| Popis: |
The main goal of this panel is to present different roles played by military authorities in the urban development of European cities in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the 19th century due to the production of new types of weapons, its greater range and the strength, the old fortresses that protected European cities began to lose their functionality which (along with the wish to accelerate the development of cities) led to their demolition and, in general, to re-examination of the position of the military facilities in cities. Apart from the demolition of fortresses and urbanization of the space they previously occupied, this panel is intended to show also the other ways in which the military influenced the development of modern European cities. The demolition of part of fortresses went parallel with the strengthening of other, preserved fortresses, and with the construction of the barracks complexes. How they were positioned in relation to the existing or new urban settlements, in which way they influenced the development of infrastructure and urban planning in the cities, which contents such complexes included, are welcomed topics within this panel. At the same time, many cities were developed to serve exclusively as military centers – as garrison cities (Glogau in Prussia, Zamość or Modlin in Russian Poland), military harbors (such as Pula in Austria-Hungary, or Livorno in Italy) or alike. Furthermore, the army played an important role in the construction of roads, railways, bridges, as well as in determining the width or direction of streets in cities, to control the population in case of turmoil. Furthermore, presentations could also concentrate on how the greater power of weapons in the 19th and 20th centuries influenced the construction of military buildings, and how it contributed to the development of innovations and introduction of new materials in architecture. Finally, along with mentioned topics this panel welcomes contributions that deal with the ways in which the military authorities organized the education of their engineers, whether military projects corresponded with the projects of state and city urban planners and architects, and what kind of “cultural” politics they promoted. |
