The Citadel of Pamplona

www.murallasdepamplona.es

The C

itad

el of

Pam

plona

Fi

ve li

ving

cen

turies

of an

impr

egna

ble

fort

ress

978-84-95930-50-7

Other published works

San Bartolomé FortInterpretation Centre for the Pamplona FortificationsVarious, Pamplona, 2011

Fortificaciones de Pamplona. Pasado, presente y futuro(Pamplona Fortifications. Past, Present and Future)Various, Pamplona, 2010

The Citadel of Pamplona

Five living centuriesof an impregnable fortress

Juan José Martinena Ruiz

Portada LCdP ingle?s ok 28/4/11 20:23 Página 1

Proyecto1:Maquetación 1 28/4/11 22:03 Página 1

Libro LCdP MARTINENA Ingles 3/5/11 20:36 Página 1

To my sonsJuan Ignacio and Miguel Javier



Five living centuries of an impregnable fortress

Published by: The City Council of Pamplona. Strategic Projects DeptAuthor: Juan José Martinena RuizCoordinator: José Vicente Valdenebro GarcíaEdited by: Formas de ProyectarPhotography: Berta Buzunáriz, Luis Prieto, Archivo General de Simancas (AGS,

General Archive of Simancas), Archivo Municipal de Pamplona(AMP, Municipal Archive of Pamplona), Instituto de Historia yCultura Militar (IHCM, Institute of Military History and Culture) and Servicio Geográfico del Ejército (SGE, Army Geographical Service)

Translation: David Ronder (Architrad)

Printed by: Litografía Ipar

ISBN: 978-84-95930-50-7D.L.: NA–1.507/2011

Pamplona, April 2011Revised and expanded edition of the book, “The Citadel of Pamplona”,Colección Breve, Temas Pamploneses no. 11 (1987).

© The City Council of Pamplona, publishers© Texts and photographs, the authors

www.pamplona.eswww.murallasdepamplona.es

Printed on biodegradable, recyclable, acid- and dioxin-free, TCF paper.


Contents / 9

Contents

Introduction 13

El Fratín: a prestigious engineer 17

Expropriation of the land 19

Blessing of the first stone 20

The Viceroy’s abuses against the navarrese 22

Demolition of Estella castle and arrival of El Fratín 23

Modification of the walled enclosure 24

State of the works in 1581 26

El Fratín visits again 28

Misused ashlars 30

Rival engineers, conflicting opinions 33

Herrera’s memorial 35

Philip II visits the works 36

Workers in the stocks 38

Towards the end of the 16th century 39

To the galleys on account of some keys 40

Works proceed 41

A stockade around the moat 43

More from 1608 46

A pole in the Citadel 47


10 / The Citadel of Pamplona. Five living centuries of an impregnable fortress

Drinking water from the well 48

The danger from neighbouring France 49

An interesting piece of graphic evidence 50

The Count of Oropesa, driving force of the works 52

The termination of the works 55

Royal visit of Philip IV 60

A new church 61

Two distinguished travellers: Brunel y Bertaut 63

Money for the walls 65

Necessary works in 1669 66

The eternal penury of the royal exchequer 67

The engineer Rinaldi’s report 69

Banfi, Domingo and Menni 72

Fortification of the Castle Surround 74and the Vauban system

The Viceroy’s reservations about the new half moons 79

Change of engineers 82

The Kingdom’s contribution 83

The treasurer Aranguren’s accounts 84

The moat counterscarp and other works 86

Repairs to the main gate 88

Cannon, vaults and markers for the glacis 89

Further contributions from the Kingdom 91

The new magazine and the gunpowder store 93

Philip V’s engineers. New projects 97

The new Socorro Gate and the proofing of its vaults 99

The heyday of military cartography 104

The Duke of Saint-Simon and a dish of ajoarriero 107

The new weapons room and other projects 109


Contents / 11

Zermeño and his plan to remodel the interior 113

The Citadel in 1756 114

Some buildings that never happened 119

Amici, and a report commissioned by Aranda 120

Other projects in the reign of Charles III 122

Report by the engineer don Antonio Zara 123

The lightning rod and fear of gunpowder 126

General Hurtado’s ambitious project 128

Two documents from 1800 130

1808: a french general’s stratagem 131

Blockade of the city in 1813 133

The Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis 135

O’Donnell uprising 136

A plan for a fortified line in 1849 138

Pamplona’s worst enemy 139

The carlists blockade the city 142

The first enlargement of the city: The Citadel loses two bastions 144

The Citadel as prison: Some notable inmatess 146

Cession of the Citadel to the Municipality 150

A city in miniature 155

Demolition of the buildings 158

Conservation of the oldest 160

Restoration of walls, bastions and buildings 162

A pleasant recreational space 169

Restoration of the counterguards and ravelins 174

List of the keepers of the Citadel of Pamplona 185and their lieutenants

Sources used 189

Bibliography 189


Introduction / 13

Introduction

The Citadel’s pentagonal shape has defined the appearance of Pamplona for centuries. From the time itwas first constructed in 1571 to the first of its demolitions at the end of the 19th century, when two of itsfive bastions gave way to the Primer Ensanche (First Enlargement), this Renaissance enclosure was builtto be a stout guardian of our city.

During all this time, the Citadel, which was declared a National Historical-Artistic Monument in the 1970s,has had a huge influence on the day-to-day lives of Pamplonans and has undergone a number of differentchanges to its initial structure, adjusting to the needs of the people as they came to feel hemmed in by itsstone walls.

“The Citadel de Pamplona” was written by the historian Juan José Martinena in 1987 and published bythe City Council of Pamplona as a composite history of this emblematic enclosure. Today, 24 years afterits first publication, we can now enjoy this careful reissue of the book, which includes important updatesto the original work and again shares with readers Martinena’s broad knowledge of Pamplona’s walls andheritage.

In these pages we encounter stories and anecdotes that speak of a living space that is very much a partof the development of Pamplona and which has always played a central role in the customs of the city. Inthis way, we can learn about the first designs drawn up by El Fratín in the 16th century, the royal visits tothe Citadel, the blockade of the plaza in 1813 or the illustrious prisoners who remained locked up withinits cells.

It is wonderful for the City Council of Pamplona to reissue such a remarkable work as this and to be ableto provide Pamplonans with detailed information about one of the most important elements of theirheritage. Because now, after the restoration work carried out over the past decade, the Citadel is one ofEurope’s best preserved fortifications and together with the Vuelta del Castillo all around the Castle formsPamplona’s main park which covers nearly 70 acres.

In this regard, I hope that this work, as well as all the initiatives that are being developed around the Citadeland the rest of the walls, and also the Interpretation Centre for Fortifications recently set up in the SanBartholomé Fort, will help conserve and promote it properly, so that future generations will be able toenjoy this magnificent heritage as we do.

I hope that this publication finds favour with the people of Pamplona. I am sure that this excellent work byJuan José Martinena will prove a first-rate means of spreading the story of our city’s rich history.

Yolanda BarcinaMayoress of Pamplona


Juan José Martinena Ruiz / 15

In 1569, the engineer Juan Bautista Antonelli, one of the most prestigious of theage, made a visit to Navarre by order of Philip II, with the aim of examining thefortifications of Pamplona and the border roads and passes, and devising aviable and effective plan of defence in the face of a possible attack by France.In the report which he submitted to the King on completing his mission, he saidamong other things:

“Pamplona, which is now more frontier than capital...must needs not only bewell fortified, but must have a very eminent castle; for the memory of the rule ofher native king is still fresh, and the licence that prevailed under a weak oneand the scant justice there was for the powerful; and though every man dothnow enjoy better government, justice and security, it is still also necessary tosecure their allegiance with a fortress. And Pamplona with a good castle will besafe from inward danger; and being fortified, from all outward danger. Andfurnishing it with a munitions house and a store for provisions will serve for allthe border and all the kingdom, and the viceroy will be able to supply and repairall the others from there..."1

(1) SHM (= the Military History Service in Madrid, now known as the IHCM, the Central Archiveof the Institute of Military History and Culture). Aparicio Collection. t. l, p. 103.



Antonelli’s reasoned, well-chosen words found an immediate echo in the royalmind. The Prudent King, Philip II, not only feared the ever-present and hithertooften realised possibility of an attack or armed incursion by his powerful Frenchneighbour, but also – and this was the most worrying thing – suspected the loyaltyof the Navarrese towards his crown, unsure of what their attitude would be in theevent of a new French charge across the Pyrenees.

There was thus no doubting the necessity of building a powerful fortress inPamplona that would thenceforward be the key to the Kingdom and to the entirewestern border region. All that remained was to put the plan into practice in thebest possible way.

Pamplona in 1521. To the north –on the left of the image-, the Royal Palace, then occupied bythe Viceroy; and to the south, Ferdinand the Catholic’s castle (model by Juan Mª Cía).



El Fratín: a prestigious engineer

Two years later, in 1571, Captain Jácome Palear – Giacomo Palearo in somesources – was entrusted by the king with the task of drawing up the plans for thenew fortress. Then some forty two years of age, and commonly known by hisnickname El Fratín (Italian for “Little Friar”), he was one of the most competentand renowned engineers at the monarch’s disposal. In his career, he had overseenthe fortification of San Sebastián, Fuenterrabía, Zaragoza, Monzón, Mallorca, Ibiza,Cullera, Alicante, Cartagena and Orán.2 His experience was amply proven and hedeservedly enjoyed the respect of the King.

Fratín planned the Pamplona Citadel following the model developed by thefamous Paciotto de Urbino with Antwerp’s in 1568, and which was thenconsidered the very archetype of a modern fortress. The ground plan was to bea regular pentagon, with bastions in the shape of arrowheads placed at the fiveangles. The robust masonry walls were set at a slope, banked up towards theinterior of the enclosure in order to neutralise as far as possible the effect ofartillery, which was beginning to be more fearsome and powerful. Wide moatssurrounded the perimeter of the walls to hinder the enemy’s approach and makeit more difficult to storm the fortress. To get across them and makecommunication possible, there were to be wooden bridges on stakes or pilasters,with a final moveable section which could be raised or lowered by means of abascule mechanism of chains and levers. In short: a fortress a la italiana, likealmost all those of the Renaissance, and of the kind for which Leonardo da Vincihimself even designed prototypes.

It must be said, to give every man his due, that Fratín was not the sole authorand creator of the plan. There is documentary proof of the direct involvement ofDon Vespasiano Gonzaga y Colonna, Marquis of Sabioneda and Duke of Trayetto,who was made Viceroy of Navarre in March 1572 and who combined his royalservice and military merits with a vast knowledge of the art of siege warfare. A

(2) IDOATE, Las fortificaciones, pp. 76-77



Design of Pamplona’s Citadel, according to a plan by El Fratín. AGS



memorial, written years later, said of him: “...his daughter is the Citadel ofPamplona...the most distinguished fortified stone construction in the world andthe best known.”3

As was to be expected, there was some discussion before a decision wasmade on the most suitable site for the Citadel. When the various opinions hadbeen listened to, the one it occupies today was chosen; and, barring a fewquibbles, it has been considered the most felicitous option by militaryengineers of subsequent eras. The one drawback was the unevenness of theterrain, which required some increase in the elevation of the walls and thesinking of wells to guarantee the supply of drinkable water that is fundamentalto any fortified unit.

Expropriation of the land

The plans having been drawn up and the project approved by the king and hiscouncil, the works got underway, involving great activity from the first moment.Once the measurements of the land, which at that time fell outside the oldwalled medieval enclosure, had been made, it was agreed to start with thebastions of San Antón and La Victoria, both facing the city, and with the curtainwall that was to run between them. Lope de Huarte was appointed veedor orinspector of works and given precise instructions as to how he should exercisehis office.4

Prior to the start of the works, it was necessary to resolve the complicated matterof the expropriation and compensation of the inhabitants who owned the houses

(3) Ibid. doc. no. 12. It also states that Fratín consulted the Prior of Barletta, who, according todocuments of the time, knew the city better than anyone.

(4) This inspector was temporarily suspended from his job due to accounting irregularities,being reinstated in May 1578. (AGN. Mercedes Reales, lib. 12, fol. 259). Miguel Pérez de Alarcón features as works paymaster at this time; his salary went up as a result of the work on the citadel (Ibid. fls. 110 y 179v).



and lands affected. Captain Fratín himself testified with regard to this in a trialthat took place some years later:

“...he said that this witness knows that when he planned the said Citadel andfortress, it was necessary to occupy and seize, as were duly occupied and seized,many estates and orchards with their water-wheels and garden-houses, and alsothe churches of San Lázaro and San Antón, with their houses and estates. Andthat, the plan and description made of the ambit and space that the said Citadeland its grounds were set to occupy, this witness gave notice and reason of it allto the Field Marshall, who at that time was Señor Vespasiano Gonzaga Colonna.

And on his orders, this witness and the other officials of His Majesty ordered theowners of each house be advised and summoned, in their own time, so that intheir presence or that of those appearing for them, each thing be justly measuredand estimated with expert measurers and estimators, so that neither his Majestynor such individuals might incur injury to their worth. And the order was given tonote everything in His Majesty’s books, so that everyone be paid what was dueto him...”5

Blessing of the first stone

On 11 July 1571 the inauguration of building work was celebrated with all duesolemnity – the laying of the first stone, as we would say today. Ignacio Baleztena,writing under the pseudonym Tiburcio de Okabio, re-created the events as followsin his unforgettable Iruñerías (Tales of Pamplona):

“The Bishop of Pamplona, Don Diego Ramírez Sedeño de Fuenleal, said mass,and when it was over, he and all the clergy and friars from all the monasteriesleft in solemn procession towards the new construction, which was blessed by

(5) IDOATE, ob. cit. doc. no. 11. The Order of San Antón was indemnified with 2,225 ducats.



the Lord Bishop. The five bastions were baptised with the names Real, Santiago,San Antón, Santa María and La Victoria.

“Present in the procession and throughout the ceremony was Señor DonVespasiano Gonzaga Colonna, His Majesty’s Viceroy and Field Marshall for theKingdom of Navarre and province of Guipúzcoa...

“Months later, on 28 October, the day of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist SaintLuke, Señor Don Vespasiano Gonzaga bade enter and installed the first garrisonof the new fortress – the company of Don Alonso de Cosgaya, which was onguard in the city. After putting the guards in place, the captain departed thecitadel, leaving his second lieutenant there, as he was in charge of watching thecity. Don Nuño González, lieutenant to Captain Campuzano, stayed with soldiersof the company in the Old Castle, as the captain was stationed with some otherson guard at the French border passes.

“The citadel’s first mayor, appointed by His Majesty, was Don Hernando deEspinosa, nephew of Cardinal Don Diego de Espinosa, President of the RoyalCouncil of Castile and senior Inquisitor, Bishop of Sigüenza.”6

The first work consisted fundamentally in excavating the land, beginning bydigging ditches and then deepening and widening what would later becomemoats, using the earth displaced for filling or interior banking of the future wallsand bastions.

That same year, the Spanish forces under the command of Don John of Austriaachieved in the Gulf of Lepanto one of the most glorious victories in their historyagainst the Turkish navy: the triumph of the cross over the crescent – or, asCervantes wrote, “the greatest occasion that the centuries saw...”

(6) Diario de Navarra, 11 September 1949.



The Viceroy’s abuses against the Navarrese

As had happened before with the construction of the Old Castle by Ferdinandthe Catholic, the villages of the Pamplona basin and neighbouring valleys wereturned to again to contribute to the works with farmhands and day labourers,and the transport of building materials with their animals, carts and teams ofoxen. That gave rise, due fundamentally to the abuses and arbitrarinesscommitted by the foremen and commissioners in carrying it out, to numerouslawsuits at the Royal Court, such as that followed by the jurors and inhabitantsof Villava in 1572.7

The discontent was becoming so widespread that in 1573 a lawyer called Olanotook it upon himself to put the matter before the King: “... I perceive,” he saidin his memorial, “that the Navarrese are very offended and weary, and complaingreatly of the harsh treatment they receive from Vespasiano de Gonzaga, Viceroyof the said Kingdom...because he constantly hath made and doth make themwork on the fortifications of Pamplona, taking the workers from their houses atthe time of year when they are most needed, and often carrying them off on highdays, he makes them by force be whatever he deems best. And the worst of itis that he doth not pay them their wages and they suffer from much hunger andwork; and many honourable men, who hath food to eat in their houses, arecompelled to ask for alms in Pamplona so that they might eat and work on theconstruction, as they are not paid or allowed to go to their houses. I am a witnessof this as I saw it myself before I left the said Kingdom; and gave food and almsto some of my neighbours, and they hath confirmed to me that some hath diedfrom pure hunger through not asking for alms, and for that reason there is muchbarrenness and need throughout that Kingdom...” Even the nobles, whoseexemptions and privileges had always been respected, had begun to be upset,obliged to take up expensive lawsuits to defend their nobility and status andavoid having to contribute economically or personally to the fortification. Olanoimparted all this to Philip II in the certain knowledge that such abuses could not

(7) AGN. Procesos. 2nd series, no. 4,407.



be to his liking, “as you have always shown protection and favour to theNavarrese, having entreated and ordered your Viceroys to deal with them kindly.”Thus informed of what was happening, he could supply the remedy to all theabuse.8

The Navarre Parliament also echoed the complaints and protests of the villagesaffected. The Viceroy had been given the task of carrying on with the constructionof the citadel and was determined to accomplish his mission with the maximumpossible diligence and efficiency, manu militari. An otherwise honourable andindustrious man, his excessive zeal was what roused the antipathy and hostilityof the Navarrese, long accustomed to greater temperance in those who led andgave orders to them.

Demolition of Estella Castle and arrival of El Fratín

Setting aside these problems and tensions, inherent anyway in an undertakingof this scale, the fact is that the works were progressing at a good pace, giventhe possibilities and means of the age. As soon as the Citadel was ready tohouse troops, the order was given to blow up and demolish Estella Castle andtransfer the soldiers who made up its garrison to Pamplona. A surprising aspectfrom today’s perspective is that one them was 60 years old and there was evenanother of 70.

At the same time – it was 1574 – arrangements were made to move thechaplaincy of San Miguel from the Estella fortress to the Pamplona citadel, whichled to the chaplain of Puy bringing a lawsuit before the Royal Court. Up till thenhe had been receiving an annual stipend of 10 ducats for the three weeklymasses he held for the military.9

(8) AGN. Virreyes, leg. 1, carp. 4.(9) IDOATE, Las fortificaciones, note 50.



On 4 July 1578, Philip II ordered Captain Fratín to make his way to Pamplona assoon as possible to examine the state of works and make the necessaryarrangements to continue with the fortification:

“... We assign and order you that on receipt of this letter, you depart for the saidcity of Pamplona, making as much haste as you can. And on arrival there, that youexamine the said Fortress and see if what hath been done until now hath beenin accordance with the plan and order that you left or if it has departed from it andin what particulars. And having examined and reflected well upon it, plan and orderwhat remains to be done, both in the fortification of the Citadel and in the City;and also the casemates that are necessary to construct and in which parts andof what form, size and type they should be. And having made and left a plan andorder and indicated what is advisable in every particular matter, in such a mannerthat there might be no errors, for progress to be made with the said Fortress andfor the aforementioned casemates to be constructed in accordance with it, returnhere to my court or to wherever I am to be found, bringing a copy of said plan andorder to give an account of every thing and of that which is in accordance with itand with your judgement, and the appropriate orders can be given...”10

It would appear that the first defensive constructions of the Citadel and walls,provisionally raised on earth and fascine, and been collapsing due to the effectof damp and rain, making the whole southwest part of the enclosure penetrablein the case of an attack, with consequent risk.

Modification of the walled enclosure

At this point it should be noted that the construction of the Citadel on its currentsite required the modification of a good part of the walled enclosure of the city,to adapt it to the new fortress. The old medieval wall, running from the Old Castle

(10) Ibid. doc. no. 8.



– situated approximately where the Town Hall gardens and the Church of SanIgnacio are today – followed the line of the even numbers of the Paseo deSarasate; and next to the Church of San Nicolás, which was fortified until 1521,stood the gate of the same name. Opposite the Courthouse, where the bastionof La Torredonda was erected, it turned at an angle down the Calle Navas deTolosa; at the mouth of San Antón was the gate known as Las Zapaterías or LaTraición. It carried on down Calle Taconera and Rincón de la Aduana, until it metthe tower and gate of San Lorenzo or San Llorente. From there, through the plazasof Recoletas and La Virgen de la O, where the gate known as Santa Engracia wassituated, it continued until it formed a right angle with the wall of what is todaythe Descalzos section of the circular walkway up on the city walls.11

Following the construction of the Citadel, the two new curtain walls were laid outfurther towards the countryside, taking within the City enclosure everything thatis today the Gardens of La Taconera, Bosquecillo, Calle Navas de Tolosa, thePaseo de Sarasate, Plaza del Vínculo, Calle de Estella and Calle Cortes deNavarre. On the Southern front, which was completely demolished between 1918and 1921, the new gate of San Nicolás opened, situated on the current Avenidade San Ignacio, roughly where the Carlos III cinema multiplex stands today. TheTaconera gate, whose arch and pediment were taken down in 1906 to ease thepassage of vehicles and carriages, was sited on the other, Western facade, whichis still preserved today (though with some alterations). The arch and pedimentwere reconstructed in 2002.

This whole important sector of the walled enclosure, with the new bastions of LaReina or Tejería on one side, and La Taconera and Gonzaga on the other, werefirst built, as was the Citadel itself, solely of earth, being excavated and packedsolid in the ground itself. Hence the urgency there was in 1578 to proceed assoon as possible to encamisar the walls and bastions – which is to say, to cladtheir exterior faces with masonry stone, giving them the necessary aestheticfinish, soundness and strength.

(11) MARTINENA, La Pamplona de los burgos, pp. 272-274 y 325-327.



Although Vespasiano Gonzaga had ceased to be Viceroy in 1575, the villagers’complaints regarding the fortification works continued under his successors DonSancho Martínez de Leiva and Don Francisco Hurtado de Mendoza, Marquis ofAlmazán, the latter appointed in 1579. The reason was usually nowdiscrepancies regarding the price for transport and supply of constructionmaterials, especially wood and lime. In 1580 the villages of Anocíbar andSorauren protested angrily. There appear to have been limestone quarriesoperating there, because they were made to bring 240 loads of lime for theCitadel and were then set to work building the convent of St. Domingo. Thepeople of Esparza also complained, demanding a ducat for every tree cut downwithin their limits.12

State of the works in 1581

An interesting account survives from 1581, written by García de Mendoza,which provides reliable evidence of what the state of Pamplona’sfortifications was at that time. This engineer says, referring specifically tothe Citadel:

“As for the fortification of the Citadel and the City, what Fratín hath evidentlyset out to do is a very fine thing, and now coming into being. Of the fivebastions that hath the Citadel, three of them are without and two within theCity, and they gird the two arms that lead to the fortifications and to theCity.

“There are, in those three bastions which lie without, six fronts of wall upto the cordon, and no curtain wall or casemate to hold any force, either inthe one above or the one below. All the rest is of fascine and earth, madeby Vespasiano Gonzaga; and being earth, it has collapsed with the action

(12) Pamplona Parliament1580, law 100. Novís. Recop. lib. V, tít. XIX, ley XII.



of water and time. For this the order could be given to build across the fallensection until the chemise wall that has to go around is complete, and withlittle trouble the voices saying it is easy to climb up to the plazas would bestilled. And there being suitable lime and stone materials at the foot of theconstruction, and open foundations, it is well to put them into the work; forone thing, because it would strengthen the terreplein so that it could not fallat all; and for the other it would cause the people to come to the foot of theconstruction, making much haste through not bringing it twice...”13

After a brief but comprehensive review of the various points of the cityprecincts, expounding the defects observed and most urgent requirements,he made clear his view that the task to be carried out with top priority wasthat of “finishing the fortification of the Citadel, which is the nerve of allthat Kingdom, and where the few troops of the Castilian companies withinit must gather”.

At that time the so-called Old Castle, built on the orders of Ferdinand theCatholic in 1512, was still in use. It had a guard of a hundred soldiers,under the command of one of the three infantry captains in the Pamplonagarrison. “It is a castle in the old style,” wrote García de Mendoza, “with fourtowers and very fine walls, which could serve as cavalier to the bastions andcurtain wall of the new fortification. It is useful for having artillery andharquebuses, cannonballs, pikes, gunpowder and wheat.”14

As can be seen from this document, in 1581, ten years after the start ofconstruction work, the state of the Citadel still left much to be desired, withthe greater part of the wall faces still unclad.

The work went on, in accordance with Fratín’s plans and projects, butcontinually suffering from lack of funds, which meant little progress wasmade - or, at least, that things was not moving at the speed required for a

(13) IDOATE, ob. cit. doc. no. 9.(14) Ibid.



frontier town. Besides, the villages carried on complaining and makingclaims over the low wages paid to the workers or abuses in the requisitionof materials, which on occasions amounted to actual plunder.15

El Fratín visits again

On 13 November of that same 1584, the engineer Fratín arrived in Pamplona fora second time, with letters from the King to the Viceory Marquis of Almazán, toinspect the state of works and report on the matter directly to the King. On 24November he wrote the requested report,16 from which we can see that theCitadel was in more or less the same state as described three years earlier byGarcía de Mendoza.

“I have found,” he said in reference to the works, “that what hath been donesince my departure from here hath been in accordance with the plans and ordersthat I left by command of Your Majesty, and done well. But I have found lessconstruction than I had expected to find. This is due to there not having beenmoney for it, from what I am told.

“The three bastions of the Citadel that face the country, that were clad in masonrybefore I went, are at the same height and in the same state as when I left them,the foundations having been dug. Another has been built there and is of thesame height as the other three. The wall and masonry of the fifth and finalbastion are at a height of nine feet from its foundations, including the work thathas been done on it since my arrival here, and work continues on it with all duediligence. And I have ordered for more workers to take advantage of this good

(15) The 1580 Parliament increased, in Law 10, the price of lime and its transport from 4 and ahalf to 5 maravedis per theft and from 2 to 3 maravedis per league and quintal carried. In1590, the Three Estates approved a new increase from 5 to 6 maravedis in the theft paymentand from 3 to 4 and a half per league and quintal of carriage. That same year it was orderedthat the villages bringing lime should moreover not be forced to contribute their workers orhorses if not they were not available (Novía. Recop. lib. V, tít. XIX, leyes III, IV y XVIII).

(16) IDOATE, Las fortificaciones, doc. no. 10.



weather that God hath granted us since my arrival, which is no small fortune forme, according to the custom of this land, although on my way here I had very rainyweather...The terrepleins and moat are as I left them, not one thing has beendone on them from that time till now. And although since then I have told themto send for more men to start on some parts of it, because it is important andbecause the weather may allow it, tomorrow I will begin to dig and lay thefoundations of one of the sections of the wall.

“As for the houses inside, where it was said the air smelled bad due to waterrising there, that is of no account; no pipes will be necessary for such houses,for there is not any water within them, and the rainwater drains off them withease. Only the pipes for the plazas will need to be made, when it be necessary,as the main pipe was already made before I left; and being well made, it serves.All the other things concerning the said works, both within and without, willcontinue to have done on them all that best corresponds to the service of YourMajesty...”17

In a previous letter, El Fratín had set out to the King the advisability ofdemolishing the part of the old city wall that faced the Citadel, filling the moatwith the rubble and thus to avoid it serving as a commanding height from whichto attack the fortress. Philip II wrote about this to the Marquis of Almazán,instructing him to go ahead if he thought it appropriate. And in another letterto the engineer on 24 November, he ended by saying: “Regarding the demolitionof the old wall to make use of the stone for construction of the Citadel, as thereis little supply thereof or of lime, it would be well. And as the want thereof hathresided in not having provided money, the order will be given to proceed withsending that which, as hath already been advised, is planned for the fortificationof the said citadel.”18

(17) Ibid.(18) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 6.



The following year, 1585, the Council of War urged the King of the advisability ofcontinuing to send funds to keep the construction work moving forward under thedirection of El Fratín, who, as can be seen from documents from the period,spent the whole year in Pamplona, personally supervising the works. The sensibledecision was also taken to keep the Old Castle standing until the new one – theCitadel – was completely finished, so that the city could, in case of danger, atleast count on a defensible fortress.19 However, lack of means meant that shortlyafterwards the plunder of its materials began, for use in the construction,effectively converting it into a cheap and convenient quarry which offered theadditional advantage of supplying stone that had already been worked and cutinto ashlars.

On 20 October of that same year, the Viceroy Marquis of Almazán, in fulfilmentof the king’s orders, gave an instruction commanding the demolition and levellingout of “garden walls, embankments, cellars and all other things that might harmor prejudice the fortification of this City and of this Citadel.” Around that time, theCalle Nueva was planned over what had formerly been the moat of Burgo deSan Cernin. At the same time the old prohibition on building or cultivating landwithin a certain distance of the wall was renewed, with any application forpermission having to be submitted to the judgement of Captain Fratín.

