Wild West forts

[Lone Cat]

Why do the forts (and... to some extent.. white american settlements) that located in the western part of the USA and built during 1860s-1900s are all built much like medieval castles?

OK those forts are all made of wood (either planks, or logs.. commonly a combination of both) and (a bit of) earthworks. all are having (light) cannons mounted on its towers (or.... should we call it.. Blockhouse?) and its keep. usually at its top floors.... the fort itself has a palisade wall and usually built in rectangular plan. the palisade sometimes has a catwalk near its top... inside the wall there are facility buildings...
- Barracks/living quarters
- Storage
- Canteen
- Medical station
- Chapel (assume that the garrisons are caucasoids. majority of them are Christians but do the natives learn to build such fortifications?)
- Dungeon (or Stockade.. for modern terms)
- Latrines
all of which are built by the walls. sometimes those buildings are the part of the main walls ITSELF!... the arrangements of those buildings finally formed a court structure. which the parade ground is at its center....

^ An actual Fort Utah. built by Mormons

^ Timpo playset. this is the typical Wild West fort.

^ Wild West style fort.. now with its interior..

Those examples showed that those forts are built MUCH LIKE MEDIEVAL CASTLES. an enclosed area with a high curtain walls. and tall towers on each corner. this design has a LIMITED battle worthyness. judging by the late 19th century warfare... y'a know. in 15th century. cannons already made a medieval castles and its defensive systems obsolette. while it gave birth to a spiky designs known as Star Fort... which widely used in Europe and America (but saw limited use in Asia).. a key feature of star fort was a very thick wall and its pointy bastions. the wall usually made of a combination of earthworks and either masonry or wood. this is a very effective design that still used during American civil war (except that rifled cannons can pierce a very thick brick walls. thus making many forts built at that time to be a bit like trenchworks. but many of them still looks like star fort but built of woods and sandbags instead of bricks)... in the wild west however. forts are built like castles and without any dirt fillings on its palisade walls.
- Why do wild west forts built like Castles instead of Star Forts? was that because of the low threats of artillery attacks? (Natives and Bandits have a very limited access to artillery. but it doesn't mean they don't use explosives. TNT and Dynamite are hollywood romanticization of Wild west mythios.. but what if the attackers were a 'lost brigade' of the Civil War and still possesses numerous cannons and its ammo?)
- And why aren't those forts have any earthworks on its palisade walls?
- possible hostile nations that may attack the USA from the west. if there's any. why are those forts still built in a very obsolette designs (ok... obsolette judged by its battleworthyness)

 

[Cutlass]

Because it worked?

You design fortifications with a couple of things in mind. 1) What kind of a threat are you facing? 2) What are your resources to build with?

Star forts are major construction projects. On a frontier with low population, they would have a hard time even getting the labor to build one. Much less the money to do so. The US did build star forts in the 19th century. But those were to defend places on the East Coast against attacks from the sea. In the West, what were your threats? After the annexation of the Southwest from Mexico, what was the real risk of a major war with the nation of Mexico? And where is your key defensive needs in the event of one?

Barring a major incursion by the Mexican Army, what was the threat you were defending against? Indians and bandits. Neither of which was really known to have a lot of cannon on hand.

So, you had limited resources to build small and inexpensive forts against a threat that could not really expect to be able to reduce stockade walls. Blockhouses and medieval type forts were both sufficient to the need, and within the resources available.

 

[Lone Cat]

1. let's compare the time to build a castle and the time to build a star fort. given that the materials are timber and stones of the west.
2. I'm not sure if Americans of that time has any concepts of building administration buildings and governor's living space inside a fortified area like medieval citadels and castles. Is there any examples of 'Wild West Castles' that built not only as a defensive systems. but also a living space for 'ruling caste'
3. any examples of wild west fort with a railroad running through it please
4. while the concepts of building walls and towers around settlement (village/town/city) is archaic ones. why are wild west communities are also called forts? aren't the concepts of city walls long forgotten by americans to the point that they called any structures with an enclosed curtain wall and high tower forts. regardless who are 'living' there, and how do they live?

 

[Dreadnought]

Well, to compare Wild West forts to castles is a big stretch.

Firstly, these forts weren't built to withstand sieges, simply because the Natives had no opportunity to use artillery or even massed assaults (except for very rare situations). The Army had no need to prepare for any sort of large scale battle, and instead needed to construct something that could at least keep the Natives out for long enough, which leads to the second point.

Secondly, these forts typically were not garrisoned by a large detachment of Army soldiers. Their simple purpose was to secure an area and give a location that soldiers and civilians could retreat to if necessary. Typically, regiments of cavalry would move from fort to fort as reinforcements in hot zones, but for the vast majority of a garrison's duty, there was no real threat from the Natives in terms of a large assault.

Thirdly, even if the Natives attacked a fort, there was no real way for them to breach it. Take the Battle of Fort Ridgely for example; even a fort as ill-prepared as Ridgely managed to hold out against several hundred natives while taking few casualties.

 

[Lone Cat]

1. Weren't natives have access to fire arrow and firearms?

i've heard that many of them learned how to use guns

2. so you say that the fort can houses 100 men or more.. right? instead of thousands.

 

[Will9]

1. Weren't natives have access to fire arrow and firearms?

i've heard that many of them learned how to use guns

First of all, flaming arrows aren't as simple as just lighting the end of an arrow on fire and shooting it. It requires covering the end in cloth and oil. Also, I don't know of any account of Native Americans ever using flaming arrows.

Second, by the late 1800s, firearms were the primary Native American weapon, but guns won't do much damage to these outposts.

Third, these 'forts' would be better described as 'outposts.'

 

[Joecoolyo]

1. Weren't natives have access to fire arrow and firearms?

i've heard that many of them learned how to use guns

As Will said, bullets would do very little damage against a building like this. And since the natives didn't have access to artillery, they had no real way of breaching the walls.

Hence, why (along with the other reasons stated above) these forts were built all over the place.

 

[Blue Emu]

Because of its shape, a star-fort would require a signifigantly larger garrison than a simple box-shaped fort, in order to defend the perimeter at a reasonable tactical density. More men require more supply. Manpower and supply were two of the main limiting factors on the american frontier.

 

[Bugfatty300]

IMO the term "wild west" should never be used unless you´re talking about Hollywood or amusement parks.

Cannons were so rare in the early American frontier that people literally fought wars over them. Having just one little mountain gun often meant the difference between victory and annihilation for a white settlement. The Native Americans had no means to purchase artillery or even supply one and considering that they relied on their mobility for their very survival I don´t think they´d even want artillery to begin with. Likewise black powder was also a precious commodity so I don´t think either natives or settlers had piles and piles of it lying around to build bombs and mines that could blow up a fort.

4. while the concepts of building walls and towers around settlement (village/town/city) is archaic ones. why are wild west communities are also called forts? aren't the concepts of city walls long forgotten by americans to the point that they called any structures with an enclosed curtain wall and high tower forts. regardless who are 'living' there, and how do they live?

The entire settlement wouldn´t be within the fort. There would just be a fortified section which everyone would run to incase of an attack. When the army started building forts they became points of trade and supply and thus a town would grow up around them and naturally the town would be named after the fort.

 

[NovaKart]

I know this will sound incredibly immature but at first I read this as wild west farts.

 

[say1988]

. so you say that the fort can houses 100 men or more.. right? instead of thousands.

We aren't talking about Europe or even the East coast, 100 trained soldiers was a significant force in the Western territories. These are areas where outside of the fort, the white population was largely limited to some farmers, mining towns, and their associated market towns (the last two of which were often in the immediate vicinity of the fort. And while it wouldn't house that many troops, they could usually call upon cavalry to come from nearby outposts or larger bases to reinforce defenses in the face of impending attacks or to outflank the enemy.
To top it off, these garrisons often had a cannon or two and possibly gattling guns. Which would be enormous force multipliers.

You would also see similar defensive structures were in use in Africa by Europeans. Rifles, cannons, and, later, machine guns against people with just rifles really only needs a basic obstacle not advanced fortifications.

 

[Lord Baal]

We aren't talking about Europe or even the East coast, 100 trained soldiers was a significant force in the Western territories. These are areas where outside of the fort, the white population was largely limited to some farmers, mining towns, and their associated market towns (the last two of which were often in the immediate vicinity of the fort. And while it wouldn't house that many troops, they could usually call upon cavalry to come from nearby outposts or larger bases to reinforce defenses in the face of impending attacks or to outflank the enemy.
To top it off, these garrisons often had a cannon or two and possibly gattling guns. Which would be enormous force multipliers.

You would also see similar defensive structures were in use in Africa by Europeans. Rifles, cannons, and, later, machine guns against people with just rifles really only needs a basic obstacle not advanced fortifications.

Exactly. The Boers used similar structures during their wars with the Nguni and Zulu. This was largely successful despite the Boers' own lack of machine guns or artillery.

 

[Masada]

And for additional luls the Zulu used the same things back and often forced the Boers to stop long enough to bring up artillery to reduce the whatevertheycalledthem

EDIT: Kraal.

 

[Lord Baal]

And for even more lulz, when the British invaded Zululand the Boers specifically told them to construct kraals so that the Zulus wouldn't wipe them out. They didn't. End result: Isandhlwana.

 

[Lone Cat]

1. Does Boers also build the Kraal during their two wars against Brits?
2. What's the regular calibre for cannons being manned on those forts. 2 pounds, 4 pounds, 6 pounds, and the biggest cannon size the fort has been manned?

 

[say1988]

1. Does Boers also build the Kraal during their two wars against Brits?

As far as I am aware the kraal were initially fortified farmyards rather than purpose built military structures (the term has the same origins as corral). These definitely would have been used as pre-existing defensive positions.
These evolved to be used militarily, and similar fortifications were likely used during the Boer Wars, as while not as useful in a full battlw, they would have been effective in the rear area as protection against raiders unlikely to have artillery.

2. What's the regular calibre for cannons being manned on those forts. 2 pounds, 4 pounds, 6 pounds, and the biggest cannon size the fort has been manned?

There was no standardization. Some had no guns, others had a small cannon, often they just used whatever guns a unit stationer there had or any small piece the locals/company would acquire.
Most of these forts had nothing to do with the military, but were fortified trading posts or centres of towns. Some, like the famous Fort Laramie, were civiliam constructions later purchased or occupied by the Army. But even civilians could hold out there until the attackers gave up or the cavalry came galloping to their rescue.

 

[Masada]

1. Does Boers also build the Kraal during their two wars against Brits?

No, not as such. The British however used the same basic idea and ended up with blockhouses. It worked just as well against the Boers as it did against the Zulu. Both of whom lacked big guns.

Spoiler :

 

[Lord Baal]

The Boers didn't use kraals against the British because the British had big guns. Kraals are hugely advantageous when your enemy doesn't have artillery but are next to useless when they do. Since the British had big guns and the Boers didn't, the British stole the idea of the kraal but used superior building materials, resulting in the blockhouses Masada mentioned above. The Boers were reduced to irregular warfare against the British, unable to move against fixed British positions - the Boer seige of Ladysmith is now considered a mistake - while their own fixed positions were vulnerable to the far superior British munitions.

 

[Lone Cat]

Does the steel sheet fixed onto blockhouse balcony sufficient against small arms fire or does it still required sandbag walls applied next to it?

 

[Masada]

It should be proof against firearms. Shrapnel on the other hand? Dunno. Whatever the case, it's probably more for observation than actual fighting behind. The masonry positions would be on the whole much better.