The Crusades- Islamic Perspectives

by Carole Hillenbrand

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 4249)

  The Citadel of Damascus

  The citadel of Damascus is one of the best preserved of the great Syrian fortresses of the Crusading period.143 It is unusual in its location on flat ground, on the same level as the rest of the city, instead of being placed like nearly all the medieval military fortifications of Syria on top of a hill. Information on the citadel in the twelfth century is incomplete, but it must have played an important role in the life of the city and its rulers. Tughtegin and his descendants lived in the citadel and probably Nur al-Din did too. There is an inscription dating from the time of Saladin which commemorates the restoration of a tower of the citadel in 574/1178–9. Saladin was very attached to the citadel; indeed, in spite of his burning desire to conquer Jerusalem, he was in the event buried in the garden of the citadel of Damascus.144

  It was in the Ayyubid period that the citadel was developed more fully as a defensive precinct of superlative quality. It was extensively reconstructed under the Ayyubid ruler al-Malik al-‘Adil, Saladin’s brother, who had good reason to fear attacks from his own relations more than from the Franks. The structure possessed a total of ten towers which probably accommodated troops to protect the safety of the ruler, and as Sauvaget describes it, the Ayyubid citadel is a ‘perfectly homogeneous ensemble’.145 The citadel’s history can be traced by the inscriptions that it bears; from them it is clear that in the Mamluk period the citadel continued to play an important role in the defence of the city. Baybars, fearing a return of the Mongols, strengthened the citadel against possible siege and his name appears on an inscription on the northern tower. Qalawun also undertook restoration work on the citadel, and eight inscriptions bear his name.146

  Plate 7.10 Citadel with Ayyubid inscription, early thirteenth century, Damascus, Syria

  Plate 7.11 Citadel, mainly thirteenth century, Damascus, Syria

  Plate 7.12 Citadel, inscription, thirteenth century, Damascus, Syria

  The Citadel of Aleppo

  The citadel of Aleppo (often known in Arabic as al-Shahba’ – ‘the grey-coloured’)147 is a magnificent example of Muslim military architecture at the time of the Crusades (plates 7.14, 7.15, 7.16, 7.17) and was the subject of extensive study by the great French scholar Sauvaget.148 It was also described very elegantly by Rogers.149 It stands, enclosed by its surrounding walls, atop a dramatically steep glacis, brooding over the city from a height of fifty metres.150 The Aleppo citadel played an important role in the military and political life of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The wall of the citadel was rebuilt by none other than Nur al-Din himself, who erected his ‘golden palace’ there.151 As Sauvaget remarks, the citadel, which also contained the arsenal and the treasury, thereafter possessed what was necessary to govern and to stage public ceremonies.152 As Ibn Jubayr passed through Syria, he described the awe-inspiring spectacle of its citadel:

  Figure 7.56 Citadel, plan, mainly twelfth century, Damascus, Syria

  Its fortress is renowned for its impregnability and, from far distance seen for its great height, is without like or match among castles … It is a massy pile, like a round table rising from the ground, with sides of hewn stone and erected with true and symmetrical proportions. Glory to Him who planned its design and arrangement, and conceived its shape and outline.153

  After Nur al-Din the citadel of Aleppo was closely associated with the family of Saladin, whose brother al-Malik al-‘Adil lived there for a while. Major construction work was undertaken by Saladin’s descendant, the Ayyubid ruler al-Zahir Ghazi who, although Nur al-Din had renewed the citadel only forty years earlier, felt the need to adapt it further to the needs of his court, as well as to improve its defences. As defensive measures, al-Zahir Ghazi built the massive bridge, moat, talus and glacis.154 Instead of the two old fortress gates, he constructed a new single entrance, ‘perhaps the most inspiring of all Muslim fortifications’,155 protected by two powerful protecting towers (figure 7.60). Any would-be attacker was confronted with a ramp with no less than five right-angled bends, each provided with arrow slits. Elaborate steps were taken to collect water for the use of those in the citadel; a deep well was constructed in 1209 and there were also numerous cisterns, thus helping the citadel in time of siege. The upper storey of the citadel was also supplied with arrow slits, arranged differently from those at the level of the bridge to ensure maximum scope for the shooting of arrows. At the foot of the mound a ditch was dug which was straddled by a bridge, barred by an iron gate. The glacis, its surface paved with ashlar masonry, stretched from the ditch to the bottom of the rampart, and virtually excluded any attempt at mining the citadel or climbing up to it. The citadel contained two secret passages, ‘the secret door’ and ‘the mountain door’, which allowed communication with those outside the city.

  Figure 7.57 Citadel tower, 606/1209, Damascus, Syria

  Figure 7.58 Citadel tower, 606/1209, Damascus, Syria

  Plate 7.13 Citadel, tower, thirteenth century, Damascus, Syria

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 933)

  Plate 7.14 Citadel, mainly late twelfth to early thirteenth century, Aleppo, Syria

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 5682)

  Figure 7.59 Citadel, mainly thirteenth century, Aleppo, Syria

  Plate 7.15 Citadel, outer gateway, erected 606/1210, rebuilt 913/1507, Aleppo, Syria

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 5690)

  Plate 7.16 Citadel, bridge over the moat, 606/1209–10, Aleppo, Syria

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 5692)