Misused ashlars

It would seem that in 1586, or perhaps at the end of the previous year, Jacoboor Jácome Palear, El Fratín, died, to be replaced in the direction of works by hisbrother Jorge, also an engineer and fortifications expert. In the summer of 1586,work was taking place on the section of wall between the main gate and the SanAntón Bastion, using masonry stone from the old castle which was of a differentsize and spoiled the aesthetic aspect of the wall. The inspector Luis Carrillo de

(19) SHM. Col. Aparici, volume I, p. 181



Toledo was not pleased. On 28 August he hastened to inform the King:“...Wishing to complete the construction of the curtain wall that joins the gateto the casemate and bastion of San Antón, he hath begun to lay from the middleupwards ashlars that are taken from the Old Castle, in which there is such

disparity that the said ashlars from the castle are half again as big as the regularones that hath been laid in all the construction so far. And though I sent to tellhim, from the first course that he laid, that it was not to my satisfaction and thathe should not proceed with it, he continued with it another day, wishing topersuade me that it would be of better appearance, which is very much contraryto my own judgement – and above that, it is a very obvious repair and unworthyof so Royal a construction. And granted that he might wish to disguise it, as hehas tried to do, by laying a course of large ashlars and another of smaller ones,it would have to be through all of the wall and not just from the middle upwards;besides which, on the section of the same wall that corresponds to the VictoriaBastion, which is the other of the two that gird the gate, he is not building in thesame style. All of which is of no small consideration, as it is on the face of thefortress where the eyes do first and must fall. And so, while he might use those

Curious drawing from the time, showing the state of works on the Citadel in 1587. AGS



ashlars for the sections of wall facing the countryside as he sees fit, I thoughtto warn Your Majesty so that the order might be given to desist, as this can nowbe done with ease and little cost, but not after.”20

And he added this postscript: “So that Y.M. might see with Your own eyes thedisproportion in the ashlars I mention above, I enclose a depiction thereof, madeby a son of Secretary Aquilón, a very skilful and virtuous boy, in which heresembles his father well.”

The drawing the letter refers to is certainly an intriguing piece of graphic evidence,being contemporary with the era when the Citadel was built. It shows the SanAntón Bastion and the part of the stretch of wall in which the main gate opens –which is to say, where the Avendida del Ejército crosses today. At the corner ofthe bastion is a fair-sized square sentry box with a four-pitched roof. In the partopposite the sentry box, Fratín himself, with cape and hat, is personallysupervising the laying of a course of ashlars at the top of the parapet. In themoat, people are actively working on the digging and levelling of the land. Soldiersarmed with halberds are guarding the workers, while at the foot of the rampleading up to the bastion, a foreman is punishing a woman carrying a basket onher head with a stick or pole. On the wall adjoining the gate, the draftsman hastried to bring out in great detail the defect being denounced, perhaps slightlyexaggerating in the drawing the poor aesthetic effect produced by alternatingcourses of stone of different widths.21

In spite of it all, the Viceroy cannot have been unhappy with El Fratín’sprofessional conduct, apart from certain differences of opinion such as that justdescribed. Or so it can apparently be deduced from another paragraph in whichhe informed the King that "the work is being speedily managed and withcustomary care, Jorge Fratín attending with much satisfaction so far...”22

(20) MARTINENA, ob. cit. doc. no. 7.(21) Simancas, Mar y Tierra, leg. 212. (Aparici copy in the SHM).(22) Vid. note 20.



Rival engineers, conflicting opinions

In September of that same 1587, the Council of War ruled that the planpreviously developed by the late Fratín should be followed. To carry it out,Jerónimo Marqui was appointed master builder. Two years later, the original planswould be burnt when the house he owned in El Escorial suffered a fire. A captainby the name of Venegas was at that time busy trying to find the plans in hisarchive, which he needed to resume the works.23 It appears work was activelybeing done on the finishing touches to the San Antón Bastion.

A son of Jorge Fratín, Francisco, appears in the documents for the year 1590,signing a report addressed to Philip II on the state of fortifications. He musthave been quite young, because he himself admitted that he still lacked theexperience and accomplishments of his elders. In the report mentioned hemade it clear that at that time the walls of the Old Castle were being loweredthrough having their tops removed, “her plunder continually being taken to theCitadel”.24

The engineer Tiburcio Espanochi passed through Pamplona at about the sametime. As was customary, he wrote his own report on the fortifications. In thatdocument, he listed the defects that he perceived in the Citadel, particularly asregards the moats and foundations of the wall. In reality, beyond the technicaljudgements and assessments, the report entailed an acerbic critique ofVespasiano Gonzaga, Viceroy at the time work started and who had such adecisive role in the project. The report gave the engineers of the day plenty totalk about, and opinions soon divided into those who were for Espanochi andothers who were against him and for Gonzaga. A memorial favourable to thelatter essentially said that if there were objections and doubts about his plansand conduct, the first thing to do was summon him and hear his opinion,evaluating his reasons and arguments. It alluded in passing to possiblefalsifications and manipulations of the original plans by Jorge Fratín and one

(23) SHM. Col. Aparici, t. l, p. 186.(24) Ibid, p. 192.



other, and also to Fratín the Elder not respecting the guidelines laid down byGonzaga at the commencement of works: “... Because I am not very convincedthat Jácome Fratín followed Vespasiano’s orders very closely; I rather suspect thathe altered...”25

As can be seen in the documents, a small secondary moat at the foot of somebastions and walls was being created, something that Gonzaga had not planned,“rather he thought to make a most wide and deep moat, full and clean, that theenemy could never fill, either with their hands or with the ruins of gun batteries.And as for the depth of the moat, Vespasiano assumed that it had to be very,very deep, with limitless water; for besides a great deal having its source there,one of the reasons that drove them to take the Citadel out into the countryside,separating it from the City, was to encompass the source of the water within; forif it remained without, enemies could easily divert it...”26

Espanochi highlighted as a defect the fact that nowhere had the foundationsbeen dug more than twelve feet to the rubble base, which moreover was likeash. He was not familiar with the soil of this region, which, “although it revealsa very thin, soft and loose crust, is like hard rock; and it is not clay, because clayis something different. If it were Clay, the churches and all the houses ofPamplona would not be based on the ground..."

Another objection he made was to the insufficient height of the walls andbastions, which he measured in relation to that of the city houses, when it wasenough that they were taller than the ladders that might be used in an assault.In another case, it would be necessary to raise them to match the vaults of SanNicolás and the Old Castle, from where artillery could be turned on the Citadel.

(25) IDOATE, ob. cit. p 83.(26) Ibid. doc. no. 12.



Herrera’s memorial

Another memorial was written around this time, 1592, but in a contrasting spiritto what has just been outlined. Its author was Antonio de Herrera, and it wasdirected against Vespasiano Gonzaga and Fratín the Elder – not just as regardstheir plans and the way they were implemented, but even their conduct in general,which does not come out very well in the document.27 The main gate to theCitadel is described exactly as follows: “...it cannot hide what it is; namely ugly,ill-proportioned and of poorly laid soft stone, and its wall has open foundationsand is slightly bowed.” Some paragraphs adopt an authentically accusatory tone:“All their words sought to deceive Your Majesty with appearances, giving you tounderstand that in little time and with little money they had accomplished much,when quite the reverse was true because with much money they were doing littleand badly, as can be seen from the work. Consider it all to remedy and repair it,without believing those who praise it.” And further on, he adds: “And CaptainFratín misreported his role, as he is the reason why many soldiers hath died ofcold in the Citadel, because their chambers are of half brick, as can be seen, andthe higher ones are of half brick and mud; and thus the said chambers are asfull of holes as a sieve, as will be seen.” He ended with quite an accurateobservation that also features in another memorial of the era:

“... It is noteworthy that artillery could be mounted against the Citadel on theChurch of San Nicolás, where there are vaults, which was another of the reasonsthat led Vespasiano to remove to the countryside, and why a country house hadto be built in the Old Fortress, with windows put therein and the curtain wall thatfaces the Citadel being demolished, only for it to be built up again so very thinthat it could be demolished by one cannonshot, and that this house serves theViceroy and his Council, with the expense being passed on to the Citadel.”28

Herrera’s report gave the full names of all those who, to his knowledge,“sustained and supported the said Jorge (Fratín) and his great errors, in

(27) MARTINENA. Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 8.(28) Ibid.



disservice to Your Majesty and to the royal stonework of the Citadel... And morethan 3,000 ducats that the engineer shared out among those who helped him,which part of them was led by Calabrés, also helped to cover over and stifle thetruth, so that it might not reach Your Majesty’s ears. And that is how, with deceit,the Fratín brothers have had Your Majesty’s ear, telling you a thousand goodthings about them and how well they serve you...” As a result of such seriousaccusations, the Court Marshall started proceedings against some of those whoseemed most implicated in the affair, in which it appears there must have beensome very murky schemes and dealings.29

Philip II visits the works

On 20 November 1592, on an official visit as we would say today, his CatholicHoly Royal Majesty Philip II came to Pamplona. It was two in the afternoon whenthe regal procession arrived at the gates to the city, where they found waiting forthem the aldermen wearing their civic robes for the first time, the ecclesiasticaland civil authorities, the leading knights and a great multitude of people, eagerto see in person the most feared and powerful monarch in Christendom. Theevent had an appointed chronicler in the person of Enrique Cock, a Dutchmantravelling with the King’s retinue who combined in his person the disparatefunctions of scribe, papal notary and archer of the royal guard. This curiouscharacter described the arrival of the King thus:

“His Majesty alighted at some tents, whose flaps were raised. Opposite themwas the New Castle (alluding to the Citadel), where seventy pieces of artillerywere fired, one at a time, deafening everyone with their thunder. This receptiontook place on Friday 20 November and the town council called out, by order ofhis Viceroy Don Martín de Cordoba, Marquis of Cortes, three thousand armedmen from among its citizens, a thousand of them with lances and the rest with

(29) IDOATE, Las fortificaciones, p. 84.



harquebusiers, all of whom marched past in sight of His Majesty. The guard ofthe realm was present at intervals, armed, and on their fast horses...”30 After themilitary parade – the display, as they called it then – the Viceroy, the Bishop, theCouncil and the Judges of the Court, Council and Treasury came to pay theirrespects to the King and kiss the royal hands.

The following day, Saturday 21 of November, Philip II wanted to go in person tothe Citadel, to see for himself the state of the works that had been costing himso much in terms of time, money and sleepless nights. Cock´s account hasthis to say about the matter:

“His Majesty ordered for a most lovely new castle of thick stone to be built on asuitable site, with bastions, moats and all else that that befits a fine fortress;and of which, although it be not all completed, the plan and form that it will takecan clearly be seen.” He goes on to refer to the old castle built by Ferdinand theCatholic, in whose defence the founder of the Jesuit order Iñigo de Loyola wouldfall wounded in 1521: “There was another old castle which is now near-ruinedand does not serve."31 It is clear that on this occasion the Imperial coat of armswhich stood over the door of this old military fortress was taken down to beplaced at the entrance to the Viceroy´s palace - the now dilapidated MilitaryHeadquarters – where in those days the King and his wife Doña Ana of Austria,Prince Don Philip, the future Philip III, and the Infanta Doña Isabel Clara Eugeniawould stay.

The King stayed in Pamplona until the evening of the 23rd. On Sunday 22nd,the solemn ceremony of the swearing in of the Prince took place, at which heswore before the Parliament to protect and ensure the defence of the fueros(charters) and laws, habits and customs of the Kingdom; and the Three Estatesswore allegiance to him and recognised him as the heir to the Crown of Navarre.There were illuminations for three nights, with torches being distributed to theresidents.

(30) IRIBARREN, Pamplona y los viajeros, pp. 27-29. See also Idoate, ob. cit. nota 58.(31) Ibid.



The documents state that Juan de Landa was commissioned by the Regimientoor town council to paint a regular-sized canvas that depicted “the city with thecitadel, in such a manner as it is at present, with a plate upon which to put inthe centre a legend telling of the arrival of Their Majesties and Highnesses, andon what day they entered and which aldermen went..."32 Where, with the passingof time, might this most intriguing graphic testament have come to rest, whichwould have illustrated for us today what the tranquil Pamplona of the late 16thcentury was like?

Workers in the stocks

In 1593 Parliament considered again, as it had done before in 1561 and 1565,the wages to be paid to the labourers from the villages working on thefortifications, as well as to the muleteers and people transporting wood, plasterand other materials.33 Six years earlier, in 1586, the lawful representatives of theKingdom had raised their voices in protest against the punishments imposed onsome labourers working on the Citadel who had been exposed to pubic disgracein the stocks, restrained with metal rings, “in a very public and insulting place”.34

When it comes down to it, almost every construction of any notable size has indifferent eras been built on the sweat and countless sufferings of unknownpeople whose labour makes it possible but who will never emerge from obscurity.The fortifications of Pamplona were no exception to this.

(32) IDOATE, Esfuerzo bélico de Navarra, p. 215(33) The Pamplona Parliament of 1590 had approved an increase from 7 to 8 tarjas. In 1593

they agreed to raise it to 9 tarjas, an amount maintained by the Parliament of 1596.(Novis. Recop. lib. V, tit. XIX, leyes V, VII y IX).

(34) 1586 Pamplona Parliament, law 22. The preamble to the law gave notice of the fact: “Afterthe last Parliament here, stocks and a ring were erected next to the moat of the Citadel ofthis City in a very public and insulting place. And some persons who came to the workswere put therein...by order and authority of the foremen of said works”. (Novis. Recop. lib.V, tit. XIX, ley XV).



Towards the end of the 16th century

The fortress was still not completely built when rumours began to circulatein Parliament about possible secret negotiations with the French to hand itover by treaty, as the expression had it, to the Duke of Vendôme. Themalicious rumours reached the ears of Philip II himself, now sick and ailing,who swiftly asked the Viceroy for the particulars of the matter. On 20November 1594, Don Martín de Córdoba wrote him a reassuring letter: “...itcannot be believed that there can be so untoward a thing as the desire to takethe Citadel of Pamplona by treaty; as much for the difficulty of being able toeffect it as for the impossibility after doing so of being able to maintain orsustain it.”35

In the last years of Philip II’s reign, the state of the Citadel continued to leavemuch to be desired, although some considerable progress had been made inthe basics of the exterior work. So said the Viceroy Juan de Cardona in 1597.The following year, at five in the morning on Sunday 13 September, the Kingdied in his chambers in El Escorial, at 71 years of age and having reigned for43 of them. On 28th and 29th of that same month, the Council of the Realmand the city of Pamplona raised banners for the new ruler, Don Philip III ofCastile and Navarre. The works would continue throughout his reign, althoughstill without conclusion.

We can gain some idea of what health and hygiene conditions were like in theCitadel’s barracks in the last years of the 16th century from the fact thatforty of the hundred soldiers who made up the meagre and badly paid garrisondied of infection. Illnesses were very frequent, with the military having

(35) IDOATE, Esfuerzo bélico de Navarra, p. 130.



constantly to drink water from the well and which was not always in a fit state,above all in the summer months.

A letter sent by the Viceroy Cardona to Philip III on 18 March 1600 gives us aprecise update on what state the Citadel was in on the eve of the new century:

“...On occasions I have determined what the Citadel of Pamplona requires for itto be perfectly completed, for it lacks a moat and covered approach, which hasnot been begun, and what I might say of the moat would not be half of what isnecessary. Three bastions have no parapets, one of them does and the other hasbut half of one, so that it cannot easily be said of that fortress that it is welldefended. I implore Your Majesty, as it be so much in accord with your servicethat the fortresses exist in more than just name, that you order the matter to beremedied and send money for it; as that which was sent more than two yearsago and indeed very nearly three, has been distributed with all due care.”36

In spite of everything, in the manuscript entitled Floresta Española (SpanishWoodlands), written at that very time, and quoted by Iribarren in Pamplona y losviajeros de otros siglos (Travellers to Pamplona in Centuries Past), reference wasmade to the two castles that the city had then, saying “that the most modernone is of impregnable design and construction.”37

To the galleys on account of some keys

A noteworthy episode occurred in 1603. Every day at nightfall, the corporal of theguard had to go to the palace accompanied by two armed soldiers, to hand overthe keys of the gates to the Viceroy. But it so happened that one night, theBishop’s bailiff requested them to leave the keys with him so they could gallopoff in search of the Ongoz priest. The corporal of the guard, who was called

(36) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 9.(37) IRIBARREN, Pamplona y los viajeros, p. 31.



Soria, handed them over in view of the urgency of the matter and the fact thathe was dealing with an agent of authority. It was absolutely the wrong thing todo. The Court Marshall considered his recklessness a grave offence andpunished the trusting corporal by sentencing him, as the person responsible forhanding over the keys, to four years’ rowing in His Majesty’s galleys, "becausethey passed through the City that night in the hands of a citizen.”38

Works proceed

Meanwhile, works were moving forward under the direction of Fratín the Younger,who, on 1 October 1604, reported on the latest developments to the King: “Sir,Don Juan de Cardona, Viceroy of this Kingdom, has provided some money, withwhich construction of this castle hath continued in its most necessary andurgent parts; and I have thus almost completed as far as their parapets threebastions, one that faces the City and two towards the country, and also a wallthat looks to both the city and countryside; and I have completely finished theguard post of the Socorro Gate but for the bridge, on which I am now working.I lack the money to complete the aforementioned, as the Viceroy cannot provideme with any more, having already done much, and more than any other Viceroy...And as Your Majesty well knows the border this castle lies on, and the need ithas of repair and completion, I will not plead any further the need for thismoney...”39

We can gain a fuller idea of what the Citadel looked like at the beginning of 1608from a plan entitled An Account of the Fortification of Pamplona and What Remainsto be Fortified, found among the documents of a meeting of the Council of Warheld on 20 March. The fortress is represented from an aerial perspective, as itwould be seen from a flying object situated above La Taconera. The main gatehas the same features as today, but with a drawbridge operated by chains and

(38) IDOATE, Las fortificaciones, note 62.(39) MARTINENA, Ob. cit. doc. no. 10.



levers, and a fixed bridge with an exterior guard post and another drawbridge. Onthe turret, which already had its gallery of little arches, there was a flagstaff inthe shape of a cross, and the royal banner of Castile. There were still no exteriorravelins or half-moon fortifications. The bastions have their present-day layout,but with square sentry boxes at their respective outside angles. There is noSocorro Gate. Instead, there is a fountain in the moat, with two basins above itand a little hut. Inside the enclosure, the buildings are organised around a centralcircular plaza. Some plots have yet to be built on and the largest and longest

The Citadel in its original state, according to a plan from 1608. IHCM



buildings are right beside the interior terrepleins of the curtain walls. Next to theSan Antón Bastion can be seen the old medieval church dedicated to the samesaint, which would remain encompassed within the Citadel post-construction asthe first chapel the fortress had. It appears to have had a little belfry for its bell.The original of the plan, which was unearthed more than thirty years ago aroundthe town of Idoate, is kept in the Simancas archive, and there is a twentieth-century copy in the Servicio Histórico de Madrid (Madrid History Service).40

A stockade around the moat

On 15 May 1608, Philip III issued a Royal Decree from Aranjuez, stipulatingthat until the works were finished on the moats and parapets, the exteriorperimeter of the fortress should be surrounded by a wooden stockade.

“I have been informed,” said the King, “that for the Citadel of this City to bewell guarded and to assuage the warnings and apprehensions of scaling orincursion that might arise while the moats are being dug and the parapetsraised, it is advisable for a stockade to be erected around the verge of thecovered way that faces the country; which, with a patrol along its interior insummer and at moments of apprehension, would certainly offer greatsecurity; and it could be made of beech, as that is durable and in plentifulsupply in this city, growing by the river below; and at half a real (old Spanishcoind worth a quarter of a peseta) each one, nails and timber would notcost 500 ducats.”41 Things evidently looked much more straightforward fromthe Court than from Pamplona, because the Viceroy Cardona, in a letterdated 20 August, painted a less encouraging outlook:

“... I have made a reckoning of the distance at which the stockade has tobe put, around the Citadel as well as where the city wall remains to be

(40) Simancas, Mar y Tierra, leg. 701. (Aparici copy in the SHM).(41) MARTINENA, ob. cit. doc. no. 11.



built... and it is clear that, the said stakes having to be twelve feet highfrom the ground, they need to go down into it to a depth of at least five,which is sixteen feet in all; and ones of that size cannot come or be broughtfrom the river because of their length, and it would cost a great deal to bringthem by oxen, for they will be substantial; and as the beech from thesewoodlands germinates in the shade, it very soon rots and putrefies, asexperience shows with the trunks that go on this river for firewood, which,if they are left in the river for six months waiting for it to rise so they can becarried, being so heavy, arrive in a rotten state and of no use to the peoplewho bought them to burn; and it is sure that the stakes, which will not beso substantial, having to be five feet below such humid earth, with rain onthem for eight months of the year, would rot as soon or sooner than thetrunks. And experience has shown, in a quantity of stakes that the CastilianPedro Fernández de la Carrera had brought here for the Socorro Gate, thatthey could not be brought by the river because they would have to float therewaiting for the water to rise, and to avoid such inconvenience he had thembrought by oxen, and he had to put much stout oak with them, so that whenthe stockade was finished, the expense was such that a bridge could havebeen made with what he spent."42

In view of all these inconveniences, the Viceroy was not in favour of wastingthe money from the royal exchequer on building the stockade, but rather ofspending it on the excavation of the moat and, with the resultant earth andlimestone, proceeding with construction of the covered way and its parapet:

“The money to be spent on this,” said Don Juan de Cardona, “should bespent on what is most necessary and will last forever, which is on diggingout the moat; and with the limestone taken from there and with earth andfascine, the covered way might be made with its parapet of eight feet high.And that would be done with the first money that Your Majesty ordered tohave sent for the said construction, so that with what on the stockade would

(42) Ibid. doc. no. 12.



be wasted in thirty years, would come to be built the much needed road, apermanent and perfect work.”43

The Simancas archive has a letter from Gaspar Ruiz de Cortázar, who inthat year of 1608 was in Pamplona as keeper or governor of the fortress.It demonstrates the zeal that those military men put into their service to theKing, above and beyond the specific sphere of their professional activity. Itbears the date 22 September and refers to the plan that the Parliamentwas then nurturing to establish a university in Pamplona. It says, afterreferring to the imperfections with which he still charged the Citadel:

“I am given to understand that this Kingdom aspires to build a university inthis City, which it seems to me would bring no little inconvenience shouldthey succeed in their intention; as this Citadel having the qualities I describe,it would be a great impediment thereto, for there would be a great tumultof people, and among them, Gascons and other vassals of the King ofFrance, which is not a good mixture to put together with those who stillcannot have forgotten the milk on which their ancestors were suckled; andthe students, being young and restless, are open to novelty and easy to stirup, and as this castle can suffer no other detriment greater than treasonfomented by the natives and residents, no recipe more capable of such aneffect could be found than the students being restless and rebelliousbesides; and in the frontier towns, where it can be presumed the enemywho seeks to do harm must feel at home, efforts must be made to suppressthe opportunity, as that is the main cause that moves the minds that arecorrupted, and the mixture of soldiers and students is of great concern tofrontier towns...”44

(43) Ibid.(44) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 13.



More from 1608

Along with this letter, a plan signed by Francisco Palear Fratín was sent to theCourt, headed Plan of the Castle of Pamplona. This document is of great interestfrom the viewpoint of the city’s urban history, because it not only includes the planof the Citadel in its original state and the wall facades of La Taconera and SanNicolás, but also shows the old walls of the medieval enclosure, with the bastionsof La Torredonda and San Llorente, erected in the time of Charles V, and the OldCastle, built by order of Ferdinand the Catholic between 1513 and 1525 andpartially absorbed later by the bastion of La Reina or Tejería. The plan indicatedthe advisability of demolishing two demi-bastions situated at the intersection ofthe city moat with that of the Citadel, “where 2,000 men could gather, withoutthe castle being able to attack them”.

Once these were got rid of, the curtain walls were to proceed in a straight lineuntil they met the covered way and esplanade between the fortress and thehouses of the town. According to the plan, water covered approximately half thesurface of the moat, the rest being dry. The accompanying text proposed “tocontinue the little moat that faces the country, and with the earth that is takenfrom there to build the parapet of the covered way, because there is earth nearerto the castle than can be used for its interior terreplein and the expense will beless.”45

From that same year there is in the Simancas archive another document relatingto the stockade referred to above: “Prompted by what Don Juan de Cardonahath written about the risks to the Citadel of Pamplona and possible fears thathostile neighbours might attempt an ascent or incursion, and the Council havingreceived this same warning through other channels...the order was given to builda stockade around the verge of the covered way, on the part that faces thecountry, which, with a patrol along the interior in summer and at other times ofapprehension, would be able to ensure security.”

(45) Simancas, Mar y Tierra, leg. 706. (Aparici copy in the SHM).



A pole in the Citadel

In those first years of the 17th century, the custom began to be introducedwhereby travellers visiting Pamplona, and particularly foreigners, were shown theCitadel, without it being realised that they were often in fact spies or informerswho subsequently gave detailed accounts of the defensive and military featuresthat they had had the opportunity to observe on their travels.

Others, if truth be told, found their plans backfired and far from obtaining anyadvantage from the visit, were relieved of their luggage as they wandered abouttrustingly observing walls and bastions. That was what happened, for example,to the Polish nobleman Jacob Sobieski, father of King John III of Poland. Thisfigure relates, in the account he wrote of his voyage, that finding himself in ourcity in 1611, he visited the Citadel accompanied by the owner of the inn he wasstaying in; and how the innkeeper’s wife and daughter took advantage of theopportunity to steal the money he had put for safe keeping in the wardrobe ofhis chamber, using a spare key. When he discovered the theft on his return, thecrafty women, making out their innocence, “began to shout in Biscayan, whichdiffers as much from Spanish as it does from Polish”. The matter having beenreported to the Viceroy, the bailiff turned up at the inn and the thief was soondiscovered.

But the story had an unexpected twist, as the protagonist himself recounts:“That night, one of the Bishop’s servants came to me and begged me in hisname not to insist on death for the innkeeper’s daughter, promising me that thenext morning the Bishop would return all the stolen money to me." And so itwas. But in spite of it all, the Polish traveller was not reconciled with the city orits people. And he concluded his account with these bitter words: “LeavingPamplona at the earliest opportunity, I didn’t even look back.”46 What impressionsof Navarre must he have recounted on returning to Poland?

(46) IRIBARREN, Pamplona y los viajeros, p. 35-36



Drinking water from the well

We can gain some idea of the conditions in which the soldiers of the garrisonlived in the first third of the 17th century from the letter sent to King Philip III byGaspar Ruiz de Cortazár on 23 March 1613: “When Your Majesty granted me thefavour of this castle and I came here, I found that the fountain which used to bewithin it had dried up, and the soldiers therefore sustained themselves withwater from the wells, for which reason there were many illnesses among them.And those who were well attempted to leave. And so that they might not all goand leave the castle with no-one in it, the remedy was taken of not allowing thesoldiers to leave, and so they were locked in for more than two years, with nonebut the officers leaving the castle."47

In spite of the troops having to suffer these hardships, the condition of thefortress had improved considerably, it seems, judging by what was garnered inreports dating from a few years later. All that was lacking, in Cortázar’s view, waswater in the moats:

“... And with this being the best finished and perfected wall of all the castles thatYour Majesty has in his Kingdoms, the largest inconvenience that this castlesuffers is not having water in the moats, but only in part of the Bastion of SanAntón and throughout the Bastion of La Victoria and in part of the Bastion ofSantiago; all the remainder is dry and ladders could be brought close with greatease. ... Where there is water now, the moat has not been deepened, and thereis therefore a large accumulation of water, which looks like a large river lake."48

In 1628, a bizarre military man from Granada called Don Jacinto de Aguilar yPrado was in Pamplona, at the time of the San Fermín festival. He gave theprinters a curious account of the festivities and solemnities with which the cityhonoured, then as now, the Glorious Patron of the Kingdom. In this brief treatise,written in a Baroque style, both hyperbolic and Gongoresque, it is said of the

(47) MARTINENA, ob. cit. doc. no. 16.(48) Ibid.



walls and citadel: “Everything is fortified with strong walls, garrisoned by threeSpanish infantry companies who are always present on guard. It has one of thefinest castles known in Spain, with many artillery pieces and a hundred well-paidsoldiers.”49

The danger from neighbouring France

At the end of June 1633, the Lord of Bertíz sent to the Town Council a verbalmessage from the Viceroy Marquis of Valparaíso to the effect that, in the faceof the imminent danger of a rupture with France, "it were necessary that thisKingdom be very well prepared, and in particular, the work on the citadel or castleof Pamplona finished. And that, in view of His Majesty and his Royal estate beingvery stretched, he asked for his part that the Kingdom take responsibility forfinishing it at its own expense or at least helping with some part of it. And thatthe Council arrange this using the most moderate means possible, with regardto the fact that, beyond being in the service of His Majesty, it would be of use toand in the interests of the Kingdom, being for its defence and that of itsinhabitants.”50

The Council sent Don Ramón de Aguirre to the palace with a note in which theypolitely excused themselves, pleading the shortage of means that the towncoffers suffered from. The Viceroy, who was doubtless expecting this, already hadon the table a royal decree from Philip IV, dated 29 June, in which the King orderedhim “carefully to inspect the state of the fortifications of those parts and seewhat will be necessary to fortify and repair in each one”, trying of course to doeverything – or at least the greater part of it – with money contributed by theKingdom, so as not to burden the already very exhausted royal estate even further.As soon as he read the note from the Council, by way of reply he had the letterfrom the King handed over so that the councillors be made aware of it. For their

(49) IRIBARREN. Ob. cit. p. 38.(50) AGN. Fortificaciones, leg. 1, carp. 7



part, once they were informed of its contents, they agreed to a reply insisting onthe poverty of resources which resulted from the continual donations that they hadbeen making - especially the 400,000 ducats contributed during the Viceroy Countof Castrillo's time, and the 20,000 they gave annually in barracks and salestaxes, which had left the town councils in debt and many Navarrese destitute. Theyclosed the document declaring that, apart from everything that had been set out,the Council lacked the legal authority to take a decision of such magnitude withoutturning to the Parliament that it represented and to which it would have to givean account of its administration at the end of its term of office.51

An interesting piece of graphic evidence

In the Simancas archive there is a plan of the Pamplona Citadel, sent with aletter from the Viceroy Marquis of Valparaíso on 15 December 1635, which inmy opinion constitutes the most reliable graphic representation of all those madein the 17th century.

