Muslim castles, on the other hand, have tended not to survive because their handiwork was of significantly lower quality. The Muslims constructed castles made of brick or of rubble masonry, not of large blocks of squared stone carefully fitted together. Their castles were too big and were built too quickly and unimaginatively. This is not to say that Muslim architects and masons were unskilled in the art of fortification. On the contrary, they could on occasion emulate the Crusader achievement; but their finest work is found in city fortifications, such as Damascus, or Diyarbakr, whose mile upon mile of multi-towered black basalt walls are among the most impressive medieval fortifications in the whole world. Conversely no Crusader walled city has survived. If the Muslims had wanted to borrow from Crusader skills in building castles they would have needed to be erecting the same kind of structure. Elaborate castles with concentric defences, moats, inner and outer wards, a glacis and other defensive features were not necessary for a Muslim castle in which often a simple keep sufficed. Such Muslim castles – Shayzar, for example (figures 7.50 and 7.51)-were little more than strong points and places of temporary refuge; they acted mainly as the seat of the local princeling.
Figure 7.50 Castle, aerial view from the north, twelfth-thirteenth centuries, Shayzar, Syria
Frankish Castles and Strong Points
A vast amount of scholarship exists on Crusader castles.114 The focus here will be on how the medieval Muslims viewed them. The most visible reminder of the Franks’ presence in the Muslim Near East is the string of castles which they built or rebuilt in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Palestine and Syria. When they arrived in Syria they found that many fortifications already existed; these they took and strengthened, as for example in the area of Tripoli and Antioch. They also built a network of new castles and towers. With their perennial problem of manpower, their strategy of erecting castles and towers along key routes was an appropriate and effective tactic for them to attempt to defend themselves. Pringle has pointed out that the most common type of rural building erected by the Franks was the tower, of which more than eighty have been recorded.115
The function of the castle or tower was, of course, to provide shelter as well as to offer a good defensive and attacking position. A high place was useful because of the greater visibility it afforded over the surrounding countryside (with the possibility of communication by flares or heliograph with other such fortresses). An elevated position also increased the speed and range of missiles and their eventual impact and impeded access by medieval artillery and sapping on the part of an enemy. The Frankish practice of building fortresses in the sea – Sidon (Chateau de Mer), Maraqiyya, Ladhiqiyya and Ayas, to cite but a few examples – was an added problem for the Muslims with their traditional distrust of maritime warfare. The Franks also fortified the island of Arwad, north-west of Tripoli.
Figure 7.51 Castle, twelfth-thirteenth centuries, Shayzar, Syria
The Frankish castles were not just defensive structures, of course. They were centres of power and symbols of the occupation of an area; they were also residential centres where it was customary to store arms, water and provisions. When, for example, Saladin took the citadel of Sahyun in 584/1188, he found cows, beasts of burden, provisions and other items.116 In the case of Shaqif (Beaufort), al-Maqrizi records, no doubt with gross exaggeration, that Saladin took away 20,000 sheep.117
Muslim Views of Frankish Castles and Fortifications
Medieval Muslim chroniclers are well informed about Frankish castles and often mention them. Ibn al-Furat, for example, gives a detailed list of Frankish fortresses and castle towns before undertaking individual accounts of how they were captured by the Muslims.118
The Franks were competent in building fortifications both inland and on the coast. Ibn Jubayr dwells for example, on the formidable defences of Tyre:
It has only two gates, one landwards, and the other on the sea, which encompasses the city save on one side. The landward gate is reached only after passing through three or four posterns in the strongly-fortified outer walls that enclose it. The seaward gate is flanked by two strong towers and leads into a harbour whose remarkable situation is unique among maritime cities. The walls of the city enclose it on three sides, and the fourth is confined by a mole bound with cement. Ships enter below the walls and there anchor. Between the two towers stretches a great chain which, when raised, prevents any coming in or going forth, and no ships may pass save when it is lowered.119
Small wonder that on several occasions it proved so hard to take.
