Defunct Defenses: Antwerp’s Sixteenth-Century Fortifications [2006]

Peer Reviewed Inge Bertels and Pieter Martens Defunct Defenses:

Antwerp's Sixteenth-Century Fortifications

So it is quite fair to say that Antwerp is nowadays...one of the best fortified cities in Europe.

Lodovico Guicciardini (1567)*

The Antwerp citadel is one of the oldest...and yet one of the best ever built, for nowadays one can't help but admire the beauty of its construction.

Vauban (1702)2

The most vivid wish of us all is to see our old ramparts pulled down.

Antwerp municipality (1864)3

"Antwerp, Building Site of the Century": the official slogan appropriately describes the impressive series of building projects and infrastructure works that are currently transforming the Belgian city of Antwerp.4 Richard Rogers's new Law Court

building was recently inaugurated, and the City Museum by Neutelings Riedijk Architects will open in 2008. The Antwerp ring road was renovated in 2004-2005, and a high-speed rail

network, now under construction, will be operating by 2007. Among numerous projects for urban renewal, the most significant is perhaps the reconstruction of the city's main boule-

vard, the Leien. This road was built in the nineteenth century to replace the old city walls, in a way comparable to Vienna's famous Ringstrasse. At that time, Antwerp's renowned six-

teenth-century fortifications were razed to the ground, but their foundations survived in the city's subsoil (Figure 1). As of 2002, these vestiges are gradually being brought to light through the boulevard's reconstruction. Their preservation has been the subject of lively debate ever since.

With the first phase of the Leierís reconstruction near-

ing completion (southern section, 2002-2006), and the second phase of the works being planned (northern section, 2007-2012), the interim result can now be assessed. From the outset, the reconstruction project completely disregarded the existence of historical remnants underneath the boulevard's surface, ignoring the advice of preservationists. Once the work commenced, however, substantial remains of the old fortifications were discovered and archaeologists were consulted. Nevertheless, the urgency of the infrastructure

45

Future Anterior Volume III, Number 2 Winter 2006

This content downloaded from 128.101.90.59 on Wed, 20 May 2015 15:45:06 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

3. Aerial perspective of Antwerp from the east by Joris Hoefnagel, circa 1598. (Courtesy Antwerp City Archives)

either as an imposing icon of civic pride and wealth or as a useless symbol of oppression restraining urban development. Consequently, there have continuously been fierce struggles for their preservation or destruction.

Genesis of a réduit national

Antwerp was one of the first European cities to surround itself with a modern bastioned enceinte, which was further rein- forced by an illustrious citadel and a number of additional forts along the River Scheldt. It was arguably the best defend- ed city of the sixteenth century (Figure 3). This reputation was to be re-established in the nineteenth century, when Antwerp was transformed into Belgium's réduit national (national stronghold) and surrounded with new defenses that once more set an example for other major European cities.

In the sixteenth century, Antwerp was the capital of world

commerce, and was also one of Europe's most rapidly grow- ing cities. In half a century its population doubled from about

50,000 inhabitants (1500) to just over 100,000 (1560).6 The

port metropolis expressed its unparalleled prosperity through the construction of an impressive new circuit of defensive walls

(1542-1553). It was an extraordinary achievement: the Antwerp fortifications were one of the earliest realizations of a large- scale city wall built according to the new bastioned system. Designed by the Italian engineer Donato de' Boni Pellizuoli, the walls totaled nearly five kilometers in length and included nine bastions and five city gates, all constructed with brick and white stone. It was the largest bastioned work in Europe at the time.7 Its monumental gates, resembling classical triumphal arches, are prime examples of the direct import of Italian High

47


Renaissance architecture into Northern Europe. The new circuit also incorporated an urban expansion, the Nieuwstad. This "new town," comprised mainly commercial buildings on a geometric pattern of orthogonal streets and canals, was a highly praised example of urban planning.

The innovative enceinte gave the city a new image, as evidenced by written accounts of foreign visitors, who typi- cally opened their descriptions of Antwerp with a veneration of its fortifications.8 Likewise, printmakers began to place the new walls in the foreground of their panoramic views of the

city. Antwerp had traditionally been depicted from the west to

emphasize its opulent waterfront. Now, it was invariably por- trayed from the east, highlighting its fortifications.

