"Save Quatre Bras" Topic

Disquieting news has just reached me that a request has been presented to the authorities in Genappe to have the historic farmhouse at Quatre Bras demolished to make way for a development.

Domminique Timmermans is rallying the troops to save this historic site. More information and advice on how you can help (all that is required of you is an email gentlemen) can be found here.

link

I will be writing to express my objection to any such move and I would encourage all others to do the same.

It should be saved without a doubt.

G,day mate

I have already emailed the Mayor of Villers-la-Ville via their website. Will do the same for Genappe.

I have informed the gamers on the Lasalle (Honor)forum and emailed friends. We need to get this out on other game forums too, particularly forums dedicated to Napoleonic rules.

There doesn't seem to have been any effective action to prevent the construction of highways abutting to the structures, instead of routing them elsewhere.

There doesn't seem to have been any effective action to prevent a housing development being built next to it, or to prevent commercial properties being built on the opposite corners of the intersection.

There doesn't seem to have been any effective effort to preserve the structures. They look like they should be condemned.

Who is going to compensate the owner for the loss if he is not allowed to develop his property? Why should he be forced to keep an unsellable curio, when generations of his countrymen have not cared one whit about preserving the context of the overall site? No-one prevented a McDonald's sign from being slapped on it, but now the local government wants to hold this property hostage? Ridiculous. I'd say "Very Gallic," except that Americans are just as bad about their white elephants.

Allen

Well Allen, it just goes to show that people are now realising how significant the battle there and at Ligny were in defeating Napoleon. for years all the focus has been on the curtain call at Waterloo. Hopefully this may lead to recognition by authorities of its importance.

And by all means, send an email supporting the developer.

"…for years all the focus has been on the curtain call at Waterloo."

Au contraire. Went to Waterloo in 1972, and passed on visiting the monstrous monument, but stopped at Quatre Bras. No-one has minimized its importance in the campaign, then or now.

But as I said, there has been no effort whatsoever to preserve it in context, so why whine now when someone wants to move on? Seen the Carrefour Hyper Mont St. Jean up the road? If the locals are willing to allow that sort of vulgar excrescence, why worry about a falling-down farm? Are *you* going to put up the money to restore it?

Allen

They should take a lesson from us Yanks. Look at how well preserved the sites of such important battles as the Monangahela and Long Island are. There may even be a brass plaque, somewhere within a quarter mile, unless it was stolen to sell for the scrap metal price.

John, I asked the NPS about the preservation of Rev War battlefields, in particular Camden. They told me they don't commemorate U.S. losses.

That's because people in the real world tend to get on with their lives, John. The Napoleonic re-enactors who burst into tears when a faux Napoleon rides by must live in some bizarre bubble, thinking they know what it it "felt" like in the past. (Hint: not that many know what it feels like to die slowly, screaming, while you try to scoop your guts back into your belly.)

Quatre Bras isn't an operating farm; it hardly can be with the development already around it. Hougoumont is nothing like it was in 1815. La Belle Alliance has been a Mexican restaurant and a steakhouse.

If the locals valued historical sanctification as much as re-enactors and wargamers, these places would not have been already overrun with development and commercialism. They wouldn't have been subject to theft and vandalism. But real people need real things in the present day. They want housing, and retail facilities, and gas stations, and yes: propane storage. That's because they're getting on with the business of living.

That doesn't explain the McDonald's, but apparently we're able to export our worst to the world, and they'll buy it. Let them.

Allen

I have a background in art history. I love old stuff and architecture. I even like old houses. History is a hobby.

That being said, I'm all for progress. I live in the Lower East Side in New York. People want to preserve everything down here. It is a historic neighborhood known for its tenement buildings. Without significant restoration, the buildings are largely uninhabitable. They have small rooms with shared bathrooms and no light and air. There is a reason why people left them. How many slums do you need to memorialize the history of the neighborhood? We already have the Tenement Museum. The issue is that it stifles progress and the ability for locals to live in habitable apartments. Unless someone can come up with a viable economic solution to preserve the buildings that creates jobs and housing for those that live here, I say tear them down.

Dear aecurtis

A real shame if you think the world and living is only about 'real' things, like housing and petrol stations. Life is much more than that. If people don't make a stand on trying to preserve some elements of the past, then we will remain nothing but mass consumers, creating and building only the 'real' factors that you mentioned. That is not the 'real' world I want for my children. Houses are important, jobs are important, transport is important – but so is the past. We should not ignore all of it just for the sake of consumerism and convenience. As for reenactors, I think they (or anyone else for that matter) would be mad to want to 'feel' or experience the horrors of any war period. But they can get a 'feel' for the period when reenacting, albeit a fairly safe one. And it can very enjoyable too, knowing that the cannon facing you isn't going to blast you away with canister. I tried it for a while and would certainly recommend those who haven't to try at least once. Of course, no amount of reenacting will even equal the suffering and conditions experienced by those who actually took part in the Napoleonic Wars. Personally, I have yet to meet a reenactor who believed otherwise.