The exterior perimeter of the fortress is shown surrounded by a wooden stockadeor palisade. The main gate presents the same facade as it does today, with itsgallery of little arches on the turret. It is reached by crossing a wooden bridgewith a sentry box at the opposite end. Outside, at the gate to the palisade andnext to another sentry box, a halberdier stands guard, while two others watch overthe way to the moat and the enclosure of the plaza.

The interior is represented with great simplicity. Near to the entrance, by the SanAntón Bastion, stands the building of the old church and house of the samename, where the governor lived. The buildings are organised around a centralcircular plaza with a line of trees. Closer to the terreplein of the curtain walls,there are several buildings with triangular bases, destined to be barracks,

(51) Ibid.



Aspect of the Citadel, with its inside buildings and surrounding stockade, according to adrawing from 1635. AGS



warehouses and gunsmiths’. And where the explosives store is today, there is acurious construction built on a floor-plan shaped like a balloon or drop of water.Next to the Real Bastion stands a well with its parapet and pulley. And there isplenty of available space, still to be built on. The Socorro Gate did not exist,rather a sort of wooden platform or ramp to go down to the moat, and facing it,a sentry box with its guard.

The Count of Oropesa, driving force of the works

At the beginning of 1644, work on the fortifications of the plaza and Citadel wasgoing on under the direction of Dionisio de Guzmán. As had happened onprevious occasions, the villages were turned to for manpower, with the servicesof 20 foremen and 1,000 labourers requested. On 12 January the engineer sentan account to Madrid saying, among other things: “All the moats of the City andcastle are dry and very low, and they cannot be dug deeper nor can much earthbe taken therefrom as it is limestone, which is such hard soil that little can bedone even with picks; and the remedy of this difficulty that I find and judge bestis to build said stone counterescarpment in the moat, with a thickness of fivefeet and height of twenty, which will come to be of use with moats of this depth.”52

Among other very necessary projects, Guzmán had pending the construction offour half moons in the Citadel moat to complete his defensive lines, finishing thegunpowder tower so the explosive material could be kept conveniently, withoutrisk or humidity, and fitting out the barracks to hold 1,500 men. It was alsourgent to undertake the cleaning of the wells and to place stone covers overthem so as to conserve adequate water reserves.

We can see, from a letter sent by the Marquis of Valparaíso to Secretary Tapiain August of that same 1644, that only one of the five half moons planned for

(52) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 17. A document from the sameyear says that the city garrison consisted of 150 soldiers. The 90 in the castle did notreceive their pay, which meant that “most of them are naked and begging”. (A.G.N. Guerra,leg. 3, carp. 90).



the moat was finished and that they were anyway turning out to be unsatisfactorydue to their limited dimensions. In his opinion, it was necessary to consult theCount of Oropesa and Captain Jerónimo de Soto, who at that time was to befound directing the fortifications of San Sebastián and Fuenterrabía as chiefengineer. From what can be seen, the other four half moons were just made ofearth resulting from the excavation of the moats, but without being clad in stoneor banked up inside.53

The Viceroy Count of Oropesa reported on 15 August on the works that had beenrecently carried out on the fortifications of Pamplona. Regarding the Citadel, hesaid: “The gunpowder tower in the castle is finished, of stonework andflagstones, proof against bombs.”

This tower appears to be what we know today as the oven, whose fate was sealedwith the construction of the current magazine in 1695.

“In the castle, the counterescarpment remains to be built in the moat, and it isimportant that it be of stone and of the necessary dimensions...; to finishbanking the four curtain walls...; to build the parapets of the three bastions andthe two curtain walls, and to complete a small communicating gate that hasalready been begun.”54

Another contemporary account kept at Simancas lists “the work that has beendone in this city and castle since his lord Count of Oropesa came to govern thisKingdom". The document adds some new information about the then recentlybuilt magazine:

“The gunpowder tower in the castle is finished, so that the powder and munitionsbe safeguarded with stonework that is proof against bombs and panelled within,with much charcoal beneath the boards so that it be better preserved, with itsvery fine piece of a roof to this end.”

(53) IDOATE, Las fortificaciones, p. 89.(54) MARTINENA, ob. cit. doc. no. 18.



Other, more minor construction work and repairs had also been carried out: “Thecastle’s sentry boxes and guardrooms have been re-tiled and repaired, and astockade put opposite the main gate, and other very urgent remedies.”55 On 18October of that same year, Dionisio de Guzmán sent to the Court a full report,

clearly and precisely setting out the state in which the different facades makingup the city enclosure were to be found, with the defects observed in walls and

(55) doc. no. 19.

The bomb-proof oven in 1970, with adjoining buildings. AMP. Arazuri Coll.



bastions, and the most necessary and urgent tasks listed. The report wasaccompanied by a plan in which the attention points were marked with letters.Referring to the Citadel, it says:

"Of great importance are the five half moons purposed for the moats of theCitadel, of which there is already one made of soil and turf, marked with a C. Tome they are all small, and in my opinion it would be advisable to make themmore capacious. As for the other things that the report advises remain to bedone in service of what has been built in the City and Citadel, as they areterrepleins, casemates, gates, moats and suchlike, it is as well to continue withthem, and give them priority among the additions, for they are the most importantand without them the construction cannot operate. And all things should bemade of brick, to which that soil is well suited and which is more appropriate thanearth for the batteries.”56

The termination of the works

The Simancas archive contains a report from the following year, 1645, by one ofthe most prestigious engineers of the day, P. Juan Carlos Lasalle. Like the authorsof previous reports, he was in favour or giving priority to work on the Citadel, “forto lose her is to lose the town and not the other way round”. In his opinion, thecurtain walls and bastions – from what can be seen still not completely finished- needed to be finally closed up, and the moats given the required width, depthand arrangement, with a counterescarpment and covered way as prescribed bythe maxims or general principles of fortification then prevailing. In the explanationof the plan accompanying the report, and which he sent to Court on 1 June,Lasalle included the costs foreseen for the work he proposed doing. To do thehalf moons, one of which was to be situated in front of the main gate and theother between the Real and San Antón Bastions, 1,200 ducats had been

(56) IDOATE, ob. cit. doc. no. 13.



Main gate to the Citadel around 1925. Engraved in the stone is:

“THE YEAR 1571 BEING VICEROY AND FIE LD MARSHALL

IN NAVARRE AND THE PROVINCE BESPASIANO GONZAGA COLONA, DUKE,

MARQUIS AND COUNT”.

AMP. Arazuri Coll.



estimated. The ten bridges that were to be placed on the five half moons wouldwork out at about 1,000 ducats. The stone counterescarpment that was to bebuilt along the whole perimeter of the moat would require 8,700 ducats. Otheritems of expenditure referred to “putting the earth that is lacking in four curtainwalls and the five bastions”, “the stonework of the casemates, of three curtainwalls and two bastions, to form the parapets” and “adapting the barracks”. TheSocorro Gate is shown in the plan, close up against a flank of the Santa MaríaBastion, and the five half moons that were to be finished and made fit for usesat in the middle of the moat, each one facing one of the facades or stretchesof wall.57

It seems that in that same 1645, with the construction of the exterior half moons,work on the Citadel was considered to be over. In the first edition of this book Inoted that to commemorate the occasion, the three shields that can still beseen there were placed over the main gate: at the centre, in the place of honour,was that of the royal arms of the Spanish crown - Castile, Leon, Navarre, Aragon,Naples, Jerusalem and Hungary, plus the escutcheons of Portugal and Burgundyand Granada at the tip.

On either side, the coats of arms of the two viceroys under whose command theworks received their final push: Don Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, Portugal andMonroy, Count of Oropesa, appointed in 1643; and Don Luis de Guzmán y Poncede León, appointed in May 1646. And a stone that is still visible on one side ofthe turret over the door is engraved with the strange figure 16456, which in myopinion needs to be interpreted as a correction: 1646 instead of 1645.

However, evidence which has subsequently come to my attention would indicatethat the shields, and probably also the year inscription, formerly adorned thefacade of the vanished Tejería portal and, following the demolition of this in 1918,were salvaged and placed here in 1926 for safekeeping. Such relocations ofshields and other items brought from elsewhere and therefore alien to the

(57) Simancas, Guerra, leg. 1592. (Aparici copy in the SHM)



Copy of Juan Bautista Martínez Mazo’s “View of Pamplona”, painted by Manuel Pérez Tormo, a gift from Mr. Jesús Rubio and García-Mina, Minister of National Education to Pamplona



town council on the occasion of the exhibition Velázquez y lo Velazqueño, occured in Madridin 1960. AMP



monument, if not properly documented by means of an explanatory inscription,end up leaving a false trail that can confuse the historian.

Royal visit of Philip IV

The year 1646 is noted in the annals of the city for the special occasion of a royalvisit. On 23 April King Don Philip IV of Castile and VI of Navarre arrived inPamplona, accompanied on the trip by his son Prince Don Baltasar Carlos, thereto swear allegiance to the Fueros (Charters) of the Kingdom and, for his part, tobe sworn as the rightful heir by the Three Estates. Following the custom, he wasreceived with all the ceremonial characteristic of such occasions at the portal ofthe Taconera Gate by the Regiment or Council, Viceroy, Judges and all the otherecclesiastical, military and civil authorities.

To mark the occasion, the painter Juan Bautista Martínez del Mazo, the greatVelázquez’s son-in-law, created a “View of Pamplona” which appears to havehung for many years in the now-vanished Regio Alcázar (Regal Palace) inMadrid, moving, following the fire there, to the new Palacio Real (Royal Palace)built on its site. It must have been a magnificent painting, because in the oldinventories it appears valued at 100 doubloons more than the widely famousview of Zaragoza by the same artist. The master paintbrush of Velázquezhimself might possibly have touched it, as he was with Del Mazo in Pamplonaat that time.

Sadly, the original painting is today given up for lost and is only known fromcopies that are little more than mediocre. One version is kept in England,recovered from the “intruder king” Joseph Bonaparte after the Battle of Vitoriaand given to the victorious Duke of Wellington by Ferdinand VII. Possibly morethan one copy is derived from the sketch for the vanished work. In PamplonaTown Hall there is a reproduction made by Pérez Tormo, a gift from the Ministerof National Education, Don Jesús Rubio García-Mina, to mark an exhibition onVelázquez and his world, held in Madrid in 1960.58 The painting shows thearrival of the regal procession at the esplanade that then existed in front of



the main gate to the fortress. The Victoria and San Antón Bastions can beperfectly made out (though the latter with slightly blurred brushstrokes), ascan the moat, the main gate with its turret, the drawbridge and ravelin. On oneside, part of the Santiago Bastion. Above the wall, some of the buildings insidethe enclosure can be seen sticking up. On the first level, there is a mostcurious gallery of men and women in period dress, adding life and colour tothe composition. A few are strolling, others chat in pairs or little groups, somedance with hands joined and the rest are content to witness the passing of thecarriages. The mountain ranges of El Perdón and Alaiz provide the background.In the upper part and crowning the painting, two chubby cherubs hold aloft, inthe middle of a Baroque cloudscape, the shield of Navarre wrapped around witha garland.

It is recorded that at the same time, an obscure local painter called Lucas dePinedo painted another canvas, probably more modest, but which, if it hadsurvived, would today be of undoubted interest as a graphic testimony. TheTown Council paid him for this creation the sum of 30 ducats from the citycoffers.

A new church

Once the purely defensive works had been completed with the final touches tothe walls, moats and bastions, thoughts turned to providing the Citadel withother buildings that were not specifically military, but necessary for the daily lifeof the garrison in its various aspects.

The original fortress chapel was the old medieval church of San Antón, which hadlain at one end of what was then the Taconera meadow, and which was absorbedwithin the enclosure when Fratín and Gonzaga opted for that site.59

(58) DEL CAMPO, Visita de Felipe IV a Pamplona (1646). Un cuadro testimonio. Navarra. Temasde Cultura Popular, no. 259.

(59) MARTINENA, La Pamplona de los burgos, pp. 310-313



Although the Antonian order was expropriated and compensated so that theycould build a new church and convent with the money on what from then on wascalled Calle San Antón, the viceroys decided not to demolish it, thus saving theroyal estate the expense of starting the construction of a new chapel in thecitadel.

In the mid-17th century, the stonework of the old church must already have falleninto disrepair, which explains why in 1648, when Luis de Guzmán Ponce de Leónwas Viceroy, a new one was built near to the main gate. Like the old one, it toowas dedicated to San Antón. It was medium-sized, in the Baroque style of theera, set over three naves separated by square pillars.60 But the builderscommitted the error of not bomb-proofing, which would later be noted as a defectin many plans and reports. Besides, the high brick tower that was added to themost prominent part made an easy and dangerous target in the event of

(60) We have a perfect idea of its ground-plan thanks to a plan from 1765 kept in the SHM inMadrid and its external appearance from some elevavations made around 1725 of all theblocks and buildings inside the citadel.

Inscription commemorating the construction of the old Citadel chapel in 1648. AMP. ArazuriColl. (J.L. Prieto)



bombardment. Attached was a small vestry and house for the vicar and verger.On the main facade, over the door, a stone plaque was placed with the followinginscription:

IN THE REIGN OF PHILIP THE IIII OF THAT NAME, D. LUYS GUZMANPONCE DE LEON, VICEROY AND FIELD MARSHALL OF THE KINGDOM OF

NAVARRE BUILT THIS CHURCH AND TRANSFERRED TO IT THEINVOCATION OF SAINT ANTHONY OF ABAD FROM THE OLD CHURCH OF

THIS CASTLE, WHICH IN THE YEAR OF MCCCLXVIIII WAS CONSECRATED BYDON MARTIN DE ZALBA, CHAPLAIN CARDINAL, BISHOP OFPAMPLONA, WHO WITH THE HOLY FATHERS VRBANO IIII,

MARTINO IIII, GREGORIO X, VRBANO V, INOCENCIO VI, ALEXANDRO IIII, ONORIO IIII AND GREGORIO XI GRANTED

A PARDON OF A YEAR AND ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY FIVE DAYS TO ALLTHE FAITHFUL WHO MIGHT VISIT DEVOUTLY AND GIVE ALMS

THEREIN. IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD MDCXLVIII.

The church was built in 1648, and following its demolition in the last years of the19th century, a covered exercise ring was built on the site, which was in turndemolished as a result of the Citadel coming under the municipality of Pamplona.

Two distinguished travellers: Brunel y Bertaut

In 1655 the noble gentleman Antonio Brunel, Lord of Saint Moritz, visited the city,accompanied by another, Dutch nobleman, the Lord of La Plaatte. In the accountthat he wrote of his journey,61 he attested to the courtesy shown towards themby the Viceroy, at that time Don Diego Benavides, Count of Santisteban. Followinga custom that was fairly deeply rooted in that era, he sent an officer toaccompany the distinguished strangers on their visit to the Citadel.

(61) IRIBARREN, Pamplona y los viajeros, pp. 50-51



“It is a fortress of five bastions,” noted Brunel, “that Philip II took great pains tobuild as a defence against attacks by the French. The bastions are clad in stoneand the moats are very splendid and in places full of water...They say that it isall upon rock, and although it be the most important city of the kingdom and theonly one that can prevent the French from reaching Madrid should they cross thePyrenees, it is not very well garrisoned. The fortifications are in need of repair inmany places and the garrison is paltry, as there are very few soldiers; and tomake good the deficiency, they force the peasants of the vicinity to presentthemselves at the first summons they give.

“So that we did not find it so wanting in everything, they had a good number ofthem come, who mixed with the real soldiers, but it was easy for us to recognisethem, for besides many of them not appearing to have wielded a sword before,very few of them carried one, making do with a simple musket or an old pike; andthey carried these so poorly, that it was clear to see that they were more usedto handling the hoe than arms."

As he went round the interior of the fortress, our visitor’s attention was attractedby the hand-driven mill, which could also be operated by horsepower, where thewheat was milled to make the garrison’s bread. “The largest machine of its kindthat I have ever seen,” he wrote in his account.

On the parapets they observed the paucity of guards and artillery pieces, theirattention especially taken by a culverin with the royal arms of France and theinitials of Francis I engraved on it. Prudence dictated that as foreigners they werenot shown the arsenal, so Brunel could not gauge the number of cannon theCitadel had at its disposal.

“That has its own governor , who is appointed directly by the King. He was absentand we were received by his deputy, who lavished great hospitality on us. Afterwe had been round the town, he conducted us to his quarters, where he fêtedus with afternoon tea, with rather better intentions and gallantry than good fare."

Four years later, in 1659, another French nobleman, Francois Bertaut, Lord ofFréauville and councillor of the Rouen Parliament, passed through Pamplona.



He also wrote a chronicle of his journey, in which he did not omit the customaryreference to the fortress:62 “There is a citadel of five stone-clad bastions, whichwants for nothing, save in the interior where there is no terreplein. There is alsoa great plaza between the Citadel and the city, which does not have walls onthat side.” According to his account, he was not allowed to visit it at the firstattempt, as there was no officer available at that moment to accompany him.

“There were no officers in the Citadel and they did not let us enter, telling us tocome back the following day. I believe it was due to the small number of soldiersthat were there...”

As might be imagined, the General Staff of the King of France would at any givenmoment be perfectly well informed of the defensive possibilities of Pamplona,thanks to the numerous spies who, in the guise of travellers, pilgrims and thingsof that nature, continually came in and out of the city, observing to the tiniestdetail anything that could be of interest to the neighbouring country.

Money for the walls

On 20 May 1665, Philip IV, very close to death, replied by letter to a memorialthe Council had sent to him on 29 March, requesting that whatever mightexceed the 80,000 ducats offered by the Kingdom for the needs of the Crownbe applied “to the fortifications of Pamplona and to closing the walls of thecity”.

The King made it clear that the whole amount was already committed todefraying the costs of the Royal Armada, which was about to set sail. Besides,His Majesty was given to understand “that 100,000 reals have been allowedfor these fortifications from the resources and allocations destined for them and

(62) Ibid. pp. 52-53



that they will soon be in that Kingdom; and so I send to order that the Duke ofSan Germán uses that sum to work on those that be most necessary; and ifanything should be found wanting afterwards, it will have to be compensatedfrom my Estate...”63

In those years a great deal of activity was certainly rolled out on the fortificationsof Pamplona, but directed principally at the walled enclosure of the city rather thanthe Citadel. Around then the magnificent gates of San Nicolás and La Taconerawere built, with their elegant baroque facades, and the Bastion of La Tejería wasfinished. This was later named La Reina (The Queen), no doubt in memory ofDoña María Ana of Austria, Queen Regent on the death of Philip IV and duringthe minority of her son Charles II, who was known as “el Hechizado” (theBewitched).

Necessary works in 1669

At the beginning of 1669, the prestigious engineer Don Amador de Lazcano wasin Pamplona, carrying out an inspection of the state of fortifications and studyingthe existing needs of and possibilities for improving the enclosure. In his report,which is dated 26 February, he says in reference to the Citadel:

“... And as the Castle, which is the soul of this body,” (referring to the rest of thecity) ”is short of earth, as much in the bastions as in its parapets, and in themoats there is more than enough earth, it should be taken from there, as muchto make them deeper as to raise with the same quantity the parapets and asmuch as possible the bastions, using and applying the remaining earth that canbe taken for the gaps in its covered way, of which it be so necessitous, as a citywhich does not have its covered way in good order cannot be said to be placedin a state of readiness to defend itself. And its parapet and banquette should

(63) AGN. Fortificaciones, leg. 1, carp. 8



be made of stone, because in any other form, such as turf or adobe faced withplaster or lime, it then sinks under the dreadful rains of winter. And because atthe same time it is advisable to build everything that is left outstanding in thiscity of stone, as the rest of the walls are, there still remain all the verges orcounterscarps of the moats of the Castle and City, widening some and deepeningalmost all of them, putting the earth on the covered ways to cover the walls,mainly those of the Castle, which are even more exposed than those of the city,and finishing the half moons that have been begun...so that, everything being ofstone, it can defend itself against the inclemency of the weather and stand firmwhatever the circumstances. Your Majesty might provide in consideration that,in the most secure peace, these works are most necessary, and in the mostdoubtful, quite inescapable...”64

The eternal penury of the Royal Exchequer

On 31 August 1670 the Queen Regent wrote a letter to Don Diego Caballero,reminding him of the need to provide funds to go towards the most necessaryfortification works in the City and Citadel, as well as the sustenance of thehundred soldiers and eight gunners of the fortress garrison. “The city ofPamplona and its castle,” said the royal missive, “are Spain’s fortress, on whosedefence hangs the fate of the whole monarchy for good or ill...” According to thecalculations that had been done, it was believed that 6,000 silver ducats wouldbe enough to cover everything for one year.

The Queen therefore bestowed power on the Viceroy so that he could, in hername, distribute rewards of jurisdictions, privileges and honours to the cities,towns and private individuals of the Kingdom who made generous financialcontributions to the needs of the Royal Exchequer.65

(64) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 21.(65) AGN. Fortificaciones, leg. 1, carp. 9.



The Viceroy informed the Council on 16 September so that they might beappraised of the matter and, for their part, make the declarations they consideredappropriate. Indeed, in their reply, the representatives of the Kingdom statedthat until then nearly 160,000 silver ducats from the donation agreed in 1665had been handed over, as a result of which their houses and estates were in debtand town councils without means, not to mention the constant fear of invasion,given Navarre’s border situation.

And that most unpromising situation could become desperate, if towns as wellas individuals decided to spend their meagre wealth on the purchase of titles andhonours. For all those reasons, they asked that there was recourse to othermeans of raising funds.66

In those years of the second half of the 17th century, resorting to the powersgranted to the Viceroy to hand out royal gifts and favours for money proved aneffective and productive method for the Royal Treasury when there was notenough for the fortifications or other war necessities from the total contributionor donation provided by Parliament.

The Kingdom sometimes even increased the number set, with the effect ofsuspending or neutralising this prerogative, thanks to which towns became citiesovernight, nobles were created by ordinary legal process on their estates andsimple gentry folk saw their houses elevated to the status of ancestral palaces.The Three Estates protested against this abuse on numerous occasions, butnot always with favourable results. The Royal Treasury could not bring itself to killthe golden goose which, in exchange for high-flown honours which were littlemore than sealed sheets of paper, quickly filled their coffers with the hardcurrency of good doubloons, ducats, reals and maravedis.67

Around this time, Jean Hérault, Lord of Gourvilles, visited Pamplona. He laterwrote that on recounting his impressions of the journey to Minister Louvois, “I

(66) Ibid. In a letter dated 22 September the Viceroy told the Council to use its powers with greatcare and moderation. In spite of that, he did not cease to use his influence at Court toprevent new honours being handed out for money.

(67) MARTINENA, Navarra, castillos y palacios, pp. 125-128.



told him that Pamplona was no good, and that its citadel, the only fortress thatI saw, was built on the Antwerp model".68

The engineer Rinaldi’s report

The engineer Jerónimo Rinaldi was in the city in 1672, inspecting the state of thefortifications. In the report or account that he sent to Madrid on 28 October ofthat year, he wrote regarding the Citadel:

“...what is most necessary is to restore this Castle to perfection, because theloss or preservation of the whole Kingdom of Navarre hangs on its loss orpreservation; and there is no reason and nor does it serve Your Majesty to failto put it in a fit condition to resist any enemy attempt.”

“This castle has three very large shortcomings: the first is to have the walls ofthe enclosure so high, and the parapets so thick, that two castles of the samesize might very easily be made with the surplus material...” That caused quite aserious disadvantage in case of attack:

“The closer the enemy stays to the covered way, the better hidden will he be, andwith little trouble will he succeed in breaching the wall without it being possibleto stop him.”

“The second shortcoming is that, facing each curtain wall, a half moon has beenbuilt solely of earth, but of so little capacity that there is not room for twentymen therein...”

“The third is that the Socorro Gate is formed close up to one flank and does nothave more than a single defence on the other flank. And the bridge is built on

(68) IRIBARREN, Pamplona y los viajeros, p. 58.



masonry pillars, so that the enemy will have the best part of the gallery madefor him, with very little work, and he will finish it without it being possible toobstruct him.”69

The engineer’s plan for remedying as far as possible the defects listed was, inthe first place, to lower the height of the walls and bastions as far as the cordon,while at the same time reducing the thickness of the wall on the parapets andembrasures. With regard to the half moons or exterior defences, they ought toget rid of the five that there were, one at each facade, "as useless and doomed,from having so little capacity" and build just two, larger and more solid, clad instone, "one to cover the main gate of the Castle and the other, that of theSocorro.” As for the Socorro Gate, which at that time was situated, as the reportsays, close up against the flank of the Santa María Bastion, Rinaldi proposed thatit be closed up and re-done, but situated “in the middle of the curtain wall, sothat it might benefit from the defences of both flanks, and in such form as it doesnot offer cover to the enemy and let him gain the castle, without possibleremedy”.

The stone for these proposed improvements would simply come from what wasleft after lowering the walls and bastions to the level of the cordon: “...makinguse of the material that will be taken out to build the parapet of the covered wayand clad the two half moons that are to be built in front of the two gates; andalso making use of the earth that will be taken out to complete the Castleterrepleins."70

The Council of War gave the go-ahead, with a few refinements, to Rinaldi’s report,with the projected cost of the works and arrangements for their immediateexecution working out at 123,774 silver reals.

“All these works, which are to lower the wall and rebuild its parapet, the coveredway with its parapet and redoubts, and the two stone half moons; to build the

(69) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 23.(70) Ibid. doc. no. 24.



Socorro Gate in the middle of the curtain wall, removing the present one; to buildthe two gates to the two half moons with their drawbridges and portcullises ontheir gates, all with the necessary tools, will cost one hundred and twenty threethousand, seven hundred and seventy four silver reals, valued by the oldmaterials. Not included in this is the excavation of the main moat, nor that ofthose belonging to the half moons, the cost of which cannot be set due to thevarying hardness of the soil.”71

On the carrying out of the works it was decreed: “That it be entrusted to theViceroy to make public to those that it concerns with the aid of the ministers, withthe conditions that must be fulfilled, and that they award that which be of mostbenefit, offering security in the customary manner.” Which is to say, that thecontract was put out to public auction and awarded to whoever presented themost advantageous proposal, subject to the relevant guarantees. That was theusual system in contracting of that type, and is still normally used by theadministration in our times.

To complement his account or report, Rinaldi drew up a plan of the Citadel, inwhich are shown the casemates and low places at the angles where thebastions meet the respective stretches of wall; the half moon planned for infront of the main gate, with two wooden communicating bridges, and the SocorroGate one, which was to be moved to the centre of the curtain wall. It standsthere today, the move having been realized many years later. The plan does notinclude any graphic representation of the buildings inside the enclosure. Anappendix contains a cross-section of the wall, with its moat, covered way andparapet.72

(71) Ibid.(72) Simancas, Guerra, leg. 2,286. (Aparici copy at the SHM).



Banfi, Domingo and Menni

In 1676, in the face of a possible invasion by France, the Council informed theViceroy that the Citadel lacked artillery and supplies, and that there was nochance of obtaining more resources from the population because – in the wordsof the document itself – “they have been plundered for donations”. Therepresentatives of the Kingdom had therefore agreed to address a petition to theKing, asking him for 24,000 ducats for their most urgent needs. In February,Charles (Carlos) II answered the petition by granting the amount requested.73

In that period, the Viceroy Count de Fuensilada ordered the carpenter Juan deUrrizola to cut 15,000 stakes in the mountains of Lanz, Ostiz, Anué and Ulzama,along with 1,800 oak timbers, for the stockade and other of the Citadel’sfortifications, “without paying a thing”, and without the communities affectedbeing able to prevent him in any way. Parliament compensated the grievance in1684, nullifying all that had been done and ordering that there be no futureconsequences.

The Peace of Nimega, signed in 1678, came to represent a brief interlude ofpeace with the powerful neighbouring country and offered a little breathing spacein the ever urgent and necessary tasks of fortification. In 1681 the engineerBanfi came to Pamplona to write a report on the walled enclosure.

The following year, Don Francisco Domingo y Cueva came and drew a plan of thefortifications of the city and citadel, which was sent to the King with a letter fromthe viceroy Don Diego de Velandía on 6 August 1682. From this plan we seethat all that was finished was the external half moon by the main gate, “clad instone and lime”; the other four, located by the facades towards the CastleSurround, still lacked stone facing.74 The esplanade for the covered way hadalso been done. All that remained was “to finish levelling and complete it”.

(73) IDOATE, Las fortificaciones, p. 92.(74) SHM. Col. Aparici, t. XIII, pp. 409-466. The original of the plan is kept in Simancas, Guerra,

leg. 2,543.