This self-assured image was already significantly altered in 1567, when the start of the Dutch Revolt forced Spanish authorities to erect a citadel at Antwerp to control the rebel- lious city. A substantial portion of the newly-built city walls was demolished to incorporate the new fortress. Designed by the well-known Italian engineer Francesco Paciotto (1521- 1591), the pentagonal citadel had a geometric perfection that made it one of the most recognized buildings in sixteenth-

century Europe. Illustrated in numerous treatises, this icon of

military architecture would serve as a model for many other fortresses built in succeeding centuries.

The city of Antwerp itself, however, has always seen its famed fortress as a symbol of Spanish oppression. Ten years after its construction, as a consequence of the brutal sack of

Antwerp by Spanish troops (1576), the inhabitants eagerly destroyed it. But when Antwerp was recaptured by the Spanish army eight years later, the citadel was rebuilt. In the wake of

Belgium's independence, the Antwerp citadel suffered another

episode of destruction and reconstruction: in 1832, the French

army heavily bombarded the fortress for twenty days, expelling its Dutch garrison. Severely damaged, the citadel was nonethe- less restored to its original state by the Belgian government.9

By the middle of the nineteenth century, new technolo-

gies of warfare had rendered the sixteenth-century fortifications obsolete. In 1859, the government decided to transform

Antwerp into Belgium's réduit national- where in time of war the Belgian army and government could take refuge while

awaiting allied reinforcements- and an entirely new defense scheme was planned: a continuous Grand Enceinte with an outer string of eight detached forts.10 The completion of this new ensemble around 1865 made the old city walls utterly useless, and the Antwerp municipality reacquired ownership from the Belgian Army. If initially the idea to fully or partially preserve the historic enceinte was ever contemplated, its com-

plete dismantlement soon seemed inevitable.11

48


Zf.TheodoorVan Bever, urban expansion plan, 1863. (Courtesy Royal Army Museum Brussels)

Demolition: a Foregone Conclusion The Antwerp municipality and local entrepreneurs at once formed a unanimous front in favor of destruction: "The most vivid wish of us all is to see our old ramparts pulled down, and no effort will be spared to begin the demolition works as soon as possible."12

Regardless of its military function, the city of Antwerp was increasingly challenged by critical social problems, as

many other European cities in the middle of the nineteenth

century. Still confined within its sixteenth-century perimeter, the overcrowded city was plagued by frequent epidemics. This

demographic pressure was compounded by an economic need for urban expansion.

The uselessness of the demilitarized city walls was not the

only argument in favor of their demolition. Hygienic as well as economic motives dominated the debate. As Antwerp's sewer

system was not yet fully developed, the ditches surrounding the walls were still used as public dumping sites.13 Public secu-

rity was another major concern: fatal accidents were frequent, mostly when children fell into the ditches.

However, the most compelling argument was economics: the walls were hindering the city's thriving industry and trade, and literally blocked urban expansion. Every exit road passed through a historic gate with limited traffic capacity, and from the entrepreneurs' viewpoint the fortifications were simply a

49


nuisance and a waste of valuable potential building plots. In short, the demolition of the city walls and the construction of a ring road on their tracé were seen as the only solution to Antwerp's need for urban and economic development (Figure 4).

The possibility of urban expansion meant a promising new start for the city, its harbor, and traders: the ensuing economic growth would once again make Antwerp a leading port in Europe. The development was perceived as a resurgence of the prosperous sixteenth-century trading metropolis. In fact, the image of Antwerp's golden age as a metropolitan center of trade and art underwent an unprecedented revival at the time of the city's urban expansion, which was seen as a second

flowering. The municipality and entrepreneurs were not alone in reviving the ¡mage of sixteenth-century Antwerp. Artists, poets, historians, and museum curators celebrated the city's second cultural flowering through commemorations of Plantin and Metsys, of Rubens and Jordaens.14

In short, Antwerp's vaunted past was regarded as the historical foundation for the city's claim to a leading role in

nineteenth-century economic and cultural life. Contemporary practices were linked at will to historical events, as these could serve as an encouraging example or as a means of self-

justification. Politicians, for instance, were unequivocally identified with their historical predecessors. Because of their efforts in the city's development, the Antwerp mayor Jan Frans Loos (1848-1863), as well as Joseph Lefebvre, city counselor

responsible for public works (1872-1891), were both com-

pared by their biographers to Gilbert van Schoonbeke (1519- 1556), the well-known entrepreneur of Antwerp's Renaissance fortifications.

