The examples outlined below demonstrate why an attack on the city from the south offered the most likely chance of a successful outcome to a siege of Mantua. The stretch of land where the Paiolo valley meets the Mincio river were always of significant importance, even before the construction of the fortress. The Mons Vergilius, the knoll that takes its name from the great poet of Mantua, was already the chosen location for an artillery battery during the imperial assault on the city on 19 May 1702; the same was true in the 1797 battle against the French.
Although ultimately forced to surrender to the imperial army on 30 July 1799, French General Francoise-Philippe Foissac-Latour underlined the importance of the area to the south of the city when planning his defence. «En sort qu’il faudra que sa défence soit surtout extérieure, en embrassent pendant un tems le Serraglio, en fortificante et occupant les avancés de Cérése et de Pradella par de bon ouvrages qui couronneraient le rideau en quart de cercle qui domine le bassin du Paiolo, depuis Pietali jusque vers les Anges». (16)
The French General Pelet (1777-1858) made the point that even Napoleon had recognised the importance of Mantua and had proposed damming the Mincio to divert its waters to the south, as had been done to the north centuries earlier. This would have enabled him to not only seal off the access to the city once and for all, but also to improve the navigability of the river.
The water regulation systems naturally required military protection too: «Avec un seul digue au travers du Mincio, entre Pietole, berceau de Virgil, et Casa Zanetti, l’ennemi ayant pris une de deux têtes aurait détruit toute le système d’inondation. Deux digues fut construites: l’une en face de Pietole, au travers du Paiolo, forma le nouveau lac de ce nome. […] La première, la plus importante, fut couverte par la belle couronne de Paiolo. […] Il devenait la chiave della difesa di Mantoue, et exigeait pour l’assiéger autant de temps qu’il en eût fallu, avant 1805, pour se rendre maître de la place». (17)
The fortifications at Pietole therefore served a dual function; protecting the city from attacks coming from the direction of Borgoforte or Governolo while the fortification and its sluice made it possible to regulate the water levels within the Paiolo valley. (18)
Francesco Tensini (1581-1630), the Venetian architect responsible for the fortress, had been sent to Mantua by the Venetian Republic in 1629 to support the duke. He was already aware of its importance when he oversaw the construction of a dam between Migliaretto and Pietole to raise the water level within the valley. (19)
Napoleon played a personal role in developing the fortress at Pietole, as he makes clear in his letters to Viceroy Eugène of Italy. «J’entends que tout ce qui sera dépensé pour Mantoue le soit à Pietole. Tant que cette position sera en mauvais état, la fortification de Mantoue sera manqueé».(20) The intention of building a fort in Pietole is to be found for the first time in a letter to the general Berthier dated March 10th 1802, in which Napoleon states that «Mantoue est faible, principalement par Pradella. Il faudrait remettre en très-bon état les ouvrages de Pradella, et restaurer le front de la place de ce côté-là. Après de Pradella le côté de Cerese est le plus faible, et le général Chasseloup a ingénieusement projeté deux forts, l’un a Pietole, l’autre de l’autre côté de la digue, pour barrer le Mincio». (21)
Tasked with carrying out the work, General François de Chasseloup-Laubat (1754-1833) had already been involved as the commander of the engineering corps in the assault on Mantua in 1796 and as commander of the fortress of Mantua in 1809. The simple version of his idea was to regulate the water supply by constructing a dam and a fortress connected to a sluice. This was not only for military purposes, but also to improve the health of the citizens by balancing out the periods of drought, when the land around Mantua became marshy and disease ravaged the city. (22) The flow of the Paiolo, previously sealed off by a dam near Cerese, was extended to Pietole. A preliminary and more ambitious fortification project presented by Chasseloup in 1802 was scaled back significantly for financial reasons. Rondelli said of this project: “It is evident even to the most casual observer that the way it was designed and its overwhelming complexity meant that this project was almost intended as a thought exercise rather than a feasible construction plan. It was a kind of style exercise that was immediately exposed as a vast overexaggeration as soon as they calculated the resources necessary to carry it out.” (23)
Lodi summarised the principles on which Chasseloup’s plans rested: “The dam at Pietole has an automatic drainage gutter in its midpoint, which seals itself shut when the waters of the lower section of the Mincio rise to ensure that overflowing water does not drain into the Paiolo, and opens when the water level of the aforementioned section is low to ensure the rainwaters in the Paiolo valley can drain away safely. By closing the gutter in Pietole and opening the gutters in the Pradella dam, the Paiolo valley remains flooded.” (24) Furthermore, work on the dam and the sluice turned out to be incredibly laborious, as a detailed account written by the French engineers tasked with carrying it out, Nicolas Perriola and Francois-Dominique Mescur de Lasplanes, makes clear. (25)