Muslim writers were also aware of the strategic position of the Frankish castles and why they were placed in particular locations. For example, the castle of Karak, a few miles from the Dead Sea, was built by the Crusader Pagan the Butler in 1142. Ibn Shaddad comments on the harm caused to the Muslims by this castle which blocked the route to Egypt, so that caravans could only set out escorted by large quantities of troops.120 Since the terrain in this part of Jordan is so forbidding, the principal arterial route has a disproportionate significance, and Karak was ideally placed for the Crusaders to prey on the Muslim traffic along it and to threaten the traditional way to Mecca for the pilgrimage, as already mentioned.
The importance of the network of Frankish castles for the survival of the Franks was fully recognised in the Muslim military strategy against them, especially in the thirteenth century under the determined leadership of Baybars and his successors, whose major military efforts were directed at them. In the twelfth century, however, the Muslims had not yet achieved a decisive superiority over the Crusaders in the open field, and were therefore not yet in a position to embark on a campaign of reducing their fortresses.
Individual Crusader Castles – How the Muslims Saw Them
Sahyun
This castle is now called Qal‘at Salah al-Din (Saladin’s Castle) and was known to the Crusaders as Saone. Situated in the mountains north-east of Latakia, and set on a ridge between two spectacular ravines, it was described by T. E. Lawrence in a letter to his mother in 1909 as the ‘most sensational thing in castle-building I have seen’.121
The Muslims at the time of the Crusades shared this admiration for the structure and position of Sahyun. ‘Imad al-Din al-Isfahani stresses with his usual literary flourishes how difficult it was to reach the castle when Saladin attacked it in 584/1188–9: ‘The way to Sahyun was through valleys and mountain paths, difficult openings, soft flat ground and rough terrain, highlands and low-lying areas.’122 Describing the castle itself he writes:
It is a castle on the summit of a mountain between two deep valleys which converge on it and encircle it. The mountain side [of the citadel] is cut off from it by a great deep ditch and a firm wall to which there is no access except by fate and divine decree. The castle is possessed of five walls as if they were five flattened hills, filled with hungry wolves and angry lions.123
Ibn Shaddad also writes about Sahyun in some detail on the occasion of Saladin’s seizure of it in 584/1188–9. He stresses the castle’s inaccessibility, impregnability and careful construction. His undoubted admiration for its handiwork is, of course, a prelude to the main theme, Saladin’s glorious victory in taking it by siege.124
One may, however, feel a nagging doubt as to whether ‘Imad al-Din or Ibn Shaddad had actually seen this castle, for neither of them mention its most spectacular and awe-inspiring feature. To strengthen its defences the Franks had excavated a deep ravine on its most vulnerable east side, thus isolating it from the headland to which its site originally belonged. This task involved the removal of some 170,000 tons of solid rock to create a gorge 50–90 feet wide, 450 feet long and between 60 and 130 feet high. To help carry the drawbridge giving entry to the castle, they left a towering needle of rock in the middle of this man-made gorge. It is tempting to speculate that part of the work was done by conscripted Muslims. Similar rock-cut ditches are found at Karak, Shayzar, the Isma‘ili castle of al-Mayniqa and the castle of Lampron in Armenian Cilicia.
&nb
sp; It is worth noting that after its fall to Saladin in 1188 the Muslims built within the castle a mosque (with a tall square minaret, probably the work of Qalawun in the 1280s), a small palace, a bath and a cistern, which probably date to the late twelfth or thirteenth century.
Bayt al-ahzan (Known to the Crusaders as Le Chastelet)
This was a castle built by the Templars by 1178 at the latest, close to the west bank of the Jordan. The Muslim chronicler Ibn Abi Tayyi’ mentions the enormous costs involved in building it and records that Saladin tried in vain to bribe the Crusaders into demolishing it.125 The castle was well equipped with provisions and, like Karak, was positioned in a good place to hold up Muslim caravans.126 No wonder the Muslims dubbed it ‘The Abode of Miseries’.
