Assessing the Defensibility of Medieval Fortresses on the Mediterranean Coast: A Study of Algerian and Spanish Territories

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on the analysis of the defense strengths of the Mediterranean coast of southern Europe and North Africa. The authors have identified and geolocated the fortifications from archival sources from different periods to integrate them into the Geographic Information System (GIS), which allows for very precise georeferencing. In addition, the research relates to the natural landscape and defensive constraints, allowing them to infer the strategic value of the selected areas. It should also be noted that the analysis is enriched by the transnational perspective, between the Algerian and Spanish defenses. However, the study lacks important historiographical references of Spanish literature and the references of the graphic documentation of the archives must be completed with the document reference. In relation to the Spanish historiographical  literature, I recommend to read:  

Borrás, A. D. (1 ene. 1993). Los orígenes de la piratería islámica en Valencia: la ofensiva musulmana trecentista y la reacción cristiana. Valencia: Editorial CSIC – CSIC Press.

Fueyo, J. L. (2002). La red de torres para la defensa del litoral costero en la provincia de Alicante durante el siglo XVI: Una propuesta de evolución cronotipológica. Lisboa: Colibrí.

Furió, J. A. (2002). Castells, torres i fortificacions en la Ribera del Xúquer. Cullera: OBERTA.

García, L. A. (2003). Sistemas de defensa en Cullera: Castillo, murallas y torres. Valencia: Ayuntamiento de Cullera.

Maiques, J. V. (1992). Geografía y control del territori. El coneiximent i la defensa del litoral Valencià al segle XVI. Cuadernos de Geografía , 183-199.

Maiques, J. V. ( 2007). Las torres del litoral valenciano. Valencia: Consellería de Infraestructuras y Transporte. Molero, J. F. (2006). Las fortificaciones y la defensa de la

ciudad. Valencia: Uveg.

Muñoz, A. C. (1989). La fortificación de la monarquía de Felipe II. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Serie VII, Hª. del Arte. , 73-80.

Sánchez Gijón, A. Defensa de costas en el Reino de Valencia. Generalitat Valenciana. 1996.

Sanchis, A. (2005). Historia del Grau. Valencia: Carena Editor

 

AZUAR RUIZ, R.: Castellología Medieval Alicantina: Area Meridional, 1981, Alicante.

AZUAR RUIZ, R.: "Torre del Ressemblanch". Catálogo de Monumentos y Conjuntos de la Comunidad Valenciana 1, (Valencia), 1983, pp. 423-425. AZUAR RUIZ, R.: "Torre de Vaillós". Catálogo de Monumentos y Conjuntos de la Comunidad Valenciana 1, (Valencia), 1983, pp. 426-427. IDEM: "Villajoyosa". Catálogo de Monumentos y Conjuntos de la Comunidad Valenciana II, (Valencia), 1983, Pp. 854-857. 

AZUAR RUIZ, R.:"Edad Media. Islamización", Historia de la Ciudad de Alicante II. Islamización y Conquista feudal, (Alicante), 1990, Pp. 1-40,71-98, 177-185. AZUAR RUIZ, R.: Denia Islámica. Arqueología y poblamiento, 1991, Alicante. AZUAR RUIZ, R.: "Atalayas, almenaras y rábitas en la costa mediterránea de Al-Andalus". Al-Andalus y el Mediterráneo, (Barcelona), 1995, Pp. 67-75.  AZUAR, R.; NAVARRO, F.J.: Castillos de Alicante, 1995. León.

BANYULS, A.; BOIRA, J.V.; LLUESMA, J.A.: Arquitectura i control del territorio La defensa del litoral de la marina alta al segle XVI. 1996, Instituto de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert, Alicante.

BEVIA, M.: V ARELA, S.,: Alicante: Ciudad y Arquitectura. 1994, Alicante. BOIRA, J.V.: "Geografia i control del territorio El coneixement i la defensa de litoral valencia al segle XVI: l'informe de l'enginyer Joan Baptista Antonelli". Cuadernos de Geografía 52, (Valencia), 1992, Pp. 183-199.

BOIRA, J.V.: "Viles, castells i torres de guaita al litoral valencia del segle XVI. Tres cartes del virrei Vespasia Gonzaga Colonna". Afers 19 (Valencia), 1994, Pp. 555-574.

COOPER, E.: The Sentinels of Aragón. Old Coastal defence towers of Catalonia and Valencia. 1994, Londres.

