forexample, frequently mention the fasil.(17) This is an Arabic word and theinterpretation given to it in the localcontext, that of a mere low parapet,distracts from its true meaning. It isbest described by K.A.C. Creswell, oneof the leading authorities on earlyMuslim Architecture, as the spacebetween two rampart walls. Creswellcites al-Khatibs description of thefortifications of Baghdad: ... the heightof the inner wall, which was that of thecity , was 35 cubits. On it were towerswhich rose 5 cubits above it.... thencame the fasil between the two walls60 cubits wide, finally the first (outer)wall, which was the wall of the fasil, andbeyond was the khandaq (ditch) (18)The fasil, therefore, was equivalent tothe intervallum, the fighting spacebetween two walls - the currituriquoted by Fiorini/Buhagiar. (19) Thisdefinition holds important implications,for it immediately hints that Mdina, or atthe least a considerable part of thetown, was enclosed within a set of twowalls - a common enough feature in thefortified towns of the period. In otherwords, the Mdina ramparts consisted ofa main wall, a teichos (teicos), and alower outer wall - the proteichisma(proteicisma) or antemurale - muchbetter understood today as thefalsabraga or faussebraye. (20) Thedefinition of fasil as a fortified wallcapped by a parapet is, in my opinionnot exact, and any reference to a lowparapet (parapetto basso) as given inAmaris translation of at-Tijani, (21)should be read as the low outer wall orantemurale, for a fortress dependentsolely on a low parapet for its defencewould have had very little chance of


6 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

survival. The need for an antemuralwas necessary to protect the base ofthe main wall itself, both as an addedsafeguard against mining and directassault, and as a buffer against siegetowers. Again, it finds its inspiration inByzantine military architecture,particularly in the Theodosian walls ofConstantinople. Actually, one of thebest surviving examples of the systemof double walls built during the 14thand early 15th centuries is to be foundalong the southern part of the enceinteof the Hospitaller fortress of Rhodes.(22) Fiorini/Buhagiar place the fasil, onthe basis of their reading of themedieval documents, on the northernpart of the enceinte in the Salvatur area,identifying the present raised chemin-de-ronde and embrasured parapet withthe fasil. (23) There is no doubt thatthere was a fasil along this part of theenceinte but it is more likely, however,that this feature was enclosed by thepresent outer vertical wall and an innersecondary wall, as hinted by themassive block of solid masonrysurviving inside the nearby BeaulieuHouse. It is also possible, on the otherhand, that the fasil could have beenoutside the present vertical rampart forthe French military engineer Charles

Francois de Mondion, involved in thereconstruction of Mdinas fortificationin the early 18th century, records thepresence of the remains of ancient outerwalls at the foot of the northernramparts, ... quali vestigi non solamentesi vedono nel detto fondo ma anche sidistendono fin quasi il posto baccardove sattacano con il roccame cheresta scoperto sotto le mura di essaCitt. (24) Mondions report mentionsthat these replicati vesitgi difalsabraga (25) (hence antemural)spanned all the way from belowDHomedes Bastion - then being fittedout with a low battery - round to the TaBacchar, or St. Mary Bastionoverlooking Mtarfa. DAleccios andSerbellonis 16th century plans ofMdina ignore such detail, though theydo indicate the antiquity of the townsmain northern walls and their ruinousstate. On the other hand, both clearlyshow a veritable stretch of antemuraland fasil on the main land front ofMdina to the south, stretching all theway from the porta principale down tothe tower at Greeks Gate, interruptedsolely by the presence of a largerectangular tower sited in the centre ofthe front. The presence of this outerwall is also borne out by thedocumentary information recentlyunearthed particularly where thismentions the advice of master builders

Georgi Vassaldu and Georgi Dumag asto the dismantling of a beloardo(rampart) beneath the tower annexed tothe property of Peri Caruana and itsreplacement with a scarped buttresswall. (26) The DAleccio and Serbelloniplans, actually provide the onlyconvincing graphic clue to theplanimetric layout of Mdinas medievalfortifications. These show the locationof the towns four towers and doubleset of walls, the two gates and theremains of the castle itself . By the mid-16th century, however, the brunt of thetowns defences had then come to reston two new corner bastions begunduring the reign of Grand MasterDHomedes even though much of theintervening medieval defensiveelements were still intact. It was onlythe castle that was missing from theequation, its place taken over by thenew magistral palace. Thedisappearance of the medievalstronghold entails no enigma. It waspulled down by royal licence inresponse to local demand some timeafter 1453. (27) The excuse was notsome Lacedemonian policy of notfortifying the place but that its oldruinous walls had become a publicdanger and, apparently, its upkeep asignificant drain on the towns purse;possibly it had come to be a despisedtool of tyrannical oppression, especiallyunder the Chiaramonti. Evidently, as awork of fortification, it must have


7 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

offered very little command anddefensive advantage for the town eldersto request its dismantling at a time whenthe Island had begun to attract theincreasingly hostile attention of Barbarycorsairs. Only some twenty yearsearlier, in 1429, a force of 18,000 menunder Qid Ridwn had invaded theisland and all but captured the city aftersubjecting it to a siege.(28) Actually,the Castellu dili Tyranni (29) was onlypartially demolished since it was justthe internal walls separating it from thetown that were pulled down and themasonry used to repair the townramparts and gate. The castles outerramparts and towers, which formed anintegral part of the main enceinte, wereobviously retained. In fact, that part ofthe castle which was embodied into theland front contained at least two towersand a gateway. Both are clearlyindicated in 16th century plans. Thetower to the left of the main gate (whenseen from outside), was known as theTurri Mastra (30) and controlled theentrance and exit into the fortress - thisstructure was eventually replaced in theearly 18th century by the Torre delloStandardo though the this retained theoriginal role as a watch-out/ signallingpost. The Turri Mastra, or Turri dilabandiera, seems to have beenrectangular in plan with a polygonal orsemicircular front. Only in one late 17thcentury plan, very roughly executed, isit shown as having had a circular form.

(31) The tower to the right of the maingate occupied the south east extremityof the land front - the most sensitivepart overlooking the approaches fromSaqqajja. It is no coincidence,therefore, that the plans show it to havebeen the most solidly built of all thetowns turri, having markedly thickerwalls. In all likelihood this was theMastio, the strong tower or keep of thecastellu (see illustration A). In thedocuments it is referred to as the Turridi la Camera (32) - a faithfuldescription when one sees how it wasintegrated with the adjoining palatialhalls. By the 16th century this massivetower was linked to the magistral palacein a manner that still recalled a cornertower attached to a rectangular ward -the whole layout reminiscent of manyrectangular Swabian castra erected byFrederick II in Apulia such as those ofBari, Gioa del Colle, Trani, Barletta andMonte Sant Angelo. (33) The palazzobuilt by LIsle Adam after 1530, with itsarched porch, seems to have occupiedthe undemolished east wing of thecastles ward, that part of thestronghold which must have served asthe residential quarters of thecapitaneus civitatis. This wasprobably achieved much in the sameway that the Grand Masters otherpalace at the Castrum Maris replacedthe former castellans house there.Indeed, it appears that even as early as1413, the Mdina stronghold was alreadyserving more as a captains residencerather than for defensive purposes. (34)Vestiges of the facade of LIsle Adams

new pallaso, seem to have actuallysurvived within part of the courtyardrebuilt by the French Engineer Mondionin the 1720s as part of the remodellingof the Magistral Palace complex. Thepresence of a very thick wall, withblocked-up apertures and truncatedwindows having delicately mouldedsurrounds (see photographs) hint at theremains of a 16th century building.Indeed, the inner courtyard itself,remodelled by Mondion, seems to haverespected the footprint of the old castralward. It is not yet clear, however, if thevaulted rooms at ground level (thehospital kitchen) enveloping thecourtyard, particularly those to the eastand south - one of which is threateningto collapse - actually date back to 15thcentury or much later. What is clearfrom the contemporary plans is thatLIsle Adams palace overlooked thecourtyard, was fronted by an arcadedportico and was approached via thenarrow street leading to the present dayXaghra Palace. The rounded tower itselfcontinued to feature in the plans ofMdina well into the early 1700s until themagistral palace was finally rebuilt byMondion. Judging by the DAleccio /Serbelloni plans, the left flank of theDHomedes bastion was actuallygrafted onto this tower. It remainedvisible until it was buried beneath aheavy buttress laid onto the outer wallat the foot of the magistral palace - anintervention which actually blocked-upone of the two embrasures in the sameflank of the adjoining bastion itself. Incidentally, this bastion, referred to in