In Rabi’ I 575/August-September 1179 – only a year or so after the castle had been built – Saladin managed to capture the castle and to demolish it. A letter from the Qadi al-Fadil to Baghdad gives a detailed description of this imposing edifice:
The width of the wall exceeded ten cubits: it was cut out of enormous dressed stone slabs, each block of which was seven cubits, more or less. Their number exceeded 20,000 stones. Every stone was secured in its position and fixed in its place for four dinars or more than that.127
Lime sealed the stone making it stronger and firmer, ‘harder than iron’.128 Such a description shows an eye for detail combined with undisguised admiration for the building techniques of the Franks – and thus for the Muslim commander who succeeded in capturing such a castle.
Muslim Fortifications
The Muslim approach to defence was somewhat different. Of course, strongholds – many of which were inherited from the network of frontier fortresses of the Byzantine-Sasanian confrontation – had always existed on the borders of Islam, both for purposes of defence and also to house warriors engaged in extending Muslim territory. But within the House of Islam itself, the Muslims preferred to shelter behind walled cities and to build strong citadels within such cities. Possession of the citadel in any town denoted sovereignty over it. Aleppo, Damascus, Cairo and Jerusalem (plate 7.6) – the prime targets of concern to the Franks – were walled and possessed citadels within those walls. The population sheltered there and defended themselves from within. The Syrian geographer Ibn Shaddad gives a detailed description of one of the most redoubtable citadels of the Islamic world, Hisn Kayfa, in the far-away Jazira, an area which often supplied troops for the Muslim armies in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This citadel was clearly not just a fortification but also the epicentre of the life of the town and its environs. Other such contemporary citadels included that of Mardin on its precipitous rock, Kharput and Mayyafariqin; Ibn Shaddad lists many more.129
It is significant that the major construction work on the citadels of Cairo (plates 7.7 and 7.8), Damascus and Aleppo occurred in the Crusading period. All of these cities were, of course, prime targets for the Crusaders. In these turbulent times, Near Eastern cities were often de facto self-governing, whoever their nominal overlords may have been; these cities were controlled, probably from the citadel, by local families of notables who had often held power over many generations. The military elite in command of the citadel would have to work in close collaboration with such families in order to facilitate the collection of taxes, to muster local troops and in general to ensure the smooth running of the city. In the provinces, the possession of a citadel, however small, was crucial for the petty rulers and princelings of the time. It was their residence, the place where they hid their treasures, their defensive stronghold, and the symbol of their sovereignty.
Figure 7.52 Citadel, mainly twelfth century, Bosra, Syria. Note that the citadel hugs the perimeter of the Roman theatre
Figure 7.53 Citadel, twelfth century, Qal‘at al-Mudiq (Apamea/Afamiyya), Syria
Nur al-Din undertook several refurbishments of city walls and citadels, especially after the earthquakes of 1157 and 1170. He reconstructed the fortifications of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Hama, Manbij and Baalbek, thereby enabling them to withstand new developments in siege warfare.130 His builders introduced various innovations, including round towers on the corners of walls, and the barbican (bashura) gate. He also renovated the citadels in several Syrian cities – Damascus, Aleppo, Hims and Hama – and fortified two further citadels, Qal‘at Najm and Qal‘at Ja‘bar, on the Euphrates (plates 7.20, 7.21, 7.22), and other strategically placed strongholds.131 An obvious question arises at this point: what motivated this sudden burst of activity in the construction of fortifications? A brief glance at the history of Muslim fortification in the Levant before and after the Crusades reveals no precedent for this trend. It seems likely, therefore, that the Muslims found themselves caught up in a kind of arms race, and the flurry of military building activity in the twelfth century was a powerful reaction triggered by the rapid and disturbing proliferation of Crusader castles. These changed the landscape of the Levant permanently and remained as a visible reminder of the Crusaders even when they had long departed. The irony is that after the First Crusade, when Crusader manpower and morale alike were at their peak, the Franks rarely undertook sieges of large inland cities (a notable exception being the siege of Damascus in the Second Crusade); they simply lacked the numbers to do so. The major sieges of the twelfth century typically involved naval operations, in which the shortage of manpower counted for less. Meanwhile, the Muslims undertook expensive restoration and extension of inland cities and strongholds. After the Third Crusade Muslim fortifications continued to be built apace, but as much as ever – or even more – in order to guard against attacks from rival Muslim armies, and against the real or perceived threat of the Isma‘ilis, as against the Crusaders. Nevertheless it was the Crusaders who gave the initial impetus.