Work on the fortress lasted throughout the period of Napoleonic control and was still unfinished when the Austrians returned in 1814. A plan published by Rondelli, sketches of which can be found in the Austrian War Archives in Vienna, shows that the new rulers took a particular interest in the structure and the potential completion and upgrade of the fort. At the same time, plans were also considered for the expansion of Bastion 4, facing directly onto the Mincio, and a new external defence in front of Ravelin 5. (26) It is likely that these proejcts were carried out by Franz von Scholl (1772-1838), an Austrian specialist in the construction of fortresses and whose fortifications have largely been preserved. There is significant interest in his work, as Scholl was known to employ (27) the so-called “new style of German fortification” which moved away completely from the bastion principles of the fortress of Pietole and sought to avoid angular profiles. (28)
The austerity measures the Habsburb Empire was forced to adopt in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars initially brought a halt to any further expansions. It was only in response to the rising ambitions of the Italians and the uprisings in the Papal States in 1831 that the works initiated by the French finally reached completion. The year was 1834. The plans were placed in the hands of Major General Heinrich Hentzi (1785-1849), an officer from a Swiss family who would later fall in the year of the revolution while defending the fortress of Ofen, also known as Buda, in Hungary. An appraisal of the fortifications of Mantua from 1839 can be found in the War Archives in Vienna. The fort of Pietole, referenced as a “key location”, played an important role in their expansion. (29)
When the occupying troops were set to be deployed, most of the soldiers were due to be sent to Pietole, meaning 1,000 men, 56 cannons, 24 howitzers and 22 mortars were to be stationed within the fort. In other words, approximately a third of the entire artillery power of the fortress of Mantua was to be posted here. The Austrians focused on reinforcing the system to be able to withstand the power of modern artillery warfare. To that end, the firing positions were increasingly reached from underground, the brick bastions were reinforced by ramparts, the wooden-clad mining tunnels were bricked up and projectile-proof arms deposits were constructed.
On 14 July, 1848, the fort of Pietole was involved in its only battle, when Piemontese troops approached the Austrian positions. Three students from Tuscany - volunteers in the Piemontese army - were killed in the battle, and nine of the attackers were wounded. The next day, numerous buildings in the village of Pietole were blown up to impede any further attempts to approach the fort. (30)
As the Austrian rule in Mantua and Veneto came to an end, the fort of Pietole lost its military function together with the fortress of Mantua. The increased efficiency of weaponry at the time resulting from the introduction of rifles - used for the first time in the War of 1859 - along with ogival cartridges, rendered fortresses like the one in Pietole unusable. This was brought into stark relief by the swift destruction of the Borgoforte bridgehead by the Italian artillery during the July 1866 bombardment. The new ring of fortifications, that had to be erected quickly along the new border between the Habsburg monarchy and Italy following the loss of Mantua and Veneto, and that would be tested in the First World War, had already been designed according to a completely different set of criteria. (31) After having been delivered to the Italian army, the fort of Pietole was used to store explosives. At 22:30 on 28 April, 1917, there was a huge explosion that caused extensive damage to the historical fortifications. The solid construction of the central armoury as built by the Austrian military administration prevented a catastrophe caused by the explosion of 28 tons of gunpowder. A massive flood in 1872 had previously sparked a debate around potentially draining the Paiolo valley. In 1920, the drainage work was carried out. (33)
Beginning in February 1944, Mantua was bombarded by the American air force, causing further damage to the Pietole fortress. Rondelli dates this attack to post-24 February 1945, based on a US aerial reconnaissance photograph, but the citation provided does not allow more accuracy beyond that. (34) On 26 April of the same year, American troops reach Mantua.
The medieval perimeter walls, reinforced by towers, was secured by so-called “bastions” from the late 15th century in response to the rise in use of gunpowder weapons. These are elements that jut out at an angle from the line of the fortifying wall, usually set out in a pentagonal shape, with the long sides facing the enemy and the lateral walls shorter to protect the defence line with the gunpowder weapons. This eliminated the blind spots in front of the fortress wall. A good example of this type of fortification, which would become known as “modern fortification”, is Sabbioneta, constructed in the mid-16th century.
