Bridge or bridges over river Scheldt?

[Herman Joustra]

Hello,

 

Still reading a lot about the siege of Antwerp in 1914 and the historical facts of it.

 

But the crossing of the river, the withdrawal, still puzzles me.

 

The battalions of the 2nd Brigade and ‘Drake’ all crossed the pontoon bridge over the river Scheldt, close to the Steen in Antwerp during their retreat in October 1914, after which the pontoon bridge was destroyed.

When the rest of the 1st Brigade arrived there and found the bridge destroyed, they did what? Sometimes I read they crossed the Scheldt in barges and boats (must have been an enormous operation with so many men) and sometimes I read they went south along the Scheldt  and crossed it via the southern bridge. 
So is there uncertainty about the way they crossed the Scheldt? Was there a southern bridges (obviously not destroyed yet) and was it also a pontoon bridge? Or did they indeed use boats and barges? Or was it a combination of the two?

Edited 10 August , 2020 by Herman Joustra

[horatio2]

14 hours ago, Herman Joustra said:

So is there uncertainty about the way they crossed the Scheldt?

Is the Pope a Catholic? Do bears live in the woods?

The following extracts from accounts of the Scheldt crossing illustrate the confusion and contradictions. In addition to these accounts, a report by AA Gordon, written for Churchill, mentions (early) crossings of the Scheldt by the Staff officers using PONT de BOURGHT and the PONT DE FLANDRE (to TETE DE FLANDRE).

• Lt Col Evelegh, 2i/c Deal Bn:         “Crossed Scheldt on a bridge of boats.”
• Sub Lt Fraser, Hawke Bn:              “Eventually the Scheldt was reached at about 5am on Friday morning, October 9^th, just above the Bridge of Boats. … At 6.30am the river was crossed by the Bridge of Boats … At 7am, when the whole battalion had crossed, the bridge was blown up.”
• Surgeon Williamson, Benbow Bn:          “… found ourselves by the side of the river at 4am with only one hour’s darkness left. Fortunately we got a couple of small ferry steamers or tugs, which ferried us across in parties and we were all landed on the opposite side at 5am. … marched a mile or two … Here we found some of our other men (Hawkes and marines).”
• Sub Lt Campion, Hawke Bn:         “About 10.45 pm the order to retire reached us. … We marched right through Antwerp for 10 miles under fire ... and on to the Scheldt, a further 15 miles. [distances grossly exaggerated] The Marines had joined up with us by then and we went to the first bridge, which we found was useless, but the Major of Marines thought there was another bridge made of boats, to which we marched.”
• Ord Sea Mellanby, Collingwood Bn:       “.. we were then on the quayside by the river … We were taken across the river in little steamers …”
• Lt Col Luard, OC Portsmouth Bn:            “We then marched until we arrived on the bank of the River Scheldt … we waited there in expectation of boats arriving … but no boats arrived … at last found a bridge to which I led the troops. I got the bridge cleared of refufees by Belgian gendarmes … We went over the bridge without any difficulty.”
• Lt Col Leywood, 2i/c Portsmouth Bn:    “Colonel Luard sent Major Burge to find out where the bridge was. Eventually we found the bridge which we had to cross and crossed it.”
• Sgt Meatyard, Plymouth Bn:        “Reaching the River Scheldt … The bridge that we had to cross the river by was very shaky, and being dark I could just notice that it was a pontoon type. The delay here was considerable. As the whole column had to pass over in single file with a distance of 6 paces between each man.”
• AB Reid, Hawke Bn:            “Had we stayed in the trenches another 20 minutes all would have been lost for the pontoon bridge we later crossed was blown up 10 minutes after we used it … to check the German advance … all this happened on 8^th October.”
• Cdr Beadle, OC Hawke Bn:            “I did not retire until 10 o’clock … Later Major French [Portsmouth Bn] overtook me at the Aviation Ground and as he seemed to know the direction in which he was going, I tagged on to the end of his men [!!] and we went right up along the River Bank, through the dock and across the northern bridge … going to Zwyndrecht and I reported to the Commodore when I arrived there, I think, at five o’clock in the morning.”
• General Blumberg, 'Britain's Sea Soldiers':     !Portsmouth Battalion followed the 1st Brigade, which lost its way, in the long march through the city, and arrived at the river where there were neither boats nor a bridge. Colonel Luard found a bridge further up [up-stream??], had it cleared of refugees, and got 1st Brigade and his own Battalion over just before dawn. Their correct time [??] for crossing was 10 pm. ... the last bridge was blown up as soon as the Portsmouth Battlion had crossed."

Good luck sorting that lot out, Herman!