Another engineer sent to our city in that period was Maestre de Campo (the rankjust below Field Marshall) Octaviano Menni, whose report is dated 30 March1683. It says, regarding the Citadel (which it calls the Citadela in the Italianstyle):

“On the outside part, the moat is flawed, so that it is possible to enter and leavefrom all sides, for want of a counterscarp around it and its half moons, whichmust need facing, as do the counterscarp and parapet of the covered way, whichwants for everything, and the erosion of its earth into the land, so that the halfmoons and facades of the bastions leave it exposed.”75

A letter from the Marquis of El Conflans sent to Madrid on 25 May 1684 goesinto the same points in great detail: “...The four half moons of the castle thatface the country are of earth and ruined by the rains, and they cannot serve asdefence, and it is necessary to clad them; and the half moon at the main gateof the castle needs to be extended and completed, as it not in a perfect state;and the same diligence must be applied to the covered way and the castle moat,where the building up of some missing curtain walls is also unavoidable, andonce these works have been done..., it will be possible to move on to the otherfortifications.”76

With the aim of saving the Royal Treasury some expense, it was at that timerequired of people who came to Pamplona with carts and horses that,“lengthening their journeys, they carry earth for building up the bastions of thisCity's castle, as well as other loads for the fortifications", without paying themanything and causing them damage and delays. Infraction of rights being claimedin Parliament in 1684, the Viceroy stated that those affected had provided theservice willingly, each one carrying just one load; but that if any had been forcedinto carrying, they would be paid accordingly.

(75) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 26.(76) Ibid. doc. no. 27.



From Conflans’ letter we know what the true state of Pamplona's garrison wasat that time. According to the official roster, the city ought to have had threecompanies of 300 soldiers each, and a staff of 400 men was allocated to thecastle or citadel. Well, according to Conflans’ letter, “in the three companiesthere are only two hundred and twenty men, among whom there are someinvalids, and in the castle there are but fifty soldiers.”76 bis

Fortification of the Castle Surround and the Vauban system

The year 1685 sees an important landmark in the annals of the Citadel, with theconstruction of new exterior defences.

Since its initial construction, the fortress had been surrounded by a moat dugout of the earth, two thirds dry and without a counterscarp, and which Philip IIIordered to be surrounded with a wooden stockade skirting its whole perimeter.Round about 1680, the exterior defences still amounted, as we have seen, tojust a few small and feeble half moons.

They were made of earth and had no stone facing; and almost all of them hadbeen ruined by the rains and inclemency of the weather. Only the one defendingthe main gate was faced and had been improved in recent years.

In view of that, the Viceroy Enrique Benavides de la Cueva y Bazán, followingengineer Don Juan de Ledesma’s report, undertook the construction of a wholesystem of half moons or ravelins on the facades facing the Castle Surround, theaim of which was to protect the fortress from a possible attack from outside thecity, increasing its defensive capacity and making it harder for the enemy toadvance.

(76bis) Ibid.



These exterior fortifications, which due to their serious deterioration are beingrestored throughout the current year of 2010, are clearly related to siege warfaresystems generically known as Vauban after their creator; who, during the reign

Ground plan of the Citadel with the design for new half moons drawn up by Don Juan deLedesma in 1684. AGS



of Louis XIV of France, overhauled the techniques of military engineeringoriginating in the Italian Renaissance that had dominated until then.77

Two half moons or ravelins were built on the facades situated between theBastions of Santiago and La Victoria, towards the Taconera section, and betweenthe San Antón and Real Bastions, on the section where the San Nicolás gate is.By contrast, as the curtain walls running between the Bastions of Santiago andSanta María, and between the latter and El Real, were more exposed to attack,not only were half moons built there, but these were also protected by broadcounterguards surrounding their two facades and thus boosting their defensiveability.

Juan de Ledesma’s original scheme, according to the plan sent to the Councilof War on 26 January 1685 (and which is kept at Simancas,78 only envisaged thebuilding of four new half moons, without counterguards, and keeping the stone-faced one that already existed in front of the main gate, despite it being smallerthan those planned.

A report from the Council of the Kingdom, sent to Viceroy Benavides on 10 March1685, gives us a reliable picture of the state of works on the four half moons atthat tim.79 Referring to the Santa Lucía one, which was excavated andreconstructed in 2006 when the new bus station on Calle Yanguas y Miranda wasbuilt, it says: “This half moon is finished, and half of the stone and other

(77) Numerous authors have, on describing the Pamplona citadel, made reference to itsfortifications corresponding to the Vauban system. Commenting on a text by one of them,Fco. de Paula Mellado, Iribarren noted: “The construction of the Citadel was begun in1571. Vauban was born in 1633 and died in 1707. The citadel could hardly have been built according to his first defensive system.”(Pamplona y los viajeros, p. 173, nota). The explanation is, as we have seen, that thefortress’s whole exterior system of defence dates from 1684-86. The new fortifications are therefore fully contemporary with the distinguished siegescientist and can be considered related to his defensive systems, as the military engineers have often maintained. Iribarren himself records it at the foot of plate 29 of the work cited.

(78) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre fortificaciones, doc. no. 28. The original plan is kept inSimancas, Guerra, leg. 2,650. (Aparisi copy in the SHM in Madrid).

(79) IDOATE, Las fortificaciones, doc. no. 14.



Coat of arms and inscription commemorating Viceroy Benavides, placed on one of thecounterguards on the Vuelta del Castillo (Castle Surround) that were built in 1685. AMP. (J. Cía)



materials has been brought for work on the counterscarp and gorge; and whatremains to complete it has been extracted in the quarry, at the foot of saidworks”. On 22 and 27 of October the previous year, 1684, work had beencontracted on the respective sentry box, counterscarp, gorge and parapet. Theexcavation of the moat, the deed for which was signed on 7 November, was alsofinished.

As for the next half moon, facing the Castle Surround, and the one next to that,defending the Socorro Gate, although the Kingdom was committed to havingthem and their counterguards finished by those dates, “the harsh winter stormdid not allow to continue; more than the half of it is built, and all the necessarymaterials near prepared.”

Work on the excavation of their moats had been contracted on 8 November and3 December 1684, and on the counterscarps and gorges to both on 22December.

The last half moon, Santa Ana, which was closest to the Taconera portal, wherethe pediment of the old military baths was, stood very nearly finished, “as theofficer is but waiting for the resolution of what height it must be and for goodweather to complete it, the materials being provided. And for its gorge andcounterscarp the half of the stone and other materials are prepared at the footof the works and the remainder extracted from the quarry”. The deed of obligationfor excavation of the moat was drawn up and dated 3 December and that for thecounterscarp and gorge, 17 February 1685.

The Viceroy’s coats of arms, carved in stone to be placed on the wall of the halfmoons, had their commemorative inscriptions written out in capitals before thenotary on 5 January 1685 for a sum of 150 ducats, with the perfectly finishedwork due to be handed over by the end of May. When the report we have beenreferring to was sent on 10 March, two of them had already been done and thesculptor was very far advanced with the other two.80 These shields, quartered todisplay the arms of the Viceroy’s two lineages and crested with a marquisate

(80) Ibid.



crown reflecting his title as Marquis of Bayonne, can still be seen on plaquesretaining the following carved inscription:

IN THE REIGN OF CHARLES II OFCASTILE AND OF NAVARRE

VICEROY AND FIELD MARSHALL OF THISKINGDOM DON ENRIQUE

BENAVIDES I BAZAN, OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE. IN THE YEAR 1685.

The Viceroy’s reservations about the new half moons

However, in spite of what it says on the plaques, the half moons were not whollycompleted during the viceroyalty of Benavides. In April 1685, he was succeededby Don Ernesto Alejandro de Ligne y de Croy, Prince of Chimay, who in a letter tothe King on 17 May appraising him of the state of fortifications, made it clear thatone was totally finished and the other three almost there.

The fifth one, situated by the main gate, lacked capacity, and in the new Viceroy'sopinion it would be highly advisable to rebuild it, as was done shortly after.Chimay’s report said of the Citadel:

“The Castle is regular, with five bastions; it wants terrepleins in some places,which could be made with the very earth that is to be taken from its moat, whichalso requires to be deepened and for a counterscarp, which it lacks, to be placedthere. It also being necessary to adapt the proportions of the parapet, becausein its current triangular form it is contrary to best principles, as it should form atrapezoid with a height of five or six feet within and four without, and in any otherwise it will not be able to resist the Artillery...

It is also necessary to make the store houses bomb-proof, so that the munitionsare safe and without the danger that usually results from their being in one place,



given the hurry and quantity with which they are usually loaded; and it would alsobe advisable to do likewise with the mill and some barracks.”81

With regard to the new half moons, which he called ravelins, the Viceroy raisedsome objections: “And although I would wish to avoid telling of defects inwhat has been built, duty requires me to set out faithfully for Your Majesty’sattention what I have observed, and that is that the four new ravelins, of whichone is now finished and the other three near done, ought to have been builtmore towards the countryside, and especially the one that is finished, forbeing more within the moat than it should be, it does obstruct the shouldersof the bastions opposite; and having learned that it was planned to build thesaid ravelins six feet higher than the one now completed, I ordered them notto do so, as it would lead to the disadvantage of their being of equal heightwith those selfsame Castle bastions, which is contrary to all the principles offortification...”82

Second portal of the Socorro Gate, in 1967. AMP. Arazuri Coll. (M. Clavero)

(81) MARTINENA, ob. cit. doc. no. 29.(82) Ibid.



The Viceroy said that the ravelin or lunette covering the main gate, where CalleGeneral Chinchilla is today, was ineffective, “because its fronts are of no morethan one hundred and fifty feet, when they ought to be two hundred and fifty, soas to cover the gate and the curtain wall properly by overlapping it...for whichreason, concerned that, in the case of the enemy attacking this City, he couldquite plainly seize the Castle before the city and make the first attack from thesaid ravelin, it seemed unavoidable to me to order the building of another onethat covers the gate and curtain wall and part of the fronts of the bastions to eachside; which will be in its construction larger than the other four ravelins throughhaving another fifty feet on each of its fronts; and having weighed the matter up,considering the proposed height of the others, they would have consumed onlya little less than what this ravelin will cost, which I regard as the most necessaryand important of all and which ought to be built first. And I am sure that withthe superfluous expenditure that had hitherto been planned and which I amavoiding, all the money provided by the Kingdom would have been used up, andthere will now be enough to finish and leave this ravelin in a state of perfectcompletion.”83

He still proposed some other improvements to different aspects of the fortress:“...I cannot but submit for Y.M’s knowledge and consideration that the Castleparade ground has very little capacity, and that it is necessary to demolish somehouses, so that it be made as large as possible. The Socorro Gate is next to theflank, and for that reason has no other defence than what is opposite; its bridgeand the others of the Castle and the City are on rather thick stone supports andthese give cover to the enemy, and it were therefore better that they be of wood,as they could be burned as required or removed more easily than those of stone.It is most advisable to work on the covered way, that of the Castle as much asof the City, demolishing an existing part on account of the imperfection it suffers,as it is the first line of defence against the enemy.”84

(83) Ibid.(84) Ibid..



Change of engineers

The Viceroy’s report ended with some harsh criticism of the two engineers whowere at that time assigned to Pamplona: “Nor can I conceal from Y.M’s RoyalAttention that I have found two engineers in this City, one of them being Juan deLedesma and the other Octabiano Menni, and that I cannot and have not beenable to use either of them, because Ledesma is notoriously unskilled in the art,to which must be added that in the time of Don Enrique de Benabides, he wasso gravely humiliated in a public quarrel that in the Military order, which is soattentive to matters of honour, he cannot obtain access to superiors or even beaccepted by the soldiers. And Octabiano Menni has been sick since I came hereand I have not seen him, and I have been informed by reliable sources of theimperfections with which the fortification of San Sebastian has been realised,where he attended, and I have seen with my own eyes those that were plannedand have been carried out here under his direction; and to those reasons I mightadd another no less damaging to trust, which is that of some words that heuttered, less respectful than befits a good vassal of Your Majesty.”

To substitute them, he proposed having Don Esteban Escudero brought fromSan Sebastián, “who enjoys my complete confidence, very well versed and withgreat intelligence in the art of engineering; who is assistant to the CommissionerGeneral and has a salary of 50 escudos...and with this the salary of 160escudos that Octabiano Menni enjoys could be saved; and with what will besaved from that of Juan de Ledesma, Miguel Gascó will be able to come, alsonow at San Sebastián and a most satisfactory and intelligent person.”85

Escudero’s main contribution to the citadel was to add the Santa Clara and SantaIsabel counterguards to the half-moon bastions drawn up by Ledesma. They werebuilt in 1689-91 when the Duke of Bournonville was Viceroy.85 bis

(85) Ibid.(85bis) ECHARRI, Las murallas, p. 297 and 321 (no. 26).



The Kingdom’s contribution

The work on the exterior defences of the Citadel was able to be carried out thanksto the generosity of the Kingdom, which was not exactly awash with resources atthat time. The Parliament, prompted by Viceroy Benavides, agreed an extraordinarycontribution of 30,000 ducats, of which 24,000 was to go to the works.86 CharlesII the Bewitched, in a letter dated 22 September 1684, expressed gratitude forthe generosity, zeal and loyalty of the Three Estates, while at the same timeapproving the conditions imposed by the latter for making the payment. One ofthem was that the quantity agreed did not go to the salary of the chief engineerof fortification works, which should carry on being paid by the Royal Exchequer.87

On 6 October, the Viceroy passed the royal missive on to the representatives ofthe Kingdom. However, all that money amounted to little in face of the magnitudeof the works that had been undertaken.

On 31 October, the Viceroy addressed Parliament again, urging them to neweconomic sacrifices for the walls and Citadel. The King himself had sent 40,000reals for the most urgent needs, and stipulated that they be increased to 100,000,which was not possible due to lack of funds. The Viceroy therefore beseechedthem to increase the contribution “to the amount that might seem sufficient toput this city and its castle in a fit state of defence, as His Majesty expects of thegenerosity of the illustrious and honourable members of this house.”88 More thantwo months later, after no little discussion and reluctance, Parliament informedthe Viceroy on 11 January of its agreement to increase the previous grant of24,000 ducats by 10,000. This came under certain conditions, with the warningthat the amount should not come out of the treasurer’s coffers until all of the initialallocation of 24,000 ducats had been spent.89 The Viceroy replied the next day,approving the conditions imposed by the Kingdom, and on 30th of the samemonth the King again wrote a letter of thanks to the Kingdom, signed in his royalhand, and praising the interest it had displayed in his service.90

(86) AGN. Reino, Fortificaciones, leg. 1, carp. 10.(87) Ibid.(88) AGN. Reino, Fortificaciones, leg. 1, carp. 11.(89) Ibid.(90) Ibid. Las condiciones, en la carp. 12.



The treasurer Aranguren’s accounts

PWe know from the accounts presented in the following years by the treasurerAranguren that the works began in their first phase with funds from the RoyalTreasury. In those accounts the ravelins or half moons were designated with thefollowing names: Santa Teresa, covering the main gate; San Fermín, closest tothe Taconera portal; San Saturnino and San Francisco Javier, in front of and rightby the Socorro Gate respectively, each with its counterguard; and San Ignacio,closest to the San Nicolás Gate. At first the accounts also refer to the Benavidesand Socorro ravelins, which was apparently what San Saturnino and SanFrancisco Javier were initially called, but which clearly designated the samefortifications.

The two half moons of San Fermín and Sam Ignacio were built by the masterstonemason Pedro de Azpíroz, the cost rising to 66,875 reals and 3 cuartillos,of which the Royal Treasury contributed as much as 34,630 reals. The other tworavelins and half moons of Benavides and Socorro were carried out under thesupervision of the stonemason Domingo de Aguierre, reaching a total cost of67,027 reals, of which the King contributed 3,000 ducats. Jorge de Ibero madethe San Fermín ravelin’s sentry box; those of the three other ravelins were madeby Juan de Arrechea, who charged 1,647 reals for three of them. The samemasons also built the counterscarps and gorges. Juan de Miura charged 15,616reals for digging the moat in front of the San Saturnino ravelin, while IgnacioIguacen and Martín López de Heredia received 21,811 for digging those of SanIgnacio and San Francisco Javier and banking up their counterscarps.91

Notable among the lesser items is a payment of 3,000 reals to the assistantDon Domingo Montenegro, “for the excavations that he made in the foundationsof the ravelins of Venavides and Socorro” and 1,317 reals and 28 maravedisfor digging the San Ignacio moat “in accordance with the measurements Juande Ledesma had taken, with variations regulated by Pedro La Sala”. Other items

(91) AGN. Fortificaciones, leg. 1, carp. 17. (copy in carp. 19).



refer to the construction of the parapets; it is also recorded that the sculptorJuan de Miura was given 1,650 reals “for the four shields that he made for theoutside of the four half moons”, and the stonemason Matías de Ugarte 32 “forthe occupation and job of putting the coat of arms in the ravelin of SanYgnacio.”92

It appears that the last ravelin to be built was Santa Teresa, in front of themain gate of the Citadel, on which the master stonemasons Pedro de Azpírozand Domingo Aguirre worked. It cost 55,605 and a half reals, from whichamount 6,000 reals had to be discounted, representing the value of “thestone from the old half moon”. The gate cost 7,176 reals and 4 maravedis,

Santa Isabel Counterguard, Socorro outer gates, Santa María Bastion and Citadel moats in1926. AMP. (J. Galle)

(92) Ibid.



plus 4,908 reals that were given in materials. On this occasion the sculptorMiguel de Labayen charged 500 reals for carving the two coats of arms thatwere put on the wall and another 40 for the relevant inscriptions; he tookand transported the stone from the mason Juan de Miura for 340 reals. Inthe sentry box, a cylindrical course of stones was placed, each one with aletter carved on it to form the name of the ravelin. This job was also carriedout under Labayen’s supervision. Those stones, which were without doubtremoved when that fortification was demolished around 1890, were kept forsome thirty-plus years in one of the bomb-proof store houses or vaults, wheremany Pamplonans had the opportunity to see them, without then being awareof their significance. Labayen also sculpted three stone pyramids, which wereplaced over the gate, charging 100 reals. For his part, the gilder Juan de Sadareceived 270 reals “for having gilded the four stones and two signs on theravelin of Santa Theresa”. 38,000 bricks were used on the parapet at a costof 1,824 reals.

The caprenters Juan de Urrizola and Lope de Goicoechea worked on building thebridges connecting the ravelins with the Citadel gates, and on putting up laddersto make access from the moats easier.

The moat counterscarp and other works

There is another book of accounts, presented by the treasurer of the Kingdom,Jerónimo de Aranguren, and approved on 5 August 1687, that faithfully reflectshow 11,454 ducats given for the work of building the counterscarp around themoat were spent, along with other complementary tasks that remainedpending.93 From some entries in this account it can be seen that gunpowderwas used to blast the tufa of the foundations. Work was divided into five sectionsor zones, each corresponding to one of the bastions of the Citadel, and each

(93) Ibid. carp. 16.



assigned to different master stonemasons. Jorge de Ibero took on and carriedout the stretch opposite the San Antón Bastion for 11,353 reals and 10maravedis; Francisco de Ugareta, the stretch opposite the Santiago Bastion for16,518 reals; Pedro de Ayanz, the one opposite the San Juan el Real Bastion for15,776 reals; Miguel Yoldi, the one opposite the Santa María Bastion for 14,974reals; and Juan de Miura, the stretch matching the Victoria Bastion for 13,236reals.

They also worked on the low places, which were fitted out on the flanks of thefive bastions, to increase the number of emplacements for artillery pieces;naturally, there were two platforms for each bastion, one for each flank. Ignaciode Iguacer dug four of them and Juan de Leiza the other six. The paving andmasonry took place under Jorge de Ibero, for 320 reals.

Outer portal of the Socorro Gate in 1926, when its drawbridge still existed. AMP. Arazuri Coll. (J. Galle)



Pipes were also put in for drinking water. Pedro de Ayanz charged 50 reals and3 cuartillos for “sixty pipes to conduct water from the fountains to put them inthe principal moat” and another 244 reals “for importing the stone that wasused in the fountain that stands on the counterscarp facing the Real Bastion”.

The carpenter Pedro de Arrasqueta was engaged in dismantling and re-buildingthe main gate bridge. Pedro de Azpíroz charged 688 and a half reals for the twostone pillars that he made to support the bridge deck. The wood was suppliedby Juanes de Beúnza, Pascual Oyarzun and one other, and the expertreconnaissance was done by Miguel de Abaurrea. A second bridge was made toconnect the Santa Teresa ravelin, where the portcullis was, and working on itwere the carpenter Arrasqueta and stonemason Miguel de Andiazábal, whocarved eight stone pillars. In addition 509 loads of gravel were bought “for thethree bridges there are before entering the castle.”94

Repairs to the main gate

Other jobs carried out at this time consisted of dismantling the old main gateguardhouse, work done by the builder Martín García de Lasterra, and building anew exterior guardhouse in the Santa Teresa ravelin, for the vault of which 9,300bricks were used.

The third accounts book from those years gives us clear evidence of how the16,925 reals was spent that was entrusted to the treasurer Aranguren for thestonework of the barrelled vault of the main gate which today opens onto theAvenida del Ejército.95 The work was carried out under the supervision of themaster stonemason Pedro de Azpiróz, who charged 5,500 reals. Meanwhile, hiscolleague Jorge de Ibero was working on the construction of that gate’s newguardhouse, charging 1,210 reals for it. Work was also carried out on the

(94) Ibid.(95) Ibid. carp. 14.



posterns that lead on to the low places of the five bastions and which they serveto connect with the moats. Juan de Leiza was specifically working on digging thefoundations that were to support the vault “in the castle postern which liesbehind the Castilian’s house”.

Cannon, vaults and markers for the glacis

At this time, following the advice of different engineers, a new set of cannonof varying calibres was brought to boost the defensive capacity of the cityand Citadel. The mounts were made by the carpenter Esteban de Urrizola,being subsequently waterproofed with tar brought from San Sebastián by theViceroy’s majordomo. The master gunsmith Juan de Repáraz charged 882and a half reals for making up the cases. These artillery pieces includedseveral mortars.

Another curious piece of evidence in the accounts is that, in order to clear thefortress’s central parade ground, the order was given to cut down the 21 treesthat were there, to be used in subsequent works.

The last accounts book in this series presented by the treasurer Arangurencovers the expenditure made with the 34,000 ducats that the Olite Parliamentgave for fortifications in 1688.96 It goes up to 1690. One of the works itmentions is the construction of a cavalier or commanding position that wasbuilt above the Real or San Juan Bastion, and which can still be seen today.Work also continued on the Santa Teresa ravelin in front of the main gate, "toaccommodate the terreplein, parapet and banquette", as well as on itscovered way. In addition, construction of the two wings of the guardhousecontinued, one on each side of the entrance to the Citadel, with thestonemasons Pedro de Azpíroz and Jorge de Ibero working on them, and

(96) AGN. Fortificaciones, leg. 1, carp. 31. (Copy in carp. 33).



apparently in charge of the bulk of the works. The former was paid 12,854reals and 8 maravedis for the stone for the guardhouse on the left and itsvault, with 14,000 tiles also being used. Another entry mentions a paymentof 3.064 reals and 24 maravedis to Sebastián de Huarte, for the “excavationhe has done between the store houses and barracks of the castle to build upthe vault of the Socorro Gate” and in another part of the enclosure. Aspírozwas given 2,479 reals and 16 maravedis that were due to him “for thestonework and carving that he put on the pediments of the vaults of thestorehouse and on the main gate of the castle”.

Other entries refer to more minor jobs, but which are interesting to us fromdifferent perspectives. Ten officers and two labourers busied themselves witha couple of mules in “painting the openings of the castle tower”, where therehad apparently been a fire shortly before. Work was also done on “the twocolumns in front of the guardhouses of the main gate of the castle” and onthe road and paving of the entrance and its small square.

The Citadel’s three wells were cleaned up, repaired and covered with carvedstone vaults made by the mason Juan de Juanena for 1,166 reals and 13maravedis. One of these wells was know as “the well of chains”. A tank wasalso made for the fountain situated on the San Saturnino ravelin’scounterscarp, employing the labour of 36 officers. On the same ravelin threestone sentry boxes were also built, the mason Francisco Inchausti charging1,200 reals for them.97

At this time the grounds forming the esplanade of the Castle Surroundswere marked out, along with other areas close by the fortification “from theSan Lorenço ravelin to the Tejería ravelin” by placing 98 markers or boundarystones made by the mason Francisco de Ugareta for 171 and a half reals– which is to say, at 7 cuartillos for each boundary stone. The aim was toclearly establish in future the dividing line between the glacis or esplanade

(97) Ibid.



of the walled enclosure and “the parts that are the property of this city andoutside it”.

Situated at the angle of each bastion, the Citadel’s five sentry boxes werealso re-tiled, with the master carpenter Lope de Goicoechea charging 150reals for this job.

Further contributions from the Kingdom

All these works, initiated at the end of 1684 under the direction of Ledesmaand Menni, continued from the beginning of 1686 under Esteban Escudero,suggested by the Viceroy Prince of Chimay. This engineer, whose military rankof cavalry captain earned him a salary of 1,100 reals, drew up a new plan thatintroduced several modifications on Ledesma’s, although in reality it turnedout to be, in its general outlines, a continuation of it. Don Marcos Pastor andDon Domingo Montenegro appear in the accounts as his assistants. From1688 to 1690 three military foremen appear as well: Don Pedro Ruipérez deOrduña, Don Juan de Rogibal and second lieutenant Don José de Etayo.Recorded as substituting Rogibal, who was absent for several months servingthe King on other assignments, are the other second lieutenants Don Andrésde Tobar and Francisco de Castro. For its part, the Council of the Kingdomappointed José de Lacoaga as foreman, with special responsibility for thepurchase of lime and other materials, besides control over the manner inwhich they were used.98

In April 1688 Parliament, prompted by the Viceroy Duke of Bournonville, gavean extra 30,000 ducats for fortifications in view of the military preparationsthat were being observed in France.99 Another 4,000 ducats were added to thisamount, offered by the mutually dependent valleys of the Andía mountains to

(98) Ibid. Partidas 126 a 132 de la Data.(99) AGN. Fortificaciones, leg. 1, carpetas 20 a 28.



avoid being sold to Don Diego Ramírez de Baquedano. In March and April of thefollowing year, the main cities were forced to mortgage all their estates andassets so they could raise the total amount agreed, which was handed over atthe end of April, “in the certainty that work has not stopped due to lack ofmoney and that it has duly continued". There were also problems with thelabourers that the towns had to send, with only 49 of the 200 due to turn uphaving answered the call, and scribes and bailiffs having to go and summonthem.

The expropriations also led to conflicts. In July 1689 the Council requested thatthe Viceroy indemnify, from the money handed over, the proprietors of the landsoccupied by the new fortifications of the city and citadel.100 The Viceroyappointed Esteban Escudero to take the relevant measurements, but he roundlyrefused to recourse to the funds handed over by the Kingdom for the walls “asthere will not be enough to finish those of the castle, whose swift completionis of such import". He insisted besides on “not allowing work be done on theglacis of the counterscarp in any part, leaving at least 50 or 60 feet of glacisfree, as required, in all parts".

In spite of these discrepancies, the Council, in a letter addressed to Carlos IIon 20 July 1690, praised the Viceroy Bournonville in glowing terms, because“with his singular intelligence in the methods of fortification, applied to thecastle...with the interior and exterior fortifications that have been done, in astate of being completed, so it is able to defend itself according to the mannerthat war today is waged, being without doubt one of the best castles that thereis in Europe.”101

Father Alesón, who continued Father Moret’s Annals of Navarre, elaborated thesame idea in his time, when he included in the pages of that work the followingparagraph: “... Since the bastion was put up, no enemy forces have attacked fromthis quarter in a century and a half, while from all others our Spain has been

(100) Ibid. carp. 29.(101) Ibid. carp. 32. At the same time efforts were made to influence the King to send funds

with which to finance the city’s external fortifications and moats that needed to be built.



invaded several times by land and sea. This took a long time, even if the citadelof Pamplona was left in a bad state due to the lack of exterior fortifications,which were not completed until our own. But after that it has stood ever inviolable,as though respect had preserved the integrity of its honour.”101 bis

The new magazine and the gunpowder store

At the start of 1690, the accounts kept refer almost exclusively to the workscarried out on the enclosure of the city, especially on the facades of San Nicolás,Taconera and Gonzaga, which means that, generally speaking, the defensivestate of the Citadel was considered satisfactory.102 The only new build realisedin it during those last years of the 17th century was the gunpowder store, whichstill stands, faithfully restored, and the food warehouse or cellar, redesignedsome years later, in 1720, and which is today known as the gunpowder block orstore.

In a letter addressed to Parliament on 3 September 1691, the King referred tothe urgent necessity there was to “build a storehouse for the purpose of keepingseparated and under guard the gunpowder and other supplies of war which mustbe held in reserve for whatever might come to pass”. In view of that, he hadgiven the order to the Viceroy to carry out the work, in spite of “my Royal Treasury”being “as exhausted as is commonly known.”103

The magazine was constructed under the direction of Hércules Torelli, followingthe model devised by Vauban, and according to the date carved on one of itsstones, it was put up in 1694. It is a solid building built on a rectangular plan,with sturdy buttresses on the two side walls, “between which there are smallapertures, having a width of three inches, called respiradores, so that thestorehouse might breathe and keep the gunpowder dry” and with a stone dado

(101bis) Anales del Reino de Navarra, lib. XXXVI, cap. IV pi V. 19.(102) Ibid. y leg. 2, cap. 2 y 13.(103) AGN. Fortificaciones, leg. 1, carp. 34.



in the middle to prevent accidental or deliberate fire.104 The vault is half-barrelled,bomb-proof - able to resist the mortar projectiles of that era, with a maximumcalibre of 14 inches - and outside it is covered by a pitched roof. On the mainfacade, above the door, there is a restrained ornamental detail composed of twopilasters and a triangular pediment, where some shield or commemorativeinscription was probably supposed to go but never did; recently it has held asimple sign which says: MAGAZINE OF THE CITADEL.

The gunpowder block or store, although redesigned by the engineer Sala in 1720,has an external structure very similar to that of the magazine.

(104) PRIETO. La Ciudadela de Pamplona.(Unpublished report kept in the Pamplona MunicipalArchive, edited in 1965).

The magazine, built in 1694 by Torelli, as it was in 1970, with its surrounding stone wall. AMP. Arazuri Coll.



In January 1692 the Estella Parliament awarded a new grant of 30,000 ducatsfor the fortifications, increased within a few days by another 8,000, which weremeant to go almost entirely to the city walls, not those of the Citadel.105 This timeworks were directed by Hércules Torelli and Esteban Escudero, who died at thebeginning of 1696, with Dionisio de Salazar taking over. Torelli had toconsiderably modify Escudero’s plan, which is the one that they had beenimplementing up till then, and this was therefore the source of some tensions.The Viceroy Marquis of San Vicente sought the adivce of the Mastre de CampoArias and the Lieutenant General of Artillery Pastor, who were of the opinion thatTorelli had committed grave and obvious errors, proving himself to be “completelyincompetent”. For his part, Torelli dismissed his detractors as inexpert andignorant in the field of civil and military architecture.106

In December 1695, Parliament came back to give another 30,000 ducats forfortifications, to be paid in two instalments, in 1698 and 1702.107 But the RoyalExchequer could not allow such a delay. In these years the Viceroys acquiredsuccessive powers to award favours, titles and honours in the name of the King,to private individuals or communities offering hard cash to the Royal Treasury inpartial alleviation of its penury. The Navarre Parliament viewed this systemfavourably.108

Torelli sent a plan to the Court in 1696 with its corresponding report, in whichhe put that in the Citadel enclosure there were “some barracks andstorehouses for flour, grain, arms and gunpowder”, but that they were notbomb-proof. There was a bomb-proof tower which could serve as a magazine;two bread ovens had been put there and he proposed transferring them to avault below the terreplein, which was too damp to keep gunpowder in. Thecurrent magazine was under construction and was expected to be finished thefollowing year. Tall traverses had been made in the five bastions, still lacking

(105) AGN. Fortificaciones, leg. 1, carp. 37.(106) IDOATE, Las Fortificaciones, p. 95.(107) AGN. Fortificaciones, leg. 1, carp. 41 y 42, y leg. 2, carp. 12 y 21.(108) MARTINENA, Navarra, castillos y palacios, pp. 126-128. A power went to the Marquis of

Valero in 1693, another to the Marquis of Conflans in 1697 and another to the Marquisof San Vicente in 1699. (Fortificaciones, leg. 2, carp. 12 y 21).



their embrasures. The casemates had to be raised to the level of the coveredway, so as not to have an adverse effect on the low places. The four wellsthat there were, supplied by rainwater, “will be able to hold water, in time ofsiege, for fifteen days". Torelli proposed making a cistern with enough capacityfor an emergency. It was also necessary to properly connect the exterior

ravelins to the covered way. In 1699, on the eve of the change of dynastythat would come in the wake of Charles II the Bewitched’s death, the Marquisof Góngora presented a far from encouraging report to the King on the stateof the city’s defences. The larger livestock roamed freely over the parapetsand embrasures, causing considerable damage. The garrison – 500 soldiersspread over three companies – could barely guard the six gates and sentryboxes of the wall. The Citadel, for its part, had 250 soldiers and 8 gunners.As a minimum requirement, it was considered necessary to increase troop

Gunpowder store before its restoration in 1972. AMP. (R. Bozano)



numbers by 100 more infantry and 40 gunners.109 Such was the lamentablescene offered by one of our chief fortified cities at a moment when eventswere approaching that were going to be decisive for the history of Spain.

Philip V’s engineers. New projects

In the Spanish War of Succession, Navarre was a firm supporter of the BourbonPhilip V, Duke of Anjou, against the other pretender to the throne of Spain, theArchduke of Austria. When it was all over in 1714, thoughts turned once again,with the arrival of peace, to undertaking work on the Citadel. But now it wouldnot be a question of improving the fortifications as such, apart from in somesmall details, but rather attention came to focus fundamentally on the barracksand other auxiliary buildings within the enclosure.

At this time the Royal Corps of Engineers was created in Spain (April 1711), inimitation of the French one, a measure which would lead to a notable advancein the field of fortification and military construction in general. The major andminor cartography that has reached us from this period possesses, apart fromits high quality and technical precision, an appreciable artistic beauty on accountof the fineness of the drawing and the richness lent it by the use of watercolourand coloured inks.

As early as 1718 we find working in Pamplona the engineer Francisco Larrandode Mauleón, who signed the plan for improving the magazine; and in 1719Ignacio Sala, who kept up an abundant correspondence with the EngineerGeneral Don Jorge Próspero de Verbom, and who authored the plans forreforming the granary and wine cellar, later called the gunpowder block; of thebomb-proof vaults on wither side of the Socorro Gate; of a plan to improve thegorges and flanks of the bastions; and of another for a new and artistic facade

(109) IDOATE, Las Fortificaciones, pp. 95-96.



for the main gate that was never realised. In 1720 Alejandro de Retz drew upan initial general plan for improving the whole fortified enclosure of Pamplona,which it soon became apparent was unrealisable due to its exorbitant cost.Shortly after, in 1726, Verboom himself came to Pamplona, drafting a new anddefinitive general fortification plan for the city and citadel that would serve asa reference point throughout the 18th century for all subsequent engineers.

Although only a few of the best proposals were implemented by him, it wastaken as the basis and starting point for some partial plans, such as those forEl Redín and the forts of San Bartolomé, El Princípe and San Roque, whichwere actually realised and in large part survive today. Around that time PedroMoreau, Luis de Langots and Carlos Blondeaux also began to work; theyhavealso left us some interesting plans for different – and now vanished - buildingsin the citadel.

An early letter from Durán to Verbom, dated 18 June,110 referred to a new fortthat was to be put up in the Cruz Negra. Once it was built, the engineer said,“it will be advisable to give the citadel counterguards on the bastions, asindicated in the plan, so as to render it more worthy of respect in the face ofthe most serious attack; and as H.M. has been appraised of the utility of thistype of work and has already approved the plan for them, I shall say no moreabout the matter, save that the three counterguards on the countryside partmust be built first; nor will I utter a word about the new buildings within,indicated in yellow, whose particulars I sent to the Court at the beginning of thisyear in a personal plan of the Citadel, and whose cost is not included in theaforementioned estimate.”

(110) SHM, Documentos fortificación, 4-4 – 12-6. Verboom had got in contact with Vauban in1702, who put him in charge of building several defensive works. Later, in 1716, hedirected the construction of the now-vanished Barcelona citadel.



The new Socorro Gate and the proofing of its vaults

Those new counterguards, one each for the Real, Santa María and SantiagoBastions, were never built, though there are plans signed by Luis de Langotin 1724. What was done at the time was to change the siting of the SocorroGate, which had previously been hard up against a flank of the Santa Maríabastion, and which was moved to its current location at the centre of thecurtain wall. The related vaults were also bomb-proofed. They can still beseen on both sides of the gate, and their plans are kept in Madrid, along withthe letter giving an update on the process that Don Ignacio Sala wrote toVerbom on 30 October of that same 1720.111 In it he said:

(111) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 30.

Original plan of the old and new Socorro gates, and of the bomb-proof vaults built in 1720.AGS



“On the first sheet Your Excellency will find the plan of the thirteen undergroundvaults that I have created in this Citadel, building the Socorro Gate in the middleof the curtain wall after closing up the old gate, which lies very close to the flank,and so the Court may resolve to adapt the fixed bridge or build it again, becausethe old one is of very little value; and although Y.E. will not find the gate exactlyin the middle of the curtain wall, I have had to leave it there so that the gate mightopen directly onto the passageway between the two barracks.” He was referringto the now vanished San Felipe and Santa Isabel buildings, which then stood nextto the interior face of the wall.

Regarding the new Socorro Gate then being built, Sala wrote: “The facade of thegate, whose design I have not sent with this dispatch as I have not had the timeto copy it, is adorned in a Tuscan order with the Royal Arms in its pediment, andthe drawbridge is constructed with a bascule or low counterweight, as Y.E. mightinfer from the plan.”112

To put in the foundations of the vaults, the engineer recounts in detail how hedug until he hit the tufa “which is at the same level throughout and I havetherefore completed my vaults without there having been the slightestmovement or break in them, which is a very usual thing in the constructions ofthis country..." He describes the faults that he found in the way the oldfoundations were laid, having hit the foundation of the wall on opening thebreach “to place the Socorro Gate” and on the wall of the old gate’s tunnel,which made the construction of the last of the thirteen vaults problematic. Allthat led him to say, in malicious reference to his predecessors, “... I cannot bepersuaded that all these things were done through ignorance, want of care ordesire to save money, so the motive would necessarily have to be theft...”

In the same letter, Don Ignacio Sala also refers to the work that he carried outon the granary or provisions store – what is now known as the gunpowder block– to double its capacity.

(112) Ibid.



“On the other sheet, Y.E. will find the work that I have carried out on this Citadel’sgranary, which previously was a small groined vault, of half brick thickness and,more than that, the central walls and pillars were decidedly not well done; andalthough it is not easy to join a new work to an old one, I have tried to take allprecautions necessary to this end, and I can assure Y.E. that it has been noeasy task, but that it has been done to my satisfaction and now, thanks be toGod, I have almost concluded it, as well as the underground vaults, which I hopewill be completely finished in the coming month, should the weather permit.”113

Apart from these works, which were carried out under his direction and whichstill stand, Sala planned some improvements to the Citadel’s fortificationswhich would never be implemented. One of them consisted in modifying theflanks of the five bastions’ low places so as to be able to put a larger number

(113) Ibid.

Bomb-proof vaults built by Sala in 1720, on the terreplein of the Socorro Gate curtain wall.AMP. Arazuri Coll. (R. Bozano)



of artillery there in case of attack. At the same time, two posterns for eachbastion were to be opened “as Y.E. did for the Citadel of Barcelona, and notas in this Citadel, which only has three posterns for several bastions, which,depending on whence the exterior defences be attacked, would make itnecessary to go round half the moat of the Citadel to retreat or go to theiraid.” He also proposed placing cannon in proof vaults, placed on navalmounts, their mouths sticking out of the wall “so that within there would onlybe smoke from the vent; and besides these cannon only need to be fired twoor three times during the advance, and the problem of smoke in such largevaults would be of very little account".

In a subsequent letter, dated 26 December of that same 1720, Don Ignacio Salainformed the Marquis of Verboom that the works he had directed were at anend: “I have now concluded the two main works of the underground vaults andthe granary. All that remains is for me to complete some repairs and certainother small tasks.” It would appear that there was also a plan to provide themain gate with a new facade as, according to what the engineer stated to hissuperior, they had recently requested from the Court “the Architectural facadefor the main gate of this Citadel (which is the one that was sent to Y.E. ), therebeing an acute shortage of money for this as well as for other very necessarytasks, and for which reason I refrain from proposing some.”114

The new Socorro Gate, which as we have seen was built anew on its currentsite, consists of a segmental arch flanked by pilastered ways in the Tuscanorder, which sustain a lintel in which the following inscription can be read,though the last line is today only partly legible due to the stone chipping off:

HAEC PORTA AUXILII SURGIT REGNANTE PHILIPPOCERTA OBSESSORUM SPES PATRIAE QUE... S........ US

(114) MARTINENA, ob. cit. doc. no. 31.



Above, forming the ornamental top of the facade, is a plain shield with thesimplified version of the arms of the Spanish monarchy – the quartered shieldof Castile and Leon – crested with the royal crown and, in the escutcheon, the

The Socorro Gate, opened here in 1720. AMP. Arazuri Coll. (J. Cía, 1952)



lilies of the Bourbon dynasty. At the end of the 1970s, as part of the restorationwork carried out on the Citadel, the bridges joining the gate with the esplanadeof the Castle Surround via the Santa Isabel ravelin and counterguard wererestored, their stone parapets put up again and antique paving laid, to greataesthetic effect, even if it turned out to be a little uncomfortable for pedestrians.It must be said that this paving is in fact anachronistic, given that the surface ofthe bridge deck dates to 1850. Previously it was a simple wooden board, with aparapet also of wood, supported on stone pillars.

The heyday of military cartography

The Army’s Geographical Service keeps several plans of the bomb-proof vaultsbuilt in 1720 on the inside face of the Socorro curtain wall. One of them showsthat two circular ovens had originally been planned between the old gate, wherethe chapel was eventually situated, and the first of the vaults built by Don IgnacioSala.115

The same archive also holds another plan of one of the fortress’s fivebastions, with the above engineer’s proposal “to increase the gorges andwalls of the flanks, building beneath each flank a vault of 15 fuesas (about32cm) long to house the garrison, provisions and other things in time of siege,with 4 little vaults where various other cannon can be put, which the enemycannot remove with his artillery or bombardments, and a small gate in eachflank.”

(115) SGM. Cartoteca, nos. 391 y 392, with some differences. As Major Prieto made clear in his report on the Citadel, written in 1965, a buildingwas considered to be bomb-proof when it could resist the impact of the mortarprojectiles of the time. In the 18th century these were generally not more than 32 cm calibre (14 inches) andthey fired 78kg shells. Maximum reach was calculated at 2,800 metres - and firing at 60º, which producedthe greatest effect, some 2,400 metres. A 1 metre thick vault was enough to resist these, not exceeding of 6 metres indiameter. Vauban advised in his treatise a thickness of 2 metres. A two-pitch roof wasplaced above to keep out moisture and leaks.



The plan contains three variants or different solutions, based on right anglesor curves.116

Plan from around 1725, taking two sheets of the elevation of all the barracks and buildingsthen within the Citadel. Most noteworthy in this sheet are the main gate with the exteriorportcullis and the now vanished Santa Teresa lunette or ravelin. IHCM

(116) SHM. Plans, no. 1,993. 30.

Plan of one of the Citadel’s five bastions, with two designs by Ignacio Sala for enlarging thegorges and the number of embrasures on their flanks. SGE



There are also other interesting plans of what is today known as the gunpowderblock, which then served as a cellar on its lower floor and as a storehouse ordepository for provisions in the upper one.117

Adjoining it, closer to the central parade ground, was the bakery. Others refer tothe alteration of the magazine built in 1694, which now, impeccably restored,functions as an exhibition venue, and to the other, more basic gunpowder storewhich then existed and which amounted to simple little huts with pitched roofs,surrounded by a palisade.118

Another plan is of the oven, the building of which has been preserved, althoughthe ovens as such were taken out when the interior was adapted to its present

Plan drawn up in 1720 to bomb-proof the current gunpowder block, which then housed acellar on its lower floor and a provisions store on the upper one. AGS

(117) SGM. Cartoteca, nos. 393, 400 y 402.(118) Ibid. no. 397.



use as an exhibition space. From yet another plan from the same period, around1720, we know what the governor of the Citadel’s house or pavilion was like,built at that time near to the main gate guardhouse, and which already had aground floor and two upper storeys, one of them a type of attic. The old governor’spavilion was the house or convent attached to the primitive church of San Antónand which remained standing after the Citadel chapel was rebuilt in 1648. CanonDon Fermín de Lubián, in his Account of the Holy Church of Pamplona, writtenaround 1740, noted this interesting reference: “... It is most necessary to knowthat the old church of San Antón is what today serves as the parish church inthe castle, dedicated to the same saint, and that it was built and consecratedby the Lord Cardinal Don Martín de Zalba. The Antonine convent was attachedto it, and I have even managed to acquaint myself with part of the convent house,with a stone stone shield bearing the cross of the saint, and there the Duke ofMedinaceli died or was killed. In my time the house was completely demolished,and today it is a small square attached to the parish church of the Castle...”119

The Duke of Saint-Simon and a dish of ajoarriero

Around the same time, in 1722, the extraordinary ambassador of France, theDuke of Saint-Simon, visited Pamplona. Following an old tradition of courtesytowards distinguished visitors, he was authorised to view the Citadel. In hisaccount, published subsequently and collected by José María Iribarren in hiswork Pamplona y los viajeros de otros siglos (Travellers to Pamplona in centuriespast),120 the duke put down some brief impressions of his visit: “On awaking,”he wrote, “I requested permission (from the Viceroy) to see the citadel, whereno foreigner is allowed to enter. I went there with my attendants the followingmorning. I visited wherever I chose and I found it most splendid and well tended,as was the garrison, which received me with a presentation of arms and thethunder of cannon. From there we went to see and give thanks to the Governor,

(119) LUBIÁN Y SOS, Relación de la Santa Iglesia de Pamplona, p. 87.(120) IRIBARREN, Pamplona y los viajeros, p. 71.



who shortly afterwards came to seek me out again, to bid us goodbye.” It sohappened that the Viceroy’s authorisation to visit the fortress meant the Frenchnobleman had to make the sacrifice of first having to partake fulsomely of aserving of Navarrese ajoarriero (cod cooked with eggs and garlic), which hereports had no merit and whose oil was odious; but which, making a show of theproverbial French civility, he felt obliged to try in honour of his host.

The Pamplona fortification works continued in 1725, with the area around theFrancia Gate and the Redín fortress occupying most of the engineers’attention. To that end, and so as to be able to call on the necessary manpower,the Viceroy Count de las Torres addressed the Council on 7 August, chargingthem with levying the towns until they had raised a thousand men to work onthe walls.121

The supply of lime and the transport of materials again became, as on previousoccasions, a source of tensions and conflicts between the representatives of theKingdom and the military authorities, fundamentally on account of the pricesand salaries to be paid. On 22 December an official letter was sent to the Viceroyasking him to order that payments be made to the towns of the Goñi valley andelsewhere who transported lime for work on the Citadel: the rate was to be a realand a half per 10 arrobas (= 110–160kg), with carriage of 3 maravedis paid forevery theft and league of a full return journey.122 For his part, the Viceroy askedthe Kingdom, on 7 August, to agree a precaution of having the towns of theregion prepare 20,000 fascines or planks for use in the works.123 A new officeof Deputy to the Viceroy dealt with payments that had to be made to the peoplewho hauled wood for the fortifications.124

(121) AGN. Fortificaciones, leg. 2, carp. 28.(122) Ibid. carp. 29.(123) Ibid. carp. 30.(124) Ibid. carp. 31.



The new weapons room and other projects

Also dating from 1725 is the planned construction of the new artillery arsenal,which we know today as the Sala de Armas (Weapons Room), and whose amplepremises are now used for concerts, exhibitions and diverse cultural activities.The plan, kept in the Madrid military archives, carries a November date along withthe signature of the prestigious engineer Don Jorge Prospero de Verboom, whocreated the Barcelona citadel.125

The plan and elevation show the building practically as it is today, the only differencebeing that one of the lateral facades has a chamfer rather than a right-angledcorner. It also appears that the stairs were initially planned for the central partrather than at one side as they are now. There is another similar drawing for thisbuilding, with plan and elevation, with no date or signature but which without doubtis from the same period. It shows small variations from what we have justdescribed. From statements found in documents of the period, we know that theconstruction of this arsenal took many years – in fact more than twenty-five,apparently due to work having been suspended on several occasions.

Another of the Marquis of Verboom’s projects, which he never came to realise,was for an advanced hornwork, which according to the engineer should be built “infront of the Citadel facade formed by the Bastions of Santiago and Santa Maria,with the aim of uncovering the deep terrain that lies in front of the houses of SanJuan de la Cadena.”126

This new exterior fortification, had it been built, would have taken up a goodpart of the esplanade of the Castle Surround, the stretch corresponding to theSocorro Gate entrance. This partial plan, like the previously mentioned onefor the new counterguards proposed for in front of the angle of the bastions,and which was not realised either, is filed with the plan and general projectfor improving the city’s defences that was formulated in 1726. It would serve

(125) SHM. Planos, no. 1,993. 33.(126) The plan for this hornwork, which would never be realised, is also included in Cermeño’s

general plan of August1756 and in Daiguillon’s of May 1794. Engineers were referringback to it right into the 19th century.



1725. Plan by Próspero de Verbom for the Weapons Hall in the Citadel. IHCM



as the obligatory reference point for successive engineers throughout the18th century.127

An interesting plan is kept in the military archives of Madrid from 1725,comprising two sheets.128 The first of these contains the elevations, a littleschematic if very precise, of the main, side and rear facades of all thebuildings that then existed within the enclosure: vaults or bomb-proofstorehouses, church, magazine, barracks, blocks, sheds and oven; of whichonly one has survived to our times. The second sheet covers the structureof the bastions, with their flanks and low places, the main gate with its turret,the guardhouse, the gate of one of the exterior ravelins, a bastion with its

The Weapons Hall in January 1970, prior to its restoration. It was built between 1725 and1752. Work was much delayed. AMP. Arazuri Coll.

(127) The counterguards were planned by Don Luis de Langots in 1724. There are plans ofthem in the SGM. Cartoteca, nos. 386 a 388 y en SHM. Planos, no. 1,874.

(128) SHM. Planos, no. 1,993, 17 y 21. The 2nd sheet is reproduced on page 105.



flank and arrangement of embrasures, and several cross sections of thewhole fortification.

Until the mid 18th century there is an evident gap in the documentationand cartography as regards the Citadel. It appears that no significant workswere either planned or carried out. At least there is no evidence that theywere. There were just excavations and levelling of earth on the esplanadeof the Castle Surround, which started in 1726 and were still going on in1742.

The first evidence of any activity, though not of any special relevance, was in1751. On 24 November, the engineer Juan Bautista French reported to theCount of Aranda that the pipe conducting water from the Citadel to theenclosure had been finished: “The receptacle for the new fountain in theCitadel has been finished. In accordance with Your Excellency’s orders thewaterwheel and its cogs have been repaired and the pipe completed, the

1725 design for the fountain that existed at the centre of the Citadel enclosure. AGS



water running abundantly this morning to its destination, and the troops andpeople of the Citadel will be able to enjoy its benefits without hindrance."129

We have already stated that the fortress’s weapons hall or arsenal, the planfor which dates from 1725, would take many years to complete: more thana quarter of a century. In 1752 the Royal Treasury assigned 250,000 realsfor the completion of the project and of the Los Reyes ravelin at the FranciaGate, where important improvements were also made in those years.

Zermeño and his plan to remodel the interior

1756 is a landmark year in the history of the Pamplona fortifications, with thearrival in the city of the prestigious military engineer Don Juan MartínZermeño, who presented King Ferdinand VI with a complete and detailed planfor bomb-proof buildings – barracks, blocks and other auxiliary structures –to be built inside the citadel in place of those already there.

All these new constructions added a certain elegance to the essential solidity,while keeping within the sober perimeters of military architecture. In fact,Zermeño’s rationally conceived plan meant a complete realignment of theinterior space of the fortress, based on regular blocks arranged symmetricallyaround a rectangular central parade ground. The original radial structure, withstreets leading off from a small central plaza towards the fortress ascentsand the middle of the five curtain walls, was therefore to be abandoned.

The plan, which in its ambition was without doubt beyond the means of theRoyal Treasury, was not given serious consideration due to its high cost,estimated at some eight million reals.

(129) Ibid. Docs. Fortificación, 4-4 – 12-13.



The project, along with its corresponding drawing done in many coloured inksand an interesting report, was sent to the Court on 17 August of that same1756. The description of the Citadel contained in the report is one of the mostaccurate ever given.130

The Citadel in 1756

“This fortress comprises,” wrote Zermeño, “ a regular pentagon , whose externalaspect is 338 and a half Castilian yards. The proper rules of fortification havebeen observed in its construction, with all its lines and angles proportionedaccording to the best precepts. There are five high flanks in the bastions, withcapacity for six cannon, and low places for two, these being connected by vaultsbelow the terreplein, and there are posterns in three of them or exits to the moatby the rear of the shoulder. In these, which are very robust, there is space enoughfor three cannon, so that each flank may contain eleven with which to oppose theenemy and defend the opposite face, the moat, covered way and esplanade, itnot being easy to evade their fire, in particular from the low places; and besidesthe high flanks, there is a cavalier in the Real Bastion.

“Of the five facades of which it consists, one of them faces the city, the two thatadjoin this are to be found where it meets her, flanking her enclosure both withinand without, and the two that remain face towards the countryside. In one ofthese the Socorro Gate is situated, and in the first, the main gate to the city. Allhave good ravelins to cover their curtain walls, and in front of the two that facethe countryside there are counterguards surrounding all of their moat, coveredway with parade ground and esplanade. The main enclosure is in good conditionand its walls are of the finest construction, all of carved stone. Although of lesser

(130) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 34. There are manycontemporary copies of the plan. The original, signed and dated by Cermeño, is kept in the SGM, Cartoteca, no. 413.One copy is in the SHM (Planos, no. 1,993, hoja 69) and another the same in AGN,framed and exhibited in the corridor of the upper floor.



quality, the ravelins and counterguards also have good walls and the counterscarpis faced with masonry, but they lack stairs to connect them, as do all the otherexterior fortifications, and the covered way has no parapet or traverses. Theesplanade is very low and the ravelins and counterguards that serve to coverthem suffer from the same defect. The enclosure as well as all the fortificationsare in a state of total abandonment, over-grown with grass, with livestock grazingeverywhere, trees planted even on the main part of the parapets, and in the lowplaces gardens have been established, as I have reported; but now everythingis being cleared, and is in large part already done.”131

Generally speaking, it is fair to say that apart from the shortcomings indicated,which were more a matter of detail, Zermeño found the Citadel to be in anacceptable state when it came to the fortifications as such. In marked contrast,he judged the buildings inside, even some built in recent years, in an extremelyunfavourable light.

“Within the Citadel there are several buildings - barracks, blocks andstorehouses, and a church; but most of them are so weak and flimsy that theygive no cause to make special mention of their circumstances, not one of thembeing worthy of conservation, above all those that are so costly as to needconsiderable amounts to be spent annually on their repair, without them beingfit to withstand a siege, in addition to their very limited capacity in considerationof the needs of this fortification.

“Anyway, there are only two that are useful and worthy of attention. One is thegunpowder store, of sound construction and ample capacity, built but a few yearsago; the other, a naval provisions store, currently serves as a granary in its mainspace or floor and the one below is intended to be a cellar.”132

In this paragraph Zermeño refers to the magazine that is today known as thegunpowder store or block. Of what is today known as the Weapons Room,

(131) Ibid.(132) Ibid.



1756. Plan by Juan Martín Zermeño to raise the military buildings inside the Citadel anew.IHCM



completed in 1752, he says: “Although an Arsenal that had been begun hasbeen finished in recent years, it is not worthy of conservation, because in additionto it being small for the Citadel, its floor is so poorly constructed due to thearrangement of its timbers and their want of girth, that the Artillery officers havenot dared to load it, as even without this circumstance they are already brokenin some places; and as much for this as for its situation, the design would break,and it is advisable to demolish it, making use of all its materials in the works thatare to take place.”

With regard to the vaults built thirty years before in the curtain wall of the SocorroGate, and which still survive practically as they were then, Cermeño said: “In thecurtain wall between the Bastions of Santa María and Santiago, there aredifferent proofed vaults, below the terreplein, which were built many years ago;but there having been deposited in one of them (so it is said) a quantity of livelime, it soaked up the humidity and with the force of its fermentation burst thevault that it was in, and the ruin thereof damaged those that were close by, whichare underpinned, and all of them are so damp on account of their little ventilationthat they can only serve as stores for things of the type that are not subject toruin from that cause.133

“There are also two vaults in the main gate which today serve as guard housesand can be useful, as there is another one to the side of those mentioned in thecurtain wall of Santa María and Santiago, which was formerly the Socorro Gate."In the first instance, the engineer is referring to the two that were situated oneither side of the vaulted tunnel which gives access to the enclosure in thevicinity of the Avenida del Ejército.

The one on the right survives intact as it was then, and the one on the left datesto when this part of the wall was redone in 1970, having been demolished in1890 to allow various military buildings to be put up. The second reference isto the last vault in the Socorro curtain wall, where throughout the 20th century

(133) Ibid.



the Citadel chapel stood; there was a small pediment in front of its door. Itconstituted the entry and exit tunnel from the last years of the 16th century until1720, when the current one was built.

Some buildings that never happened

Zermeño’s plan related fundamentally to the military buildings situated inside theenclosure, whose layout was completely reconceived, absolutely doing away withthe old radial arrangement. Of the existing buildings only the magazine andprovisions storehouse (today called the gunpowder block) were to be kept.Everything else was to be built anew. To begin with, the engineer proposed theconstruction of five infantry barracks, on a long rectangular plan, formed ofvaulted and juxtaposed naves.

They were to be just one floor, situated alongside and parallel to each of thecurtains of the wall, between the entries to the bastions. Apart from this, startingfrom the main gate, opposite the guardhouse, a first line of buildings ranperpendicular to the wall: two officers’ blocks; another building for the GeneralStaff, with a residence for the governor of the fortress, the King’s lieutenant andthe sergeant major; a church laid out on a Latin cross, with side chapels andendowed with a residence for the chaplains and, to the back, another for theengineers; and two other officers’ blocks.

A second line of buildings was envisaged after this first one, integrated into fourblocks and arranged with two on either side of the central parade ground. Thiswas to be square, replacing the old circular little plaza. Three of these blocks wereto house officers and one of them, furthest to the right, was to be a militaryhospital. Finally, a third row was planned, comprising just three buildings: acavalry barracks on two floors; a magnificent artillery arsenal with a centralcourtyard and simple porticoed facade; and a building for the ovens, with navesto store grain and flour and for making bread.



“In these proposed buildings,” said Zermeño in the report accompanying theplan, “I have remained mindful of the need to keep costs low, omittingsuperficialities and eschewing adornments, without depriving them of anythingessential; yet without losing sight of the fact that, for all that they are simple, theirdecoration is an indication of the power of their sovereign owner. Once all theseplans had been executed, we could be well assured that it would be one of thebest arranged citadels there could be, not having, as indeed it does not have, anydefect in its fortification.”134

The reality is that, as far as the fortification as such goes, Zermeño’s plan didnot propose any reforms worthy of rehearsing here. It just included one smallmodification of certain details in the exterior ravelins and counterguards, theconstruction of stairs in them and caponiers to protect communication with theravelins across the moat, and the construction of the parapet and traverses onthe covered way bordering the perimeter.

In spite of it being a much studied plan, and though the bomb-proof buildingsproposed in it might be said to have been an inescapable necessity in the mid18th century, none of it was ever realised. The Citadel continued as it was, andits interior retained its old radial structure with little trapezoidal buildings, untilthe keys were handed over to Pamplona town council in 1966.

Amici, and a report commissioned by Aranda

On 20 October of that same 1756, the engineer Don Jerónimo Amici wrote, onthe orders of the Count of Aranda, Director of the Royal Artillery Corps, anotherreport on the general state of the city and Citadel, which generally speakingcoincides with Zermeño’s, though adding some details.135 With regard to theCitadel, he begins by lauding “the great aptitude of the man responsible for its

(134) Ibid.(135) IDOATE, Las fortificaciones, doc. no. 19.



conception , in how well it is situated and in the most beautiful arrangementof both its high and low flanks”. The walls and bastions were in a good stateof preservation, apart from the parapets of the low places “which are entirelyruined and some of them occupied by gardens”. The moat counterscarp lackedconnecting stairs, as did the ravelins and exterior counterguards, of which hesays they are “of much inferior material to those of the main enclosure” andwhose parapets were almost buried and did not give a view over thecountryside.

Of the buildings inside the fortress, whose demolition and redesign Zermeñoproposed, Amici says that they were “so feeble and ill founded, that if theCitadel were to come under siege, it would be necessary to abandon it beforetime, to avoid exposing its garrison to the enemy’s continual fury and to thefatalities that his bombs would occasion, there being no safe place to hideamong the ruins”.

The only ones that were bomb-proof were the three vaults in the main gatecurtain wall, the magazine (“beautiful and very capacious”) and what is knowntoday as the gunpowder block: “two vaults joined together that serve asgranaries”. Of the twelve vaults on either side of the Socorro Gate, he says that“apart from being damp, they are thin and feeble on account of their poormaterial and the lack of girth in their vertical supports, three of which havealready sunk, from which it can be inferred that they are not bomb-proof.”136

The report ends with a reference to the two building projects that had then begunwith the approval of the Court: the new aqueduct and water tank, and the maingate guardhouse. It says that following a request by Zermeño, both weresuspended on the ministry’s orders, as they were not designed to be bomb-proofand because a general plan for all the buildings inside already existed, subjectto approval, thanks to Zermeño himself.

(136) Ibid.



A plan by none other than Amici is kept in Madrid, dated 1 July 1757 and showingan aqueduct or covered pipe conducting water to a tank behind the WeaponsRoom. The excess water, by means of a small shaft, passed under the barracksthat there were then opposite the Socorro Gate vaults, to clean their commonareas, before going on to pour into the moat on the left flank of the SantiagoBastion.137

Other projects in the reign of Charles III

In terms of projects, there was a new period of activity between 1764 and 1767,principally under the direction of Don Francisco Llovet. A plan of the Weapons Hall- or artillery arsenal as it was then known - survives from 29 December 1764,which includes a proposal to lower the cornice, substitute the brick floors withwood, and the pillars and beams with segmental brick arches, while preservingthe rest of the building much as it was.138

Another plan from the same period contains the floor plan of the Citadel church,built in 1648, with the design for a new residence for the vicar and sacristan.139

The church, according to this plan, comprised three naves separated by pillars;it had adjoining, at either side of the presbytery or head, a bell tower and vestry,and adjacent to the left-hand nave, a long storehouse. The house to be built wasalso attached to the facade, built on two floors and with a small courtyard at theback, and next to it was a small cemetery surrounded by a fence that formed anangle to meet up with the sacristy wall.

Several plans signed by Llovet survive from June 1767, relating to the main gateguardhouse. On one side it was planned to construct a new building fordistinguished prisoners and, on the other, a residence for the General Staffofficers.140 It appears that the present guardhouse, with its two porticoed huts on

(137) SHM. Planos, no. 1,993, hoja 51.(138) Ibid. hojas 55 and 56.(139) Ibid. hoja 22.



either side of the small access plaza, was begun in 1756, with work beinginterrupted at Lieutenant General Zermeño’s request. The earlier guardhouse,built at the end of the 17th century, was situated in the old vaulted entrancetunnel, on the right as you enter from the present Avenida del Ejército. Oppositewas the guardroom or military prison.

What was being attempted now was the completion of the new guardhouse, butputting both buildings up, two stories each, over its premises. The facades clearlyreflect the style of military buildings from the time of Charles III, which alwaysretained a certain baroque air within the traditional martial austerity.

Throughout these years, as can be seen, attempts were made to improve themilitary buildings inside the enclosure rather than the fortifications as such. Thereis a plan, signed by Carlos Lemaur on 8 January 1774, which shows the newbarracks then built next to the Santa Isabel, on the site where the Old Gunsmith’spreviously stood.141 It was a simple, long, two-storey building.

On the ground floor it had a porch, with wooden pillars supporting a continuousbalustraded balcony, also of wood, which served as the upper floor gallery, andto which access was gained via a stairway situated to one side. The barracks wascovered by a four-pitched roof with dormer windows.

Report by the engineer don Antonio Zara

We know from an account of the military buildings existing in Pamplona, sentby Don Antonio Zara on 21 August 1784,142 that there were five barracksinside the Citadel at the time. The one known as San Felipe was occupied bythe recruitment banners of the Irlanda, Milán and Bravante regiments, andhad a capacity of 392 beds. The Santa Isabel, which could hold 436, housed

(140) Ibid. hojas 32 and 33.(141) SHM. Planos, no. 1,979(142) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 38.



three companies of Invalids. The new barracks, apparently built in 1773, hadcapacity for 288; the Victoria, occupied by two detachments of Cavalry andArtillery, for 134. And the one known as the Barracks of the Exiles, should itnot serve that end, had room for 78 beds. It indicated that, apart from these,room could be made for 364 more in the thirteen vaults by the Socorro Gate,including “the one which formerly served as a Church”. The ones by the maingate, which had previously served as guardhouse and guardroom, wereconsidered useless “due to the great seepage of water”. Near the gate, belowthe curtain wall terreplein, there were two more guardrooms, “one of themcalled the Water because of the great quantity that leaked there, and theother the Friar". The latter, which no longer exists today, was the gloomysetting for the long and cruel agony of a friar of the Victoria Order, who diedthere, chained in a cage for having supported the Archduke of Austria duringthe War of Succession.

Zara’s account also contains some brief but interesting descriptions of themain military buildings:

The provisions store comprises two bomb-proof vaults, the length of the cavitybeing 46 yards and the width of each one 7 yards and the dividing wall 3 anda half feet. They have a basement and the ridges are tiled to avoid leaks.“The oven is bomb-proof, with a simple building, which part encircles it, forthe distribution of bread.

“The gunpowder store is also bomb-proof, its ridge tiled; the cavity is 26 anda third yards in length and 9 and a half yards in width; it has the appropriatefence around it. This as well as the oven and the provisions store do notsuffer from dampness, on account of being separated from the terreplein andtiled.

“The Artillery arsenal is a new though simple building. It has two floors andan attic. Its height is much greater than that of the parapet. On the lowerfloor are the gun carriages and heavy pieces; on the main one there areshelves for more than five thousand rifles; today there are 2,597. The atticaccommodates the light pieces. Between this building and the gunpowder



store lies another building which serves the same purpose, and next to theSan Felipe barracks, another old one which forms a block. The large housesin the Bastions of San Antonio, La Victoria, Santiago and Santa María areput to the same end. The walls in some of these buildings are of wood andbut one brick thick and in others a mixture of brick and adobe, but all arecovered with tiles. In the Real Bastion there is a shed to protect the carriagesof the mounted cannon for salutes.143

“The sentry boxes at the salient angles of the five bastions are large and coveredwith tiles. In the Santiago Bastion the landlord has gunpowder for sale, and thatof the Santa María Bastion was kept in my time as a provisional extra supply forthe City, there being room there for sixteen barrels of gunpowder.

“The Victoria barracks, the Provisions Store, the two stables with room for 30beds and the nearby flourmill form a block, though separated from the store,which goes between, by two tiny cul-de-sac alleys. The flourmill is very wellconceived: it has two stones, which can be moved by two horses. But it hasbeen so neglected that I believe all the wood of the machine to be rotten, as thatbuilding, which has a single-piece roof, has served as a place for the sergeantmajors to lay down grass; I do not know if the same happens today.

“The church is attractive and quite large, as is the house of the King’s Lieutenant.These buildings are simple, like the barracks. So are all the others, which arecalled pavellones, and have two floors to house officers and vary in size from largeto small. The large ones, including that of the King’s Lieutenant, the SergeantMajor, the Adjutant, the Vicar and two others which serve as a bakery andbutcher’s, number five and twenty and form eleven blocks. The small onesnumber fifteen, two of them without use, and all together they make up twoblocks. Some of the large blocks have a basement, but without any vault, whichcauses harm to the timbers on account of the water which comes in through theloopholes...In general, the walls are of brick and many are only one thick, with

(143) Ibid.



buttresses to support the corresponding bridges. In summary, the walls are amixture of stone, brick and, in some cases, medium woods. So that some ofthem have the true texture of an eggshell, which condition, in part, the barracksof the exiles cannot avoid.”144

There is another account, dated 29 December 1785, of the state of Pamplona’sfortifications and military buildings, which adds little to what we have previouslycovered. Its sole contribution is the information that the Socorro Gate bridgehad still not been built at that time.145 There is yet another report, signed by DonJuan de Villalonga on 19 November 1787 and sent to Madrid instead of the onewritten by the engineer Cabrer and which Don Manuel de Azlor foundunsatisfactory. It has nothing new to say either. In fact, it simply reiterateseverything that Zermeño and Amici had previously made clear. Of the fountainsin the moat it says that they had not dried up throughout the whole summer; andwith regard to the old idea of surrounding the covered way with a stockade, itexplains that there were some twenty thousand stakes in the royal storehousesfor that purpose.146

The lightning rod and fear of gunpowder

With the War against the French Convention that was declared following theexecution of Louis XVI by revolutionaries in 1793, Navarre once again livedthrough moments of great tension, its towns and valleys – especially those of LaMontaña – throwing themselves into the usual preparations for war. Althoughthe enemy army came dangerously close to Pamplona, the walls of the Citadelagain acted as deterrent and the feared siege never materialised. On 21 April1794, the Council of the Kingdom requested that General Don Ventura Caroremove the gunpowder from the Citadel to avoid it endangering the vicinity, andtake it to the Arazuri Palace or Eulza House.147 It seems there were 2,615

(144) Ibid.(145) MARTINENA, ob. cit. doc. no. 39.(146) SHM. Docs. Fortificación, 4-3 – 1-7.



quintals (=100 lb) in the magazine and the soldiers refused to have it outsidethe City when they might need to use it at any moment. In view of that and in faceof the danger caused by frequent storms, the authorities organised theinstallation of a lightning-rod, which was then a relatively novel device, havingbeen invented some forty years before by the renowned Benjamin Franklin.According to the artillery commander Portillo, adequate provision of the cityrequired 8,000 quintals of explosives.

The lightning-rod was a source of great fear locally; according to some doom-sayers, it would attract the sparks and shocks and could cause a catastrophethat would destroy the town, wiping out its inhabitants. The explosions in themagazine in 1670 and 1733 had still not been erased from the collectivememory. General Caro tried to alleviate the Council’s fears in a letter dated 2May,148 but did not succeed. In its reply, the Council of the Kingdom insisted onspelling out the dangers, including the possibility that a prisoner or some chanceaccident could cause a disaster. If a move was agreed, the Council wascommitted to transporting the gunpowder as necessary in a single day, using 200horses and resorting if required to mobilising the inhabitants and requisitioningcarts and carriages to do it. The whole aim was to avoid having gunpowder in theCitadel magazine.149

Apart from that, as usually happened during time of war or invasion from France,the Viceroy requested that the Kingdom provide workers and operatives to workon the fortifications, putting them in a state of defence. Commissioners wereappointed to go off to the towns and villages and recruit the 500 peasantsrequired. Many of them did not turn up, while others abandoned the works becausethey were not paid the wages due, with the Court having to intervene to preventthe punishments envisaged by the military regulations being inflicted on them.Those that remained were put up in the old church of La Compañía, confiscatedafter the expulsion of the Jesuits.150

(147) IDOATE, Las Fortificaciones, note 98.(148) Ibid.(149) Ibid.(150) AGN. Fortificaciones, leg. 2, carp. 32 a 35.



General Hurtado’s ambitious project

After the cessation of hostilities that resulted from the Peace of Basel signed inJuly 1795, thoughts turned again to new projects, though without the hastedemanded by foregoing circumstances. On 7 September 1796, General DonAntonio Hurtado sent a general plan of the Pamplona fortifications to Madrid,including in it all the improvements planned to boost the defensive ability of theenclosure.151 Some months later, on 31 May 1797, he drew up a new one, thistime relating exclusively to the Citadel, “with the plan and costings of the worksbeing proposed, as much relating to its fortification as to the proofing of itsmilitary buildings, in fulfilment of the Royal Order, so that it be in readiness tomount a vigorous defence as required.”152 Along with the general plan kept in theMadrid military archives, there are several individual plans of the different part-schemes or detail studies.

As regards fortification, Hurtado’s scheme proposed covering the low places ofthe bastion flanks with bomb-proof vaults,152bis and fitting out casemates on thefaces and backs of these to draw low fire to the moat. In addition it included theinstallation of a system of countermines outside the bastions andcounterguards,153 as well as the placing of stockades to garrison the coveredways.153 bis It also proposed digging small, secondary moats in the one along thewing of the counterguards, “to fire without risk on enemies trying to approachtheir respective walls.”154

On the interior face, which looks towards the city, a line of trenches was plannedto facilitate possible retreat “after the troops of the Citadel have made a mostvigorous defence therein”.

(151) SHM. Planos, no 1,874. Together with Hurtado, the engineers Jiménez Donoso, Heredia,Casanovas and Masdeu also worked.

(152) SHM. Planos, no. 1,993, hojas 44 y 50. Also in SGM. Cartoteca. no. 430.(152bis) SGM. Cartoteca. no. 431.(153) SGM. Cartoteca, no. 432.1.(153bis) Ibid. hoja 2.(154) SGM. Cartoteca, no. 433, hoja 1.



As for the buildings inside the fortress, Hurtado proposed – like Zermeño beforehim – demolishing all that was there and building it up anew with a differentlayout. The new structure would be based on three concentric pentagonal rings;the outer one hard up against the terreplein of the enclosure’s five curtain walls;then an intermediate one, and finally a third, whose inside face would form thenew parade ground. The blocks of the new construction would of course be bomb-proof, with porches that had segmental arches on sturdy rectangular pillars.154 bis

Plan of the Citadel in 1797, with General Hurtado’s scheme for improving its defence andrebuilding all the military structures inside. IHCM

(154bis) Ibid. hoja 2



For swift passage from the blocks to the wall’s parapet, the installation ofrevolving (or tornante) bridges was planned, which were to be supported on theflat roofs, and by means of a 90-degree turn on pivots, would enablecommunication without having to resort to ramps or steps. If the bridges weretaken away, each pentagon became a self-contained enclosure in case ofretreat.155

None of this ever became reality – without doubt, as on previous occasions,because of its high cost. Once the fear of a possible siege by Convention troopssubsided, the good intentions that had been forming cooled and the old walls ofPamplona and its citadel were once again left in the same state as they hadbeen found. A subsequent report by the Corps of Engineers said of the shelvedproject: “Any step taken that follows the thoughts and plans of Hurtado will bean essential improvement for the defence of the Citadel.”156

Two documents from 1800

In 1800, the French archaeologist Alexandre de Laborde visited Pamplona,taking notes and making sketches that would later be published in a descriptiveguide to Spain, the first volume of which came out in 1808. In it the followingparagraph is dedicated to the Citadel: “... Its rocky situation makes it strong; ithas five bastions faced in stone and good moats; a deep pond, of considerableextension, making it difficult to approach the side from where it could beattacked. This citadel has a beautiful tower, several storehouses, a plazaadorned with trees and a parade ground at the very centre of the fortress.

This is round and opens onto five large streets which lead to the five bastions.A hand-driven mill remains which has quite an ingenious structure and wouldprove very useful in the event of a siege. It is a large machine made up of many

(155) SGM. Cartoteca, no. 437.(156) SHM. Docs. Fortificación. 4-4 – 12-2



wheels which turn five millstones with as many hoppers. It can mill 120 loadsor 360 quintals of wheat every day. It is operated by hand or can be made tomove with two horses.”157 In 1784 all the wooden machinery was to be foundin a rotten state, according to what the engineer Zara said.

In June 1801, the secretary of the Pamplona Town Council, Don Joaquín López,sent with municipal approval a description of the city to Madrid for inclusionin the Diccionario Geográfico-Histórico de España (Geographical-HistoricalDictionary of Spain) which was then being prepared by the Real Academia dela Historia (Royal Historical Academy). As an appendix to that description,another, very succinct one was sent of the fortifications of the city and citadel,though it is not worth reproducing here as it adds nothing to what we alreadyknow. Just the final paragraph strikes me as being interesting. It says: “ThisCitadel is one of the fortresses that justly deserves the good reputation thatit has in Europe, and it will be much more worthy of respect when the worksthat are considered necessary are carried out, such as proofing of the vaults,mines and other necessary tasks to sustain a siege, in accordance with themethods and advances that have been made today in the means of attackingcities.”158

1808: a French general’s stratagem

The only time the Citadel was taken and occupied by enemy troops was notthrough an assault or capitulation after a formal siege or a vigorous attack, butwas due to a simple stratagem which strikes us today as improbable in itssheer puerility. It happened in 1808 as a result of the invasion of Spain byNapoleonic forces: the Francesada, as it has traditionally been called. Theepisode has been recorded by numerous authors, going into varying degreesof detail. For my part, I consider it interesting to reproduce here the version

(157) IRIBARREN, Pamplona y los viajeros, pp. 107-108.(158) MARTINENA, Pamplona en 1800, pp. 26-27. The original manuscript transcribed here is

kept in the Real Academia de la Historia.



given by Cavalry brigadier Don Antonio Ramírez Arcas in his Itinerario descriptivode Navarra (Descriptive Guide to Navarre), published in 1848, as it is a rarelyencountered work and was written by a soldier forty years after the events inquestion.159

“On 16 February (1808) and due to the restrictive confines of Roncesvalles,General D’Armagnac set off for Pamplona with three battalions, and when heappeared without notice at the city, he was without impediment allowed to billethis troops within. The Frenchman not being content with this demonstration offriendship and trust, he requested that the Viceroy, Marquis of Vallesantoro, lethim put two Swiss battalions in the citadel, under the pretext of having suspicionsabout his loyalty. The Viceroy refused this, claiming that it was not lawful to agreeto such a serious request without authority of the Court. A suitable reply and dulyworthy of praise, had the vigilance matched that required by the critical situationof the city. But such was the carelessness, the incomprehensible negligence, thateven within the very same citadel the French soldiers did go every day seekingtheir rations, without even the ordinary precautions in time of peace being taken.Not to be taken so unawares, General D’Armagnac had arranged beforehand tolodge in the house of the Marquis of Besolla, because that building being situatedat the head of the esplanade and opposite the main gate of the citadel, he couldmore easily lie in wait there for the opportune moment for the execution of hispremeditated plan. His first attempt frustrated by the Viceroy’s rebuff, theFrenchman planned to resort to a shameful ruse.

On the night of 15 to 16 February, he ordered that, one by one and with studieddissimulation, a certain number of grenadiers come armed to his inn, while thenext morning a select band of soldiers, in disguise and led by the chief ofbattalion Robert, went to the citadel to collect their provisions as usual. It wassnowing and, under the pretext of waiting for their chief, they began at length todivert themselves by throwing snowballs at each other. With this entertainmentthey distracted the attention of the Spanish soldiers and, running and playing in

(159) RAMÍREZ ARCAS, Itinerario de Navarra, pp. 72-73. A shorter, but no less interesting, account of the facts can be seen in Nombela, Crónicade la provincia de Navarra, pp. 42-43.



such manner, some of them went onto the drawbridge to prevent it from beingraised. Shortly and at an agreed signal the remainder fell upon the guardhouse,disarmed the careless sentries and, taking over the remaining troops’ rifles thathad been placed in the gunsmith’s, they cleared the entrance for the hiddengrenadiers in D’Armagnac’s house, who were closely followed by all the others.The treachery was performed with such neatness that barely had the unwaryViceroy received word, than the French had taken complete possession of thecitadel. D’Armagnac then wrote to him with some satisfaction an official letterin which, while he begged pardon for the necessity, he flattered himself that inno wise would the true harmony proper to two faithful allies be disturbed.”160

Blockade of the city in 1813

And so it was that the Citadel, and with it the city of Pamplona, were left in thepower of the French troops, remaining under Napoleonic dominion for five sadlong years - until in 1813, after an exhausting blockade, Spanish forces underthe command of General Don Carlos de España and the Prince of Anglonasecured its liberation.161 The Governor of the city was General Cassan, who atthe start of the siege had high hopes of receiving help from France. Facing ashortage of provisions, the besieged tried to break out on 10 October but theywere repulsed and obliged to withdraw back inside the city. In view of that, theyeven considered blowing up the walls. General España warned them that if theycaused any harm to the city or its inhabitants, he would order for the officersto have a knife run through them and for the troops to be decimated when themoment of surrender came. Negotiations began on 24th and the surrenderwas finally signed on 31 October, at the San Pedro de Ribas monastery on thebanks of the Arga. At half past four in the afternoon of that same day, thebesieging forces entered the Citadel by the Francia and Socorro Gates. Thesiege had lasted 128 days, from 26 June till 31 October, without the artillery

(160) Ibid.(161) Ibid. pp. 87-88.



having caused – as the minutes of the Town Council session of 1 November1813 put it – “the slightest collapse in any of the buildings or any harm to theinhabitants.”162

After the city had been regained, it was clear to see that the French had seriouslythought about blowing up the Citadel before handing it over. According to amilitary report from the period, there were “nine shafts in the terrepleins, to adepth of 14 to 16 feet, and two branch tunnels at the bottom of each one, atthe end of which they put cavities for explosives.”163 This detail also appearsin Sebastién de Miñano’s Diccionario Geográfico (Geographical Dictionary),published in 1827.164 It must be said that the French army had very competentand well-trained engineers, such as Captain Du Bourg, who in June 1809 wrotea detailed report on the Pamplona fortifications, pointing out their defects andproposing very well-judged solutions.165 Regarding the Citadel, he suggestedthe advisability of building lunettes in front of the heads of the bastions facingthe Castle Surround, providing them with underground connections; giving thebuildings that were not bomb-proof a protective wooden shell, buildingcasemates and completing the underground defence system by means ofgalleries and countermines. Several of these plans would later be taken up byFerdinand VII’s military engineers.

A report written in those years praised “the good and abundant quality of waterthat pours into its moat, which by means of pumps and a simple dam isconveyed up to the garrison.” The same document makes reference to the lackof countermines - “there are only three galleries that are almost unused”, whichcan still be seen in the moats, full of rubble and stagnant water – and to theshortage of bomb-proof buildings. Those that were there were simple and in aruined state “after the French surrendered the city and citadel, as were the

(162) OLEZA, La recuperación de San Sebastián y Pamplona en 1813. pp. 97-101. Hennel de Goutel is interesting on the blockade of the city by allied forces in La generalCassan et la defense de Pampelune. (París, Perrin et Cie 1920) pp. 297.

(163) SHM. Docs. Fortificación 5-4-8-6 and others.(164) MIÑANO, Diccionario Geográfico-Estadístico de España y Portugal (Madrid, 1827). t. VI,

p. 420.(165) SHM. Docs. Fortificación, 5-4-4-17.



embrasures and crests of the parapets.”166 Another, similar report, dated 16January 1814, makes the same points and adds, referring to the vaults situatedtogether at the Socorro Gate, that “their construction is so bad that the greaterpart of them is continually leaking water, and they are the only resort in case ofsiege.”167

The Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis

During the siege that Pamplona was put under by the Hundred Thousand Sonsof Saint Louis (i.e. the French army of Louis XVIII) between the months of Apriland September 1823, the Citadel, defended by liberal forces under the commandof Brigadier Sánchez Salvador, was the main objective of the besiegers. In themiddle of September, it was bombarded using eight 24-inch batteries. This hadan immediate effect, with the surrender being signed on 17th of that month, thesecond day of the bombardment. The French army, which came this time torestore Ferdinand VII to the full absolutism his sovereignty, entered the city by theTaconera portal and the Citadel by the Socorro Gate.168

A military report from 1830 refers to the existing galleries in part of the moat bythe Santa María Bastion, “whose floor is below the level of the moat, for whichreason it is necessary to descend to each by thirteen steps”. One of them was63 yards long and the other two 65, and they had “doors and openings at intervalsto allow departure in the required directions.”169 They were covered over manyyears ago, having been rendered useless by rubble and stagnant water, whichmade it impossible to go more than a few steps into them.

In February1832, José Parreño wrote an account of the barracks then inPamplona. From this we know that there were three of equal size for the infantry,“in adequate condition”, with a capacity for 1,200 men. They lacked toilet

(166) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 44.(167) MARTINENA, ob. cit. doc. no. 45.(168) SHM. Planos, no. 1.895, 1 y 2; 1.929 y 1.993, hoja 31.(169) MARTINENA, ob. cit. doc. no. 45.



facilities, “which is why the troops are obliged to go to those that have been builtin the wall”. Nor was there a “courtyard where they could eat food and for thecomfort of the troops”, the fortress plaza supplying this necessity; soldiers wereallowed to go there because, there being no other exit than the main gate, theguards could prevent “the loss of troops”. There was also a triangular cavalrybarracks, in fair condition, with a capacity for 78 men and 75 horses. It was atthat time occupied by an artillery company.170

O’Donnell uprising

On the afternoon of 1 October 1841, General O’Donnell took over the Citadel withthe agreement of those in command there, rising up against the government ofMadrid. Only one battalion from the city garrison joined them. Captain GeneralRivero, along with the rest of the troops and the civil authorities, stayed loyal toEspartero; but lacking sufficient forces to encircle the fortress, he confinedhimself to establishing a double line of barricades to make it difficult for therebels to attack the city.171

On 4 October, a committee of notable residents came to the Citadel to parley,with the aim of avoiding the bombardment of the city. No-one else was allowedto enter. The Town Council issued an edict, in which it said: “All personsapprehended entering or leaving the Citadel of this city will be put in the disposalof the proper authority, not being competently authorised to that end”.

The engineers raised parapets facing the fortress, especially at the end of CalleSan Antón, with the active collaboration of the locals and even some inmatesfrom the prison. More than 50,000 reals were spent on these works. To meetthe cost of this and other urgent necessities a loan was resorted to, whichdepended on the contribution of the wealthiest citizens. Thanks to its fortress-like nature and strategic position, the old medieval tower of San Lorenzo was

(170) SHM. Docs. Fortificación, 4-3-4-1.(171) DEL CAMPO, Pamplona durante la regencia de Espartero, pp. 30-45



designated as a watch post to check on the comings and goings of the rebelsand, should the need arise, to shoot at them with rifles. The National Militia anda group of armed peasants were entrusted with this task in exchange for someready cash. As a result, it received several artillery hits from the Citadel whichdamaged its fabric and led to it having to be part-demolished some years later,in 1852.

A first intimidatory bombardment took place on 4th and 5th, without any majorconsequences. On 10th (Isabel II’s birthday) and the following day, O’Donnell,seeing that the hoped for reinforcements were not arriving, subjected the city tointense bombardment, using cannon, howitzers and mortars. This left 3inhabitants killed and 12 wounded, as well as causing substantial materialdamage to the people’s houses. According to the historian Lafuente, around1,500 grenades and other projectiles were fired.

On 13 October, O’Donnell left the Citadel towards Estella territory to recruitvolunteers; but after making a circuit, passing through Ulzama and Baztán, hedecided to cross the border into France. Azcárraga was left in charge in hisabsence. On 14th, with the arrival of troops loyal to the Government, it couldalready be stated that the attempted coup was heading towards complete andutter failure. However, Azcárraga still held out for a few days, until on the 25th,at 8 in the morning, his troops abandoned the fortress, handing it over to theforces loyal to Espartero.