OK, so how much will you, personally, be sending the owner so he can restore the buildings, and not take a financial loss because he's not being allowed to develop the property?

I see e-mails are being sent, but nothing positive to encourage preservation. What's to stop the owner from just gritting his teeth and letting the dam' place fall down, or just wait for a condemnation order? Then he can do what he wants, as there will be no historic fabric remaining.

There are always plenty to bewail the loss of old things, but a darn sight fewer willing to pony up the resources to make it happen. So: how much are you sending? How many thousand quid?

Allen

aecurtis

I was always under the impression that the USA looked after some of its battlefields and historical sites, and perhaps in Europe, there should be a law and an organisation that prevents owners from neglecting or destroying historical sites, preferably with some means of financial support for that owner, although, with the present economical climate that seems unlikely for some time. As for myself, if I had the means, financially, I would do everything I could to preserve as many historical sites and buildings as I could, and not just from the Napoleonic period. At the moment, I have a struggle sparing cash for books, let alone saving historical sites. The problem is, of course, that those with the means to do something positive, other than verbal aid, either don't care or may have earned their cash destroying history anyway. And government bodies don't seem all that interested in preserving history anymore, unless you can convince them it will save the economy. But now and again, someone pops up who can afford to make a difference, so lets hope this happens here, for the site, the owner and for all Napoleonic enthusiasts.

Development vs Historical preservation,the evil snake rears up again. If we remove the physical evidence that belies the spiritual archetypes of heroism,sacrifice ,triumph merely to facilitate trade and commerce of the commonplace nature we risk severing linkages to events and times that shape us as human societies.The world becomes a cheaper,more desperate shade of grey,if the motive is ultimately to destroy nation state character and identity,the bulldozers will roll.A Europe which prides itself on family homes and villages hundreds of years old will be reduced to the garish aluminum,glass,drywall and prefab neon lit North American model.Rational development ,rational preservation,so far it eludes all of us.

Allen has a point, which should be extended. The security round the Mona Lisa is an expensive luxury – we have lots of copies and images now, so the French could save some money. All those exhibits round the world costing tax payer money, when they are easily replacable – why should your tax be diverted into something you will never have the chance to see, because it is in a different part of the country you won't visit.

Visitors to the Louvre typically only view the Mona Lisa for fifteen seconds:

link

Allen

I think its worth remembering that the damage to these sacred sites started way back in the 19thC when half of the key North ridge at Waterloo was used to build the Lion Mound, thus altering the entire topography of the battlefield.

I agree its sad, and indeed in popular history the Battle of Quatre Bras does not get the attention it deserves, but as far as there place in history goes, there are far more neglected sites….

Sacred sites? Western Europe is overrun with sites of old battlefields. Go back far enough and you'll find some previous battle in the area that 21st preservationists would claim should have been reason enough to prevent the farm being built in the first place.
If you want it, fund it.

Last Hussar

Yes, I can well understand where you are coming from. And sometimes, when times are hard and people are struggling to make ends meet, it may seem wrong to spend public funds protecting works of art and historical sites. But the reason for doing so, is that they are there for everyone to see. And they are the real items not a false replacement or copy. And why shouldn't everyone have the chance to see the real thing? And perhaps, instead of knocking the money used to protect such items, we should consider knocking banks and other business institutions who, despite the so called financial climate, have no problems continuing to give themselves massive bonuses. Perhaps some of their 'hard-earned' bonuses should be diverted for public use, such as helping to protecting our past and art works?

It's a hole. Look at it, for 's sake.

I'll drive a JCB through it for fifty quid, providing I can wear a red coat and sing 'Rule Britannia' while I'm pounding it into rubble.

If Msr. Timmermanns wants it immortalised he can film the whole thing on his mobile, bung it on Youtube, job's a good 'un.

My spin from a lawyer in US that deals with some of these kinds of issues: Preservation only occurs if the society (country, county or city, as the case may be) makes a collective decision to do so, funds it, and thereby lessens the impact on private property ownership. The story of the Gettysburg battlefield in the USA is an interesting one to follow. We tend to preserve only that which we treasure. As a distant observer, by looking at this site, one wonders whether the locals truly treasure the site. Just my thoughts. It is never an easy answer.