As time passed, this so-called “bastionary” system was honed and perfected by putting in place additional obstacles against advancing enemy troops. Antoine de Ville (1596-1656), who resided in Mantua in 1633 to oversee the maintenance of the forts, lay the foundations for the leading French approach to fortifications.
(35) The plans by Sébastien Marquis de Vauban (1633-1707), whose blueprints were designed to expose the least possible surface area to enemy attack, were considered outstanding examples of the form. (36) The weakness in the “Italian style” was precisely the curtain wall, the area of wall between the bastions where, starting in the 16th century, triangular structures known as “ravelins” were constructed. In addition to this basic concept, additional constructions could be placed facing the moat that surrounded the fortress. These took their names from their shape: “Demi-Lune”, “Hornwork” or “Crownwork”. As the curtain wall between the bastions was shortened at the same time, the fortifications took on a star shape.
The structural idea underpinning this was based on abstract geometric principles that were only adapted to the territory in a secondary phase. Vauban’s ideas were later perfected by his successor, Louis de Cormontaigne (1696-1752). The École royale du génie de Mézière (Royal Engineering School of Mézières) of 1748, of which Chasseloup - the designer of the fort of Pietole - was a student, perfected this system by separating the individual construction projects from the main wall and building additional autonomous combat areas. Included within the fortifications were small lakes and bridge-dams such as the ones in Pietole. Another example of this style are the Ponts-écluses built in Thionville by Cormantaigne between 1748 and 1752.
The French remained loyal to this system until the 19th century, even though the “New German School” in the early 1800s began to develop a style of fortification that was better suited to modern tactics and weaponry, breaking with the “bastionary system”. One example of this style of fortification in the Pietole area is the Magnaguti fort in Borgoforte, built in 1859 to protect the passage over the Po.
Setting aside the sieges of Mantua, the forts generally had a negligible impact during the Napoleonic Wars. As a rule, they could be easily circumvented, which meant that the construction of the fortifications had to be reconsidered following the Congress of Vienna. With this in mind, the Archduke Johann presented a report entitled On the Fortifications in the Austrian State. Mantua’s importance was singled out, with the city being classified as a Class 1 fort. (37)
Generally speaking, the forts were to act as barriers only in those places where they could not be circumvented. Their new role, however, was to facilitate the army’s operations by securing the area and providing the necessary resources. With that goal in mind, a nucleus of fortresses impenetrable to enemy attack would have to be surrounded by a ring of forts to serve as outposts.
The fort of Pietole therefore served a dual purpose: the sluice connected to the fortress was to make it possible to transform Mantua into an island in case of attack by flooding the Paiolo valley, but also to prevent flooding in the Mincio valley and therefore improving the health and sanitary conditions. On the one hand, the dam represented a significant upgrade in the city’s defence to the Serraglio side, but at the same time it provided an opening towards the city centre, which had to be better protected with a fortress. (38)
At the end of the dam, outside the residential area, there was an unassuming doorway into the fortress, which could be accessed via a bridge over the moat. In 1838, the wall was reinforced on the Kehl side of the fortress, and a casemate was constructed to the left of the entrance, which was converted into a guard house after military structure was transferred. In Chasseloup’s original plans, the large place of arms at the heart of the complex was supposed to be taken up by a redoubt. This never came about; during the 1860s however, a bulletproof armoury was constructed in the centre of this space. This would prove its worth in 1917, when the gunpowder store exploded. In the 20th century, Italian soldiers built various structures that were necessary for the disposal of the stored materials. The entire complex was organised symmetrically along geometric principles - wherever the terrain allowed it - so that the bastions (numbered 1, 2 and 3) faced towards the enemy; between each pair was a curtain wall with a central access point.
Within the bastions, the cannons were placed within nooks, each of which had three openings facing the enemy. The middle one, with the jamb located within the masonry, was for the cannon. The two simple lateral openings, on the other hand, were for observation of the area in front of the fortress. On the ceiling of the nook, there were rings to make it easier to swing the cannon, as well as hoods to fumigate the smoke from the gunpowder. Bastion 2, the middle one, was constructed in 1838 to add another artillery position, known as the knight, to provide more effective cover for the outpost of the fortress.