The minutes of the council session of that day record: “That today at 8 in themorning the Citadel was evacuated by the rebels and that the loyal troopsimmediately entered, including the battalion of the National Militia with bannerunfurled. That to celebrate such an auspicious event, His Lordship agrees anddetermines that tomorrow, at exactly 12 noon, a solemn Te Deum be sung in thechapel of the Glorious Patron Saint Fermín and that all authorities andcorporations are invited.”172

(172) Ibid.



To commemorate the events, the Town Council commissioned Don Miguel Sanzy Benito to paint a picture of the Citadel, Taconera and San Lorenzo Tower,showing armed soldiers of both sides at the height of hostilities.173

A plan for a fortified line in 1849

In November 1849, the Captain of Engineers Don José María Vizmanos wrote aninteresting report on the city fortifications. Referring to the Citadel, he began bydemonstrating that the most likely point for a possible attack was – as theFrenchman Du Bourg had previously observed – the Santa María Bastion andneighbouring half moons. “As was proved in the year 1823, in the siege mountedby French troops, as on the fourth night of the trench being opened at that point,the fire of the attacking front was extinguished and the city on the point ofcapitulation.” After reviewing Hurtado’s plans (in 1797 he had proposed theconstruction of a lunette and a hornwork in front of the existing walls and anentrenched field from the Real Bastion to Mendillorri), Vizmanos expounded hisplan. It consisted of building detached forts or lunettes at the most salient pointsof the Iturrama hill or slope. They would have a 40 or 50 yard frontage and flanksof 20 or 25 yards. A second line would be drawn to complement this, in the gapsor spaces between the ones in front, at a distance of one rifle shot from boththe front line and the walled enclosure respectively. They should have a frontageof 100 to 102 yards and flanks in proportion. Apart from this, it was alsoadvisable to raise the half moons and exterior counterguards and to entrench thegorges of the three outside bastions – Sanat María, Santiago and Real.174

That same year, in Volume XII of the Diccionario Geográfico-HistóricoEstadístico de España (Statistical Geographical-Historical Dictionary of Spain)by the Navarrese Pascual Madoz, one of the most complete and detaileddescriptions that has ever been made of the Citadel was published. It was

(173) The picture, a watercolour, is kept in the Pamplona Municipal Archive and has been totallyor partially reproduced on several occasions.

(174) SHM. Doc. Fortificación, 4-3-3-11.



included under the entry Pamplona. It has subsequently been copied, moreor less to the letter, by authors such as Torres Villegas, Madrazo, Alvarado,Urabayen and others.175

Pamplona’s worst enemy

In August 1854, the Town Council presented a request to Isabel II, asking her toreform the structure of the Citadel so that its enclosure and interior esplanadecould be used with a view to expanding this city, stifled by the corset of itsfortifications. The document said that “the Citadel being placed to the west of saidcity and separated from it by wide moats and esplanades, a large extension ofland is left empty which could be used for buildings of public utility, if on that partthe fortress was joined to the city walls to form a single fortification. Thecontinuing increase in population and the consequent lack of housing that hasbeen noted recommend the idea, in addition to which, its execution would requireno sacrifice on the part of the State, assuming that the value of the materials fromthe part that would have to be demolished would far exceed the cost of modifyingthe fortress..." It went on to go over the history, remembering what happened in1808 and 1841, when the occupation of the Citadel by enemy forces had broughtgrave consequences for the people, instead of security and protection. “... Andwith the current military uprising it was at great risk of suffering a similar fate, suchthat it might well be said that Pamplona’s most appreciable enemy is her Citadel.It should therefore be of little surprise that her honourable and peaceableinhabitants look on it with aversion and fright, nor that this Council, faithfulinterpreter of their interests and sentiments, has taken every opportunity to raiseits voice against the existence of so destructive a neighbour." By contrast, if therequested reform were carried out, the city would be relieved of its fears, “withoutlosing its importance for the general defence of the Nation.”176

(175) MADOZ, Diccionario, t. XII, p. 644.(176) AMP. Correspondencia, leg. 70, no. 79.



Santiago Bastion, moats and Socorro gate in 1944. AMP. (J. Cía)

One of the pavilions surrounding the central square, used as Officer’s Residence. AMP. Arazuri Coll.



I cannot be sure that the report written on the city by Don Mariano Moreno thatSeptember came as a consequence of this petition by the Pamplonanmunicipality, though I am inclined to think it did. It contained a meticulousdescription of the fortifications, pointing out their circumstances and defects.177

Regarding the Citadel, it was clear that it had vulnerable points and was not,therefore, the impregnable fortress that Philip II dreamed of and built. Morenocoincided with Vizmanos' view that the easiest point of attack was the SantaMaría, which the city artillery could not protect with its fire; while the assailantcould safely keep his munitions and reserves in the dry river bed currentlyoccupied by the University of Navarre, a very short distance away but out of reachof the city.

On 13 September 1858 the engineer Don Cándido Ortiz de Pinedo signed adraft fortification plan for the city of Pamplona, which would mean a totalremodelling of the old enclosure of the 16th and 17th centuries.178 The wholeSouth and West front of the city was to be organised on the basis of a regularline of equal-sized pentagonal bastions, alternating with half-tambours or semi-circular casemates deployed in the moats, in the middle of the intermediatecurtain walls, but separated from them. Vauban´s systems, revolutionary in theirday, had given way to the new theories of Montalambert and Carnot, on whichOrtiz de Pinedo´s plan was largely based. It was the well-considered plan that,had it been put into effect, would have placed Pamplona in the forefront of thefortified cities of the age. It would have been, however, another exorbitantlyexpensive work, in an era when the days of permanent fortifications were alreadynumbered; and, from the point of view of the current study, it must be said thatit would have meant the disappearance of the Citadel, whose preservation theplan did not consider.

(177) SHM. Docs. Fortificación, 4-3-3-13.(178) SHM. Planos, no. 1.950, hojas 2, 5, 8 y 9.



The carlists blockade the city

During the last Carlist War, Pamplona suffere a new and exhausting blockade, thistime by forces loyal to the pretender Charles VII, who controlled the wholePamplona Basin. It lasted from the first days of September 1874 until 2 February1875, and the scarcity was such that dog and rat meat came to be sold in themarket. The governor of the city was Field Marshall Don Manuel Andía and thegarrison was formed by four companies of the Cadiz reserve, 150 gunners, thesame number of civil guards, 300 border guards and the peasants of the NationalMilitia. Neither the railway nor the telegraph were functioning and they receivedno newspapers. Nor was there water from the fountains, as the Carlists had cutthe Subiza pipe, though thanks to the ingenuity of the industrialist SalvadorPinaqui, water could be brought up from the river by means of an efficient systemof pumps.179

On this occasion, the role of the Citadel was limited to firing rifles at some Carlistgroups who ventured towards the Castle Surround and Cruz Negra, and tolaunching the odd cannonshot towards Cordovilla and other towns wheremovements of the faction had been observed. As per normal in suchcircumstances, it also served as a depository for arms, provisions and munitions,as well as an occasional prison for inhabitants of the city known to besympathetic to the cause of Don Carlos. Some missiles fired from San Cristóbalby the Carlists’ Krupp batteries flew over the city, coming to land on the fortressglacis. On 21 January 1875, the salvoes that announced - some days after theevent - the proclamation of Alfonso XII as King of Spain, were also fired from itsbastions. Salvoes were also fired to mark the two visits that the young monarchmade to our capital on 7 February of that same year, shortly after the blockadewas lifted by General Moriones, and on 28 February 1876, following the

(179) At least two diaries of the siege are known to exist. One of them, written by the ChiefAdministrative Officer Don Mariano Balesta, was published by Idoate: Diario delbloqueo puesto por los carlistas a la plaza de Pamplona... in Rev. Ppe. de Viana,1961, pp. 217-231. Another, also written by soldiers (Rodríguez Undiano and Sánchezdel Águila), was Diario del bloque de Pamplona, published in the Cuadernos de laCofradía del Pimiento Seco in 1973. Leandro Nagore, in his work Apuntes para lahistoria (1872-1886) Pamplona, 1964, pp. 282 paints a different picture, from theCarlist point of view.



withdrawal of the Pretender to the throne of France. Two days earlier the troopsof six Carlist battalions had handed over their arms in the fortress, beforereturning home. On 29 February the last military dispatch was signed.

During the months of blockade Colonel Don Luis Llaverón was governor, and hehad within his enclosure one company on duty and four artillery, as well as sixfixed guard posts and several patrolling.

There is a reconstruction plan for the deck of the Citadel’s fixed bridge, datingfrom November 1876 and signed by Enrique Pinazo; it was approved in Madridin February of the following year. A firm type of road surface was to be laid overthe deck, with an arched section and cast iron railings, and everything supportedby stone pilasters reinforced in the middle of each stretch.180

As a result of the Carlist War, it was now obvious that the walls and Citadel hadlost defensive capability in the event of attack, due fundamentally to the reachand potential of modern groove-bore artillery. In view of that and given the provenstrategic advantages of the positions adopted by the Carlists for siting theirbatteries, which caused so much harm to the city during the siege, the decisionwas taken to position a fortification – casemated in accordance with the latestadvances in military engineering – on the summit of Mount San Cristobál. Workon the new fort began at the start of 1877. It was officially known as the AlfonsoXII and its construction represented the inauguration of a new phase in thehistory of Pamplona’s system of defence. However, this step did not necessarilyentail, as many expected, the disappearance of the walled enclosure or Citadel.The walls were to endure with their guards and sentries still in place until thesecond decade of the 20th century, and the Citadel would continue to be amilitary zone until 1966.

(180) SHM. Planos, no. 1,993, hoja 41.



The first enlargement of the city: the Citadel loses two bastions

In October 1887, Don Serafín Mata y Oneca presented at the Town Hallseveral plans for enlarging the city, whose potential for expansion was verylimited as the walled enclosure was still standing in its entirety. One of theplans – which was worthy of the municipal approval it received – proposedbuilding the new blocks on the existing glacis or esplanade between theCitadel's inner moat and the Taconera and Valencia walkways, today knownas the Sarasate. That made it necessary to obtain prior authorisation fromthe War Ministry to demolish the San Antón and Victoria Bastions and to fillin the moat situated between the two of them, requesting the subsequenttransfer of the resulting lands.181

The plan was approved by law in Madrid on 22 August 1888. Subsequently,a Royal Order of 21 March 1889 authorised the demolition of a two thirds partof the two bastions concerned and of the length of wall between that of SanAntón and the fortress gate, with work due to be undertaken the followingmonth. After approval of the plan on 28 September, it was necessary toextend a stretch of the Taconera Wall until it joined the angle of the rump ofthe Victoria Bastion, around where the present-day Avenida del Ejército goesin. In the glacis, 9,592 cubic metres of earth were removed before they couldproceed to handing them over to the city on 24 April. The contractors wereMessrs Cestona, Izurrategui and Navaz, spending 20,626 on wages. Thetransfer document for the land was signed before the notary Don PolonioEscolá on 30 May 1889 and the amount was 750,000 pesetas, to be paidin several instalments. The resulting area of land available to build on was22,736 square metres.182

The layout of the new streets gave rise to what in the urban history of the cityis known as the Primer Ensanche (First Enlargement). On the land right by theCitadel, the new barracks and diverse military quarters were built from the

(181) ALVARADO, Guía del viajero en Pamplona. p. 12.(182) AMP. Expediente Ensanche.



beginning of 1898; the site is now occupied by the buildings and road of theAvenida del Ejército, the Comandancia Militar - which was originally a block ofmilitary houses - and the present-day auditorium and conference hall. Themoats there were filled in, with two ravelins or lunettes disappearing: SantaTeresa, which guarded the main gate and where the outer gate known as theRastrillo was situated, its demolition authorised by the Captain General inJuly 1889,183 and Santa Lucía, between the bastions of San Antón and Real,which were rehabilitated and restored in 2006, at the same time the newunderground bus station was built. In February 1890 it was agreed to transferinside “the fountain that stands at the entrance to the Citadel, on the landsthat were being levelled.”184

(183) AMP. Minutes of Pamplona Town Council , lib. 119, p. 376. (10 August session).(184) AMP. Ibid, lib. 121, p. 147 y ss. (2 February session).

The artillery firing salvoes from one of the Citadel bastions in 1898. AMP. (J. Altadill)



The Town Council agreed, in its 18 January 1890 session, to dedicate to GeneralChinchilla, Minister of War in Sagasta’s cabinet, the new street then plannedfrom Calle Navas de Tolosa up to the Citadel’s main gate. It was a mark ofgratitude for his efforts in making possible, in spite of great difficulties, therealisation of what was for then a genuinely ambitious project.185

The Citadel as prison: Some notable inmates

It is well known that the Pamplona Citadel served for a long time as a Stateprison, being a fortress considered to offer maximum security. Leaving asidethose prisoners locked up for matters to do with the Inquisition, many notablepersonalities from the nobility, the militia, politics and the world of letterssuffered the darkness and rigour of its cells - people who for different reasonsand in different periods lost the favour of the King. In a sense, it can be saidthat on many occasions it played for the Spanish monarchy the same role asthe Bastille did for the Kings and Queens of France. In the first years of the18th century many met their ends here: the Duke of Medinaceli, who died inprison, the Marquis of Leganés, the Count of Requena and several otherunfortunates, among them some members of religious orders, for no othercrime than their loyalty to the Archduke of Austria, Pretender to the Crown ofSpain, who was defeated by the supporters of Philip V in the long War ofSuccession.

In the mid 18th century one of the barracks inside the enclosure was designatedan exiles’ prison; it was next to the Socorro Gate. According to a report made bythe engineer Don Antonio de Zara in August 1784, in the stretch of wall in whichthe main gate opens there were “below the terreplein of that curtain wall twocells, one of them called the water because of the great quantity that leakedthere, and the other the Friar.”186 The latter owed its name to a brother of the

(185) ARAZURI, Pamplona, calles y barrios, t. I, p. 280.(186) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 38.



Santa Isabel Counterguard and Socorro Gate in 1944, when the process of their progressivedeterioration was beginning. AMP. (J. Cía)

Santiago and La Victoria Bastions, Santa Ana Lunette, moats and, in the background, housesof the Primer Ensanche (First Enlargement), in 1914. AMP. (A. Gª Deán)



Victoria order who was locked up there in 1709 for being a supporter of theArchduke, and who died of hunger after a long agony chained inside a cage, anevent which stayed long in the memories of those who witnessed it.187 Anotherreport in 1786 refers to the two vaults situated either side of the entrance tunnelto the Citadel, one of which is still there. It says of them that, although useless“due to the quantity of water that leaks”, they were essential “for the punishmentof those whose crimes and misdemeanours are not worthy of a cell, and in whichare usually kept more than one.”188

(187) I know of an interesting manuscript, titled Relación exacta de la prisión y muerte de Fr.Francisco Sánchez, Religioso Mínimo de la Victoria, a small 7-page notebook, in whichthe then vicar of the citadel Don Francisco Ximénez y Esparza relates in full detail thetorture that P. Sánchez suffered. He was locked up in “the vault next to the San Antón casemate, where a cage of onesquare metre was prepared, made of strong stakes” from 10 August 1706 until 11November when he died, louse-ridden and filthy, with his fetters cutting into hisbones. The event must have been so seared into the collective memory that the cell,demolished at the end of the last century, would still be know in the next as el Fraile(the Friar).

(188) MARTINENA, Documentos sobre las fortificaciones, doc. no. 39.

Citadel buildings and parade ground in 1960. AMP. Arazuri Coll. (Clavero)



In 1792 the enlightened and distinguished Count of Floridablanca was arrestedin his house, Hellín, and locked up in the Citadel. He was one of the most notablepersonalities of the reign of Charles III, who fell from grace in the time of CharlesIV after the Count of Aranda came to power and sued him for misappropriationof funds. At that time the Inca Yupanqui was also a prisoner here, who managedto write in the solitude of his cell an Outline of the History of Navarre. In 1801Don Mariano Luis de Urquijo, former Minister of State, was confined for severalmonths and left practically incommunicado – deprived of light, paper, inkwell andbooks to read. In 1811, during the French occupation, the celebrated Navarreseguerrilla Javier Mina also passed through these cells.

From 1814 to 1820, the famous poet Manuel José Quintana suffered prisonhere for his liberal ideas, by order of Ferdinand VII. Thanks to the protection ofthe Marquis of Vessolla and the Viceroy Count of Ezpleta, the rigours ofincarceration were softened and he could even host a literary salon of greatprestige in the building that he occupied, attended by, among others, the priestand man of letters Don Alberto Lista.189

José María Iribarren recorded the curious fact, which I have subsequently seenconfirmed in documents from the period, that some nobles in the 18th centuryhad their sons locked up in the Citadel when they fell in love with plebeian orotherwise unsuitable women, preventing them with this most forceful measurefrom contracting marriage in dishonour of their noble condition.190

The Parliament that sat in 1780-81 petitioned by law for the prohibition of theabuse that existed whereby the viceroy or military chiefs might grant “licenceor permission to walk freely through the city or go to their homes or localities,to those that the ordinary Justices have sent to the Citadel.”191 As can beseen, what is now known as ‘Category D’ or open prison is not exclusive toour times.

(189) Memorias del Conde de Guenduláin, published by the Prince of Viana Institute in 1952, p. 41.

(190) IRIBARREN, Pamplona y los viajeros, pp. 109-111.(191) Cortes de 1780-81, ley 37.



The moats and glacis of the fortress have also on many occasions been mutewitnesses to numerous executions, generally by firing squad, the last of whichtook place during the Civil War of 1936 to 1939. The space close by the SocorroGate was usually employed for this sad purpose, on the Castle Surround part,next to the parapet of the covered way bordering the moat. Altadill wrote in 1916that, at the time, that gate always used to stay locked and was only openedwhen there was an execution.

Cession of the Citadel to the Municipality

By decree of General Don Francisco Franco, Chief of the Spanish State, on 21May 1964, the historic complex of the Citadel, with its external defences, moats,bridges and various annexes, was ceded to the Municipality of Pamplona. TheMilitary Governor was General Don Antonio Miranda. The cession was intendedto give the building a cultural and recreational purpose, without the fortifications– which had to be maintained and restored - being subject to any possible future

Nave inside the gunpowder store in January 1973, undergoing restoration. AMP. Arazuri Coll. (R. Bozano)



alterations.192 To ensure the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in the decree,as well as the material integrity of the assets transferred, a trust was set up,comprising different authorities and various civil and military representatives. Allthe same, the formal handover of the fortress to the city dragged on for over twoyears, the time required to install in other buildings the facilities and services tobe provided within its enclosure.

On Saturday 23 July 1966 the solemn handover of the Citadel to the Municipalitywas enacted. The Military Governor of Navarre was Major General Don RamiroLago García and the Mayor of the City, Don Juan Miguel Arrieta Valentín. Theceremony began in the morning, in the municipal reception hall, with the readingof the deed of cession by the notary Don Serafín Hermoso de Mendoza and thesigning of the document by the authorities. The mayor gave a brief speech inwhich, among other things, he made plain “the city of Pamplona’s gratitude forthis cession, which satisfies one of its oldest and most noble aspirations, securein the knowledge that it will able to justify that trust, making the bastion of theCitadel one our Spanish Homeland’s most outstanding cultural-historiccomplexes”. The military governor responded with another speech, evoking theheroic exploits of Navarre and the historic past of the Citadel, which he describedas “a truly historic jewel of Renaissance fortification.”193

From there the authorities and invited guests went to the outside wall of the oldbarracks in Calle Yanguas y Miranda, which at that time cut across the Avenidadel Conde de Oliveto, and there they proceeded to a symbolic inauguration of asmall stretch of what would later become the Avenida del Ejército.

At one in the afternoon the ceremony of taking possession was enacted. Withthe authorities and all their retinue present in front of the Citadel gate, the militarygovernor formally handed over the keys to the mayor, then went to hoist thePamplona banner up some flagpoles, next to that of Spain, while the bugles blewthe city salute and the Basque dancers and gigantes (papier-mâché giants)

(192) BOE, no. 129, 29 May pp. 6968-6969.(193) See Diario de Navarra, 24 July 1966.



Four moments from the ceremony in which the Town Council of Pamplona took possession ofthe Citadel, on 23 July 1966. AMP. Arazuri Coll. (J. Galle)



danced for the first time inside the old enclosure. Straight away, the guard ofhonour marched past, symbolising the leaving of the fortress by the army.

That day there was a big fiesta in Pamplona. There was a dance in the CastlePlaza and fireworks, as on the nights of the San Fermín fiesta.

“What to do with the Citadel?” wondered Ollarra (a veteran Navarrese journalist,who famously survived an assassination attempt by ETA in 1980) in his columnin the Diario de Navarra. “For now it’s enough to clean and smarten it up and togo about slowly converting it into a park for all Pamplonans to enjoy; then toreplace missing stones, deepen moats, restore bastions and build up again whattime has ruined. It is all a long and expensive process.”194

The decree of cession foresaw the creation of a museum and library of militaryhistory, based on the old Museo de Recuerdos Históricos (Museum of HistoricalMemories), which kept important material from the Carlist Wars. An open airtheatre, exhibition halls and playing fields and gardens were also to be provided.

All of it, of course, without affecting the structure of the fortress, “which must becarefully preserved, given the unique value of its military architecture”. The trustthat was created as a result of the cession, which included the Field Marshall ofthe 6th Region and the Mayor of the City, would draw up a standing order with aview to making it all a reality. For carrying out the necessary works, they coulddepend on contributions from the State, the Council of Navarre and the TownCouncil.

According to the measurements made prior to the cession, the different elementsmaking up the Citadel complex had the following areas

(194) Ibid.



Interior of the enclosure ..........................................45,360 square metresWalls and terrepleins ..................................................32,176 square metresMoats............................................................................................40,000 square metresExternal fortificationworks.....................................13,305 square metresCovered way...........................................................................10,000 square metresGlacis or esplanade..................................................135,000 square metres

The sum of these partial measurements gave a total area of 275,840 squaremetres.

A city in miniature

When the Citadel came to be the property of the city, there were within itsenclosure a series of military buildings that formed a mini town, with a radial

Aerial FOTO of the Citadel in 1953, with the old blocks and buildings that once stood within it.AMP. TAF



system of narrow streets converging on the central plaza or parade ground. InMay 1965, Major Don Luis Prieto Gracia wrote a historical description thefortress, including plans and references for all the buildings making up thecomplex.195

Entering by the main gate and passing the guardhouse, there was, on the right,the governor’s house, reconstructed in 1906 where previously the field parkand military dovecot had been, with an area of 450 square metres. Opposite,on the left, was the artillery store, built in 1918, covering 766.62 squaremetres. Adjoining it, towards the parade ground, was the covered exercise ring,built in 1897 on the site of the old 17th-century church, amounting to 788square metres. Next to the gunpowder block and the oven, both still in

(195) PRIETO, La Ciudadela de Pamplona (Unpublished report kept in the Pamplona MunicipalArchive).

The Governor’s Pavilion, rebuilt in 1906, situated near the main gate. AMP. (J. L. Prieto)



N

16

1513

14

11

9

6

8 7

10

12

5

2

3

4 28

1

23

24

1819

20 21

2225

17

Military buildings inside the Citadel at the time of its cession to the City ofPamplona. J.L. Prieto.

1 Main Gatehouse2. Artillery Command H.Q’

s Pabellón and offices3. Covered exercise ring4. Artillery store5. Pabellón A6. Gunpowder store7. Pabellón D8. Engineers’ depot9. The bells store

10. Pabellón B11. Weapons Hall and Artillery depot12. Pabellón azul

(Blue barrack)

13. Garages14. Garages15. Infantry barrack16. Garages17. Artillery barrack18. Second adjutant’s pabellón19. Engineers’ depot20. Little store21. Explosives store22. Cavalry barrack23. First Adjutant’s pabellón24. Governor’s house25. Bomb-proof oven26. Barrack



existence, was one of the Engineers’ depots with an attached store for trenchframes, built in 1881 and partially demolished in 1918. It was 212 squaremetres. Behind the gunpowder store, close up by the wall, there was an old17th-century cavalry barracks, laid out on a triangular plan, and on the part bythe Santiago Bastion, the artillery barracks also from the same period – thoughthis one was square - and some garages. Next to the Socorro Gate, along thelength of its curtain wall, was the Infantry barracks, dating from the 17thcentury, though altered on several occasions, with an area of 1,920 squaremetres. In front of the weapons room, which survives to the present, therewere two garage premises. Next to the magazine, which also survives, wasthe storehouse called La Campana (697 square metres) and another two ofthe Engineers depots, built in 1918 (440.92 square metres). Finally, almostentirely surrounding the central parade ground, were the so-called pabellones,designated for officers to live in: the Pabellón Azul (Blue Block), improved in1893, occupied 209.95 square metres; Pabellón B, 323.96; D, 207.50; andA, 332.15. The last three were reconstructed or at least totally reformed in1906. Next came the Artillery Command HQ, dating from 1880, over 202.95square metres, and finally, the buildings set aside for the first and secondadjutant, also 202 square metres.196

Demolition of the buildings

All the buildings mentioned, within their typically military aspect, presented agreat variety of types and styles. Although they had in large part been rebuilt inthe last years of the 19th century or first few of the 20th, there were plentydating from the 17th or even earlier, a period from which there is not anabundance of barrack buildings surviving today, and the few that do exist areconsidered to be of great historic interest. Among the modern ones, the exercisering, the governor’s pavilion and some of the other buildings were not short of a

(196) Ibid.



certain architectural distinction and could have been preserved for variouspurposes. However, at the time the decision was made to demolish them withthe aim of gaining the maximum possible free space for conversion into a green

zone. All that survive are the oldest and most archeologically interestingbuildings, and that in large part because fortunately they were close to the walland did not therefore get in the way of the plan to set out a large landscapedplaza that would come to occupy practically the whole inner space of the Citadel.There were even serious doubts over whether to preserve the noble eighteenth-century edidfice that was weapons room.

On 20 January 1967 the Marquis of Lozoya, a distinguished professor andHistory of Art writer, visited the Citadel, accompanied by the mayor, the Directorof the Institución Príncipe de Viana (a Navarrese cultural institute) and themunicipal archivist, with the aim of putting their ideas together on how to restorethe complex. They sought to determine which buildings possessed somearchitectural or historical value before initiating the tasks of cleaning up and

The now-vanished military exercise ring, built in 1893 on the site of the old Citadel chapel.Beside it, the artillery store. AMP. (J. L. Prieto)



demolishing the blocks occupying the enclosure. For the Marquis of Lozoya, thebuildings perfectly reflected the age in which they were erected: on the one hand,Spanish grandeur from the time of Philip II and, on the other, the period of declineat the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th.

That idea was, as we shall see, to guide the action of the municipal pickaxe insubsequent years, sparing only a small number of exceptions.

Conservation of the oldest

In the previously mentioned report by Major Prieto, there was an epigraphcontaining an assessment of the archaeological value of the fortress complex.It said:

February 1970. Demolition of the Governor’s Pavilion. To the right, the artillery commandheadquarters and the exercise ring. In the background, the guardhouse. AMP



For its perfect expression of the style of the 16th-century Italian school, theCitadel is a jewel of the art of bastioned fortification. It is similar to the Antwerpcitadel, built some years before.

“In Spain it can be considered unique and for that reason the most important,given that of the other works in a similar style, such as those of Barcelona, Jacaand Figueras, one (Barcelona) has disappeared and was of much more modernconstruction, from the year 1715 and reign of Philip V. Jaca is also from a laterdate (1595), and both smaller and of lower quality. Figueras is also later – 1750,the reign of Ferdinand VI.

“It is a work, in its totality, of the 16th and 17th centuries - pre-Vauban, yetperfected by the teachings of that distinguished master, its diverse elementsworthy of preserving intact as a perfect and unique example of permanentfortification in its most splendid realisation, in an age when the art of war wasat one with other forms of art. It is a work of warriors and artists.

“The whole exterior is of indisputable archaeological value: covered way, moatsand external constructions. Likewise the whole terreplein or wall.”

Apart from the fortifications as such, considered – as we have just seen – to bean historic-artistic unity, all that would remain standing was the guardhouse, withits two porticoed huts, built in 1756; the old bakery oven, with its curiousteardrop-shaped ground plan and apparently dating from 1640; the so-calledexplosives block and former provisions store, with its two vaulted parallel naves,built at the end of the 17th century, and to which an upper floor was added in1720 to serve as a granary, leaving the one below as a cellar; the weapons hallor artillery arsenal, planned in 1725 though not finished until 1754; and thesturdily-buttressed bomb-proof magazine, whose construction dates from 1694.All these buildings, beautifully restored in the 1970s, are currently given over toexhibitions, concerts, conferences and other cultural events. The guardhouse, thefirst thing the visitor sees on going in by the Avenida del Ejército, still lacks aclearly defined function, as do the dozen bomb-proof vaults on either side of theSocorro Gate, apart from the one that houses the public toilets.



On 20 November 1969 the plan for demolishing the rest of the buildings wasapproved, with the sum of 535,000 pesetas awarded in February of the followingyear to the Company Excavaciones Pamplona, plus another 200,000 for thedemolition of sheds in moats and bastions.