DE LOS REYES CASTAÑEDA, J.L., RUBIO PRATS, M.: "Estudio arqueológico de la Torres Costa en la provincia de Granada". II C.A..M.E., (Madrid), 1987, pp. 240-249.

DIAZ BORRAs, A.: Los orígenes de la piratería islámica en Valencia. La ofensiva musulmana trecentista y la reacción cristiana. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1993, Barcelona

JOVER MAESTRE, F.J.: MENENDEZ FUEYO, J.L.: "Torres del siglo XVI en la provincia de Alicante: Estado de la cuestión". Castells 2, Revista de la Sección Provincial de la Asociación Española de Amigos de los Castillos, (Alicante). 1992, Pp. 13-18.

JOVER MAESTRE, F.J.: "Estudi arqueolbgic de les torres de l'horta d'Alacant: Un exemple de defensa en una explotació agricola". Butlletí de la Associació d'Arqueologia de Castelló "Llansol de Romaní" 13. (Castelló), 1993, Pp. 35-49. JOVER MAESTRE, F.J.: "Torres de Costa y Huerta en el siglo XVI: El ejemplo de la ciudad de Alicante", Actas del Congreso de Arqueología Medieval Española. (Alicante), 1994, 505-515.

JOVER MAESTRE, F.J.: "Contribución al estudio de las torres del siglo XVI en la provincia de Alicante", III Jornadas sobre Fortificaciones y Castillos. Castalla 1992. 

JOVER MAESTRE, F.J.: "Del Burj islámico a la Turris renacentista en la provincia de Alicante: Diagnosis de un paciente terminal". Arqueologia i Patrimoni 1, Colegio de Doctores y Licenciados en Filosofia y Letras y en Ciencias, 1997, (Valencia), pp. 13-29.

JOVER MAESTRE, F.J.: "Hacia una tipología de las torres de la Huerta de Alicante en el siglo XVI", I Congreso Nacional de Castellología Ibérica, Aguilar de Campoo 1994, (Madrid), 385-405.

JOVER MAESTRE, F.J.: "Las torres de costa de la bahía de Alicante: Una visión arqueológica". Castells 4, (Alicante), 1994, Pp. 15-20. 

MENÉNDEZ FUEYO, J.L.: Estudio arqueológico de las torres de época bajomedieval y postmedieval de la provincia de Alicante, Instituto de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert, Ayudas a la Investigación. Original Mecanoescrito, 1995. MENÉNDEZ FUEYO, J.L.: "Fortificación pre-abaluartada de la costa de Alicante: la torre Aquiló (Villajoyosa, Alicante)". Castells n° 6, Revista de la Sección Provincial de la Asociación Española de Amigos de los Castillos. (Alicante), 1996, Pp. 31-38.

MENÉNDEZ FUEYO, J.L.: Estudio arqueológico de las torres almenaras para la defensa costera en la provincia de Alicante. Tesis de Licenciatura, original mecanoescrito, (Alicante), 1996, 3 Tomos.

MENÉNDEZ FUEYO, J.L.: Centinelas de la costa. Torres de defensa y de la huerta de Alicante, Diputación Provincial de Alicante, 1997, Alicante.

MENÉNDEZ FUEYO, J.L.: "Las torres de la huerta de Elche: Algunos ejemplos de defensa y refugio de las zonas agrícolas en el siglo XVI", en SEGURA HERRERO, G.; SIMÓN GARCÍA, J.L. (coord.): Castillos y torres en el Vinalopó, 2001, pp. 181-189. 

MENÉNDEZ FUEYO, J.L.: "Torres almenaras, de prestigio y de refugio en la provincia de Alicante (ss. XVIXVII): Una realidad castellológica por descubrir". Ayudas a la Investigación 1988-1993, (Alicante), 1996. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed manuscript presents the development of the defensive power of fortresses in the Mediterranean region in the period from the 8th to the 17th century using the example of 6 selected fortresses. The assessment of visibility and defensiveness index is based on the approach published 14 years ago in [8]. In the case of the fortification system, an analysis of the mutual visibility of the fortifications is also given. The analysis of the selected fortresses has shown that the defensiveness index increases over time with the increase in visibility and the approach of the fortresses to the sea coast.

The manuscript is an interesting study, but it has more of a historical than a geographical aspect. More than half of the references mentioned are works published in the field of archeology, and the application of GIS is at the level of visibility analysis based on DEM data. However, since there is an application of GIS, the work could be relevant to the journal IJGI.

In any case, there are some essential and technical things that should be improved so that the manuscript reaches the appropriate quality.