"I see e-mails are being sent, but nothing positive to encourage preservation. What's to stop the owner from just gritting his teeth and letting the dam' place fall down, or just wait for a condemnation order?"

Well that is is the problem Allen, the owners have been doing exactly that. And yes, I would send money, but the owner wants it bulldozed no convesion to other use, just bulldozed, concreted and legoland plonked there. No compromise.

Watch out! The falling bricks Norman D!
Is he bleedin?
dunno?
can't tell cause of that red coat……..
He does look a bit sticky though!

I would feel differently if it was a French site. Every site of a French defeat on their own ground should be preserved immaculately with study centres attached and be a compulsory part of their education system.

Very strange. It would be a 'Listed Building' in the UK, just on the basis of its age. It would be illegal to even alter or extend it without special permission let alone demolish it, so no plastic double glazing, and the owner could be compelled to repair and maintain the building and prosected for not doing so. Mind you the law is often ignored until it is too late.

I thought "Promoting Europe's rich heritage" was spelled out in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty – apparently not. Does the EU not have any laws protecting heritage site? It has made numerous so many useless laws, it just might have set a precedent. But if there is no interest in heritage sites by the Belgian authorities, then I suppose that is that.

Bill

I agree with Allen -- perhaps more of a US concept -- property rights should not be completely ignored. Its been 100 years. Did the people of this area just now figure out that this should be preserved? Guess not. Someone had the ability to buy it without restriction. To what extent do we infringe property rights? Again, I am with Allen. But that is obviously a poltical opinion that varies from person to person, location to location and case to case.

You're never going to save the building as a empty unused object – the costs of yearly maintenance of the building alone make that nearly impossible.

In the age of environmentalism, the concept of demolition and rebuild is, in some cases, becoming outmoded. In this light, the building needs to be repurposed to some other use. The object being to make it a commercial operation that can be self-sustaining.

It appears to have originally been cottages along the Charleroi road and a barn and other farm structures along the Nivelle road, and presumably it has a central courtyard. It'll probably never revert to housing, and I doubt very much to farm use – but what could it become; perhaps a part could accommodate a small visitors center and museum to draw attention to the battlefield and it's history, the barn could be repurposed as a restaurant, and the former housing adapted to small motel accommodation, all accessed from the courtyard.

The guts of the building don't matter, it's the external physical appearance that needs to be retained – this can be done with adequate structural shoring, in addition to or prior to the new interior structure being constructed.

Of course everything costs money, even demolition, but sometimes it helps to have a little imagination before calling in the wrecking ball. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that the property owner, national nor local authorities have much imagination in this instance.

npm

Simple (well, not really but…) Let the state offer to buy the property at the value as if would have if developed and if the owner sells it they can spend the money to restore it. Of course there is the lost tax revenue to the city…

I'm sorry to agree with aecurtis but "historical preservation" needs to be limited to limited classical pieces of architecture, sites existing in relatively intact states, or whatever, maybe a neighborhood at most, then let the rest of us do with our private property as we see fit and meets with reasonable zoning codes.

The "historical perservation" mind set is killing Saint Louis City in some areas. Co-worker and husband (he, retired from public service, owns a wine bar in city and wants to sells the West County house and move into a small re-habbed duplex in a historical preservation contolled area in the city, living in one side and renting the other,) are finding rational internal changes and improvments have been forbidden because it violates the architectural "history" of the building.

OMG, it was an abandonded disaster (the rotting smell was horrible, the smoke damage from the fires from the homeless "occupants" staying warm was extensive, and the damage from years of lack of maintenance (holes in the external walls for example) was significant. He actually thinks it is more of a bureaucratic nightmare than dealing with 26 required "licenses and permits" from various government bodies just to serve various types of alcohol in his wine bar.

If history was seen as important then the issue would have been dealt with prior to this.

Sometimes (like some historical battlefields) it's too late, more often it is a mattter of the will/priorities.

I like sites like Wilson's Creek National Battlefield but there has to be a balance/limit to wholesale "preservation" just like eminent domain or other acquistion by government of private property.

Gracias,

Glenn

The biggest problem is the people that want to preserve things don't have any money to restore them while the people that want to tear them down for new development have plenty of money and want to make more.
Charleston, SC, has made some good compromises. You have to keep the facade intact, but can do whatever you want inside. There's at least one historic (now office) building where the walls are original, but the inside was completely rebuilt. Too bad we can't find more middle ground like that. It's not perfect, but compromises rarely are.

