Threat of the Thirty Years' War After successfully overcoming the siege of 1552, Frankfurt was not threatened again for fifty years; during which the city saw no reason to improve its fortifications. Military leaders asked for stronger protection, but the city council was unconvinced. In 1618, the
Thirty Years' War began causing the city council to consult the engineer Adam Stapf, who was working as a fortress architect in
Mannheim. He submitted a plan to the council, with a cost estimate of guilder, calling for eighteen hollow bastions to be created: thirteen north of the Main, and five to the south. To save money, instead of curtain walls, the plan suggested banking up earth behind the existing Medieval stone wall, making it usable as a
breastwork. The city council rejected the plan on the grounds of cost. However, as the war continued the council contacted Stapf again in 1621. Stapf, now working in
Heidelberg, presented a new plan: the medieval fortification was to be left in place, and outside it a new fortification was to be constructed with thirteen bastions and twelve linking curtain walls. Stapf estimated the cost at guilder. On 10 May 1621 the city council considered it likely that the war would end soon, and again rejected Stapf's plan. On 20 June 1622 more than soldiers of the
Protestant Union and the
Catholic League faced each other close to the city in the
Battle of Höchst. After the retreat of the Protestant troops, the city was compelled to be deal with the Catholic victor, despite the populace's Lutheran confession. In order to retain their imperial privileges and avoid involvement in the war, Frankfurt began a policy of benevolent neutrality and rebuffed all offers of alliance. It was considered that a demonstration of military strength was an essential part of this strategy. The engineer and master builder Eberhard Burck was commissioned for two years to improve the fortifications. Following his recommendation, the city council also commissioned Steffan Krepel of
Forchheim to design new walls. Burck drew up a plan, focused on cost reduction, whereby Frankfurt would receive six bastions, and Sachsenhausen three; as in Stapf's first plan, the old Zwingermauer was to be reused. In the event, only one of Burck's suggestions was implemented: protecting the east of Sachsenhausen with a roundel. The city council delayed further and in February 1625 Burck was dismissed. Renowned fortress architect
Johann Wilhelm Dilich, working in
Kassel at the time, sent a letter to the council on 16 December 1624, offering his services. The council, believing that there was currently no need for such measures due to a lack of military threats, ignored it. When the army of
Albrecht von Wallenstein left Bohemia marching towards Franconia and Hesse Mayor Johann Martin Baur von Eyssene mentioned Frankfurt-born former
sea captain Johann Adolf von Holzhausen as a possible fortress architect. The city council commissioned Holzhausen to improve the Friedberger Tor (gate of Friedberg), which was considered to be the weakest part of the fortifications. Holzhausen produced a plan for the construction of a
ravelin, an independent bastion, in front of the gate. In late-1626 construction began, but problems arose due to Holzhausen's lack of experience. As previously anticipated by Dilich, the outer wall was too weak to support the construction of a
parapet behind it. Parts of the wall shattered and fell into the moat.
Commission of Johann Wilhelm Dilich The city council then turned to the engineer Wilhelm Dilich for help. He arrived in Frankfurt with his son, Johann Wilhelm Dilich, in 1627 to gain an overview of the situation. He dismissed any reuse of the old fortifications. As Stapf had, he recommended creating a regular, circular fortification some distance outside the existing walls. As this would have required the city to purchase additional land, the idea was rejected. Four further proposals with walls closer to the city were produced and all were considered to be too expensive, so father and son departed in early April. In the middle of 1627 Holzhausen's
ravelin collapsed completely and Holzhausen, apparently in despair, appealed to the city council to commission the younger Dilich. Dilich accepted, returned, and was given his commission on 8 January 1628. Dilich received a municipal salary of 448 guilder per year. In a council meeting on 22 February, a contentious debate ensued regarding his plans to considerably extend the fortifications. Again this was rejected, but Dilich was allowed to improve the old city wall at its weakest places, by constructing two bulwarks in front of the Eschenheimer Tor (gate of Eschenheim) and the Friedberger Tor, using the material from the collapsed ravelin. To hedge the project against political concerns, during the
cornerstone ceremony on 16 June 1628, mayor Baur solemnly declared that the new fortification was not directed against the emperor or empire, but rather meant to protect the loyal city. In mid-1629 further
false economy by the city council led to another collapse of large parts of the wall while under construction. To avoid damaging the fields, Dilich had been required to build on the old moat, where it was not possible to create adequate foundations. During the subsequent investigation, Dilich, Nikolaus Mattheys from Mannheim who had been commissioned as a wall master on Dilich's recommendation, and the craftspeople involved cast the blame on each other. According to Dilich, the wall master had spent more time drinking than doing his job, and the construction workers had supposedly snarled at Dilich. Mattheys was dismissed and replaced by Johann Zimmermann from Mainz. No offence was proven against the craftspeople, and Dilich's commission was upheld. An external reviewer, the fortress architect and mathematician
Johannes Faulhaber from
Ulm, was called in. He pointed out the already-known problems, but also noted additional errors in Dilich's plans, and openly rebuffed him in front of the city council. Faulhaber delivered a stern lecture, establishing his views via algebraic calculations and a paper model. After Faulhaber left the city in March 1630, Dilich followed his recommendations, causing the construction works to make good progress. By June, the collapse damage had been made good. Up to 600 people worked on the wall. In 1631, master builder Matthias Staudt from
Darmstadt was assigned to be Dilich's assistant. The citizenry were required to pay an exceptional tax for the construction of the wall. They also were conscripted for compulsory labour.
Fortifications Dilich utilised a fortification style known as Dutch fortress architecture, an enhanced successor of Italian fortress architecture. The main advantage over the old construction style was that Dutch-style earth walls, contrary to Italian-style stone walls, were less susceptible to cannonball damage. He kept the old walls in place and created new moats approximately away. He used the evacuated soil to create an earth wall in front of the stonework. A drawing by Dilich shows his construction style: from the inside to the outside there were an outer ward between the walls; the stone walls; the earth
rampart; the fortified
breastwork; at its base the
Faussebraye with another breastwork; then the
escarpe wall; the wet moat; the contrescarpe; and finally a
glacis, partially
palisaded on top. The pentagonal bastions enabled defenders to rake the glacis and the wall front with artillery fire. This style was built between the Eschenheimer Tor (gate of Eschenheim) and the Allerheiligentor (all hallows' gate) with the line of the new fortifications from the old wall. This preserved the original medieval wall with the moat behind it. This meant that there was a wet moat on both sides of the fortification, rendering the walls accessible only by a limited number of bridges. Dilich's work was brought to a halt in December 1631 due to a shortage of money. However, when the
Swedish army entered the city on 20 November under King
Gustavus Adolphus, they insisted that the construction work continue. The Swedish town commandant ordered his soldiers to assist with the work. Beginning in May 1632, three new bulwarks were constructed: The bulwark at the Breiter Wall (wide wall), also called the Schwedenbollwerk (Swedes' bulwark); the Bauernbollwerk (farmers' bulwark) at the Eschenheimer Tor (gate of Eschenheim), which was a result of compulsory labour by farmers from Frankfurt's villages; and the city militia constructed the Bockenheimer Bollwerk (bulwark of Bockenheim) at the Bockenheimer Tor (gate of Bockenheim). When it became known in August 1632 that the Emperor's army was approaching, the construction of three further bulwarks began. Tensions escalated on 1 August 1635 when Swedish troops in Sachsenhausen attempted to gain control over the city. In turn, the city council allowed the emperor's troops, to enter the city from the north. Entrenched in both parts of the city, severe battles ensued, causing enormous damage. Among other collateral damage, the Brückenmühle (bridge mill) and almost the entire Löhergasse in Sachsenhausen was destroyed. On 10 August the Swedes were granted safe conduct with military honours and left in the direction of
Gustavsburg. Further expansion of the fortifications dragged on until long after the
end of the war in 1648. The digging of the moats and the basic foundation of the bulwarks and the curtain walls was largely completed by 1645. Work then focused on the construction of the outer moat revetment wall and the raising of the field breastwork. When Dilich died in 1660, Andreas Kiesser continued the work. In 1667, 49 years after the beginning of the construction, the work was essentially complete. North of the Main, a total of eleven bastions now surrounded the city, while the smaller Sachsenhausen was protected by five bastions. Because some of the bastions had been raised directly in front of the gates, these also had to be modified or reconstructed. The construction of the new fortifications was a severe burden on the city's finances. The eleven bastions, from east to west, were named: Fischerfeldbollwerk (fishers' field bulwark, construction started in 1632); Allerheiligen or Judenbollwerk (all hallows' bulwark or Jews' bulwark, construction started in 1632); Schwedenschanze or Breitwallbollwerk (Swedes' sconce or wide wall bulwark, construction started in 1632); Pestilenzbollwerk (pestilence bulwark, construction started in 1631); Friedberger Bollwerk (bulwark of Friedberg, construction started in 1628); Eschenheimer Bollwerk (bulwark of Eschenheim, construction started in 1631), Bauernbollwerk (farmers' bulwark, construction started in 1632); Bockenheimer Bollwerk (bulwark of Bockenheim, construction started in 1632); Jungwallbollwerk (young wall bulwark, construction started in 1632), Galgenbollwerk (gallows' bulwark, construction started in 1635), and Mainzerbollwerk or Schneidwallbollwerk (bulwark of Mainz or sawmill bulwark, construction started in 1635, work restarted almost from scratch in 1663). Around Sachsenhausen, there were the Tiergartenbollwerk (zoological garden bulwark, construction started in 1635); the
Hohes Werk (high bulwark, construction started in 1648, completed in 1665); the Hornwerk (horn bulwark, construction started 1631, reconstructed in its final appearance in 1665 and 1666); the Oppenheimer Bollwerk (bulwark of Oppenheim, likely built in a crescent shape around 1635 and later enlarged); and the Schaumainkaibollwerk (river view quay, a crescent-shaped construction in 1639, converted to its final form in 1667).
Maintenance The fortifications required regular, expensive, maintenance and repair. Much of this was because of the faulty and hasty nature of their original construction. The first section of the fortification had been built on swampy ground instead of the lowest point of the lower Main riverbank, where draining the incoming water would have been a trivial task. In nearly all bulwarks this resulted in fundamental structural damage that was almost impossible to repair properly. The city council repeatedly allocated less funding than the engineers requested, leading to the repair work also being inadequate. To make matters worse there was a lack of professional expertise to correctly assess the required depth of the foundations. In addition, there were fundamental design faults:The shoulders of the bastions were perpendicular to the middle wall, forming a square angle instead of an obtuse angle; the latter was required for them to mutually rake the moat in front of each other in the event of an attack. The merlons were incorrectly constructed on the front of the bulwarks instead of the center of the middle walls. The resulting blind angles would have allowed attackers to unopposedly bombard the city from the Mühlberg or the Affenstein, as they had in 1552. At the end of the sixteenth century, large parts of the wall were deconstructed, as shown on the
bird's-eye view by
Matthäus Merian of 1628. In 1583, a large section of the wall south west of the Katharinenpforte was demolished; in 1589, a breakthrough was made at the northern end of the Fahrgasse; and in 1590 a similar breakthrough was made while connecting the Hasengasse to the Zeil. In the same year, the Guldenpforte was demolished; as was the Bornheimer Pforte shortly after 1765. In 1790, the Katharinenpforte was deconstructed; in 1793, the Fronhofturm (Fronhof tower). In 1795, large parts of the Mönchturm (monk tower) were deconstructed. The latter, previously used for gunpowder storage, had almost caused a disaster when a fire broke out in it; as a consequence, it had been unused since. The clock of the Bornheimer Pforte was moved to the tower of the armoury at the
Konstablerwache in 1778. In 1776, the
bell was moved to the Johanniskirche in
Bornheim as a makeshift in the year that the church burned down. By the 18th century the city fortifications had lost their defensive value and the townspeople began to use the publicly accessible walls as a recreation area. Around 1705, the first
lime trees were planted on the ramparts; beginning in 1765, a continuous
avenue surrounded Frankfurt and Sachsenhausen. During the
Seven Years' War, the city was occupied by French troops, and its inhabitants were made to pay significant compulsory contributions. == Demolition ==