First, the title of section 3.1 ("Identification of Line-of-Sight Points from Archival Documents") and the designation of the corresponding phase in the methodology are inadequate. Archive documents are not a prerequisite for the identification of "Line-of-Sight Points", but geolocations recognized on georeferenced aerial photographs or measured on site. It only becomes clear later in the article that the archive documents are used to select the fortifications to be examined and to assess their appearance and construction. The references to these archive documents should also be included here. It also needs to be explained in more detail how visibility was determined, as the assessment was probably not based on a single point, but took into account the area covered by the fortification and the arrangement of the observation posts.

The authors state that they have carefully selected the fortifications so that each represents its era. But how is the reader to know that these are truly representative examples? With the exception of Kalaa of Beni-Abbes, the remaining fortresses fit perfectly with the authors' assertion that the elevation, visibility and defensiveness index increases as time progresses. Only one fortress was selected for the first three periods (8th-10th, 11th-12th and 13th-15th centuries), but three for the 15th-17th century period. For a more reliable statement, it is necessary to determine the parameters for several fortresses from the same period. To do this, it is of course necessary to collect a large amount of data from archive documents. At least to estimate the height of the walls. Everything else can be calculated easily and quickly using already known GIS tools. Considering that the authors stated that these were "carefully selected" sites, this suggests that there is still a broader data base. The evaluation of further sites would certainly substantiate or refute the claim in this paper. At the very least, it should be explained how the sites were selected.

The evaluation of the defense strength was carried out on the basis of the methodology published in the publication [8]. However, it was applied to other fortifications. An analysis of the mutual visibility of fortifications was added, but no attempt was made to introduce some new measures that take into account this parameter as well as the grouping of fortifications in the assessment of their defensive strength. Therefore, the contribution of this manuscript is relatively small.

A theoretical assessment of defensive strength could then be compared with how long a particular fortification was in use, whether and how often it was attacked and how effectively it defended itself against such attacks. This represents a considerable effort in the collection and analysis of archival documents, but certainly demonstrates the relevance of the proposed models in determining the effectiveness of defenses.

The source of the DEM data should be indicated. On page 5 it says "we show a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) at an altitude of 30 meters", which is an obvious mistake, because it is actually about resolution. However, the data used (there is not enough data, but from the claim that it is "derived from NASA data", one can infer that it is an SRTM DEM with a resolution of 1 arc second) is defined in WGS84, so the authors have made a reprojection in UTM with a resolution of 30 meters. The accuracy of the data as well as possible changes in the terrain, especially in urban areas, in relation to the period in which the fortifications were built should be discussed.

Table 1 should include descriptions of the quantities listed in it, or this can be explained in the surrounding text. For example, what are: Model, OffsetA and Elevation?

​Figure 7 does not show the same area on the left and right, and it is difficult to draw any conclusions from the picture, except that the visibility is very low. Perhaps it would be better to combine images 6 and 7 into one image showing the same area, but the shading would be based on different parameters (as is the case now, based on: height, elevation and visibility index). The text claims: "Figure 6 and figure 7 show the relationship between elevation, visibility and defensibility." Elevation and visibility are shown, but defensibility is not shown in the images.

Figure 11 does not have an appropriate caption.

Why does figure 14 have a different color tone than the previous ones? That is, why were no colors used to encode the height?

The display for each of the fortresses should be standardized (size of area, type of shading, whether the satellite image is visible (which does not really make sense considering that medieval fortresses are displayed), etc.). The legends on most of the images are not readable at all.

At the end of the conclusion there is a sentence that has nothing to do with the work, but belongs to the template. Some sentences begin with a lower-case letter. These are all mistakes that were made in haste and that you can easily recognize and correct if you read the text carefully.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In part, the arguments made in this paper can be seen as tautological. In the introductory sections of the paper, the authors make many assumptions and elisions that define their presumptions about what the security purposes of these buildings were at the time of building and the reasons for particualr  architectural features. Then, the GIS analysis is limited to using thoise assumptions to interpret and 'discover' the security  features of the location and architecture.

There are internal contradictions such as defining the focus as being 8th to 15th centuries and then referring to developments in the 15-17th centuries.

Much of the design reasoning for the detail of fortresses comes from the economic, historic, religious and socio-political considerations rather than defensive architecture theories.

This key to understanding why the fortresses were built they were and located where they were has been substantially overlooked in the paper  - instead the authors have reduced the reasoning to that of security and architectural theory.

An example, much of the earlier history of this area was traders from different tribal, cultural and national groups trading different products.  The fortresses came later and supported some groups rather than others.