Edited 11 August , 2020 by horatio2

[Herman Joustra]

Thank you Horatio2. Your answer adds to the confusion, since I didn’t come across these remarks so far... :-).

 

Well, I will stop searching for clues. There is no way to sort this out, I think. But it looks anyway like the pontoon bridge wasn’t immediately destroyed after the 2nd Brigade and Drake had gone over it (although it was stated by several men from the 2nd Brigade), since Hawke and Plymouth also used it (or at least some of them did). That’s a new finding. At least to me....
 

So it looks like Hawke, Benbow and Collingwood, Deal, Plymouth and Portsmouth got away using a combination of the pontoon bridge, and another bridge (bridges), boats and small steamers. In itself this would’t be a surprise, because it was total chaos, the men were scattered all over the place and did not reach the Scheldt at the same time.

 

 

[horatio2]

The stories are complicated by the fact that there seem to have been two Bridges of Boats acros the Scheldt.

 

One seems to have been capable of taking wheeled transport and guns. It was the subject of a 100th anniversary rebuilding in Antwerp - http://www.flanderstoday.eu/art/antwerp-replicates-famous-pontoon-bridge-war-centenary-weekend  As the article states, it ran from "Antwerp’s Steenplein on the right bank of the Scheldt [very near the Town Hall] to the Boeienweide on the left,"

 

This bridge is clearly not the narrower "single-file" Bridge of Boats" which, by several accounts, was very close to the burning and exploding oil tanks further up-stream near Hoboken. This bridge seems to have crossed on a bend of the Scheldt from (on modern maps) the petrol tanks near Hobokense Polder to Burcht and Zwyndrecht.

 

As for 'permanent' road bridges in 1914 Antwerp, I have no further information on their positions.

[Herman Joustra]

Thank you Horatio2. I already looked at that link, but did not realize there might have been two pontoon bridges. One close to Hoboken and the burning petrol tanks which was taken by the 2nd Brigade.  That would also explain the mentioning of the 'northern bridge', being the one near Antwerps Steenplein, which would have been more logical for the 1st Brigade (Hawke etectera), entering the city through the Malines gate (Mechelen Poort).

 

So maybe two pontoon bridges might have been destroyed after crossing it, leaving the stragglers only bots and steamers to cross the Scheldt? We will never know, but it seems like a probable scenario to me. After all, there are a lot of quotes from persons belonging to the 2nd Brigade stating that 'after crossing the pontoon bridge it was destroyed' And quotes of the 1st Brigade, stating tey crossed the Scheldt by a pontoon bridge.

 

I also thoroughly enjoy this discussion.

[Herman Joustra]

https://issuu.com/visitantwerpen/docs/pontonboekje_nl_lr/5

 

Well this Is an interestng article, written in Dutch. Roughly said stating that Antwerp build four bridges in 1914. They were build by ‘pontonniers’. 
 

The main bridge was 390 metres long, 3 metres wide (of which 1.80 for motorised vehicles) resting on 25 boats, from De Steen to St. Anna.

 

Then there was a bridge from Hoboken to De Burght, not far from the petrol tanks.

More to the south a bridge from Hemiksem to Bazel, and even more to the South a 4th bridge at Rupelmonde. 

 

So combining Horatio2’s input, with this article and articles I found, it most likely it went like this:

 

Indeed two bridges must have been used. The bridge from Hoboken to De Burght, was used by the 2nd Brigade, Drake and Chatham passing the blazing oil tanks. Also likely by Plymouth acting as a reargard for the 2nd Brigade, crossing ‘in single file’. After which the bridge was destroyed.
 

The bridge from De Steen to St.Anna must likely have been used by at least Hawke from the 1st Brigade, Deal and Portsmouth, was then destroyed, after which Benbow and Collingwood had to use boats. Time of destruction? According to the Dutch article beteween 6.30 and 8.30 am, according to Hawke at 7 am.

 

Still not a certainty, but highly likely. At least that’s what I think.

 

 

Edited 13 August , 2020 by Herman Joustra

[Herman Joustra]

Defence of Antwerp, part 2.pdfDefence of Antwerp, pt 1.pdf

 

I found these very interesting pages on 'British Neswpaper Archives', from a magazine named The Sphere. As you can see, here was a smaller bridge near the oil tanks, called Pont de Burght. The drawing indicates that that were 4 bridges, though in this drawing the placement of these bridges is way off.

 

Very interesting stuff though.

[horatio2]

Well found, Herman.

Most interesting to learn that there were four pontoon bridges across the Scheldt. I began this debate thinking that there was only one (at Hoboken). I assume from this that, in 1914, there were no permanent bridges into Antwerp. Before the 'bridges of boats' all cross-river traffic must have been by ferry.

