The Fortifications of Dyrrachium

The 'Angevin' tower seen from the partially collapsed pentagonal tower

I recently contributed to Professor Dan Hicks' lockdown project on Twitter called ‘Museums Unlocked’. Dan listed different themes for 100 days during lockdown, and people around the world posted images of sites, museums or landscapes on the theme.

For the one hundredth day, Dan asked people to post from a site they could visit. I chose to visit the ‘Angevin tower’ of Durrës which I had not been to before, even though I see it from a distance several times a week when I walk into town. The tower, part of the medieval citadel, is built into the Late Antique city wall and overlooks the old town, specifically the amphitheatre. It’s a popular place for selfies as there are fine 360 degree views over Durrës.

The view from the tower over the amphitheatre and toward the port

I’ve wanted to write something about the fortifications of Durrës for a while, but couldn’t do so until I had visited this tower. It was the last piece of my 'jigsaw puzzle' of the fortifications of my adopted home town, a place that has been in existence from at least the 7^th century BCE, when a local Illyrian settlement was colonised by the Greeks. You can see sections of the city walls, and evidence of the fortifications at various places in the city, and they often include spolia from much earlier periods.

Unfortunately, the walls from the Hellenistic and Roman periods no longer survive, though Gilkes (see below) records that some pieces of ashlar masonry may be seen at the back of a modern villa on the road to King Zog’s summer residence, an area known as Hill 98 in the archaeological record.

This fits neatly with the fact that the most likely area for the circuit wall of an ancient city would be the highest points, in this case the two hills: Hill 98 and the one behind the amphitheatre on which the ‘Angevin’ tower stands. In the late 19^th and early 20^th century, archaeologists recorded traces of two early phases of walls on Hill 98. One, of ashlar masonry, would likely be the Hellenistic wall, which was later used as a foundation for the early Imperial period wall, when the city became a Roman colony. This wall was then, in its turn, used as a foundation for part of the Late Antique circuit.

Section of Late Antique wall with pentagonal
tower in the distance

The Late Antique wall ran for about 2.8km enclosing the two heights and a flat area of the city. The wall is unusual for this period in that it is entirely built of brick, rather than having a rubble core. The best preserved section of the wall features three very substantial prow-shaped towers, one of which partially collapsed in the 2019 earthquake. The building of this circuit is usually associated with the Emperor Anastasius, though some scholars have attributed it to Justinian (see Miraj, below). In the absence of definitive information about the building of the wall we need to look at the wider context of that period in order to determine more about the date of its construction.

Since at least the 2^nd century BCE, Dyrrachium was important as the western terminus of the Via Egnatia and the primary route from Italy to the East across the Adriatic. With the split of the Roman Empire in 395 CE, it was a vital point in the communications and logistics of the route between the old capital in Rome and the new capital in Constantinople.

The 5^th and 6^th centuries CE saw waves of invasions from Goths and then Slavs which affected the city, but ironically the port became even more important as the overland routes were not secure and transport was transferred to the sea. With this in mind, it is easy to see the necessity of the construction of substantial city walls protecting the city and the harbour from incursions overland.

One of the pentagonal towers

However the walls of Durrës are unusual, perhaps unique, for their time in that they are entirely brick rather than the usual thick layers of mortar with ground brick and tile inclusions between brick courses. Gutteridge, in his excellent article on the fortifications (see below), wonders if they were meant to evoke the Aurelian walls of Rome, an echo of Imperial power. In any event, the manufacture of brick on such a scale would have to be the undertaking of a centralised power, and the thick-walled prow-shaped towers are also significant in that the type is associated with Imperial constructions. After a period of being on the edge of the Byzantine sphere of influence, by the time that Anastasius became Emperor Durrës was returning to the fold of Constantinople, and Gutteridge is surely correct to connect the construction of the walls with this show of Imperial power by Anastasius, who is particularly connected with construction in port cities. Several sources state that Anastasius built walls in his home town, even though they do not name the city.

By the second half of the 9^th century, the overland route from the Adriatic to Constantinople was revived, making Dyrrachium a pivotal point, since it was a key stop on both sea and land routes. But this importance came at a cost, and between the time of the city’s capture by the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel in 997 and the Ottomans in 1501 the city changed hands well over 20 times, with Angevins, Normans, Serbs, Byzantines, Venetians and Ottomans all playing their part. It must be said though, that many of these changes did not involve an assault on the city, but came about by other means such as treaties, treachery or even dowries. The city’s location, and importance for trade, meant that not only was it a Byzantine frontier town, but it was also a prize for various Western powers.

During this period the city walls appear in several accounts, and though more than once they are referred to as ‘ruinous’, they are also much admired. We hear from Anna Comnena of walls so thick that they could take four horsemen abreast along the top. We are told that the Normans had to use giant wooden towers in their siege of the city, the significance of which is that the attackers needed to scale the walls, since they would withstand bombardment. Looking at the walls today, it is clear that were rebuilt and repaired many times, and different modifications made.