Restoration of walls, bastions and buildings

In April 1970, the Town Council provided an extraordinary budget of 689,400pesetas for the restoration of the bridges over the moat to the Socorro Gate.197

At that time the ornamental top of the second of the gates was restored. Yearslater, in June 1995 restoration work was carried out on the outermost gate thatleads onto the glacis of the Castle Surround, which had deteriorated muchmore.198 That gate retains over its arch a stone plaque with an inscription, todayalmost wholly illegible, which curiously was the one with the longest text of allthose in the walled enclosure. It apparently mentioned the Duke of Bournoville,who was Viceroy between 1686 and 1691. The restoration of the three bridgesof the Socorro Gate, to which was added inappropriate medieval-style pavingbased on pebbles, and their resulting conversion to public walkways, opened anew means of communication between the centre of the city, the Castle Surroundpark and the densely populated Iturrama district.

Shortly after, on 29 June 1970, the reconstruction plan for the external stretchof wall running between the San Antón Bastion and the main gate of the Citadelwas approved. The budget was 1,977,726 pesetas, and restoring the 140metres of wall required the use of 4,500 tons of masonry stone that had beenput aside for the purpose.199 The works began in October and were completed

(197) AIPV (Archive of the “Príncipe de Viana” Institute), legajo. 53/expte. 19. Thanks to thedirector of that archive, Charo Lazcano Martínez de Morentin, for the opportunities he hasalways given me to research it.

(198) The works were carried out by the pupils of the Town Hall Workshop-school, subject toauthorisation by the “Príncipe de Viana”. The plan for reconstructing the portal wasapproved by that institution in 1989. AIPV, leg. 166/24 y leg. 127/5.

(199) The authorisation on the part of the “Príncipe de Viana”, in AIPV, leg. 53/15.



in June of the next year, giving a new apsect to the Avenida del Ejército. It is apity that they did not then also rehabilitate the terreplein on the inner face of thewall, which would have restored the visual integrity of the inside of the enclosure,while also making it possible for the visitor to go round the whole perimeter onall five sides of the pentagon.

From that date on, for more than five years, the restoration of most of the wallsand bastion was carried out with the use of specialist masons, as well as of thebuildings left standing inside after the demolition of those previously there. On27 April 1871, a plenary session approved the cost of 2,400,000 pesetas forthe restoration of the main gate – the one on the Avenda del Ejército – with itsvault, porch and guardhouse, as well as the roof of the magazine. On 30November of that year it was agreed the administration would restore thegunpowder block and bomb-proof oven, with a budget of 3,000,000 pesetas,both subsequently being given over to the Caja de Ahorros Municipal (MunicipalSavings Bank) to use as an exhibition space and for other cultural ends.200

In that same 1971, the Town Council’s Committee for Culture and PublicRelations, chaired by the Lieutenant Mayor Don Javier Rouzaut, who did so muchfor these old stones, carried out a survey among 400 residents of Pamplona tofind out the citizenry’s preferences as regards what should be done with theCitadel complex. The consultation covered ten areas of the city and people ofdifferent ages, sexes, social and educational level etc. Its team of social workerswas led by Don Francisco Azcona. The different possibilities suggested had thefollowing levels of acceptance:

1. Green zone with historic buildings restored...............................................................42.4%2. Green zone only..........................................................................................................................................35.8%3. Building a medieval-style city with craft shops.......................................................10.5%4. Sports complex...............................................................................................................................................6.5%5. Setting up a public theatre................................................................................................................4.8%

(200) In principle, the agreement referred to turning the gunpowder block into a museum of thecity and the oven into an exhibition hall, AIPV, leg. 56/64



Beginning of reconstruction work on the wall adjoining the main gate in October 1970. AMP. Arazuri Coll. (E. Mina)



The results of the poll were released to the press in mid September. In view ofthe survey data, the direction subsequently taken by the municipality with regardto the historic complex was consistent with the popular will.

Reconstruction work on the Citadel wall facing the Avenida del Ejército. June 1971. ArazuriColl. AMP

The military garages, already demolished, and the old Infantry barracks in February 1970,shortly before its demolition. Behind them the Socorro Gate. AMP. Arazuri Coll.



In February 1972 the Town Council suggested the option of not building on thesite of the former Artillery barracks in Yanguas y Miranda, land capable ofsustaining housing, for which the Army was asking 83,492,175 pesetas.Lieutenant Mayor Rouzaut proposed altering this residential purpose, even atthe cost of losing money, and keeping the site free of buildings as a protectedenvironment or respect area for the Citadel. And so it is today, once again agreen zone, after having served for many years as a fairground for stalls andattractions during the San Fermín celebrations.

On 29 December 1972, with 16,000,000 pesetas spent on restoration andrefurbishment work, the Town Council agreed to request that the Citadel complexbe declared a National Heritage Monument. The initiative was successful, andon 8 February the following year the relevant Decree (332/1973) was signed andpublished in the Spanish Official Gazette on 27 February.

On 9 October 1973 the explosives block and bomb-proof oven were inaugurated,following their total – and as the press said, faithful, tasteful and accurate –restoration. The mayor Don Javier Viñes gave a speech in which he went over thehistory of the restoration process the old fortress had been through. That same

Interior view of the main gate guardhouse in January 1970, before its restoration. AMP. Arazuri Coll.



year, the Town Council looked into the possibility of turning the explosives blockinto a museum of the city, an initiative which would quickly be dropped.

The restoration of the Weapons Hall was also undertaken, the old arsenal of thecitadel and an interesting mid 18th-century building. The plan was approved in1973, subject to the “Príncipe de Viana” cultural institute and the NavarreSavings Bank signing a co-operation agreement to defray 50% of the costs.201

The works were allocated the following year a total of 11,142,811.67 pesetasand were finished in 1976. In those years the possibility of turning it into anEthnographic Museum was considered, and in 1982 the corresponding plan wascommissioned, approved and funded, but in the end never implemented.202

With 60 million pesetas having been spent on the Citadel (and only 15 of themobtained as subsidies), the plenary Town Council session of 26 October 1976

Gunpowder store and bomb-proof oven in January 1973, their restoration on the point ofcompletion. AMP. Arazuri Coll. (R. Bozano)

(201) AIPV, leg. 56/9 (proyecto) y leg. 57/20 (adjudicación y liquidaciones). Final settlement ofcosts for the work carried out dates from 1976, AIPV, leg. 65/133.

(202) The report proposing this use for the building dates from 1975, AIPV, leg. 60/21. Payment of thebill for the project, amounting to 622,185 pesetas, was approved in 1983, AIPV, leg. 97/109.



debated a motion put forward by Don Javier Rouzaut that proposed anextraordinary budget of another 20 million to complete the works, leaving moatrepairs to a later date. In the end, after heated discussion between the variouspolitical tendencies, the decision was made to include the amount in the five-yearplan for priority investments.

To give some idea of the increase in costs experienced in the decade from 1970to 1980, the budget for restoring the Santa María Bastion, which was approvedon 13 February 1979, reached a total of 14,996,304 pesetas. The restorationplan for the Santiago Bastion, whose cost was calculated in June 1980 at15,972,116 pesetas, required the approval of an additional budget of26,000,000 the following August.203

Some time before, in 1975, the corresponding plan for the Real Bastion hadbeen approved. It has to be said, given that the fortress was now a NationalMonument, several subsidies from the Ministry of Public Works and TownPlanning were forthcoming to help meet the costs.204

In 1987 the moats were cleaned up, with the previously existing irrigation ditchesturned into canals, and a pedestrian way with cycle path laid out around thewhole perimeter.205 Fortunately, an old town plan from 1969 giving the go-aheadfor the construction of swimming pools and sports tracks in the moats wasshelved. It had not paid sufficient heed to the fact that the environs ofmonumental buildings deserve to be treated with as much respect as themonuments themselves.

(203) For the restoration of the Santiago Bastion, the Government of Navarre paid a sum of8,000,000 pesetas in 1980, AIPV, leg. 76/81.

(204) Ministry approval for the plan for the Real Bastion, in AIPV, leg. 61/74.(205) The relevant plan had already been presented before for the approval of the “Príncipe de

Viana” Institute in 1982, AIPV, leg. 90/132.



A pleasant recreational space

The interior of the Citadel enclosure is today one of the most popular publicparks in the city. The wide open space that resulted in 1970 from the demolitionof the old military buildings is today occupied by artificially watered landscapedlawns where children can play freely. Willows and other trees offer some shadeon hot days. In 1981 some modernist sculptures were installed: one by Chillida,which served for some time as a labyrinth for children’s games, and others byVicente Larrea and Ramón Carrera, acquired for one and a half and one millionpesetas respectively.

Wooden benches for people to sit on and traditional style wrought-iron lamppostscomplete the ensemble.

Commemorative stamp of the Citadel issued to mark the National Philatelic Exhibition(EXFILNA) held in Pamplona between 25 June and 3 July 1988.



7

8

9

65

43

2

1

16

15

14

11

10

1213

1. Main gate2. San Antón Ravelin3. Gunpowder magazine4. Santa Lucía Ravelin5. Real or San Juan Ravelin6. Weapons Hall7. Santa Clara Ravelin and counterguard. 8. Santa María Bastion

9. Santa Isabel ravelin and counterguard

10. The Socorro Gate11. Santiago Bastion12. Santa Ana ravelin13. Gunpowder pabellón14. La Victoria Bastion15. Oven16. Santa Teresa Ravelin

Current state of the Citadel.



Some details remain outstanding, such as the reconstruction of the sentry boxesbelonging to the five bastions, which could be done in accordance with the oldplans that are kept in Madrid, and the tidying up of the parapets, the chemin derondes, access ramps to the bastions and entry-posterns to the low places. Asfor the external defences, until very recently the counterguards and ravelins thatface the Castle Surround were still to be reconditioned; they were completelyover-run with brambles and thickets whose roots actually levered the ashlarsout of place. Some detail on the first and second gates of the Socorro alsoneeded restoring.

I do not know whether perhaps in future it will even be possible to think aboutre-installing the drawbridges instead of the current provisional decks, whichshould not remain indefinitely. It is clear that around 1870 the old medievalsystem of levers was done away with, by which they nestled in openings abovethe gate when the bridge was up. This was substituted by a system of wheels,springs and counterweights, known by the 19th-century military engineers asthe Derché manouevre and which can still be seen in operation at the Francia orZumalacárregui Portal. For two or three years now they have been put into serviceon the evening of 5 January, with the bridge being lowered so that the processionof the Three Kings might make its entrance into the city.

I believe it was in 1986 that the Town Council agreed to the creation of British-or American-style landscaped areas, with lawns watered by sprinklers and pavedwalkways, on the esplanade and other land attached to the fortification,traditionally known as the Vuelta del Castillo (Castle Surround).206 Work came toan end, if memory serves, in 1987. The improvement was begun some monthsbefore, by way of a trial run, in the area closest to the Avenida Pío XII, andalthough it initially gave rise to a certain amount of controversy, the results endedup being favourably received by the public. These days this extensive park,situated right in the centre of the town, is the real lung of the city and isfrequented by a good number of walkers.

(206) Approval for the plan for a public park in the Castle Surround had been requested in1982, AIPV, leg. 90/118.



The curious detail might be added that on 27 December 1968 the Town Hallapproved the purchase of the 78,886 square metres that made up the land ofthe glacis - the popular Vuelta del Castillo - for the sum of 3,272,308.10 pesetas.According to contemporary press reports, its market value would have fetchedsomewhere around 300 million. Ten years later, in December 1978, 5,500,000pesetas were approved for levelling and laying out the Vuelta, includinginstallation of benches and the sprinkler system for the grass.

Another interesting item regarding the Citadel was Royal Decree 1424/86, dated6 June, which abolished the Trust set up in 1964 following cession of the fortressto the Municipality.

At the end of February 1987, the Frenchman François Baschet installed anoriginal musical fountain in the small pond at the centre of the parade ground,at a cost of 1,200,000 pesetas. The parts were forged in Gerardo Brun'sworkshop. It consisted of 16 pairs of rotating metallic flowers of different heights,pushed round by the wind or jets of water from the pumps. Finely tuned balls andpipes hung from them and, when they knocked together, they made harmonioussounds. It did not last long. After being vandalised and repaired on two or threesuccessive occasions, it was dismantled and withdrawn permanently. Whatperhaps ought to be done is to reconstruct the lovely fountain that used to exist.The original plan for it, drafted by Carlos Blondeaux in 1725, still survives.207

Around the same time, a work by Néstor Basterrechea was put in one of thelandscaped spaces, near the Weapons Room: a rustable steel sculpture, on aconcrete pedestal. The piece was acquired by the Town Council for 5,000,000pesetas, after having been exhibited on the occasion of the conference onWitchcraft and Occult Sciences, held in Pamplona in 1986.

Mention must also be made of another matter, which although it never becamea reality, also forms part of the recent history of the citadel, and that is the plan

(207) This plan shows the elevation, section and detail. The original is kept in the GeneralArchive of Simancas and is reproduced on page 112 of this book.



to locate the Centre for Contemporary Art inside the historic enclosure. Theinitiative was given impetus by Doña María Josefa Huarte in a letter sent to theGovernment of Navarre in 1997, in which she proposed bringing it into beingand endowing it by signing an agreement between the Regional Government, thePamplona Town Council and the Huarte-Beaumont Foundation sherepresented.208

The proposal was considered in several quarters, among them the Navarre Boardof Culture. In the end, for various reasons, location on this site was discounted.209

One of the last improvements carried out inside the enclosure, which was verynecessary and was executed with utmost skill in 2006, was the paving of the

(208) AIPV, leg. 189/63.(209) The Council of Navarre’s report on the proposed agreement is kept in the “Príncipe de

Viana” Institute’s records, as is that of the Council’s Heritage Commision, which wentinto more specific detail about the siting of the centre in the citadel, AIPV, leg.206/13.

Old main gate guardhouse.



interior roads with tiles and cobbles. They kept the radial layout dating from theearliest days of the citadel. These roads are used not only by those attending civilweddings or exhibitions and cultural events that are held in various restoredbuildings, but also by the considerable number of citizens who daily pass throughthere as a convenient and direct means of communication between the towncentre and the Iturrama area and even, though further away, the University ofNavarre too.

Restoration of the counterguards and ravelins

In recent years the Town Council has undertaken an important task that hadremained outstanding for a long time and was becoming not only necessary buturgent. I refer to the restoration and rehabilitation of the external defences of thecitadel: the four ravelins or lunettes that remain of the five that were originallythere and the two counterguards that look towards the Castle Surround, withtheir corresponding stretches of moat, counterscarp and covered way. With that,the old fortress would regain its original features in four of its five fronts, with thesole exception of the one that gives onto the Avenida del Ejército, where forobvious reasons restoration would today be unfeasible.

This process, which closes a crucial chapter in the history of the Pamplonafortifications, began in 2006 with the construction of the new underground busstation. The remains of the Santa Lucía ravelin, which lay buried beneath thecar park on Calle Yanguas y Miranda, were restored, with reconstruction of thefacing stonework that was missing and recovery of the part of the moats that hadbeen lost, including its counterscarp and covered way.

It is difficult to be precise about the cost of this reconstruction, because althoughin its essentials it cost 1,802,360 euros, many other details were swallowed upin the general budget for the station works, which reached a total of38,575,152.58. At the same time restoration work on the Real Bastion – rightby the ravelin - was also carried out. In this instance, the cost was 311,444.15euros.210



During 2010 a lot of significant activity on the exterior constructions has beenlogged. In the first half of the year the restoration of the Santa Clara ravelin wascompleted, with its counterguard, moat and covered way. The budget was

Remains of the San Antón Bastion which came to light during excavations carried out as partof work on the Palacio de Congresos de Navarra-Baluarte (Navarre-Bastion Conference Hall).

A view of Real or San Juan Bastion.

(210) Final certification for works on the ravelin and curtain wall of the Real Bastion, in AIPV,leg. 274/5.



3,259,961.98 euros. The work had to include the repositioning of a good partof the ashlars, given the grave deterioration and ruin caused to them by theshrubs – some of them medium-sized trees –that had grown on the parapets andalong the pointing of the courses of stone. No sooner had these works beenfinished than more under the same programme and type of intervention werebegun on the Santa Isabel ravelin and counterguard – with the peculiarity that theoutermost portals of the Socorro Gate are situated there, which inevitably addsto the complexity of the task. The budget for this intervention amounts to3,691,663.85 euros. And in November of that same 2010 the restoration of theSanta Ana ravelin has also been undertaken, towards the Edificio Singular(Singular Building) part, which has required the demolition of the pediment thatoccupied part of its moat and which dated from 1940, when the now-vanished“General Mola” Stadium was there with its military swimming pool and othersporting facilities. These last two undertakings – in Santa Isabel and Santa Ana– are scheduled to be completed in 2011.

Esplanade where the fairground used to be sited during the San Fermín fiestas and wherethe new Pamplona Bus Station was built, a project that included the restoration of SantaLucía Ravelin with its covered way and glacis.



That concludes, in broad outline, the history of the Citadel of Pamplona which,together with Jaca, constitutes one of the two unique testaments left standingtoday to the robust military elegance that the impregnable “fortresses of State”built by the House of Austria once had. Its old stones, which today watch childrenplay and host jogging sportspeople and strolling pensioners alike, preserve withintheir hidden nooks and crannies more than four centuries of the history of thisour city.

Pictures of the ravelin, guard and counterguard Santa Clara Ravelin’s guard and counterguardfollowing their restoration in 2010.



List of the keepers of the Citadel of Pamplona and theirlieutenants, showing date of appointment and their referencein the books of Mercedes Reales (Royal Concessions).

D. Hernando de Espinosa 25–03–1572 lib. 7 fol. 155

Teniente, Gaspar Cerón 25–05–1578 lib. 12 fol. 258v.

Diego de Guevara 30–08–1586 lib. 13 fol. 118v.

D. Juan de Castilla, Caballero de Santiago 26–07–1587 lib. 13 fol. 142

D. Sancho de Villava 10–11–1590 lib. 13 fol. 181v.

Juan de Anaya Solís 18–07–1594 lib. 13 fol. 272

Teniente, D. Antonio de Solís, Capitán 08–11–1594 lib. 13 fol. 277

Diego de Ávila y Guzmán 28–01–1596 lib. 13 fol. 302

Teniente, Pedro López de Jaén 09–03–1596 lib. 13 fol. 303

D. Antonio Bracamonte 24–11–1597 lib. 13 fol. 351v.

Teniente, Francisco Sánchez del Canto, Alférez 03–02–1598 lib. 13 fol. –––

Teniente, Fernán López de Arellano, Capitán 22–11–1602 lib. 13 fol. 441v.

Pedro Fernández de La Carrera ––– –––



Capitán Pedro Hernández Ramada 10–07–1604 lib. 13 fol. 462v.

Capitán Juan de Zornoza 04–03–1607 lib. 19 fol. 296v.

Capitán Gaspar Ruiz de Cortázar 05–10–1610 lib. 20 fol. 202

Teniente, Martín Jaureguiberría, Alférez 25–09–1611 lib. 20 fol. 212v.

Capitán D. Alonso Martínez de Lerma 05–12–1614 lib. 21 fol. 2v.

Félix Paz 15–12–1614 lib. 20 fol. 358

Teniente, Juan de Goitia, Alférez 18–08–1618 lib. 21 fol. 260

D. Juan de Espinosa, Sargento Mayor(por muerte del Coronel Domingo de Idiáquez) 18–08–1619 lib. 21 fol. 364v.

Juan de Araquemada 13–02–1621 lib. 22 fol. 32

D. Felipe de Beaumont y Navarra 02–10–1622 lib. 22 fol. 122v.

Teniente D. Juan de Oco y Ciriza(por muerte de D. Diego de Ávila y Mendoza) 25–08–1627 lib. 22 fol. 415v.

Capitán Luis Díaz de Armendárizen ausencia de D. Juan Castelví) 23–03–1637 lib. 25 fol. 15

D. Jimeno de Perezopluxes, Barón de Puebla–larga de Valencia ––– –––

Teniente, Alférez Onofre de Villafuerte 06–09–1638 lib. ––– fol. –––

Castellano interino Oger Rodríguez 17–11–1639 lib. 25 fol. 178

D. Juan de Eulate, Gobernador(por muerte de Jorge Rodríguez) 08–09–1640 lib. 26 fol. 22

Dionisio de Guzmán,Maestre de Campo y Teniente General 07–05–1641 lib. 26 fol. 81

Bernabé Antonio de Salazar, Caballero de Santiago 26–02–1644 lib. 27 fol. 42

Teniente, Miguel de Salazar, Capitán 06–07–1656 lib. 28 fol. 164v.

Teniente, D. Juan Ortiz de Cadarso 04–08–1659 lib. 28 fol. 258v.



D. Baltasar de Rada, Maestre de Campo 18–07–1663 lib. 28 fol. 383v.

Teniente, D. Juan de Oviedo, Capitán 16–08–1669 lib. 29 fol. 287

D. Francisco Angulo y Castro, Maestre de Campo 25–11–1672 lib. 29 fol. 398

Teniente, D. Juan Antonio Urdienza, Capitán 10–01–1675 lib. 29 fol. 442

D. Pedro de Ulloa Rivadeneyra, Maestre de Campo 13–04–1677 lib. 30 fol. 48

D. José García de Salcedo, Maestre de Campo 25–07–1682 lib. 30 fol. 124

Teniente, Ángel Basilio, Capitán 15–09–1682 lib. 30 fol. 152v.

Teniente, D. Juan Zabalza, Capitán 31–12–1682 lib. 30 fol. 157

D. Dionisio de Araiz, General de Artillería 05–04–1686 lib. 30 fol. 280

Teniente, D. Pedro Martínez de Balanza 12–04–1686 lib. 30 fol. 416

D. Carlos Nicolás de Eguía, Maestre de Campo 09–03–1691 lib. 31 fol. 137

D. Francisco de Luna y Cárcamo 1702 –––

D. Juan Cruzat, Marqués de Góngora, Gobernador 17–06–1705 lib.33 fol. 146

D. Jacinto del Pozobueno, Maestre de Campo 16–12–1709 lib.33 fol. 444

Teniente de Rey, D. Francisco Ibero, Caballero de Calatrava y Sargento Mayor 05–09–1709 lib. 33 fol. 459

D. Tomás de Idiáquez, Mariscal (por ausencia) 18–04–1716 lib. 34 fol. 398

D. Juan González, Ayudante General Guardia de Corps 16–04–1717 lib. 34 fol. 498v.

D. Antonio Santander, Mariscal de Campo 20–12–1732 lib. 37 fol. 196

D. Felipe Solís, Brigadier 31–07–1741 lib. 38 fol. 8



D. Jaime de Silva, Teniente General 19–10–1746 lib. 38 fol. 326

D. Juan Gregorio Muniain, Mariscal de Campo 05–12–1753 lib. 39 fol. 40v.

D. Bernardo O´Connor de Pheli 08–03–1760 lib. 39 fol. 101v.

D. José Carabeo ––– –––

D. Onofre de Córdoba Ramírez de Aro 10–10–1763 lib. 40 fol. 180

Marqués de Casacagigal 09–11–1779 lib. 41 fol. 47v.

Vizconde de Palazuelos, Mariscal de Campo 14–01–1784 lib. 41 fol. 238v.

D. Jerónimo Girón 21–02–1786 lib. 41 fol. 175

D. Vicente Dusmet 26–10–1789 lib. 42 fol. 99v.

Marqués de la Cañada ––– –––

D. Manuel Bretón 20–10–1799 lib. 42 fol. 233v.

D. Pedro Ignacio Correa 06–07–1802 lib. 43 fol. 10

Marqués de Ferrera 07–04–1803 lib. 42 fol. 146

D. Antonio María Roselló 15–08–1814 lib. 43 fol. 271

D. Santos Ladrón de Cegama 31–03–1824 lib. 44 fol. 79v.



Sources used

Archivo General de Navarra (AGN, General Archive of Navarre)Secciones de Fortificaciones, Guerra, Mercedes Reales, Cartografía.

Archivo General de Simancas (AGS, General Archive of Simancas)Planos.

Archivo de la Institución “Príncipe de Viana” (AIPV, “Príncipe de Viana” Institute Archive)Expedientes relativos a las murallas y ciudadela de Pamplona.

Archivo Municipal de Pamplona (AMP, Municipal Archive of Pamplona).Ficheros temáticos y Sección Fotográfica.

Instituto de Historia y Cultura Militar, Madrid (IHCM, Institute of Military History andCulture, Madrid).Colección Aparici (Copies of Simancas papers) Secciones de Planos y Documentos de Fortificación.

Servicio Geográfico del Ejército (SGE, Army Geographical Service).Cartoteca Histórica.

Bibliography

ALVARADO, Fernando de, (Pseudonym for Mariano Arigita) Guía del viajero en Pamplona.Madrid, 1904, pp. 85–86.

ARAZURI, José Joaquín, Pamplona, calles y barrios. Pamplona, 1979–1980, 3 vols.DEL CAMPO, Luis, Visita de Felipe IV a Pamplona (1646). Un cuadro testimonio. Col.

Navarra, Temas de Cultura Popular, nº 259.DEL CAMPO, Luis, Pamplona durante la regencia de Espartero (sept, 1840–jul. 1843).

Pamplona, 1985. 103 pp.ECHARRI, Víctor, Las murallas y la ciudadela de Pamplona, Pamplona, 2000, 535 pp.HENNEL DE GOUTEL, Baron, Le general Cassan et la defense de Pampelune. (25 juin–31

octobre 1813). París, 1920, 297 pp.IBARLUCEA, Dionisio de, Atlas de la provincia de Navarra. Pamplona, 1886, 88 pp.IDOATE, Florencio, Las fortificaciones de Pamplona a partir de la conquista de Navarra.

Rev. Príncipe de Viana, 1954, pp. 57–154.IDOATE, Florencio, Diario del bloqueo puesto por los carlistas a la plaza de Pamplona.

Rev. Príncipe de Viana, 1961, pp. 217–231.IDOATE, Florencio, Catálogo del Archivo General de Navarra. Sección de Guerra. (años

1259–1800). Pamplona, 1978. 626 pp.IDOATE, Florencio, Esfuerzo bélico de Navarra en el siglo XVI. Pamplona, 1981. 447 pp.IRIBARREN, José Mª, Pamplona y los viajeros de otros siglos. Pamplona, 1957, 247 pp.



LUBIÁN Y SOS, Fermín de, Relación de la Santa Iglesia de Pamplona. Editada por laCofradía del Gallico de San Cernin. Pamplona, 1955, 114 pp.

MADOZ, Pascual, Diccionario Geográfico–Histórico–Estadístico de España, t. XII. Madrid,1849, 643–644 pp.

MADRAZO, Pedro de, Navarra y Logroño, t. II. Barcelona, 1886, pp. 375–380.MARTINENA, Juan José, La Pamplona de los burgos y su evolución urbana (ss. XII–XVI).

Pamplona, 1974. 351 pp.MARTINENA, Juan José, Documentos referentes a las fortificaciones de Pamplona en el

Servicio Histórico Militar de Madrid (1521–1814). Rev. Príncipe de Viana, 1976,pp. 443–506.

MARTINENA, Juan José, Pamplona en 1800. Col. Navarra. Temas de Cultura Popular, nº309.

MARTINENA, Juan José, Navarra, castillos y palacios. Pamplona, 1980, 158 pp.MARTINENA, Juan José, Cartografía navarra en los Archivos Militares de Madrid.

Pamplona, 1989, 318 pp.MARTINENA, Juan José, El recinto amurallado de Pamplona, Rev. Castillos de España, nº

104, 1995, pp. 19–32.MEMORIAS de don Joaquín Ignacio Mencos, Conde de Guenduláin (1799–1882). Editadas

por la Institución Príncipe de Viana. Pamplona, 1952. 259 pp.MIÑANO, Sebastián de, Diccionario Geográfico–Estadístico de España y Portugal, t. VI.

Madrid, 1827, 420 pp.NAGORE, Leandro, Apuntes para la historia. (1872–1886). Pamplona, 1964, 282 pp.NOMBELA, Julio, Crónica de la provincia de Navarra. Madrid, 1868. 112 pp.Novísima Recopilación de las leyes del Reino de Navarra. Edición realizada conforme a la

obra de don Joaquín de Elizondo. Biblioteca de Derecho Foral. Pamplona, 1964.3 vols.

OLEZA, José de, La recuperación de San Sebastián y Pamplona en 1813. Pamplona,1959. 186 pp.

ORBE, Asunción, Arquitectura y urbanismo en Pamplona a finales del siglo XIX ycomienzos del XX. Pamplona, 1986, 238 pp.

PRIETO, José Luis, La Ciudadela de Pamplona, (Unpublished memoir, with photographsand plans, written in 1965 and kept in the Municipal Archive).

RAMÍREZ ARCAS, Antonio, Itinerario descriptivo de Navarra. Pamplona, 1848, 200 pp.RODRÍGUEZ UNDIANO, E. y SÁNCHEZ DEL AGUILA, J., Diario del bloqueo de Pamplona

(1874–75). Pamplona, Cuadernos de la cofradía gastronómica del PimientoSeco, 1973. 92 pp.

TORRES VILLEGAS, Fco. Jorge, Cartografía Hispano Científica, t. II. Madrid, 1857. pp.141–143.





Proyecto1:Maquetación 1 28/4/11 22:01 Página 1

www.murallasdepamplona.es

The C

itad

el of

Pam

plona

Fi

ve li

ving

cen

turies

of an

impr

egna

ble

fort

ress

978-84-95930-50-7







Portada LCdP ingle?s ok 28/4/11 20:23 Página 1

The Citadel of Pamplona

Documents

Transcript of The Citadel of Pamplona