Castles and walls

Description of the fortifications

In 1242, it was commonly said that Bellinzona meaning Castelgrande could never be taken, so well was it defended by man and by nature. In the 15th century, this belief in Bellinzona impregnability was also shared by the confederates, who were convinced that the fortress could resist any and every attempt to conquer it.
Looking at those austere battlemented walls, towers and embrasures today, it is easy to imagine the impression that the formidable fortifications of Bellinzona must have created in the Middle Ages. A number of single components together make up an impressive whole, symbolising the economic, political and military power of the Dukes of Milan, who must take credit for this great fortification work as it stands today.
As previously mentioned, the strategic importance of the barrage in the Ticino Valley closely linked in every era to Bellinzona's situation as an important junction and also from its purely military aspect has seen many changes in the course of the centuries. In the Roman era and in the high Middle Ages, Bellinzona served as a foothold for the central imperial power and as a command post on the military chessboard. Bellinzona continued to function as a military command post until the 14th and 15th centuries as the Battles of Arbedo and Giornico testify but at the same time, the stronghold was becoming more and more a northfacing barrier, a fortified frontier to block the passage of neighbours with hostile intentions, such as the confederates. For peacetime transit, in particular for the commercial passage of livestock, a gateway in the city wall was opened; this allowed herds of cattle to pass through on their way to the markets of northern Italy, thus avoiding the town's narrow streets. The main impression we have of the castles today is linked to their role in the late Middle Ages, when they served as a fortified barrier for the Duchy of Milan. Residual traces of Roman and early medieval military installations can only be seen in archaeological findings. In the few cases where they are still standing, the defensive works of the high Middle Ages are integrated into the Milanese fortifications or remain as isolated constructions, such as the Torre Nera and the Torre Bianca in Castelgrande. Moreover, nothing still vis ble from the time before 1350 bears any unusual features: the high medieval fortifications remaining in Bellinzona are common examples of the military architecture of the time, typical of many others in the southern Alpine valleys.
The Milanese fortifications of the late Middle Ages, which gradually expanded until they formed a barrier right across the valley floor, tell quite a different story: combining wellestablished defensive building techniques, architectural creativity and the symbolism of territorial power, they constitute an extraordinary complex, unique of its kind in Europe. Only by observing the complex in detail can the observer fully understand the global defence plan, consciously designed with a particular enemy in mind. The valley is completely blocked across its whole width to avoid infiltration by small bands of marauders who might have otherwise been able to skirt the stronghold by climbing up the steep mountainsides. The advance of battering engines was halted by medium and heavy artillery (culverins, and bombards the first ancient cannons), positioned on gun platforms in towers or on hilltops. Assaults by the confederates were to be expected even on rocky and inaccessible terrain and were met with heavy fire (frontal and lateral) from small cannon (socalled falcons), but also from harquebusses (predecessor of the musket) and crossbows. The machicolations on the battlements were used to protect the walls from attack with ladders and from attempts at undermining the stronghold and, at the same time, protected those engaged in throwing tar, stones and incendiary shells on the enemy. All the crenellations, arrow slits, gun ports and other embrasures had a specific purpose in the defence plan, the latter differing in size and shape depending on whether they were used for small cannon, crossbows or harquebusses, for frontal or for lateral fire. The walls, however, were relatively weak and would not have resisted artillery fire; the Milanese were well aware that it was practically impossible for the confederates to transport heavy assault cannon over the St. Gotthard Pass.
The most serious challenge was the huge number of troops needed to efficiently defend the barrage in its entirety. a cautious estimate would suggest that 2500 men were the minimum requirement (in 1499/1500, it was recognised that 1000 men were insufficient to keep the stronghold). Another disadvantage was the topography of Bellinzona; the varying levels of the terrain meant that the gradient of the connecting castle walls, with their narrow battlements and steep flights of steps, hindered the progress of reserve troops. Moreover, it is not clear what defensive role the civilian population of Bellinzona would have played in a possible conflict, since they were not subject to military command.
For defence to be effective, particularly during a long siege, keeping the men supplied with food, weapons and ammunition was essential. From this point of view the permanent garrison was at an advantage: the port, which was still in use in the )5th century, allowed for bulk supplies to arrive via water, whereas the enemy could only rely only on the meagre supplies acquired by foraging in the narrow mountain valleys. All things considered, however, the military defence of Bellinzona was extremely costly, even for the rich Duchy of Milan and, wherever possible, diplomatic channels were exploited to avoid expense: bribery and corruption, in the shape of gifts of money to confederate officials, the granting of trading facilitations and easing of customs duties, or the exploitation of conflicting interests within the Confederation, were common practice.
Today, Bellinzona does not only provide evidence of the skill of the Milanese military architects of the time but also attests to the ineffectiveness of confederate territorial policy in the late Middle Ages.

< previous section