Proposed configuration of the main entranceinto Mdina around 1530


8 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

the documents as the belguardo delPalacio (35) and known as DHomedesbastion is also a unique example of theearly type of Italian bastion built inMalta. It may have been designed bythe military engineer AntonioFerramolino for it has now been shownthat it was already under constructionby 1547 (36) (Mdina p.466).Undeniably, its most interesting featureis its little known continuouscountermine gallery running parallel tothe line of the outer walls, serving gunembrasures and sally-ports in theflanks, but mainly designed to helpfrustrate enemy mining activities giventhe clayish nature of the terrain onwhich the bastion was erected. Fittedwith vertical and horizontal flues, thegallery was designed to dissipate theblast of an explosive mine fired beneathit walls. This feature is missing in thebelguardo dila Porta dili Grechi on theopposite end of the land front, a bastionwhich was built many years later. Oneother reason that was cited in favour ofthe demolition of the castles inner wallsin 1453, was the need to open up newpublic space for settlement by peoplefrom the surrounding countryside.However, if the castellated enclosurewas merely restricted to the area of thepresent magistral palace, than this couldnot have possibly attracted many newresidents. Ergo, the castles inner walls

may have extended further northwardstowards the Cathedral, possibly in theform of a lesser ward. Initially, thesemay have even linked up with the Roccarecorded to have existed on thenorthern part of the town. (37) Still, theRocca, evidence of which appears tohave survived in a massive wall insideBeaulieu House, may more likely thannot have been a detached strong-pointin its own right, as the definition of theword surely implies. In that case,however, it is difficult to explain thepresence of a secondary strongholdwithin the perimeter of such a smallfortified town as Mdina unless, ofcourse, this was merely the vestige ofsome former, probably pre-medieval,fortified structure. Recent excavationsundertaken at Xaghra Palace, justoutside the Magistral Palace to thenorth, have revealed the presence ofsolidly built perimeter walls, composedof large blocks of masonry, all dating toRoman or Punic times, but evidently re-laid in medieval times. Actually, nothingof the medieval ramparts along the eastflank of Mdina seems to have survivedabove ground level for the old townwalls were rebuilt en cremaillere by theKnights. The Orders resident militaryengineer, Blondel, writing in 1693, tellsus that all that part of the townsperimeter volta a gregale e levante sinoal Palazzo suo magistrale fu rinovata

tutta quella cortina dal Gran MaestroOmedes. (38) By the late 17th century,however, many town houses had alsoencroached onto these walls such thatdirect access to the ramparts was notpossibile ...se non per di dentro allecase de particolari, non solo appoggiatema attaccate, et alle quali serve elle dimuro esterno - the house of the Muscatfamily, for example, even had latrines,gabinetti su lorlo del bastione.(39)All this was done to the detriment of thetowns defences and in 1717 it was feltnecessary to impose upon the Cannonsof the Cathedral Chapter the conditionthat any new windows cut into theramparts in the course of the rebuildingof the Archbishops palace had to bemade ...in forma di cannoniere capaci diricevere canone secondo il bisogno.(40) That part of the outer walladjoining the magistral complex seemsto have began to suffer from serioussubsidence of the ground soon after theVilhenas palace was rebuilt in the earlydecades of the 18th century. As a result,it was found necessary to reinforce thewall with a large masonry buttress,massiccia d appoggio.- now itselfpeeling off. Another substantial vestigeof the medieval castle that survived wellinto the 18th century was the system ofbent entrance into the town via threesuccessive gates. This tortuousapproach, designed primarily as a


9 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

was decorated with the coat-of-arms ofSua Cesarea MaJestati, carved in stoneby Maestro Jayme Balistre[ra] (44).Both the main entrance and Greeks Gatewere served by wooden drawbridgesapproached over stone ponti. It is notpossible to say what type of liftingmechanism was employed - Greeks Gateitself gives no such clue. The basculetype of drawbridge with wooden arms,however, was the most common typeemployed throughout the middle agesfor its simple counterweight mechanism.The bascule was also much favouredthroughout the 17th century and canstill be seen at St. Thomas Tower inMarsascala. The lifting mechanism atMdina definitely comprised the use ofwooden beams, bastaso che levao luponti (45) and metal chains, for in1527 a cantaro di ferro was purchased toproduce the catinj dilo ponti. Thedrawbridges themselves were made fromplanks of oak (46) at one time broughtpurposely from Messina and judging bythe entries in the records werecontinually in need of repair, particularlythat at Greeks Gate. There also seem tohave been posterns and sally ports forsorties and furtive getaways, but novestiges have survived, as hasremained, for example, on the medievalramparts of the Cittadella in Gozo.Contrary to what has been stated,however, the written records do in factallude to their existence. The mandatidocuments of 1527, for example, refer tothe porta falsa Jpsius civitatis - portafalsa (or falsa porta) is a term used

frequently to refer to sally-ports orposterns and is encountered even on18th century plans of the Ordersfortifications. (47) Another entry in themandati is even more specific,mentioning the need to wall up an exitinto the ditch, murari la porta dilaputighia (magazine) che apri alofossato. (48) A most interesting featureof the Mdina fortifications, mentionedby Gian Frangisc Abela in 1647 was thepresence of a barbican, a Torrione fortedi forma circolare con fosso e cistrenathat protected the far side of the bridgeleading to the main gate. (49)Surprisingly, the medieval documentsmake no specific reference to thisstructure. Dr. Albert Ganado, however,citing the history of the Inguanez familyrevealed that this was built by AntonioDesguanecks sometime after 1448. (50)Giacomo Castaldis map of Malta (1551),too, shows Mdina with a turretedbarbican although the actual detailsmust not be taken too seriouslyespecially when other obviouslandmarks are shown so confusingly inthe same map. By the 15th century,barbicans were a standard componentof most European castles - even theGozo Castrum had one and this isillustrated in DAleccios plan. It wasalso the convention to depict castralentities with such features. In any casewe known that Mdinas barbican wasactually dismantled in 1551 because itwas then considered more of a liabilitythan an asset to the citys defence (51);presumably it was too small to serve asa mezzaluna in the age of gunpowderdefences and must have obstructed thefield of fire from the adjoining rampartsand the newly built DHomedes bastion.An inventory of Mdinas artillerycompiled by Mastro Giullelmo (52) inMay 1560 does, however, mentions theneed to place cannon a basso al fiancodi Barbacana. In this case however, theword barbacana is refering to the bententrance approach at the foot of theTorri dila Bandera rather than to the ttede ponte built in the mid-15th centurysince we known that the latter hadalready been demolished. For althoughetymologically deriving from the Arabicbab khank meaning gatehouse or gate-tower, the word is also frequently usedto describe an antemural. Nonetheless,some sort of minor outerwork seems tohave survived in the area, for in 1716 we

precaution against a coup de main, wasa common defensive feature of medievalstrongholds by the 13th century, butthe concept finds its inspiration in thedefence antecedents of the Muslimworld. The three gates were separatedby two courtyards (ingresso primo andingresso secondo). The first of thesecourtyards, confined between the PrimaPorta Principale (also known as Portadi Santa Maria) (41) and the SecondaPorta was nothing more than theintervallum between the antemural andmain wall. This enclosure contained asmall church of Santa Maria dellaPorta, an arched niche within thethickness of the wall containing an altar,and an arcaded loggia. The secondcourtyard, on the other hand, stretchedawkwardly beyond the line of the wallsinto the town and seems to have been,as suggested by Fiorini & Buhagiar,merely an adaptation of part of therooms and corridors of the castle after itwas pulled down in 1453. (42) So muchso that it seems to have served mainlyas a suq with a number of botteghecut into two of its walls. (43) The gatesthemselves would have been of the typestill to be seen at Greeks Gate, on theother end of the Mdina front - with avaulted pointed arch of horseshoeprofile. The present walled-up gate tothe right of the main baroque entrancemarks the exact site of the originalmedieval entrance but its boxedrectangular mouldings and rusticatedpilasters indicate an early 17th centuryreconstruction. In 1527, the main gate


10 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

read of the muro che cinge il corpo diguardia avanti la porta.(53)Little hassurvived to date of the original fabric ofthe medieval fortress of Mdina. Theonly indication of the true nature andtexture of the castles ramparts comesfrom the sole surviving section ofmedieval wall still to be seen at GreeksGate. Apart from the vestiges of thegate itself with its pointed arch there isthe adjoining stretch of vertical curtainwall some 3 metres thick and 10 metresin height. This wall is built mainly ofcoursed rubble-work with increasinglylarger stone boulders in the lowercourses, many of which appear to havebeen re-utilised from some earlierRoman, possibly Punic buildings, orramparts. The practice of cannibalisingancient structures for their buildingmaterials is encountered throughout theMediterrranean during the Middle Ages.To mention one example, the fortress ofBodrum was built with material quarriedfrom the site of the famous Maussoleonat Harlicarnassus. More evidence forthe reuse of classical masonry in themedieval ramparts of Mdina has alsocome up during archaeologicalexcavations in Inguanez Street andXaghra Palace. The site at InguanezStreet revealed that the old medievaltown walls along the land front wereconstructed with much use of ancientmasonry blocks. The walls of theancient city, particularly in the Rabatarea would have provided a goodsource of building material. In 1724,officials of the Universit of Notabilecould still write of the presence of apedamento di muro di pietra rustica inthe vicinity of Greeks Gate claiming thatthis wall was quellistesso che facevacircuito alla citt che era grande fin ilfosso di S. Paolo extra muros: il giadetto muro continuva per sopraGhariexem e passa da diversi luochi.(54) It is difficult to reconcile the textureof the surviving remains with the manyreferences to the repeated use ofcantuni and balati employed in therepair and maintenance of the rampartsthroughout the 15th and early 16thcenturies, since the latter imply walls ofmore regular ashlar construction suchas can be still seen on the projectingrounded wall-tower on Mdinas northwall. Even then, the outer masonryshell of this remnant of a medieval walltower could actually date to much later

Hospitaller times when most of the oldwalls had to be rebuilt. In 1693, forexample, Blondel was still effectingrepairs to lanticaglie spolpate e daltempo smosse, e consumateallesterno.(55)

Of crenellations, drop boxes,machicolations, arrow-slits, loopholesand gun loops there is very littlesurviving evidence. However, as averitable fortress, the ramparts of Mdinawould surely have been fitted withmany such features. But these, havingcrowned the crest of the ramparts wouldhave been the first to disappear. If thegenerous use of well-built galleriji tal-mishun on the Gauci tower erected inthe first half of the 1500s by the Captainof the Naxxar militia is anything to goby, then piombatoi seem to have beena regular adjunct of local defences andmust have punctuated the ramparts ofthe islands main fortress with similarease, particularly in the vicinity ofgateways. The presence of similar box-machicoulis on other towers around theisland, particularly at Birchircara andQrendi (Torri Cavalieri), built well intothe 16th century, also reflects an insulartendency towards technological dragdespite the introduction and widespreaduse of firearms. The Gozo Citadel tooretained various elements that hintlikewise although we know that thecause in this case was the Ordersreluctance to invest in its re-fortification. The Gauci tower alsoprovides unique examples of cruciformslits cut in the faces of themachicolation for use with crossbows.By the early 16th century, Mdinasgarrison contained both balistrieri andscopetieri and its parapets would havebeen required to provide the necessaryfacilities for its defenders. Cannon toobecame an important element in itsdefence. The documents reveal thepresence of many bombardi by the late15th century. The author has foundtwo remnants of circular gunloops stillin situ on a section of the main wallsituated behind De Redin Bastion. Gunsof the period would still have beenmounted on low static cippi andcavalcature which required apertures,or gun loops, cut low in the parapets inorder for the guns to be fired. By 1522,however, the parapets of the fortressmay even have begun to be fitted with

embrasures to take more modern cannonsuch as the columbina (culverin)mentioned in the mandati and otherstypes mounted on carriages with loruroti. (56)

Despite the increasing reliance ongunpowder artillery for its defence, thefortress of Mdina was stillpredominantly a medieval strongholdgeared towards a medieval form ofwarfare at the time of the coming of theKnights to Malta in 1530. It remainedso, well into the 16th century and onlyreally shed its medieval skin in the earlydecades of the 18th century when itsramparts, and a large part of its publicand private buildings were practicallyrebuilt anew during the reign of GrandMaster Manoel de Vilhena. Theextensive nature of that rebuildingprogramme has meant that very little ofthe old fortress has survived aboveground. The graphic reconstruction ofthe of Mdinas medieval rampartspresented here is based on the elementsdiscussed above and shows thefortifications as these may have stoodin the late 15th and early 1500s prior to thearrival of the Order in Malta. AuthorsNoteI would like to thank Mr. NathanielCutajar BA (Hons) Archaeology MA for hishelp, guidance, and encouragement in thepreparation of this paper, and with whom Ialso had many opportunities to discuss thissubject at length. Some of the ideaspresented here actually owe their origin toMr. Cutajar himself and I hope that he willbe developing these further through thecourse of his own specialized studies in themedieval archaeology of Mdina. I am alsograteful to Mr. Paul Saliba BA (Hons)Archaeology, for drawing my attention tocertain archaeological and historical facts,the existence of various old texts and otherrelevant information.

References and Notes

1. Archivo di Stato di Palermo RC 49, f.51 as quoted in Fiorini & Buhagiar, Thedefence and Fortifications of Mdina inMdina the Cathedral City, vol. II, p. 443(Malta - 1996). 2. Fiorini & Buhagiar,op.cit. 2 Vols. 3. Gio. Francesco Abela,Della Descrittione di Malta, p. 31 (Malta -1647). 4. Giliberto Abbates report ofc.1241, quoted in Luttrell A., 1992 and note1 supra. 5. Monreal Y Tejada, L., MedievalCastles of Spain, p.16 (Madrid - 1999). 6.Acta Juratorum, doc. 10 (1540) as quoted inFiorini & Buhagiar, op.cit., p. 443. 7.


11 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

Bonanno A., Roman Malta, pp.19-21(Formia - 1992). 8. A naturally defensivesite used as a refuge place in times ofdanger, see Winter, F.E., GreekFortifications, p. 16 & footnote 65 pp.31-32 (Canada - 1971). 9. Azzopardi, G.,Papers in Maltese Linguistics, p.216(Malta 1970): Arabic almadina is theprincipal city, the city held in highestregard. Other cities bearing the same nameare MEDINA (Caccaino & Castronuovo,Palermo, and Badajoz, Cadiz & Valladoid inSpain), ALMEDINA (Cuidad Real),ALMEDINILLA (Cordoba), ALMUDINA(Alicante), MADINA (Guipuzcoa);Cagiono de Azevedo, The 1970 Campaignin Missione Archaeologica a Malta,Campagna di Scavi 1970, p.103 (Rome 1973); and manifestations even in thelate Roman and Byzantine ages, not only inconnection with the church but also withfortifications and defensive works,particularly M21, M26, M27,M34 whichtake us back to the age of the Arab conquestand testify that it did not happen in onemoment, but rather that it concluded a longseries of decades of war. 10. Al-Himyarfirst referred to Mdina as an ancient cityinhabited by the Byzantines. In the year225 (870 AD) the Arabs under Sawada IbnMuhammad captured the fortress of Maltaand demolished it, dismantling manybuildings and carrying away the stones tobuild a castle in Susa. Thereafter the islandremained practically uninhabited for some180 years and was only re-peopled by theArabs in the year 440 (1048-49 AD) whorebuilt its city to make it a finer place thanit was before, Brincat, J.M , Malta, 870-1054: Al-Himyars Account, p.11 (Malta 1991). The Muslim cemetery within theRoman town-house is post 1090 AD, i.e. itdates to after the plunder of the Malteseislands by Count Roger, Trump, D., Malta,An Archaeological Guide, p.23 (London 1972).11. Fiorini & Buhagiar, op.cit., p.444. 12. ibid. 13. Procopius of Caesarea,Buildings, ii. 5,8-9, ed. J. Haury p. 38(Leipzig - 1913), translated by H.B.Dewing; London 1940, cited in T.E.Lawrence, Crusader Castles p. 27 (Oxford- 1990 edit) edited by Denys Pringle. 14.Lawrence, op.cit., pp.26-27. 15. Archivesof the Cathedral Museum, Mdina , Misc.437 cited in Fiorini & Buhagiar p.458. 16.Messana G., La Medina di Tripoli inQuaderni DellIstituto Italiano di Cultura diTripoli, p. 16 (Roma - 1979); Rossi, E.,Storia di Tripoli e Della Tripolitania DallaConquista Araba al 1911, p. 26 (Roma -1968) 17. Wettinger, G., The Jews inMalta in the Late Middle Ages, p. 16 (Malta- 1985). 18. Creswell, K.A.C., A ShortAccount of Early Muslim Architecture,p.231, (Scolar Press - 1989 ed. revised andsupplemented by James W. Allen). Fiorini