A key part of the trade was the movement  of large populations of slaves, who had to be protected under Islamic law (at least until sold to Christians and others). This design  factor of the castles as 'slave dormitories' and the idea of large numbers of slaves traveling on foot across the Maghreb changes in several ways the understanding of the architectural structures of the fortresses, as does the idea of the fortresses as post-facto after the establishment of trading routes without fortresses. In many ways this echoes the different architectural reasoning of the establishment of chaitana and caravanserai in middle asia. Again different from a purely defensive architecture perspective as simplified into the GIS analyses.

The underlying problem for the reasoning in the paper is that it has been undertaken almost purely from an architectural,  security and simplified history  perspective when the reasoning also requires consideration of a much deeper historical, sociological and economic understanding and critical thinking relating to the design factors that shaped the positioning and design of the fortresses.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of English in this paper is both professional and problematic.

There are multiple problems with the English language in the paper and they mainly originate in problematic thinking and reasoning, category errors and the misuse of terms and concepts. Additionally, the paper is too wordy. The same ideas can be helpfully and more precisely described with around 1/3 less words. Doing this would likely also help with avoiding the misuse of words.

In many places, claims are made in the paper without proof or reference to proof.

There is some duplication where the same ideas are described twice

I recommend a thorough copy editing by someone a doctoral level and above in sociology or political history

Author Response

Please see the attachement. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been considerably revised and improved in the current version. The text is more consistent and the illustrations are more uniform. The changes in the manuscript have led to some errors that should be corrected before the final version is published. I will list the errors exhaustively and according to the ordinal numbers of the lines in which they are found. The most critical are as follows: remove every occurrence of SRTM (because it is obviously ASTER DEM), change the type of referencing to [31], and delete OFFSETB (because it does not appear anywhere in the manuscript except at first mention and without explaining the meaning, i.e. in distinction to OFFSETA).

100 [?] - Reference error.

121 - Reference [31] is a collection of articles for which Mihailo St. Popović is one of the editors. The way it is stated in the text seems to be the work of M. Popović. Whether it is necessary to refer to some sections of this book (because it has more than 400 pages), or whether it is necessary to refer to the importance of the entire edition, must be stated differently in the text.

297 "ARC-GIS" -> ArcGIS - Standardize the way ArcGIS is printed in the text.

305 "OFFESTA and OFFESTB" - Explain what OFFSETA is and what OFFSETB is. Actually, omit OFFSETB as it is not mentioned anywhere else.

320 After mentioning the work of Martindale and Supernant, it is necessary to add the reference [16].

323 "ARC-GIS" -> ArcGIS

422 "COPHIAM [? ] [35]." - Reference error.

427 The sentence describing Figure 7 should be changed to indicate that this is an area discussed in the manuscript, e.g. "Figure 7 shows a digital elevation model (DEM) of the area under consideration with a resolution of 30 meters."

428-429 There is a serious inconsistency in lines 428 and 429! Obviously the authors are not aware of the difference between SRTM and ASTER DEM. Surely that should be clearly defined. In view of the fact that the version of the data used (ASTER GDEM V.2) is given, ASTER GDEM should be specified wherever SRTM appears. The reference (source) for this data should also be specified.

441 "ARC-GIS" -> ArcGIS

460 "surface units" - What is that? Meters are regularly listed in the table. Secondly, OFFSETA is mentioned, and in the table it appears as OffsetA (m). Unify the name of this variable.

465 The word "modal" is used for model, which is not quite correct. "Modal" pertains to mode or manner, often used in grammar to denote auxiliary verbs expressing necessity or possibility, while "model" refers to a representation or an example to follow.

As for the size of the text on the images (legend, etc.), the font should be enlarged so that the text is legible when the article is printed. There used to be a limit on text size on images in the style guides (usually 6pt or 7pt) precisely because the articles were printed. This may be less relevant now, but it definitely affects the visual experience. The type of labeling sub-images and the size of these labels should be consistent. For example, in Fig. 1 there is a larger font at the top left, while in Fig. 2 there is an extremely small font below the images in brackets. In Fig. 12, the markings are in bold. Some images have sub-image markings followed by captions. These are probably technical details, but they certainly affect the overall impression of the article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is generally good, with a few corrections recommended in the Comments and Suggestions for Authors section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an impressive paper and the best response to reviewer comments on first draft I've come across in many years.

Typo 'modal' should be 'model' in lines 465-467.

If the journal has a 'paper of the year', I would like to nominate this paper for it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf