Symmetrical vs. asymmetrical building layout

  Quoted Text Here  
I was trying to go through my mental visual library to see whetehr I could find any pattern as to whetehr symmetrical forts tended to be built after teh use of guns, and esp. cannon, became more prevalent. From what I can pictorially remember about castles, most were not symmetrical, because the structures erected inside the walls were functional, and different functions called for different sizes and shapes.
Recalling things such as forts overlooking rivers (such as Fort Ticonderoga and so on), the parts that seem to be symmetrical are main designed so as to maximize covereage of the threatened area. Unless the surrounding landscape is itself symmetrical, I don't think there would be any defensive advantage to making a fort symmetrical - areas that are more likely to be attacked would be given greater coverage/defensive capability, which is why adversaries are always looking for teh equivalent of "the sewer pipe" so to speak - the back door, the secret entrance (built for threatened kings to flee from), and so on.
I also don't recall that Japanese buildings, incluidng forts, are symmetrical - even if the exterior seems to be so (a square, for example), the interiors would not be.
The interior layout of a building can't be deduced from the exterior. WHat looks symmetrical on the outside might be a rabbit-warren on the inside with secret passageways and bubbies, and something that looks asymmetrical on the outside might have symmetrical elements inside or be wide open. That's why opponents always try to have someone "on the inside" as the saying goes.
So, I don't think there is a real correleation between something being a fort or other defensive structure, and whetehr it'd be more likely to be symmetrical, or asymmetrical.
I *can* tell you that, if you're not familiar with the interior of the Pentagon, it's easy to get completely lost, because most of it looks (or at least looked in 1999) pretty much the same inside ;)