& Buhagiar, op.cit., p.450. 19. Lawrence,T.E., op.cit., pp.27-29 : (Oxford - 1990edit) edited by Denys Pringle; Gabriel, A.,La Cit de Rhodes, p. 133 (Paris - 1921).21. Fiorini & Buhagiar, op.cit., foot note30. 22. Gabriel, op.cit, pp. 122-133;Spiteri, S.C,. Fortresses of the Cross -Hospitaller Military Architecture, pp. 77-81 (Malta - 1994). 23. Fiorini & Buhagiar,op.cit., p.452. 24. National Library ofMalta, University of Notabile, Ms. 187 (?)f.76 (1724). 25. ibid. 26. National LibraryOf Malta, University of Notabile, Ms. 12,f.48 (4.xi.1513) mentioned in Fiorini &Buhagiar, op.cit., p.446: For the Serbelloniplan see Ganado, A., Sixteenth CenturyManuscript Plan of Mdina by GabrioServelloni in Mdina and the Earthquake of1693 ed. by J. Azzopardi, pp.77-83 (Malta- 1993). 27. Abela, op.cit., p.31; for a moredetailed evaluation of this aspect see Fiorini& Buhagiar pp.443-445. 28. Mifsud 1918-19. 29. Archives of the Cathedral Museum,Mdina, Misc. 27 as cited in Fiorini &Buhagiar, op.cit., p.445. 30. Mifsud, A.,La Milizia e Le Torri Antiche in Malta,extracted from Archivum Melitense, p.17(Malta - 1920). 31. Cathedral MuseumMdina - Cathedral Archives MS.60. 32.Archives of the Cathedral Museum, Mdina,Ms. 737 f.363 as quoted in Mifsud, p. 17.33. For more information on Swabiancastles in Italy see Itinerari Federiciani inPuglia - Viaggio nei castelli e nelle dimoredi Federico II in Svevia, edited by CosimoDamiano Fonseca, (Bari - 1997). 34.Archivo di Stato di Palermo RC 49, f.51 ascited in Fiorini & Buhagiar, op.cit., p.443.35. Archives of the Cathedral Museum,Mdina, Misc. 441,Quire B, ff.1-32 quotedin Fiorini & Buhagiar, op.cit., p.466 - NLMUniv. Ms. 84, ff.366-636. 36. NationalLibrary of Malta, University Ms. 13, f.356. 37. Wettinger 1982-87; documentaryreferences to Rocca are discussed in moredetail in Fiorini & Buhagiar pp. 450-452.38. National Library of Malta, Archives ofthe Order of St. John (A.O.M.) 1016, f.157 (21 February 1693). 39. A.O.M. 1016,f.480 (24 May 1701). 40. A.O.M. 1017,f.90 ( 1717). 41. A.O.M. 1016 f. 157. 42.Fiorini & Buhagiar, op.cit., p.447. 43.Cathedral Museum Mdina - CathedralArchives MS.60. 44. Fiorini, S., TheMandati Documents at the Archives ofthe Mdina Cathedral, Malta 1473-1539,Mandati 2, f.262, p. 103 (Malta - 1992).45. ibid., Mandati 3, f.691, p.175. 46.ibid., Mandati 3, f.623, (1538) p.170. 47.ibid., Mandati 2, 160 (1527), p. 96; fordefinition of porta falsa see G. GrassiDizionario Militare Italiano p. 392(Naples 1835), porticicciuola, piccolaporta munita dun rastrello di ferro, fattanel mezzo delle cortine, o sul angolo di esse,o vicino agli orrecchioni, per andar

liberamente e fuori della visita del nemicodalla piazza alle opere esteriori. The termPorta del Soccorso was also used todescribe a sally-port. 48. ibid., Mandat 3,f.533 (1538), p.163. 49. Abela., op.cit.,p.29. 50. Ganado, A., book review ofMdina, the Cathedral City of Malta in theTimes of Malta (Wednesday 4 December1996) p.21. 51. Abela., op.cit., p.29. 52.Archives of the Catheral Museum, Mdina,Misc.34, ff.682v-3, cited in Mifsud,op.cit., p. 17 and Fiorini & Buhagiar,op.cit., p.474. 53. A.O.M. 1017, f. 41(1716). 54. National Library of Malta,University Ms. Vol. 187, f. 81 (1724). 55.A.O.M. 1016, f.157. 56. Fiorini, op.cit.,Mandati 1, f. 283b, p. 190; Mandati 3, f.687v, p.199.


12 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

An appreciation of the fortifications in thelocality of the village of Naxxar, or of anyother locality in Malta and Gozo for thatmatter, cannot be undertaken in isolation.The smallness of the island, coupled withits limited resources, ensured that thecountry had to be defended as one entity.Throughout most of its long historyMalta could only support a sole urbancentre, and although with the coming ofthe Knights a second developed withinthe Grand Harbour area, most of the landremained basically subservient to thisarrangement. Outlying district assumedtheir importance, and were in turncommensurably fortified, only in relationto the role each was required to play inthe defence of the whole. No particulararea was fortified in order to satisfy localneeds but only because it fitted within anoverall defensive strategy. Of course,some outlying settlements did seek toprotect themselves from the ever-presentthreat of unannounced corsair incursionswith the building of the occasional towerof fortified farmhouses, but these werepredominantly domestic rather thanmilitary structures. In times of greatdanger, occasioned by serious razzie andoutright invasions, it was only within theislandscity walls that the ruralinhabitants could find some sort of shelter.

The only exception to this rule seems tohave occurred during the Bronze Age

period when human settlement in Maltaapparently revolved around a number offortified villages occupying variouselevated defensible sites spread aroundthe island (1). The presence of a numberof such fortified settlements tends tosuggest that this was a time of conserableinsecurity occasioned more as a result ofinter-village struggles over the islandsdwindling resources rather than as areaction to outside attack. (2) But fromPunic times onwards, the threat becamepurely of one of sea-borne attack and thedefence of Malta came to rest on a singlepoint of refuge at the fortified town ofMelita, later Mdina, together with a stringof lookout posts and a few towers spreadaround the coastline to warn of impendingdanger. A similar situation developed inthe sister island of Gozo where the site ofthe present Cittadella and its suburb ofRabat became the main settlement. Fromaround the late 12th century onwards acastle appeared inside the Grand Harbourbut this was intended mainly to protectnaval interests. The defence of theharbour area only began to assumestrategic importance with the coming ofthe Knights and it was undoubtedly withthe erection of the fortresses of Birgu andSenglea, and more importantly Valletta,that the focus of human settlement inMalta shifted to, and became securelyanchored in, this part of the island.

Nonetheless, the value of the outlyingareas to the defence of the majorsettlements, whether these were thecentral fortified Punic or Medieval town,or the coastal fortresses in the harbourarea, was always a critical one. Theneed for a reliable system to warn ofapproaching danger dictated that manyareas along the coastline had to serveas lookout posts or mustering areas forlocal militia forces. The ever-increasingmilitarisation which accompanied theHospitaller and British occupation ofthe island witnessed the fortification ofmany of these places. Some areas, bytheir very nature and location, played amore critical role than others in assuringthe safety of the island. Naxxar was onesuch a place.

Situated a short distance inland,roughly half way along the islandsnorthern coastline and crowning thesummit of a hill, itself girded by ageological fault to the north and deep

valleys to the east, the village of Naxxarcombined the defensive advantage ofdifficult accessibility with the commandinherent in elevated sites. It offered aunique vantage point withuninterrupted views of the northern halfof the island and its accessible shores.Its significance to the safety Mdina andlater Valletta revolved around itscommanding position over the maininland approaches from the manyvulnerable and accessible landing sitesalong the northern shores of the island.If there ever was a location in Maltawhich deserved the title of Wardija, itshould have been Naxxar.

The position itself, however, does notappear to have ever served as the siteof a fortified settlement in antiquitypossibly because the area was too vastto be enclosed within a fortifiedperimeter. From survivingarchaeological evidence we know thatBronze age fortified sites in Malta wereof much humbler proportions, as can bewitnessed by the remains at Il-Qala Hill,Ras-il-Gebel and Borg-in-Nadur (3),: alltook advantage of natural defensivefeatures to minimise the need for man-made ramparts. A fortified settlement ofthis type, however, does appear to haveexisted in the immediate vicinity ofNaxxar on the site now occupied by FortMosta. The French architect GeorgeGrongnet, who was obsessed withfinding the lost Atlantis, records thepresence of the remains of a citadel anda fortified settlement in the area knownas Misrah Ghonoq. (4)Unfortunatelythe construction of Fort Mosta in the1880s wiped out all such traces if thesereally existed, although one can stilldetect a large number of huge bouldersincorporated in the rubble fieldwalls inthat area.

The village of Naxxar does not appear togo back so far in time but it is stillnonetheless an old settlement, datingfrom the ninth or tenth century. It wasestablished as a parish in 1436 and hadjurisdiction over Hal Gharghur, Musta,St. Pauls Bay, Mellieha and Marfa (6) -practically all of that part of the islandnorth of the Great Fault, the partedisabitata of Malta, roughly a third ofthe whole island.. This was a hugeresponsibility and clearly showsNaxxars status and importance as a

NAXXARAND ITSFORTIFICATIONS

byStephen C Spiteri


13 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

defence nucleus for the northernregions during the middle ages. Prof.Godfrey Wettinger has shown in hiswork on the militia list of 1419-1420 thatNaxxar and its associate villagescontributed one-eight (262 men) of theislands militia force, and one-fifth ofthose who owned a horse (20 out of108).(7) Under the Knights theimportance of Naxxar not onlyincreased but the village itself becamethe main staging post for the Birkirkara-Naxxar-Qormi regiment of country militiacharged with the defence of thenorthern parts of the island.

In the middle ages, the islands militiaforce consisted of the Ghassa orMahras, a maritime watch, and theDejma an inland garrison which keptwatch day and night at a number ofstrategic places. (8) These watch dutieswere called Guardia and for this reasonmany of those places which served aslookout posts retained the nameWardija. Abela writes of a Sciaara talBieb Nasciar o spatio dellentrata alNasciaro, ove e destinata una guardia.One other such station was on theheights of Naxxar itself, (9) preciselynear the church of St. George andanother known as Gwejdja or il-Wardijata San Gorg near tat-Targa. The cult ofSt. George was connected in manyways with the protection of the coastand many military posts in the parish ofNaxxar reflect this devotion. Near SanPietru in Ghargur there was a militarypost known as il Guardiia ta San Gorgand other churches devoted to thissaint at Mosta, on the heights ofBurmarrad, Mellieha and Ghadira alladjoined a military outpost(10). By 1628the Captain of the Naxxar Militia wasresponsible for nineteen watch postsincluding those of Lippija, della Capraand Nadur. The latter wwere thenconsidered too remote and were passedonto the responsibility of the Capitanodella Verga, to be guarded by men whoheld gabelle da Torre Falca versoBingemma, Mgarr et in sino la Ramla eda parte in dentro LIsola verso CasalDingli (11)

The militia posts occupied naturalvantage points and were generallyunfortified. Nonetheless, a few towersdo seem to have existed even inantiquity. Abela, in 1647, for example,

records the remains of an ancient towerat a place called Burgio Torre (12) andthe militia post il-Borgio tal-Melliehe,the site of Fort St. Agatha built in 1647,tends to denote the presence of yetanother ancient military structure (13). Aclear reference to the presence of earlyfortified structures in the locality pointto the existence of a tower in the area ofBurmarrad overlooking the old port ofSalina. This was an important harbour inantiquity because it was the closestport leading to the old Capital of Mdina.This structure appears to have been stillstanding by 1565. It was only with thecoming of the Knights that militia postsbegan to receive defensive structures.Indeed, one of the Knights majorcontribution to the security of theisland was actually the erection of anetwork of coastal towers during thefirst half of the 17th century.

Naxxar was in fact the first localityoutside the Harbour area to receive afortified structure. This was the socalled Torri tal-Kaptan, the Captainstower, which was erected during themagistracy of Grand Master de Valette.It was was built to house the Captain ofthe Naxxar Militia - a position alwaysheld by a Knight of the Order appointedby the Grand Master. Actually, theOrder had tried to requisition an existingtower, the Torri Gauci, which stood ashort distance away. This had beenbuilt by Francesco Gauci, possibly evenbefore the coming of the Knights, inorder to safeguard his family andproperty against corsair raids - pirateshad actually carried off Gaucis wife.Obviously, as the only standingfortified structure in the locality, theKnights had sought to take it over fortheir own military use for in 1548,Franceso Gauci, petitioned GrandMaster Juan DHomedes in order toretain his tower. The Grand Master andCouncil of the Order acceded to hisrequest with a decree dated 16 May1548. (14)

The Captains Tower was in many wayssimilar to the Gauci Tower itself. Inmany other ways it was also reminiscentof the many coastal watch towers whichthe Order had built in Rhodes duringthe previous century, particularly in itsbox-like proportions with vertical walls,and features such as the machiolated

parapet and fine mouldings framing theescuthcheons bearing the coat-of-armsof Grand Master de Valette. The tower issquare in plan and consists of threefloors, the rooms spaned by stonearches. Important defensive featureswere the piombatoi, or box-machicolations used for droppingprojectiles or other offensive materialson assailants at the foot of the tower.

These were basically open-basedbalconies supported on stone corbelsand were generally placed abovedoorways or other sensitive parts offortifications. In the Maltese language,such structures are known as Gallerijital-Mishun, a term which clearlyindicates their intended purposes - thatof dropping boiling water on assailants.These piombatoi were actually medievaldefensive features that had by thendisappeared from the bastionedfortifcations and other new militarystructures of the period. That they werestill being incorporated into 16thcentury towers should not be sosurprising for the towers were designedonly to resist small scale attacks, by

Gauci Tower

Captain's Tower


14 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

raiders unequipped with cannon.Machicolation helped defend againstassault and escalade. These were stillbeing added to the coastal towers in the17th century, but more as decorativeretardataire features rather thanimportant elements in the defence. Aunique and interesting featureappertaining to this tower is thecolumbaria set within the four-foothigh parapet on the roof. Pigeons werethen an important means for relayingmessages and this tower would haveserved a critical role, given its position,in relaying messages from Gozo to theGrand Harbour.

At Torri Gauci, the structural form of thetower is much more business-likedespite it being an earlier building thanthe Captains Tower. The morepronounced battered lower half of thetower and the ring of box-machicoulisprojecting from the high parapet,together with an ample provision ofmusketry loopholes and vision slitsmade it definitely much easier to defendthan its neigbour. A tendency to endowlocal towers with box-machicolulis isalso encountered also at Torre Cavalieriat Qrendi and and the Torricella atBKara, both apparently early 16thcentury structures. From FrancescoGaucis own petition we know that thistower cost 400 scudi to build andinternally consisted of three floors (15)

Between them, Torre Gauci and theCaptians tower, together with Torre Falchaon the Dwejra heights below Mdina,comprised the Islands most important

northern-most defensive structures forthe duration of the 16th century. That theywere important landmarks is attested byone of DAleccios frescoshowing a mapof Malta, where they are distinctyillustrated. These are again depicted inthe panel showing the final battle betweenthe Gran Soccorso and the Turkish troopsdisembarked at St. Pauls Bay, a battlewhich was faught around the plains ofBurmarrad. DAleccios map also revealsthe existence of two other towers in thenearby Casal Gregor (Gharghur), anothertwo small ones down near the salinenuove and a third at Monte Aliba southof the chapel of Lunciata overlooking theFomm-ir-Rih. None of these towers haveactually survived.

The construction of the Chapel of St. Paulin 1696 immediately in front of Gauci Towersignifies that the latter had by then lostits defensive value. Even the Captainstower had assumed the semblence of aresendence rather than a military structurefor during this period the burden of thecoastal watch and the defence of thenorthern parts of Malta had fallen on atotally new set of dedicated defensivestructures - the coastal towers built byGrand Masters Wignacourt, Lascaris andDe Redin. (16)

With the Order of St. John firmly settledin their new fortress of Valletta, the Ordercould afford to invest some of itsresources in securing the islands ruralareas. The building of a string of watch-towers gave the Knights an effectiveearly warning system to signal theapproach of enemy vessels and at thesame time enabled them to resist enemyforces at the point of landing. Indeed, thefirst coastal towers built during themagistracy of Grand Master Alof deWignacourt were designed and intendedmore as forts rather than simple vedettes.These sturdy, massive structures, the firstof which was built at St. Pauls Bay(actually the first coastal tower was builtin Gozo in 1605 with the money left byGrand Master Garzes), mounted heavyartillery and accommodated smallgarrisons which, in times of impending,were augmented by mercenary and cavalrydetachments to help defend the landingareas in the vicinities of the towers.During the reign of his successor, GrandMaster Lascis-Castellar, the emphasis oncoastal defence shifted from large towers

to smaller watch-towers erected at GhajnTuffieha, Lippija, Nadur, Qawra, St.Georges Bay and Wied iz-Zurrieq, andpossibly another at Ta Capra. This towerdefinitely existed during the mid 17thcentury though, according to the Ordersresident engineer Mondion, was alreadyin ruins in 1730, having been built at theedge of a fragile cliff overlooking Fomm-ir-Rih. The limiting factors that haddetermined the reduction in the size of thecoastal towers and the change in their rolewere basically ones of manpower - theOrder did not have the manpower to postlarge detachments of troops at everypossible landing place. (17)

An attempt to revert to large coastaltowers was undertaken in 1649 with theconstruction of St. Agathas Tower(TorreRossa) at Mellieha since this was a largeand important bay that had to bedefended. By the time of the next phaseof coastal- tower construction during thereign of Grand Master De Redin thepreference for smaller signaling posts hadonce again taken over though unlike theones built earlier in the 1630s, those builtby De Redin were also designed to takearillery. Grand Master De Redin paid forthirteen coastal watch-towers, the first ofwhich was built at Ghajn Hadid, north ofSelmun. Together, all the towers formed achain of communication since each wassited in such a way to enable signals tobe relayed visually from one post to thenext all the way down to Valletta. Withthese towers the Knights re-organised thesystem of coastal watch because localmilitia guards were replaced by fixedgarrisons paid for by the Universita. Eachtower was manned by a bombardier andthree assistants with annual salaries of30 and 24 scudi respectively. What thisactually meant was that coastal guardduty was given a national rather thanparochial organisation - the assistants tothe Castellano at Torre St. Agatha in 1650,for example, Gregorio Seychel and AngeloPsaila, both came from Casal Zebbug, aparish whose traditional militiaresponsibilities lay much further souththan Naxxar.(18)

Around 1660, there were in all thirteenmilitary coastal towers guarding theIslands shores north of Madliena. Ofthese, two towers fall nowadays withinthe locality of Naxxar, namely those ofQalet Marku and Ghallis. The Ghallis

Captain's Tower


15 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

Tower was the second of the De Redintowers to be built in the year 1568 andcost 426 scudi. It controlled, together withQawra Tower, the entrance into Salina Bay.Qalet Marku Tower, too, was built in 1658and cost 408 scudi. Like all De Redintowers, these two towers were some thirtyfeet square in plan and about thirty-sixfeet high. Internally they had two vaultedrooms, one on each floor with the mainand sole entrance located securely on thefirst floor and reached by a woodenretractable ladder. The base of the tower,right up to the level of the lower cordonwas given a pronounced batter but abovethis, the walls rose vertical to terminate ina low parapet fitted with shallowembrasures clearly designed to permit thefiring of small cannon. A spiral staircaseset into the thickness of the wall just tothe left of the main entrance led to theroof. The De Redin towers held only smallartillery pieces, generally one or two 3-pdr iron cannon kept mostly for signallingpurposes; comparatively, the Lascaristowers could only mount spingardi. In1659 all watch towers were each issuedwith two moschettoni di posta, or largeheavy muskets (18).

After the death of Grand Master de Redinin 1660, the enthusiasm for coastaldefences appears to have waned and forthe next fifty-five years the knightsshowed little interest in the coastaldefences. The lessons learnt in the 17thcentury , however, were quickly forgottenat the beginning of the 1700s when theKnights again embarked upon thefortification of every bay and inlet aroundthe island with batteries, redoubts andcoastal entrenchments. In 1714, Arginyand De Fontet, two commissioners offortifications, together with Orderssecond engineer, Francois Bachelieu,proposed that those beaches where alarge army could disembark, be protectedby batteries and entrenchments. Between1714 and mid-1715, a total of 8067 scudiwas spent on the construction ofbatteries around the coasts of Malta andGozo and with the arrival of . With thearrival of the Grand Prior of France, theBali de Vendome, the scheme for thefortification of the coastline was given anadded impetus, not the least because ofhis handsome financial gift to the Orderto be employed in coastal works. Thereasoning behind this strategy of coastaldefence hinged around the notion that the

fortification of the bays would prevent theenemy from attempting to disembark histroops, and in trying to do so, the losseswould be so high that enemy forces wouldbe unable to mount a siege, ..fortificarele Marine in tal maniera che il nemiconormalmente non possa fare nessunsbarco o tentendolo, si facci tantaperdita di gente, che poi non sia in statodi fare lassedio (19)

The main elements in the coastal systemof defensive as laid down by the Frenchengineers consisted of gun-batteries,infantry redoubts and entrenchmentwalls. Where opportune, existing towerswere to be incorporated into thescheme. Gun batteries, whose role wasto engage the enemy warships with theirheavy cannon, consisted of solidplatforms generally fitted withembrasures and protected to the rearby blockhouses and loopholed wallswith redans. There was no standardplan to the design of caostal batteriesand although most were given semi-circular gun-platforms, such as found atQawra point, Mistra, Ta L-Ahrax,Armier, Wied Mousa, Ghallis etc, therewere also pentagonal, Qalet Marku, andtriangular (Qala Lembi) layouts,depending on tactical requirementsdictated by the desired fields of fire.

The redoubts were to serve as ainfantry strongpoints and althoughthere was an attempt to build astandardised pentagonal pattern suchas the one still to be found at Bahar ic-

Caghaq. Armier, MScala, they too camein many shapes and sizes; a few likethose of Kalafrana, MXlokk andBirzebbuga were built in the form oftowers or blockhouses, in a similarmanner to the French tour-reduit. Themost ambitious of all the elements ofcoastal defence were undoubtedly thecoastal entrehcment walls. These wereintended to stretch for miles on endinorder to seal off all accessible bays. Inthe end only particular short sterches ofcoastline came to be defended in thisway with solidly built ramparts such asstill to be found at Armier, Tas Kassisu(Mellieha), Qawra and Madliena thouheven these were never actuallycompleted as can be witnessed by thesurviving remains and partiallyexcavated ditches. In the end mostentrenchments came to consist of theless durable pietra a secco walls whichwere little better than rubble field walls.

In reality the scheme was to prove tooambitious since the knight did not havethe resources to cover every single baywith fortified works, nor, as it turned outduring the general alarm of 1722, the

Naxxar Entrenchment


16 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

manpower to man all the batteries,redoubts and long entrenchment walls.Consequently a new defensive positionwas chosen along the line of the greatfault and trenches built at San Pawl tat-Targa. and a decade later at ta Falcalimits of Mgarr. That at Naxxar is thebest preserved and consist of four v-shaped redans linked together bystraight curtain walls built in the form ofa trinciera di pietra a secco. Theimportance of this entrenchment isattested by the fact that it wasincorporated into the trace of theVictoria lines nearly two centuries later.For the Naxxar entrenchmentcommanded an important road leadingdown to and from the plain of Burmarradand the northern coastline.

The last element of coastal defence,proposed in 1715, but only incorporatedin 1741, was the fougasse. This was a kindof massive rock-hewn stone-firing mortar.Some 48 were built around the shores ofMalta and fourteen in Gozo. Tow of thebest examples of the few fougasses stillto be found are located at Salina Bay, oneof which is placed within the Ximenesredoubt. Anoher fougasses was sitedacross the bay inside the Perellos redoubt,now demolished.

Throughout the 18th century the islandsmilitia force was organised into sixregiments of country militia, with theregiments of Naxxar, BKara and Qormigrouped toget1her into a NorthernBrigade. Its headquarters was located atBirguma in the limits of Naxxar.(20) The

Northern Brigade was charged with thedefence of the northern parts of the islandbeginning from St. Julians Bay. In 1716,the Regiment of Naxxar consisted of 477men and was responsible for defendingthe stretch of coastline called il-Fliegu,between Torri lAhrax and Cirkewwa. Thisarea contained three coastal batteries(Wied Mousa, Vendome and lAhrax),three redoubts (Raml;a tal-Bir, Barrireaand Hossiliet), an entrenchment at Armierand a De Redin coastal tower. (20)

None of these fortifications served to playany significant role during the tragicFrench invasion of the island in 1798, theonly instance when the network of coastaldefences, built at such cost, was actuallyput to the test. French troops under thecommand of General Baragey DHillierslanded at Mellieha and St. Pauls bay,where the defences there were under thecommand of the Knights De Bizier and DeLa Penouse respectively, while Fort St.Agatha was under the command of theknight St. Simon. The Maltese soldiersoffered what little resistance they couldbefore hastily retreating to Mdina. AsDHilliers made his way southwards hemet some resistance from the BailliTommasi and his troops firing from behindthe Naxxar entrenchments, also defendedby the detachments from the Regiment ofNaxxar militia under the Knight De Paes,but Grand Master Hompesch had orderedthis regiment to take up new positionscloser to Mdina, possibly at the Falca,and its place was taken by another 400men who offered some resistance beforeabandoning their position. Meanwhileother French troops established abeachhead at at St. Georges Bay and acolumn under under Brigadier GeneralLannes advanced north to capture thedefences of Madliena and Bahar-icCaghaq. (21)

Most of the coastal defences wereretained by the British throughout the firstdecades of the 19th century but graduallymany of these military works were handedover to the civilian government as theywere no longer considered necessary forthe defence. The majority of the towersand batteries had been shed off by themilitary by the late 1830s. Therefater noneof these works were to feature in theislandsdefensive stategy, particularlyafter 1860 when the the British graduallyabandoned the idea of resisting the

enemy on the coast, adopting instead amighty fortress system conceivedprimarily for the defence of the GrandHarbour.

Initially the original British plan was fora girdle of detached forts placed oncommanding ground one mile inadvance of the existing harbourfortifications but by 1866 that schemeproved particularly difficult toimplement mainly due to the creation ofsuburbs around the Grand Harbour. Areconsideration of these circumstancesled to the adoption of defensive aposition far in advance of that initiallyentartained. The ridge of commandingground north of the old Cty of Mdina,cutting transversely across the widthof the island at a distance varying from4 to 7 miles from Valletta was chosen asthe new defensive perimeter. The newdefensive strategy sought to seal off allthe area around the harbour within anextended box-like perimeter, with thedetached forts on the line of the greatfault forming the north west boundary,the cliffs to the south forming a naturalinaccessible barrier, while the north andeast sides were to be defended by a lineof coastal forts and batteries. (22)

General Adye, in 1872, rightly observedthat the new line of defence along theridge was to a certain extent a revival ofthe original views of the Knights ofMalta. As already shown above, theidea of using the Great Fault as adefensive position dated back to 1722when the Hospitallers establishedinfantry entrenchments San Pawl tat-Targa and Ta Falca. In the followingyear, the Defence Committee approvedAdyes proposals and recommended thestrengthening of |Ithe already strongposition between Bingemma Hills andthe Heights above St. Georges Bay.|i In1875, work began on what was originallyto be called the |INorth-West Front,|i astring of isolated forts and batteriesdesigned to stiffen the escarpment.Three strong forts were built along theposition, those at Bingemma (1874) andMadliena (1878) to control the westernand eastern extremities respectively,while that at Mosta (1878) commandedthe centre. The first fort to be built wasFort Bingemma. By 1878, work had stillnot commenced on the two other fortsand the entrenched position at Dwejra.

Ghajn Tuffieha Tower


17 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

In 1878, General Simmons recommendedthat the old Knights entrenchmentslocated along the line of the escarpmentat Targa and Naxxar were to be restoredand incorporated into the defences.This opinion was once again stated byGenerals Nicholson and Goodenough in1888. Although they were against thereconstruction and re-utilisation of theold Falca lines they were totally infavour , reutilising the Naxxarenbtrenchments since thesecommanded the main road from St.Pauls Bay which passed through themat a distance of around half a mile inadvance of the village of Naxxar. On thisaccount Nicholson and Goodenoughconsidered it desirable to reconstructthose parts of the old entrenchmentwhich commanded the road. They evenunderlined the importance of defendingthe village of Naxxar, |Ia position .... ofgreat importance,|i in the event of alanding in St. Pauls Bay (ibid.).(23)

The forts on the defensive line weredesigned with a dual land/coastaldefence role in mind, particularly theones on the extremities. But due to thetopography in the northern part of theisland, there were areas of dead groundalong the coast and inland approacheswhich could not be properly covered bythe guns of the main forts. By 1878, itwas considered desirable that newworks should be thrown up betweenForts Mosta and Benjemma, andemplacements for guns placed in them.It was similarly considered advisable tohave new emplacements for guns built

to the left of Fort Madliena and in thearea between that Fort and FortPembroke. The latter fort was built onthe eastern littoral below and to the rearof Fort Madliena, in order to control thegap caused by the accessible shorelineleading towards Valletta. Gun batterieswere eventually proposed at Targa,Gharghur and San Giovanni. Only thatof San Giovanni, was actually built andarmed, while the two at Gharghur werenever constructed. Targa Battery, on theother hand, although actually built,encountered much criticism and wasnever permanently armed.

Although initially designed as a seriesof detached strong points, thefortifications along the North WestFront were eventually linked together

by a continuous infantry line and thewhole fortified traced was christianedthe Victoria Lines in order toCommemorate the Diamond Jubilee ofQueen Victoria in 1897. The longstretches of infantry lines linking thevarious strong points, consisting inmost places of simple masonry parapet,were completed on 6th November 1899.The cost of the work, including thebuilding of the defence wall, the formingof the patrol path and the scarping ofthe cliff face, covering an 100 acres ofland, was 15,882 - more than the doublethe estimated figure submitted when theworks were authorized on 27thNovember 1897. (24)

The trace of the intervening stretchesfollowed the configuration of the crestof the ridge along the contours of theescarpment. The nature of the wall,varied greatly along its length butbasically consisted of a sandwich typeconstruction, with an outer and innerrevetment bonded at regular intervalsand filled in with terreplein. The averageheight of the parapet was about 1.5meters topped by a musketry parapet. In

Fort Madalena


18 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

places, the deblai from scarping wasdumped in front of the wall to helpcreate a glacis and ditch. The rockyground immediately behind the parapetwas frequently fashioned out to providea walkway, or patrol path, along thelength of the wall. A number of valleysinterrupted the line of the natural fault,and at such places, the continuation ofthe defensive perimeter was onlypermitted with the construction ofshallow defensible masonry bridges, ascan be still seen today at Wied il-Fahamnear Fort Madliena, Wied Anglu andBingemma Gap. Other bridges, nowdemolished, existed at Mosta Ravineand Wied Filip.(25)

During the last phase of theirdevelopment, the Victoria Lines werestiffened with a number of batteries andadditional fortifications. An infantryredoubt was built at the westernextremity of the front at Fomm ir-Rihredoubt and equipped withemplacements for Maxim machine guns.The record plans of the Victoria Lines,drawn around 1901, show that manymaxim machine guns were deployedalong the length of the front and that inmost places the walls were topped byloopholes of which only very fewsections have survived to this date. In1897 a High Angle Battery was built wellto the rear of the defensive lines atGharghur and another seven howitzerbatteries, each consisting of fouremplacements for field guns protectedby earthen traverses, were built close tothe rear of the defensive line. Searchlight emplacements were built at il-Kuncizzjoni and Wied il-Faham. (26)

Described as a military position of greatstrength in 1888, this defensive frontwas nonetheless soon to lose most ofits importance. Military exercises inMay 1900 showed that the VictoriaLines could offer little effectiveresistance against assault by a largelanding force. By 1907 it had beendecided to abandon the position on theVictoria Lines as a front line of defenceand to revert to the policy ofconducting the islands defence fromher shores. Nonetheless, the forts, withthe exception of Fort Mosta, wereretained in use by being assigned a dualcoastal/land defence role.

The need to defend and fortify thebeaches against invasion, wasseriously rekindled at the outbreak ofthe Second world war when many of theKnights long discarded coastaldefences, including the fougasses,were pressed back into service andincorporated, in conjunction with newdefensive structure - the concretemachine-gun pillboxes and barbed wireentaglements.The role of the concrete pillboxes wasto hinder the landings and in-landadvance of enemy forces. Spread outacross the country side in a series ofstop lines each pillbox occupied astrategic position and was cleverlycamouflaged. The earlier pillboxes andbeach post built in 1938 as a directresult of the threat of an Italian invasionfollowing the Abyssinian crisis, wereelaborately camouflaged with rubblestone cladding. In later pillboxes,however, paint-work became theaccepted method for applyingcamouflage. (27)

In the early pillboxes, all the machinegun armament was deployed frontallyand in series, generally in adjoiningpositions of two or four emplacementsthough structures for singleemplacements can also be found. Themethod of mounting the machine gunarmament involved mainly the use ofsemi-circular concrete machine guntables with or without accompanyingconcrete guncrew benches, the latterroughly semi-circular in plan.Considerable attention was given toconcealment, hence the elaborate rubblestone cladding camouflage and thecareful adaption of their form to fit thelie of the land. Such features as stonecladding camouflage, adaptation of planand shape to the requirements of thesite, the use of curved fronts and roundedges were soon abandoned in favourof pillboxes built to simpler and morestandardised patterns that lentthemselves more easily to massproduction. This, inevitably, was adevelopment which reflected a greatersense of urgency and the need for rapidconstruction that accompanied thegrowing threat of war and invasion. Asa result, by 1939, a new type of pillbox,more box-like in shape, began to appear.The second group of pillboxes, of which

there are fundamentally three basictypes, were mainly rectangular orpolygonal in plan and retained theirbare concrete finish. As these pillboxesbecame more box-like in shape, theyacquired in the process a high profilethat rendered them increasingly difficultto conceal in a predominantly flatlandscape. As a result, the onlypractical form of camouflage was todisguise them as rural building and farmhouses. Camouflage was mainly appliedin the form of paint work and sappersfrom units of the Royal Engineers unitwere detailed to undertake the work,adding features such as doors, windowsand brown lines to a sand colouredbackground. A recently restoredexample is to be found in the the taAllaw Ommu area just ahead of the Naxxarentrenchments. Another less commongroup of pillboxes consisted offarmhouses and other rural buildingsconverted into defence posts. On suchstructure can still be seen situatedalong the road leading from Naxxar toSan Gwann.

