Frederick Engels. Bridge, Military
The art of constructing temporary bridges for the passage, by troops, of large rivers and narrow arms of the sea, was well known to the ancients, whose works in this respect are sometimes of surprising magnitude. Darius passed the Bosporus and Danube, and Xerxes the Hellespont, by bridges of boats, the description of which we find in Herodotus.(1) The army of Xerxes constructed 2 bridges across the Dardanelles, the first of 360 vessels, anchored head and stern alongside each other, their keels in the direction of the current, the vessels connected with each other by strong cables, over which planks were laid, fastened by a rail on either side, and covered in by a bed of earth. The 2d bridge had 314 vessels, and was similarly constructed. According to Arrian, Alexander had a regular pontoon-train of light boats attached to his army.(2) The Romans had wicker-work vessels, covered with the skins of animals, destined to support the timber platform of a bridge; these formed a part of the train of their armies until the end of the empire. They, however, also knew how to construct a more solid kind of military bridge, whenever a rapid river had to be crossed; witness the famous bridges on piles, on which Caesar passed the Rhine.[208]
During the middle ages we find no notice of bridge equipages, but during the 30 years' war[209] the various armies engaged carried materials with them to form bridges across the large rivers of Germany. The boats used were very heavy, and generally made of oak. The platform of the bridge was laid on trestles standing in the bottoms of these boats. The Dutch first adopted a smaller kind of vessel, flat-bottomed, with nearly vertical sides, pointed head and stern, and both ends projecting, in an inclined plane, above the surface of the water. They consisted of a framework of wood, covered with sheets of tin, and were called pontoons. The French, too, according to Folard,(3) claim the invention of pontoons made of copper, and are said to have had, about 1672, a complete pontoon train. By the beginning of the 18th century all European armies had provided themselves with this kind of vessels, mostly wooden frames, covered in with tin, copper, leather, or tarred canvas. The latter material was used by the Russians. The boats were small, and had to be placed close together, with not more than 4 or 5 feet clear space between them, if the bridge was to have any buoyancy; the current of the water was thereby greatly obstructed, the safety of the bridge endangered, and a chance given to the enemy to destroy it by sending floating bodies against it.
The pontoons now employed by the continental armies of Europe are of a larger kind, but similar in principle to those 100 years ago. The French have used, since 1829, a flat-bottomed vessel with nearly vertical sides, diminishing in breadth toward the stem, and also, but a little less, toward the stern; the 2 ends rise above the gunwales and are curved like those of a canoe. The dimensions are: length, 31 ft.; breadth, at top, 5 ft. 7 in.; at bottom, 4 ft. 4 in. The framework is of oak, covered with fir planking. Every pontoon weighs 1,658 lbs. and has a buoyancy (weight of cargo which would sink the vessel to the top of the gunwales) of 18,675 lbs. When formed into a bridge, they are placed at intervals of 14 ft. clear space from gunwale to gunwale, and the road of the bridge is 11 ft. wide. For the advanced guard of an army a smaller kind of pontoon is used, for bridging over rivers of less importance. The Austrian pontoons are similar to the larger French pontoon, but divided transversely in the middle, for more convenient carriage, and put together in the water. Two vessels placed close alongside each other, and connected by short timbers, a longitudinal timber supporting the balks of the platform, constitute a floating pier of a bridge. These pontoons, invented by Birago, were introduced in 1825. The Russians have a framework of wood for their pontoons, so constructed that the centre pieces, or thwarts, may be unshipped; over this frame is stretched sail-cloth, covered with tar or a solution of India rubber. They are in length, 21 ft. 9 in.; breadth, 4 ft. 11 in.; depth, 2 ft. 4 in., and weigh 718 lbs. each. Breadth of road of bridge, 10 ft.; distance from pontoon to pontoon, 8 ft. The Russians also have pontoons with a similar framework, covered over with leather. The Prussians are said to have been the first to divide their pontoons transversely into compartments, so as to prevent one leak from sinking them. Their pontoons are of wood and flat-bottomed. The span or clear distance between the pontoons, in their bridges, varies from 8 to 16 ft., according to circumstances. The Dutch, since 1832, and the Piedmontese, have pontoon trains similar to those in the Austrian service. The Belgian pontoon has a pointed head, but is not contracted at the stern. In all continental armies small boats to carry out the anchors accompany the pontoon train.
The British and the U.S. armies have entirely abandoned the use of boats for the formation of their pontoon trains, and adopted hollow cylinders of light material, closed on all sides, to support their bridges. In England the cylindrical pontoons, with conical, hemispherical or paraboloidal ends, as constructed in 1828 by Col. Blanchard, were adopted in 1836 to the exclusion of all other kinds. The larger British pontoon is 24[1]/» ft. long and 2 ft. 8 in. in diameter. It is formed of sheet tin, framed round a series of wheels constructed of tin, having hollow cylinders of tin for their spokes; a larger tin cylinder, l[3]/[4] in. in diameter, forms their common axis, and runs through the entire length of the pontoon.