This attitude was not without contradiction. The same lib- eral municipality that desired to revive the city's economic and cultural golden age decided to destroy one of this age's most

outstanding achievements. And so the same years which saw artistic festivals glorifying Antwerp's sixteenth-century culture also witnessed the demolition of one of its most impressive architectural legacies. The municipality's attitude towards its own history was clearly biased: elements according with their

objectives were retained, while those interfering with its enter-

prising spirit were ignored. In reaction to the municipality's decision, the Antwerp

cultural elite- historians, archeologists, artists, architects, and their organizations- started an impressive preservation campaign forthe most prestigious pieces of architecture. Their actions never included the fortifications as a whole, but focused

only on the monumental city gates. The painter Henri Leys (1815-1869) and the city archivist Pieter Génard (1830-1899)

50


5. Antwerp, 1866: Demolition of the

Emperor's Gate. (Photograph by Stalins & janssens, Antwerp City Archives)

started their preservation movement in 1864 by criticizing the destruction of a guardhouse nearthe Emperor's Gate. Leys, a member of the Royal Commission for Monuments, and Génard, a secretary of the Commission's Provincial Committee, were not only supported by their own organizations but also by other architectural, artistic, and historical societies.

Together, they vigorously advocated the preservation of the Emperor's Gate and the Kipdorp Gate. Gérnard published a history of both monuments. His case for their conservation was based on their artistic qualities as well as on their historical importance, claiming that "both are monuments of communal liberty."15 Ironically, similar historical arguments were used by the advocates of the gates' demolition, because to them these buildings embodied a period of foreign oppression. In fact, the Antwerp city walls as a whole were- and indeed still are- generally referred to as the Spanish enceinte, even though properly speaking this adjective only applies to the citadel. This historic generalization, however, conveniently provided an additional pretext for development instead of

preservation. The Royal Commission for Monuments organized a pho-

tographic survey to document the fortifications and launched counter proposals to the city's project.16 These sought to synthe- size the preservation of the old gates with contemporary traffic needs.17 They even proposed to dismantle the Kipdorp Gate and have it rebuilt at a new location. Despite all these efforts, Antwerp's economic and political elite was not interested in any

51


form of preservation, and the monumental gates were demolished (Figure 5). By 1866, the city walls and gates had entirely disappeared from the surfaces.

The citadel, which at first had been integrated in the new defense scheme, was only decommissioned after several peti- tions from the Antwerp population. On August 17, 1874, King Leopold II delivered the first pick-axe stroke to inaugurate the long-awaited destruction of this "cursed castle."18 After its demolition, the site was developed in such a way that erased all traces of this hated instrument of oppression; con-

trary to the city walls, the citadel did not leave a footprint on

Antwerp's street pattern.

Reorientation The story of the fortifications' dismantling in the nineteenth

century offers some striking similarities with its present-day situation. Again, ambitious public works are carried out to renew the city's image, but also have their own contradictions. The creation, for instance, of the new City Museum devoted to

Antwerp's history will partly destroy the archaeological remains of one of its most significant historic buildings, the sixteenth-

century Hanseatic House. Likewise, the reconstruction of the Leien is leading to the complete disappearance of the very fortifications to which the boulevard owes its existence. This essential part of Antwerp's cultural heritage was not acknowledged by the planners, who ruled out any serious proposal for preservation. Somewhat belatedly, preservation and cultural activists did appealed for a more respectful approach, which for now has amounted to safeguarding the most "monumental" parts by removing them. At best, these fragments will eventually be reconstructed, but not in their original positions. This solution is unfortunate, fortopographical accuracy is an essential ele- ment to the appreciation of military architecture.

Evidently, the preservation debate is too narrowly focused on the material value of the archaeological remains. Their selective preservation and salvage further reveals a lack of

understanding of the historic significance and patrimonial value of the fortifications as a whole. The entire discussion therefore seems in need of reorientation: its scope ought to

surpass the objects' mere material remains; their ambiguous status and history should be considered as well. Such a step would reveal the importance of documenting and representing this neglected part of Antwerp's cultural heritage- a heritage currently disappearing almost without a trace.