Bastion 4, to the left of the entrance on the banks of the Mincio and intended to protect the fortress’ flank, was not facing the enemy. This set it apart from the casemates built by the Austrians later, as here, above the cannon muzzles, semicircular openings had been left to provide light and ventilation. These openings were necessary for the rectangular shape of the bastion, while later casemates in the other bastions, built by the Austrians, opened onto the place of arms.
Within the two curtain walls were two doors that led to two ravelins located further ahead, across the bridges. In Chasseloup’s plan, these doors were supposed to have been lavishly decorated with columns in the so-called “revolutionary architecture” classical style. In the end, however, a simpler stone cladding was used.
Here, the Paiolo surrounds the walls of the fortress. The ebb and flow were safeguarded and regulated by a sluice gate that could be reached by the angular bastions 1 and 3. At the far side of the two sluice-bridges are external structures, known as counterguards, which play a central role in the tunnel system, through which the different areas of the fortress could communicate. Another system of moats built up around these external structures, however these did not carry water. Here there was a circular passageway equipped with embrasures through which the infantry could open fire unimpeded.
The angles created by the star shape of the defences were given added protection by the counterguard, and where they were exposed to the enemy there were semicircular redoubts, through the embrasures of which the garrison could aim fire towards the wall opposite. Last but not least, in front of the fortress were a series of countermines designed to distance any attackers at the first opportunity, before they could get too close to the military structure.
The fortress is therefore a complex defensive system within a single site, with firepower that ranged from infantry outposts to the artillery within the bastions. Of particular importance to the defenders was the carefully constructed tunnel system for communications, through which troops could move safely from one part of the fortress to another.
The fort of Pietole represents the ideal example of the French fortification technique, completed by the Austrian military administration and modified to meet the needs of the new artillery technology. With the Austrian departure, this type of fortress became obsolete and no longer fit the standards in place for fortifications.
The fort was finally abandoned by the Italian army in 1983. Over the following years, it was gradually reclaimed by nature to the extent that the vegetation began to put down roots within many of the buildings. In 2016, the Polytechnic University of Milan drafted a project proposal that developed several different potential uses for the fortress, including exhibition spaces, wellness centers, residential accommodation and natural expanses. (39) In 2018, the comune of Borgo Virglio, which held the land, signed an agreement with various organisations to launch a cultural project within the fort, under the title The Fort of Pietole: Innovation and Tradition. Virgil, Pascoli, Countryside and Leaders This project received financial backing from the Lombardy regional government.
Josef Aresin, Das Festungsviereck von Oberitalien, seine Bedeutung für Deutschland, die Schweiz und das Machtgleichgewicht in Europa, Wien 1860.
Thomas F. Arnold, Gonzaga Fortifications and the Mantuan Succession Crisis of 1613 – 1631, in «Mediterranean Studies», 4 (1994), pp. 113-130.
Maura Bernini, Sergio Leali, Mantova 1796-1866. Settant’anni tra assedi, occupazioni, guerre, Mantova 2016.
Max Biffart, Venetien mit dem Festungsvierecke, Darmstadt – Leipzig 1863.
Der Krieg in Italien 1859: Nach den Feld-Acten und anderen authentischen Quellen, 3 Bde., Wien 1872.
Heinrich BLASEK und Franz RIEGER, Geschichte der k. und k. Genie-Waffe, Wien 1898.
Elisa Boeri, Sapere tecnico e cultura architettonica. Gli ingegneri di Napoleone a Mantova (1796-1814), in «ANANKE - Quadrimestrale di cultura, storia e tecniche della conservazione per il progetto», 85 (2018), pp. 70-78.
Luca Bonci, Laurenzo Carrino, Valerio Tolve (a cura di), Contaminations - #ReViEWAL 2016/ Remembering Virgil: Exhibition Wellness Accomodation Landscape. International Design Workshop LAB2.0, Mantova 2016.
Claudia Bonora, Le difese Militari, in Giorgio Rumi, Gianni Mezzanotte, Alberto Cova, Mantova e il suo territorio, Milano 1999, pp. 213-241.
Claudia Bonora Previdi, Il forte di Pietole e le difese ottocentesche della piazzaforte di Mantova, in Virgilio ombra gentil, Mantova 2007.
Elisa Buglia, Eliana Buttarelli, “Navigando tra i forti”. Un percorso intermodale verso la valorizzazione del patrimonio militare della città di Mantova, tesi di laurea, Politecnico di Milano, a.a. 2010/2011.