One of the modifications was the creation of a citadel within the circuit, attached to the Late Antique wall, and it is here that we find the ‘Angevin’ tower. The quadrangular citadel is on the lower of the two hills, the one that overlooks the amphitheatre. It is made up of three new walls added to part of the Late Antique wall, with towers at each corner (and an additional tower along one length). The towers are of different plan and even type of build making the citadel difficult to date.

Two of the citadel towers

The historical sources are also problematic. Most of the references to a citadel come from accounts of the Norman siege of 1081. However, William of Apulia tells us that during the siege the citadel was taken by treachery, and on hearing of its fall the citizens tried to dig a ditch to separate the citadel from the town. This reference would fit the topography of Hill 98, but not the quadrangular citadel which abuts the town itself, so the ‘citadel’ of the accounts of the siege may not actually refer to the quadrangular structure but whatever fortifications existed on Hill 98. In the 1970s, excavations carried out by Gjerak Karaiskaj showed that the standing remains of the citadel towers may in fact date to the 15^th century, but built on top of foundations dating to between the 11th and 13^th centuries, so the archaeological evidence is not conclusive.

Durrës’ location and significance as a trade and transport pivot meant that it had to defend itself from attack by land and sea. At some point, probably as a response to a smaller population, a cross-wall was built running west - east from the citadel which decreased the area of the walled town. The date of this cross wall has been the subject of debate, with most scholars assuming that it was built by the Ottomans, but the significant effort put into the wall may also indicate a proactive decision to protect a now smaller population going about its business at a time of increasing threat from the Ottomans. Durazzo, as the city was called by the Venetians, was under Venetian control for around 110 years, and was an ‘island’ surrounded by Ottoman held territories. It is just as likely that the wall was built by Venetians as by Ottomans, though we cannot say for certain.

Part of the cross wall

Defensive modifications were also made to meet the threat of an attack by sea. Tower A, now known as the Venetian Tower, is one of the landmarks of the modern town. During the first half of the 15^th century, a time when the town was under Venetian control, sources reveal a peaceful and prosperous city. We know that the Venetians invested heavily in their possessions along the Adriatic coast and sources confirm that the fortifications of Durazzo were restored, along with attempts to drain the lagoon to keep the harbour navigable for their ships. In the later 15^th century we hear of a hinterland with fisheries, agriculture and even monasteries, with a network of hilltop fortifications for refuge.

Tower A, at the end of the extant stretch of the Late Antique wall, is a typical Venetian round tower of the period constructed as part of seaward defences. The circular platform allowed cannons to be positioned and manoeuvred in any direction towards ships at sea. Similar towers can be seen in Dubrovnik and Kotor. Tower A has been restored, and converted into a café bar. The views from the top, though obviously much changed over the centuries, show its command over the approach to the city by sea.

Tower A - the Venetian Tower

The part of the wall that runs down from the citadel to Tower A is very well preserved and gives us clues to the date of some of the modifications, including the talus, a sloping wall on the outer side of defences to increase protection against missiles. In addition to the protection given by the additional wall thickness, missiles will ricochet off the sloping surface and scaling ladders placed against the talus have to be angled, making the attackers more vulnerable from above. In Durrës the talus is visible on the outer faces of the three pentagonal towers and also along the stretch of wall between towers B and A, i.e., the section nearest the sea.

Some scholars have asserted that the talus was constructed by the Byzantine Emperor Alexios between 1085 and 1108 as a defensive measure against the Norman invaders, but as Gutteridge points out, this is rather too early. Such measures are common in Crusader fortifications from the mid-13^th century for protection against counter-weight trebuchets which had not yet been introduced at the time of the Norman conquest of Durrës. The talus is more likely to be the work of the Venetians during the 15^th century, and is comparable with that at Nafplion in the Peloponnese, which dates to 1470-1500.

The addition of the talus can be seen clearly on
the partially collapsed pentagonal tower

By the time the city was taken by the Ottomans, they are unlikely have expended too much effort on the refortification of Durrës as their focus lay elsewhere, much further to the north, or inland to oversee the hinterland, such as at the fortifications at Elbasan. By now, the silting-up of the lagoon had not only affected trade but was causing problems with malaria, and Durrës was no longer an important frontier possession, but a peripheral town.

So, back to the 'Angevin' tower. What should we make of the attribution to Charles of Anjou (1272 – 1285) of the rebuilding of the fortifications of Durrës after the disastrous earthquake of the late 1260s/early 1270s, as evidenced by several surviving Angevin directives? The excavations of Gjerak Karaiskaj dated the foundations of the citadel towers to between the 11^th and 13^th centuries, so there is at least some archaeological evidence that matches the written sources describing Angevin work, and allows the tower overlooking the amphitheatre to be labelled ‘Angevin’, even if its standing remains are probably 15^th century. Gutteridge’s careful examination of the sources, historical context and remains is persuasive that the majority of the fortifications visible today are most likely to be the work of the local Emperor Anastasius who walled his home city, and then later the Venetians, for whom the city was such an important possession over more than a century.

The 'Angevin' tower

Carolyn Perry

Search This Blog

The Fortifications of Dyrrachium - and Durazzo

Comments

Post a Comment