Off topic --
Mikhail -- Camden has a small museum (not officially NPS) and is currently under review for inclusion into the National Park Service, a process that could take 18 months.

link

tshryock,
Developers don't spend their own money – or rarely – they just know and understand where to borrow the money in the first place. There's a mystic about it, and of course it takes effort – but with a good idea and the right business plan, the monies 'should' be available. Of course over the last few years almost all revenue streams have dried up, so even developers have been unable to fund projects – which, of course, doesn't leave much hope for non-developers.

npm

Luckily we do not all share the views of Norman D.Landings. It is not what it looks like but what it represents. Thankfully there are those of us who respect the sacrifice and suffering made by others, as we do with those who made the ultimate sacrifice in more recent wars.

Cheap shot Gazzola!

Some of respect the sacrifice of the men and now days women but recognize that economics, time, and change are not so easily dismissed.

My full time job is supporting the multi-national forces engaged in two of the "not-wars' [Yeah, that's an issue] currently in process. I was told my health issues prevented me from embedding to support so I do it from the (imposed) safety of the USA. So take your cheap shot and ram it up your ass.

I'll save you the effort of whine… complaining to Bill by hitting the complaint button myself.

Gracias,

Glenn

Gazzola – yes, a very cheap shot.

Napoleon losing the Waterloo campaign being "a good thing" is a particularly Anglo-centric idea anyway. So who would be commemorated? The plucky (foreign invader) rosbifs and krauts, or the romantic-but-ultimately-defeated frogs? They're all bloody foreigners anyway. Or maybe they should commemorate the poor locals who were forced to/volunteered to fight on both sides?

By-and-large the Belgians just wish everyone had gone and fought their wars elsewhere. If the Belgians were forced to commemorate every battle fought on their territory (almost exclusively by away-teams, let it be noted) they would never be allowed to build anywhere that the ground is vaguely flat.

So put up a 100-year trust fund or shut up, because I doubt the owner is listening.

Warbeads and Grifflux

It was never intended to be a cheap shot! But why so defensive? Did I hit a nerve? I have not used the button or complained to Bill and don't intend to! That would suggest your posts had some effect, which they didn't. But you both obviously need somewhere to sound off, for whatever reason. I would suggest that this is not the site for it and a thread wanting to save aspects of the period we all say we love, is not either. I would suggest you both learn to speak like gentlemen and stop having the pathetic arrogance to tell people to shut up. If you don't agree with people wanting to support such causes, stop reading the posts. Stop torturing yourselves. There really is no need. Have a nice day now.

Gazzola,
That really raised a wry smile here.

I don't believe it was me that wrapped the argument in the patriotic colours of "ultimate sacrifice", and I really don't know what Quatre Bras "represents" to a Belgian, other than a prime retail location where routes meet.

I don't believe I was defensive, but if I was offensive I freely apologise. Everything after the first line was really aimed at the thread in general, which was, admittedly, unclear and surely "Put up or shut up" is a common enough phrase that it should evince little sensitivity on anyone's part.

To be clear, I was attempting to point out the parochial nature of the idea that Belgians should
a) be interested in Quatre Bras as (yet) a(nother) historical site, and
b) not be able to dispose of their own land simply because it was some corner of a foreign field to someone else.
Clearly my sense of irony got out of hand, but I do hope that was clearer.

I stand by the notion that if you (collectively) don't like what the owner wants to do with his property, then you need to raise the money to buy it from him … and to maintain it thereafter. Communal hand-wringing, emails and comments posted here such as "it should be saved." are unlikely to cut much mustard.

And as a rosbif myself, with no connections to Belgium, I would call the tone self-deprecating rather than arrogant.

Dear Grifflux

Glad to give someone something to smile about, albeit it is, in my opinion, a sad occasion. And what people say or how they say it, often makes me smile too, especially when they appear to lose their cool. It is odd though, how some people are capable of losing it on a website forum. They must have no sense of self-control or perhaps too used to getting their own way.
As for the barn, you would have expected the Dutch and Belgian authorities to have been interested, since it is, as far as I am aware, part of their history. The Dutch-Belgians did take part in the 100 Days campaign. But sadly, you may be right that sending e-mails won't help, especially if the owners are only concerned about making a profit, as perhaps the authorities are. And preserving a piece of history has very rarely been a profit making affair, apart from the profit of preservation itself. So let's hope a rich Napoleonic enthusiast will step in to help in some way, if cash is all they're concerned about.

Thanks XV Brigada for giving me my early mnorning laugh – using the EU to protect the site of a battle where British forces contributed to a victory! LOL