Phillip R. Cuccia, Napoleon in Italy. The sieges of Mantova, 1796-1799, Norman 2014.
Daniela Ferrari, La città fortificata. Mantova nelle mappe ottocentesche del Kriegsarchiv di Vienna, Modena 2000.
Josef Freiherr von Gallina, Beiträge zur Charakteristik und Kriegsführung in Oberitalien, Zürich 1850.
Renato Giusti, Il Mantovano tra il 1859 ed il 1866: L’ultima dominazione austriaca, in Il quadrilatero nella storia militare, politica, economica e sociale dell’Italia risorgimentale, Atti del convegno di studi tenuto a Verona dal 13 al 16 ottobre 1966, Verona 1967, pp. 227-299.
Christoph Hackelsberger, Das k.k. österreichische Festungsviereck Lombardo-Venetien. Ein Beitrag zur Wiederentdeckung der Zweckarchitektur des 19. Jahrhunderts, München 1980.
Giovanni Lodi, Mantova e le guerre memorabili nella valle del Po, Bologna 1877.
Alphonse Mangin, Die Polygonal-Befestigung, Leipzig 1855.
Helmut Karl Bernhard von Moltke, Der italienische Feldzug des Jahres 1859, Berlin 1863.
Hartwig Neumann, Festungsbaukunst und Festungsbautechnik, Koblenz 1988.
Carlo Parmigiani, Il Serraglio Mantovano. Storia, difese militari ed idrauliche, Mantova 2010.
Moritz Karl Ernst von Prittwitz, Lehrbuch der Befestigungskunst, Berlin 1865.
Armando Rati, Mantova, città fortezza, e le battaglie risorgimentali, Mantova 2011.
Rudi Rolf, Festungsbauten der Monarchie: Die k.k. und k. und k. Befestigungen von Napoleon bis Petit Trianon. Eine typologische Studie, Middelburg 2011.
Francesco Rondelli, Il Forte di Pietole nella storia/archeologia del sottosuolo, Hypogean Archaeology, vol. 2, Italian Cadastre of Artificial Cavities, Oxford 2007, pp. 251-284.
Francesco Rondelli, L’architettura militare sul territorio virgiliano: Il Forte di Pietole nell’epoca francese, in Virgilio ombra gentil, Mantova 2007.
Francesco Rondelli, Forte di Pietole. Una macchina da guerra, Mantova 2013.
Francesco Rondelli, Programma di Valorizzazione del Forte di Pietole, Borgo Virgilio s.d.
Wilhelm Rüstow, Die Lehre vom neuen Festungskrieg, 2 Bde., Leipzig 1860.
Wilhelm Rüstow, Die ersten Feldzüge Napoleon Bonapartes in Italien und Deutschland 1796/1797, Zürich 1867.
Francesco Tensini, La Fortificazione, Venezia 1624.
Carlo Togliani, Idrografia dell’ingens Mincius virgiliano. Dalla Corte di Pietole alla Corte Virgiliana, in Virgilio ombra gentil, Mantova 2007, pp. 63-84.
Antoine de Ville, Le fortifications, Paris 1666.
Leander Heinrich Wetzer, Feldzüge des Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen, Wien 1877.
Eduard Stäger von Waldenburg, Ereignisse in der Festung Mantova während der Revolutionsepoche des Jahres 1848, Wien 1849.
Wilhelm Wlaschütz, Die Bedeutung von Befestigungen in der Kriegführung Napoleons, Wien 1905.
Notes*
(16) “[...] that its defence be conducted mostly outside, enclosing a vast area and fortifying and occupying access from Cerese and Pradella with the Serraglio, with strong works that crown the outpost in a quarter-circle, that commands the basin of the Paiolo from Pietole to gli Angeli.” Francois Philippe FOISSAC-LATOUR, précis oujournal historique et raisonné des opérations militaires et administratives qui ont eu lieu dans la place de Mantoue, Paris 1800, p. 21.
(17) “With a single dam across the Mincio, between Pietole, birth city of Virgil, and Casa Zanetti, the enemy would have destroyed the entire flood monitoring system if they had taken one of the two dam-heads. Two dams were built: one by Pietole, on the Paiolo, that created a new lake of that name. [...] The first and most important was covered by the beautiful crown of Paiolo. [...] It became the key to the defence of Mantua and it had to be besieged for the entire time that it would have taken to bring the entire place under control before 1805.” Jean-Jacques PELET, Memoire sur la guerre de 1809, Paris 1825, 3, p. 418.