 

I am still trying to make sense of the order of crossing of the Steen pontoon bridge. I need to find an explanation as to why Portsmouth Bn,. which was the reaguard and should have been the last to cross, seems to have overtaken Benbow and Collingwood on the march fron the vicinity of Fort No,2 to the Steen bridge. The latter two battalions seem to have fallen well behind. It may be that they just got lost and went off in the wrong direction.

[Herman Joustra]

Yes, there were 4 bridges across the Scheldt, as stated in the Dutch article. The same article states that they were erected in 1914 by Belgian pontonniers. It took one week to complete the one from De Steen. There were ferries from de Suikerui, not far from De Steen. In 1914 there were no permanent bridges in Antwerp.

 

I don’t know about Portsmouth, Benbow and Collingwood. That’s another interesting puzzle.

Edited 14 August , 2020 by Herman Joustra

[Niko]

There were actually 3 boat bridges across the Schelde, One near Sint Anna, One near Burcht and one near Rupelmonde. There is some confusion of a fourth, being one at Hemiksem, but that could easily have been the same one as Burcht.

 

The Belgian Army used the rail bridge at Temse, the last bridge over the Schelde.

[Herman Joustra]

12 hours ago, Niko said:

There were actually 3 boat bridges across the Schelde, One near Sint Anna, One near Burcht and one near Rupelmonde. There is some confusion of a fourth, being one at Hemiksem, but that could easily have been the same one as Burcht.

 

The Belgian Army used the rail bridge at Temse, the last bridge over the Schelde.

Thank you Niko, so this information is not correct?:

 

https://issuu.com/visitantwerpen/docs/pontonboekje_nl_lr/5

[Niko]

11 hours ago, Herman Joustra said:

Thank you Niko, so this information is not correct?:

 

https://issuu.com/visitantwerpen/docs/pontonboekje_nl_lr/5

I'm not saying it is not correct, I just say there is some confusion over  a 4th one, and haven't seen any hard evidence of it either. So, my feeling is that there were 4 planned, but only 3 built.

 

[horatio2]

There appears to be no "confusion" in this account - http://m.sint-anneke.com/geschiedenis/a14-18/  Where is the "confusion" (or alternative bridging plans) detailed? I think we are looking for more than a "feeling".

Edited 21 August , 2020 by horatio2

[Herman Joustra]

1 hour ago, horatio2 said:

There appears to be no "confusion" in this account - http://m.sint-anneke.com/geschiedenis/a14-18/  Where is the "confusion" (or alternative bridging plans) detailed? I think we are looking for more than a "feeling".

Yes, I agree. Nice finding, the first article in your post. It’s a confirmation of the second article I’ve already read before, in which also 4 bridges are mentioned.

 

I think it is safe to assume that the bridge at Hemiksem wasn’t used by the British on retreat (2nd Brigade, Drake etc), because they passed the burning oil/petrol thanks ‘north’, ‘north west’ of the trenches, while Hemiksem is more to the ‘south west’.

It looks like first Brigade plus three battalions of the RMLI used the bridge at the Steen.

[Niko]

On 21/08/2020 at 13:18, horatio2 said:

There appears to be no "confusion" in this account - http://m.sint-anneke.com/geschiedenis/a14-18/  Where is the "confusion" (or alternative bridging plans) detailed? I think we are looking for more than a "feeling".

It's more than just a feeling, some talk about 4 bridges, others about 3 boat bridges and one raft bridge, and others talk about only three bridges. See note 161 at page 63 of the very good work about the inundations by Paul Van Pul, renowned writer and specialist: https://issuu.com/watlab/docs/belg_milit_onderwaterzet_rnd_vpa_au

Edited 23 August , 2020 by Niko

[Niko]

On 21/08/2020 at 14:51, Herman Joustra said:

Yes, I agree. Nice finding, the first article in your post. It’s a confirmation of the second article I’ve already read before, in which also 4 bridges are mentioned.

 

I think it is safe to assume that the bridge at Hemiksem wasn’t used by the British on retreat (2nd Brigade, Drake etc), because they passed the burning oil/petrol thanks ‘north’, ‘north west’ of the trenches, while Hemiksem is more to the ‘south west’.

It looks like first Brigade plus three battalions of the RMLI used the bridge at the Steen.

RND units used the 2 bridges in town, not the other as too far out and made for the communication between the 2nd ring of fortresses.

[egbert]

For sure there were two bridges mentioned in the Reichsarchiv, one at Burgth and another at Steen.

[Herman Joustra]

22 hours ago, Niko said:

RND units used the 2 bridges in town, not the other as too far out and made for the communication between the 2nd ring of fortresses.

Yes, that's what I was saying, the one to Burght and the one at Steen