Figure 7.54 Kizil Kule (‘Red Tower’), plans at various levels, 623/1226, Alanya, Turkey
Figure 7.55 Fortifications expanded by ‘Ala’ al-Din Kayqubad, 623–9/1226–31, Alanya, Turkey
After his conquest of Jerusalem, Saladin set about fortifying it. He took a personal interest in the city. Complete sections of the walls were rebuilt and strengthened with towers. Saladin himself helped in the rebuilding.132 Al-‘Umari records that in 587/1191, Saladin went to Jerusalem: ‘He began rebuilding and fortifying Jerusalem and he ordered the troops to carry stones. The sultan himself was carrying stones on his horse in order to give an example thereby to the troops.’133 In 588/1192, Saladin went back to Jerusalem: ‘He examined its conditions and ordered that its walls should be strengthened.’134 He feared a further Frankish attack on Jerusalem and used Frankish prisoners to dig a deep ditch and to work on the walls and towers.135
Plate 7.6 City walls, exterior, various periods from antiquity onwards, but largely early sixteenth century, Jerusalem
(Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 4953)
Individual Muslim Citadels
The Citadel of Cairo
The citadel of Cairo was constructed on Saladin’s orders after he had formally terminated the Fatimid caliphate (plate 7.9).136 In the typical fashion of the founder of a new dynasty and the reinstater of Sunni Islam in Egypt, Saladin did not wish to live in the palaces which had been erected by the ‘heretical’ Fatimids; he chose instead to dismantle their buildings and to construct a new citadel both as a fortification for the city and as the sultan’s residence,137 with accommodation for the military elite and its troops.
Plate 7.7 Citadel eleventh century onwards, Cairo, Egypt
(Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 4202)
Saladin began work on the citadel in 1176; his aim was to construct defensive works which would encircle al-Qahira, the Fatimid capital, and al-Fustat, the economic centre, within a single wall. Ibn Jubayr describes the construction work taking place on the citadel in Cairo – sawing marble, cutting huge stones and digging the fosse – and mentions that Saladin was thinking of taking up residence in it.138 The chronicler al-Nuwayri gives a detailed descript
ion of the building of the citadel and includes measurements.139
An inscription over the Bab al-Mudarraj, dated 579/1183–4, reveals much about the intentions of its founder, who ‘has ordered the construction of this magnificent Citadel, near the God-protected city of Cairo, on a strong mound, which (the citadel) combines utility and embellishment, and comfort and shield’.140
Plate 7.8 Citadel, bastions, undated, Cairo, Egypt
(Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 4257)
The citadel was built on a promontory 75 metres high which extends westwards from the cliffs of the Muqattam hills towards the Nile, almost midway between al-Qahira and al-Fustat. Saladin selected the site himself, primarily for its strategic position.141 Security was a prime consideration in Saladin’s mind, as well as the desire to build a structure worthy of his prestige. The citadel also housed an impressive library, inherited in part from the Fatimids and enlarged by Saladin’s own patronage of writers.
The work which Saladin began on the fortifications was completed by his brother, al-Malik al-‘Adil (1218–38). Saladin had built two towers, but al-‘Adil enclosed them with much larger round towers. Such activity clearly indicates the need to maintain and improve the city’s defences at regular intervals.142 Two Mamluk sultans, Baybars and al-Nasir Muhammad (d. 1341), added palaces and other structures. This citadel, the so-called Citadel of the Mountain (Qal‘at al-jabal) is the only urban citadel in Egypt. In time it became both the focus and the symbol of Ayyubid and Mamluk power.
Plate 7.9 Citadel, northern enclosure, largely by Saladin 572/1176, Cairo, Egypt
The Crusades- Islamic Perspectives Page 53