(18) The story of the fortress is outlined in great detail in Francesco RONDELLI, Forte di Pietole. Una macchina da guerra, Mantua 2013.
(19) Carlo d’ARCO (editor), Due Cronache di Mantova, Milan 1857, p. 46.
(20) “I mean that all that is to be spent on Mantua is to be spent on Pietole too. For as long as this position shall be in poor keep, the fortification of Mantua shall not succeed.” Correspondence de Napoléon Ier, 12, Paris 1862,p. 630, Nr. 10444.
(21) “Mantua is weak, especially on the Pradella. The construction on the Pradella should be brought into exceptional conditions and the stronghold on that site should be rebuilt. Following Pradella, the Cerese side is the weakest, and General Chasseloup has ingeniously planned two forts, one at Pietole, the other on the other side of the dam, to dam the Mincio.” Letter dated Paris 20 March 1802, Correspondence de Napoléon Ier, 7, Paris 1860, p.529, Nr. 6002.
(22) Francesco RONDELLI, L’architettura militare sul territorio virgiliano, in Carlo Togliani, Virgilio, ombra gentil, Mantua 2007, p. 232.
(23) Rondelli, Pietole, p. 42. The initial design can be found at the Istituto di Cultura dell’arma del Genio in Rome (ISCAG Ft. 4759).
(24) Giovanni LODI, Mantova e le guerre memorabili nella valle del Po, Bologna 1877, p. 354.
(25) RONDELLI, Pietole, p. 45.
(26) RONDELLI, p. 67.
(27) Particularly noteworthy are the plans for the fortress of Magonza (1824), Franzensfeste (1832) and the crossing point at Nauders (1834).
(28) Alphonse MANGIN, Die Polygonale Befestigung, Leipzig 1855.
(29) Vienna, ÖStA/KA KV 651 F.
(30) Eduard Stäger von WALDENBURG, Ereignisse in der Festung Mantova während der Revolutions epoche desJahres 1848, Vienna 1849, p. 51.
(31) Ulrike WEISS, Österreichische und italienische Festungsbauten östlich des Gardasees 1849 – 1907, Graz 2007.
(32) «Mantua’s fortune is owed to the technical wisdom of the German builders of the armoury, which in its construction [...] prevented the place from being blasted to the sky, when it was in danger on that occasion. Pietole was saved from the jaws of death, yet glass and fears travelled a great distance.” Ugo PRATI, Lo scoppio del forte di Pietole, Saturday 28 April 1917, collection of the Teresiana Library in Mantua; cited in Claudia BONORA PREVIDI, Il forte di Pietole e le difese ottocentesche della piazzaforte di Mantova, in Carlo TOGLIANI, Virgilio, ombra gentil, Mantua 2007, p.252.
(33) Carlo TOGLIANI, La bonifica dei laghi di Mantova e la sistemazione dell’asta del Mincio dal XIX secolo al 1945, in Eugenio Camerlenghi, Viviana Rebonato, Sara Tammaccaro (editor), Il paesaggio Mantovano nelle tracce materiali, nelle lettere e nelle arti, V, Il paesaggio Mantovano dall’Unità alle fine del XX secolo (1866 – 2000), Florence 2014, pp. 97-163.
(34) RONDELLI, Pietole, p. 94.
(35) Daniela FERRARI, La città fortificata. Mantova nelle mappe ottocentesche del Kriegsarchiv di Vienna, Modena 2000, p. XIX. The architect had previously published his findings in a reference work regarding the construction of the fortress: Antoine de Ville, Les fortifications, Lyon 1628.
(36) Bernard PUJO, Vauban, Paris 1991.
(37) Rudi ROLF, Festungsbauten der Monarchie: Die k.k. und k. und k. Befestigungen von Napoleon bis Petit Trianon.Eine typologische Studie, Middelburg 2011, p. 17.
(38) At the other end of the Paiolo valley, the All’altra estremità della valle del Paiolo, the Belfiore lunette was used in the same capacity, albeit on a much smaller scale.
(39) Luca BONCI, Laurenzo CARRINO, Valerio TOLVE (editor), Contaminations - #ReViEWAL 2016/ Remembering Virgil: Exhibition Wellness Accomodation Landscape. International Design Workshop LAB2.0, Mantua 2016.