52


Author biographies Inge Berteis, a graduate in modern history and a master in conservation, and Pieter

Martens, an architectural engineer, are both doctoral researchers at the research

group Architectural History and Conservation at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

(Belgium) under the direction of Professor Krista De Jonge. Pieter Martens' research on sixteenth-century military architecture in the Low Countries is financed by the Research Foundation- Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen). Inge Bertels' research on "Building the City, Antwerp 1819-1880," was financed by the Special Research Fund (K.U. Leuven); she is now with the Department of History at the Universiteit Antwerpen (Belgium).

Endnotes 1 Ludovico Guicciardini, Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi (Antwerp, 1567). 2 Vauban, Mémoire surla place d'Anvers (16 September 1702). Vincennes, Service

historique de la Défense, Archives du Génie, Art. 14. 3 Antwerp City, Bulletin communal 1864 (Antwerp, 14 January 1864): 77. * Antwerp City, Werf van de eeuw: Antwerpen (Antwerp, 2004). 5 Significantly, an International Scientific Committee on Fortifications and Military Heritage was established by ICOMOS in 2005. 6 Hugo Soly, "De megalopolis Antwerpen," in De stad Antwerpen van de Romeinse

tijd tot de i7de eeuw: topografische studie rond bet plan van Virgilius Bononiensis

1565, eds. Leon Voet, Gustaaf Asaert, et al. (Brussels: Gemeentekrediet, 1978), 95-119. Michael Limberger, "'No town in the world provides more advantages': economics of agglomeration and the golden age of Antwerp," in Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe. Golden Ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London, eds. Patrick O'Brien, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 43. 7 Enrico Guidoni and Angela Marino, Storia dell'urbanistica. Il Cinquecento (Rome/ Bari: Laterza, 1982), 400-407. Piet Lombaerde, "Antwerp in its golden age: 'one of the largest cities in the Low Countries' and 'one of the best fortified in Europe,'" in

O'Brien, 99-127. 8 In addition to Guicciardini, see Juan Cristóbal Calvete de Estrella, El felicissimo viaje del muy alto y muy poderoso principe don Phelippe, hijo del Emperador don Carlos Quinto Maximo, desde España à sus tierras dela baxa Alemana : con la des-

cripción de todos los Estados de Brabante y ñandes (Antwerp, 1552), 4th book. 9 Leon Voet, "La citadelle d'Anvers," in Plans en relief de villes belges levés par des ingénieurs militaires français XVIIe-XIXe siècle (Brussels: Pro Civitate, 1965), 335-350. 10 Piet Lombaerde, Vesting Antwerpen: de Brialmontforten (Ghent/Antwerp: SDZ,

1997). 11 Fora discussion at length with full references, see Inge Bertels, "Entreprendre la démolition. La démolition des remparts et des fortifications anversois du XVIe

siècle, 1859-1881," in La forteresse à l'épreuve du temps: destruction, dissolution, dénaturation de la forteresse, Xle-XXe siècle (actes du 129o congrès national des sociétés historiques et scienti fiques, Besançon, 19-24 avril 2004) (Paris: Cths, in

print). 12 Antwerp City, Bulletin communal 1864, 77.

13 Wim Van Craenenbroeck./infiverpen op zoek naar drinkwater. Hetontstaan en de ontwikkeling van de drinkwatervoorziening in Antwerpen 1860-1930 (Tielt: Lannoo, 1998), 18-22. 14 Lut Pil, "The Metropolis Reviewed: The Creation of a Golden Age," in Antwerp, story of a metropolis: i6th-i7th century, ed. Jan Van der Stock (Ghent: Snoeck-

Ducaju, 1993), 129-137. 15 Antwerp City, Bulletin communal 1865 (Antwerp, 3 May 1865): 898-899. Also published in Bulletin des Commissions Royales d'Art et d'Archéologie (1865). 16 H. Van Goethem, Fotografie en realisme in de i9de eeuw. Antwerpen: de oudste

foto's, 1847-1880 (Antwerp: Petraco-Pandora, 1999), 55. 17 Bulletin des Commission Royale d'Art et d'Archéologie 5 (1866): 372. See also Herman Stynen, De onvoltooid verleden tijd: een geschiedenis van de monument- en- en landschapszorg in België 1835-1940 (Brüssel: Stichting Vlaams Erfgoed: 1998), 139- 18

Antwerp City, Conseil Communal. Pétition adressée aux Chambres Législatives et au Roi pour demander la démolition des deux citadelles (Antwerp, 1862): "maudit château."

53


Defunct Defenses: Antwerp’s Sixteenth-Century Fortifications [2006]

Documents