Experiments have been made in the United States with India rubber cylindrical pontoons. In 1836 Capt. (afterward Col.) Lane constructed bridges over a deep and rapid river in Alabama with such pontoons, and in 1839 Mr. Armstrong submitted similar floats, 18 ft. long, 18 in. in diameter when inflated, and weighing 39 lbs. each, 3 to form 1 link of the bridge. Pontoons of inflated India rubber were, in 1846, introduced in the U.S. army, and used in the war against Mexico.[210] They are very easily carried, from their lightness and the small space they take up when folded; but, beside being liable to be damaged and rendered useless by friction on gravel, &c, they partake the common faults of all cylindrical pontoons. These are, that when once sunk in the water to V2 of their depth, their immersion becomes greater and greater with every equal addition of load, the reverse of what should be; their ends, moreover, easily catch and lodge floating matter; and finally, 2 of them must be joined to a raft by a platform before they can be moved in the water, whereas boat pontoons are as capable of independent motion in the water as common boats, and may serve for rowing rapidly across the river a detachment of troops. To compare the buoyant power of the cylindrical pontoon with that of the boat pontoon, the following may suffice: The French pontoon supports about 20 ft. of bridge, and has a buoyancy (the weight of the superstructure deducted) of more than 150 cwt. A British raft of 2 pontoons, supporting about the same length of bridge, has a buoyancy, superstructure deducted, of only 77 cwt., Va °f which is a safe load.
A pontoon train contains, beside the pontoons, the oars, boat-hooks, anchors, cables, &c, necessary to move them about in the water, and to fix them in their position, and the balks and planks (chesses) to form the platform of the bridge. With boat pontoons, every pontoon is generally secured in its place, and then the balks and chesses stretched across; with cylindrical pontoons, 2 are connected to a raft, which is anchored at the proper distance from the end of the bridge, and connected with it by balks and chesses. Where circumstances admit of it, whole links, consisting of 3, 4, or 5 pontoons bridged over, are constructed in sheltered situations above the site fixed on for the bridge, and floated down successively into their positions. In some cases, with very experienced pontoniers, the whole bridge has been constructed on one bank of the river and swung round by the current when the passage was attempted. This was done by Napoleon when crossing the Danube, the day before the battle of Wagram.[211] The whole of this campaign is highly instructive with regard to the passing of large rivers in the face of the enemy by military bridges.
Pontoon trains are, however, not always at hand, and the military engineer must be prepared to bridge over a river, in case of need, without them. For this purpose a variety of materials and modes of construction are employed. The larger kind of boats generally found on navigable rivers are made use of for bridges of boats. If no boats are to be found, and the depth or configuration of bottom of the river renders the use of floating supports necessary, rafts of timber, floats of casks, and other buoyant bodies may be used. If the river is shallow, and has a hard and tolerably level bottom, standing supports are constructed, consisting either of piles, which form the most durable and the safest kind of bridge, but require a great deal of time and labor, or of trestles, which may be easily and quickly constructed. Sometimes wagons loaded with fascines, &c, and sunk in the deeper places of the river, will form convenient supports for the platform of a bridge. Inundations, marshes, &c, are bridged over by means of gabions. For narrow rivers and ravines, where infantry only have to pass, various kinds of suspension bridges are adopted; they are generally suspended by strong cables.
The construction of a military bridge under the actual fire of the enemy is now a matter of but rare occurrence; yet the possibility of resistance must always be provided for. On this account the bridge is generally constructed in a reentering bend of the river, so that the artillery placed right and left sweeps the ground on the opposite bank close to where the bridge is to land, and thus protects its construction. The concave bank, moreover, is generally higher than the convex one, and thus, in most cases, the advantage of command is added to that of a cross fire. Infantry are rowed across in boats or pontoons, and established immediately in front of the bridge. A floating bridge may be constructed to carry some cavalry and a few light guns across. The division of the river into several branches by islands, or a spot immediately below the junction of some smaller river, also offers advantages. In the latter, and sometimes in the former case, the several links of the bridge may be composed in sheltered water, and then floated down. The attacking party, having commonly to choose between many favorable points on a long line of river, may easily mislead his opponent by false attacks, and then effect the real passage at a distant point; and the danger of scattering the defending forces over that long line is so great, that it is nowadays preferred to keep them concentrated at some distance from the river, and march them in a body against the real point of passage as soon as it has once been ascertained, and before the enemy can have brought over all his army. It is from these causes that in none of the wars since the French revolution has the construction of a bridge on any of the large rivers of Europe been seriously contested.
7-2315
Endnotes
[208] In 55 B.C., during Caesar's conquest of Gallia (Gaul) (58-51 B.C.), the Romans, pursuing the defeated Teutons, crossed the Middle Rhine and stayed on its right bank for eighteen days. This crossing, undertaken to demonstrate Rome's military power, is described by Caesar in the fourth book of his commentaries on the Gallic war.
[209] 2<*> See Note 142.
[1] In April 1857 Charles Dana, one of the founders of The New American Cyclopaedia, invited Marx to contribute to it. On Engels' advice, Marx agreed to write a number of articles, and Engels promised to help him with those on military and military-historical subjects. Subsequently Engels undertook most of these articles so that Marx could complete his economic research. Marx wrote primarily biographical essays on military figures and on politicians, for which Engels also helped him to elucidate the military aspect. Marx's and Engels' work together for the Cyclopaedia, like their joint reporting for the New-York Daily Tribune, is an example of the close collaboration between the founders of scientific communism. The New American Cyclopaedia was "a popular dictionary of general knowledge" prepared by a group of progressive bourgeois journalists and publishers on the New-York Daily Tribune editorial board and edited by Charles Dana and George Ripley. It was published in 16 volumes by D. Appleton and Company, New York, in 1858-63 and reprinted in 1868 and 1869. A number of prominent US and European scholars wrote for it. Despite the eclecticism typical of this and other bourgeois encyclopaedias, many articles in The New American Cyclopaedia reflected progressive democratic views. Marx and Engels wrote their articles from revolutionary-proletarian, materialist positions notwithstanding the editors' demand not to express their party point of'view. But because of this demand Marx limited the range of his subjects mainly to military problems and to the study of different countries, giving up the idea of writing essays on the history of German philosophy, the Napoleonic Code, Chartism, socialism and communism, which he thought it inadmissible to deal with even in a spirit of apparent neutrality. It may have been for this reason also that Marx did not contribute the article "Aesthetics" as originally planned. The articles in The New American Cyclopaedia were published anonymously, and only volumes II, V and XVI contained lists of the authors of major articles. Marx is also mentioned as the author of the articles "Army", "Artillery", "Bernadotte", "Bolivar", "Cavalry", "Fortification", "Infantry", and "Navy" (actually these articles were written by Engels, except for "Bernadotte" and "Bolivar"). Marx's and Engels' authorship of other articles has been established on the basis of the Marx-Engels correspondence, Charles Dana's letters to Marx, Marx's notebooks, where the dispatch of articles to New York was entered, and other material (conspectuses, extracts for articles, etc.). In all, the authorship of 81 articles has been established. Some of them may have been abridged by the Cyclopaedia's editors, who in some cases interfered with the text. Marx and Engels contributed to The New American Cyclopaedia from July 1857 to November 1860, and their articles (those known to us) were published in volumes I-V, VII, IX and XII. They were also included, unchanged, in the 1868-69 edition of the Cyclopaedia but were not reprinted any more during their authors' lifetime. A collection of them was not published until 1933 in the Soviet Union in: Marx and Engels, Works, First Russian Edition, Vol. XI, Pan II. The most complete publication of these articles was in volumes 14 (1959) and 44 (1977) of the Second Russian Edition of the Works of Marx and Engels. However, this publication left out some articles—"Austerlitz", "Augereau", and "Badajos", of which Engels was erroneously regarded as the author. When preparing the Russian edition, the editors established the true authorship of a number of articles wrongly attributed to Marx and Engels by some biblio-graphers. Thus the articles "Abd-el-Kader" and "Chartism" were written by William Humphrey, "Austerlitz" by Henry W. Herbert, "Epicurus" by Hermann Raster, "Socialism" by Parke Godwin, and "Hegel" by Henry Smith. The article "Aesthetics" could not have been by Marx either, for it conflicts with the views expressed by Marx on the subject in his works. In the present English edition, the articles by Marx and Engels from The New American Cyclopaedia are published on the basis of research carried out during the preparation of the Second Russian Edition of their Works. p. XXIX
[3] The defeat of the Austrian army at Abensberg was an episode in the five-day battle of Regensburg (from April 19 to 23) during the Austro-French war of 1809 (a war waged by France against the fifth European coalition: Austria, Britain, Portugal and Spain). It was followed by the Austrians' defeat at Landshut on April 21 and at Eckmühl on April 22, and their retreat from Regensburg on April 23 under pressure from French troops. Nevertheless, the Austrian army retained its fighting capacity and put up a stubborn resistance to the French advance on Vienna.
[4] Acre was captured by Richard Coeur de Lion in 1191 during the third cru-sade (1189-92). The crusades were military colonialist expeditions by the big West European feudal lords and Italian trading cities under the religious banner of recovering Jerusalem and other "Holy Lands" from the Mohammedans. Peasants also took part in the crusades, hoping thus to be freed from feudal oppression. History knows eight main crusades (1096-99, 1147-49, 1189-92, 1202-04, 1217-21, 1228-29, 1248-54 and 1270). Not only Mohammedan states in Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Tunisia but also the Christian Byzantine Empire were the objects of the crusaders' aggressive strivings. The crusaders' conquests in the Eastern Mediterranean were not lasting, and were recovered by the Mohammedans. The Knights of St. John (also Hospitallers)—members of a Catholic military order founded by the crusaders in Palestine early in the twelfth century. After the defeat at Acre in 1291 they transferred their seat to Cyprus, then, early in the fourteenth century, to Rhodes and in 1530 to Malta (from that time on it was also called the order of Malta); since the nineteenth century its seat has been in Rome.
[210] A reference to the war of 1846-48 between the United States and Mexico, as a result of which the USA seized almost half of Mexico, including Texas, Upper California and New Mexico.
[211] 2il See Note 72.