When we think of cities, we think of urban conglomerations that seamlessly morph into suburbs, of transport systems and mobility. Yair Mintzker's fascinating book The Defortification of the German City, 1689–1866 reminds us that even a few hundred years ago, the word “city” in Europe conjured the image of walls and moats, of gates and bastions, and lock-outs after dark. It then goes on to explore the social and political changes that led to the demolition of thousands of European city walls, as well as the consequences of this urban reorientation.

In doing so, Mintzker attacks the three prevailing hypotheses on defortification: The “expansion thesis” that maintains cities simply swallowed their walls as they expanded during a time of rapid growth; the “industrialization” thesis that argues industrialization required rapid transportation, making city walls an obstacle; and finally a simplistic “military” hypothesis, according to which city walls lost their usefulness in the face of superior fire power. Mintzker presents compelling evidence that the timing is off for the first two narratives, and that the last one at any rate has to be refined. The book is, however, more ambitious than that: At its heart, it wants to use the process of defortification in the Holy Empire as a parable for the broad social and political changes that happened across Europe around this time.

According to Mintzker, the defortification process can be divided into three phases: At first, following the stalemate of the peace of Westphalia, German cities (as opposed to their counterparts in England and to some extent France) needed solid defenses. Even cities with outdated defense systems were reluctant to demolish their walls due to the role they played in maintaining inner peace (e.g., keeping criminal elements off the streets during the nightly curfew). The walls also helped to structure patterns of social interaction within the city, by, for example, placing Jewish ghettos near the city walls. The defortifications that did happen in this period where driven (directly or indirectly) by exposure to the French experience, where the rising nation-state actively undermined the autonomous power of the cities and led to a unified defense policy.

The second phase is characterized by the huge defortification surge of 1789–1815. Whether the burghers (as in the case of Hamburg), foreign troops (as in Breslau), or the local ruler (as in Munich) demolished the walls, Mintzker presents a compelling case that the underlying cause was almost everywhere the threat (or the reality) of a French invasion. Fortifications were still useful for military purposes in the right hands, but it had become increasingly clear that given the state of military technology, even a well-fortified city was no match against a large professional army.

Finally, in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, German attitudes changed, and city fortifications were no longer seen as a point of pride. Associated with the old order, city walls became targets of revolutionary violence, leading most cities to become open spaces without fixed boundaries.

Though the arguments the book offers are compelling and certainly make for an interesting read, three points nonetheless have to be addressed. Firstly, while it is true that industrialization did not happen until after the main surge in defortifications, the walls and gates might have been incompatible with earlier economic developments, including proto-industrialization. Mintzker's discussion on the economic aspects is perhaps a bit sparse. Secondly, the book presents Germany as a microcosm of Europe for this time period, but some more comparative work would have been helpful. Germany, with its weak central state, is quite a special case. A look at England (where city walls did not have to fulfill a military function) or perhaps the city states in the Netherlands and Northern Italy might have been instructive. More broadly, there are comparative perspectives even within the data presented that remain unexploited (beyond a couple of case studies). In particular, the author could have used simple statistical models (such as correlations) to make better sense of the patterns implicit in the aggregate data.

Finally, as an economist this reviewer is tempted to draw a distinction between what people say and what they do (talk is cheap, after all). In examining the reasons for the observed pace of defortifications, the author places considerable weight on the lofty arguments of philosophers and rulers, for example, referring several times to the metaphor of the Holy Roman Empire as a body with its cities as its organs.

All in all, this book provides a fascinating historical account of a particular social process, defortification, and offers an explanation of how it fits in with the broader changes happening in Europe at the same time. It shines when discussing particular defortification events in detail, bringing them vividly to life. This ambitious project sees Mintzker don the hat of the urban historian, economic historian, historian of thought, and art historian. It is without doubt a laudable effort and an endlessly fascinating source of insights and new research questions.