Another important element in theislands defence were the anti-aircraftbatteries. In Malta, the need for grounddefences against air attack was first feltduring World War One, when a 3-pdranti-aircraft gun was mounted on theroof of St. Johns Cavalier to helpprotect the harbour and Valletta againstthe possibility of a German Zeppelinattack (28) Although the gun wasdismantled prior to the end of the war,the post-war years were to see a gradualinvestment in anti-aircraft defences.Initially, during the 1920s, there wasonly one battery, the 10th A.A. Batteryof the 4th Heavy Brigade RoyalArtillery, equipped with 3-inch 20cwt QFAA guns. An Instructional Anti-AircraftCamp was established at Tigne and ananti-aircraft practice camp was set up atBenghisa. In 1926 an anti-aircraft rangewas set up at Torri Madliena, atPembroke and later, an RMAinstructional AA practice camp wasestablished at Gharghur, near FortMadliena. The latter was equipped withtwo 3-inch 20cwt A.A. guns on fixedmountings (29)

Maltas anti-aircraft defences wereeventually augmented during the 1930sand by the outset of the Second World


19 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

War these had increased to thirty-fourheavy guns and eight Bofors guns.Earlier in 1939, however, the Committeefor Imperial Defence had approved aplan to stiffen the Islands anti-aircraftdefences with 122 heavy AA guns, 60light AA and 24 searchlights. Theimplementation of this plan wasnonetheless a slow affair and by June1940, only the searchlight equipmenthad been brought up to strength. Thesituation had, nonetheless, changedconsiderably by 1942, when the heavyanti-aircraft defences had expanded toinclude five regiments with a total of 112guns of 3-inch (16 guns), 3.7-inch (84guns) and 4.5-inch (12 guns) calibres,deployed in 29 troop positions of fourguns each, except for two 3-inch trooppositions which only had two gunseach. The light guns had also increasedto 118. Two troop positions are locatedwithin the naxxar locality, that at Blata l-Bajda, in Salina, and at Birguma. madeup a heavy anti-aircraft battery. (30)

The other adjuncts of the anti-aircraftground defences which were developedin the inter-war period were thesearchlights, the sound-locators andsound-mirrors, and radar. For earlywarning purposes, the Britishdeveloped huge acoustic mirrors,known as the sound-mirrors. The firstexample was installed on the coast ofKent during the First World War. Otherswere built at Hythe in 1926, and AbbotsCliff in 1927, capable of detectingaircraft at a range of twenty-five miles.Larger circular ones were built in thelate 1920s. A 200-foot concrete stripmirror was built in 1929 at Lydd InMalta, a large paraboloid sound-mirrorwas built in stone at Ta San Pietru, nearBahar-ic-Caghaq and aimed in thedirection of Catania in order to detectaircraft approaching from Sicily. (31)The huge acoustic mirrors met with onlylimited success were superseded withradar. Radar was first brought to Maltain March 1939 when an Air MinistryExperimental Station 242 was set up atDingli Cliffs to track high-flying aircraft(Vella, 1988, p.83). By middle of 1941,three other stations had been set up atTas-Silg (AMES 501), at Madliena(AMES 502) and at Dingli (AMES 504).These were Chain Overseas Low (COL)stations which tracked medium to low-flying aircraft. Later on, they were

complemented by another four stationsat Ghar Lapsi, Qawra, Wardija, andGozo. The information gathered by thestations was relayed to theunderground War Headquarters atLascaris Bastion and to the gunbatteries themselves.(32)

These then comprise the fortifications andmilitary structures that were, and some arestill, to be found in the locality of Naxxar.In short, these can be effectively groupedinto three main categories, firstly, thosewhich were designed to watch the coast;secondly those which built to resistinvasion and thirdly, those whichcontolled the inland approaches towardsthe southern part of the island. All in alla diverse selection of defensivestructures that span over four hundredyears of history and military technology,reflecting Naxxars ever important role inthe defence of the island.

Sources

1. Evans, J.D., The PrehistoricAntiquities of theMaltese Islands: ASurvey (London - 1971), pp.6, 116, 229-233; Mallia, F., The Prehistoric FortifiedSites of Malta and Gozo in theProceedings of IBI, VIII Scientific Meeting19682. Blouet, B., The Story of Malta (Malta -1989 ed.) p.303. Evans, op.cit.4. Library Manuscript Ms 614 Tav. XI5. Camilleri E. & Pirota J., Naxxar Parish1600-1650, A Demographic Study(Dissertation, University of Malta 1973)p.3, quoted from Bellanti D., Why Malta?Why Ghawdex? (Gozo -1964), p.596. Camilleri E. & Pirota J., ibid7. Wettinger G., Melita Historica, Vol.V,n2 1969, pp.82-83,858. Mifsud, A., La Milizia e le torre antichedi Malta in Archivum Melitense, IV (1919),p.579. Catania P., Fortifikazzjonijiet fil-Lokalita (Tan-Naxxar), script of lecture199810. Camilleri E. & Pirota J., pp37-38,qoutated from Bezzina J., San Gorg il-Harries tax-xtajtiet article in il-Hajja23.7.1971, p.411. Archives of the University of NotabileVol. 185, ff. 124 & 124v12. Abela, G.F., Della descrizione di Malta(Malta - 1647) p.73

13. ibid., p. 6114. Archives of the Order of St. John inMalta (AOM)Vol.241, f.f.210v-21115. ibid.16. For more information on the historyand development of coastal towers inMalta see Hoppen A., The Fortificationof Malta by the Order of St. John, pp.105-125; Hughes Q., Malta, a guide tothe fortifications (Malta - 1993) pp.95-98,202-209, 278-279, 284-285: Spiteri, S.C.,Fortresses of the Cross: HospitallerMilitary Architecture, 1136-1798,pp.272-274 and 473-504.17. Ibid18. Archives of the University of NotabileVol19. AOM 1012, f.18320. Wismayer, J.M., The History of theKOMR and the Armed Forces of theOrder of St. John (Malta 1989), p.11: ForCountry Militia Regiments seeRegolamenti delli sei Regimenti diCampagna (Malta 1761)21. Testa C.,22. Spiteri, S.C., British MilitaryArchitecture in Malta (Malta 1996),pp.383-40023. ibid.24. ibid.25. ibid.26. ibid.27. ibid.28. Samut-Tagliaferro, History of theRoyal Malta Artillery, Vol I. 1800-1939(Malta 1976) p. 364.29. ibid., pp. 394-395).30. Spiteri, British Military Architecture,pp.539-55731. Hughes, op.cit., pp.58-5932. Spiteri, ibid.


20 / ISSUES 1-4 / 2004-7

THE VICTORIALINES

byStephen C Spiteri

The complex network of linearfortifications known collectively as theVictoria Lines, cutting across the widthof the island north of the old capital ofMdina, is a unique monument of militaryarchitecture. When built by the Britishmilitary in the late 19th century, it wasdesigned to present a physical barrier toinvading forces landed in the north ofMalta and intent on attacking theharbour installations so vital for themaintenance of the British fleet, thesource of British power in theMediterranean. Although never testedin battle, this system of defences,spanning across some 12 km of land andcombining different types offortifications - forts, batteries,entrenchments, stop walls, infantrylines, searchlight emplacements andhowitzer positions - consitituted aunique ensemble of varied military

elements all brought together to enforcethe strategy adopted by the British forthe defence of Malta in the latter half ofthe 19th century. A singular solutionwhich exploited the defensiveadvantages of geography andtechnology as no other work offortifications does in the Malteseislands.

Brief Historical Note

The Victoria Lines owe their origin to acombination of international events andthe military realities of the time. Theopening of the Suez Canal in 1869,pushed the importance of the Malteseislands to the fore, particularly

By 1872, the coastal works hadprogressed considerably well ahead butthe question of landward defences hadremained unsettled. Although the girdleof forts proposed by Col. Jervois in1866 would have considerablyenhanced the defence of the harbourarea, other factors had cropped up thatrendered the scheme particularlydifficult to implement, particularly thecreation of suburbs. A regard for thesecircumstances led the military toconsider another proposal, namely, thatput forward by Col. Mann, to take up aposition far in advance of that whichhad till then been entertained..

The chose