  Other measures taken by al-Zahir Ghazi were aimed at transforming the citadel into a royal residence. He built more palaces, a bath, and a garden with trees and flowers in it. He undertook work on the House of Justice and joined it to the citadel by a passage reserved for the ruler alone. He built a Great Mosque which also served as an observation post. It was to this mosque, and not to the city’s Friday mosque, that the sultan went to perform the prayer, no doubt in part for security reasons. The memory of this prince is perpetuated by three iron-plated doors studded with nails which are disposed in the form of a rectangular grid, containing motifs and inscriptions bearing his name. In 1212 when he married Dayfa Khatun, the arsenal and the palace caught fire, and one of his successors, al-Malik al-‘Aziz, rebuilt them, the arsenal in 1228 and the palace three years later (figures 7.62 and 7.63). The account provided by Sauvaget of the extensions and innovations made to the Aleppo citadel is drawn from the detailed descriptions of two contemporary writers, Ibn Shihna and Ibn Shaddad, who were justifiably impressed by the achievements of this Ayyubid ruler. The citadel in Ayyubid times must have been an awe-inspiring sight as it towered like a colossus above the city, with its impressive foundation inscription carved in enormous black basalt letters halfway up the white limestone glacis.156 Under the Mamluks the citadel was the residence of the governor and his state officials.

  Plate 7.17 Citadel inner gateway, 606/1209–10, Aleppo, Syria

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 5693)

  As Sauvaget so eloquently expressed it: ‘This ensemble certainly constitutes the most prodigious fortification work left to us by the military architecture of the Middle Ages.’157 Yet even this masterpiece of Muslim military engineering was not proof against really determined sapping. The chronicler Qirtay al-‘Izzi al-Khaznadari (d. 734/1333) relates an absorbing eyewitness account of the siege of Aleppo by the Mongol ruler Hülegü. Several mines were dug; Hülegü gave orders that one of them, already wide enough to hold 6,000 men, should be enlarged to hold 10000;158 and the citadel duly fell, after only a few days of siege, on 27 January 1260.159

  Figure 7.60 Citadel, plan, mainly thirteenth century, Aleppo, Syria

  Figure 7.61 Citadel, outer and inner gateway, mainly thirteenth century, Aleppo, Syria

&nb
sp; The Citadel of Hims

  The citadel of Hims in the thirteenth century must have looked very similar to the citadel of Aleppo, especially with the slope below the citadel proper accentuated by a paving of stone slabs. Built – like the somewhat less well-preserved citadel of Hama – atop an ancient tell in the middle of the town, the citadel possessed a huge glacis built by Baybars. Its walls formed, like those of Cairo, Damascus, Aleppo and Hama, a single continuous enceinte. Unfortunately this important monument was blown up by Ibrahim Pasha in the 1830s, but much of its encircling walls with their inscriptions datable before 1239 remains (plates 7.18, 7.19).160

  Figure 7.62 Citadel, palace of al-Malik al-‘Aziz, plan, 628/1230–1, Aleppo, Syria

  Muslim Castles

  ‘Ajlun

  This Muslim castle was built in 580/1184–5 by ‘Izz al-Din Usama, one of Saladin’s commanders, on a hilltop opposite the Crusader castle of Belvoir, overlooking the Jordan Valley (figure 7.64).161 It was quadrilateral with four square corner towers. Johns, who published this site, concludes that those few Frankish features which the castle has were the result of local tradition and common experience.162 In an attempt to improve the site’s defences, which were compromised by the rather too gentle slope on which the castle stood, the Muslims – perhaps following the Frankish example of Sahyun – deepened the rock ditch around it, leaving a stumpy pillar for the drawbridge. Otherwise the castle is notable for its small size and the plethora of towers crammed into it.

  Some thirty years later Aybak, a close associate of the Ayyubid sultan al-‘Adil, enlarged ‘Ajlun’s outer defences. According to al-‘Umari, ‘Ajlun was a link in a chain of beacons and pigeon stations by which alarm signals could be conveyed to the sultan in Cairo.163 It served as an arsenal and housed supplies for the relief of Damietta.164

  Figure 7.63 Citadel, palace of al-Malik al-‘Aziz, portal elevation (note the apotropaic knots flanking the doorway), 628/1230–1, Aleppo, Syria

  Plate 7.18 Citadel, various periods from antiquity onwards, Hims, Syria

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 5910)

  Qal‘at Najm

  Qal‘at Najm on the right bank of the Euphrates near Manbij is ‘a remarkable Arab castle of the thirteenth century’.165 Enough remains, together with reconstructed elements, to give a clearer idea of Muslim fortification techniques than anywhere apart from the citadels of Damascus, Cairo and Aleppo (plate 7.20). Nur al-Din had reconstructed an existing fortress which was in turn rebuilt by al-Malik al-Zahir Ghazi from 1208 to 1215. The castle is on the river and has a cladding of dressed stone which acts as an effective glacis, plus two towers which defend the entrance gateway.166

  Ibn Jubayr describes Qal‘at Najm on the Euphrates as a newly built fortress.167

  Qal‘at Ja‘bar

  This castle, whose lower parts are built of rubble while its upper parts are of baked brick, follows the standard pattern of medieval Syrian Arab fortresses in that it occupies a high mound (in this case a bluff overlooking the Euphrates) surrounded by a defensive wall and ditch and punctuated by towers, with an entrance gateway and ramp. Originally built by the Banu Numayr, a local Arab tribe, it was extensively remodelled – after a spell of Crusader occupation – by Nur al-Din from 1168 onwards (plates 7.21, 7.22), and contains a mosque with minaret and palace.168

  Plate 7.19 Citadel, tower, thirteenth century, Hims, Syria

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 5902)

  Qal‘atSubayba

  This castle, dated to 1228–30, stands on the southern slopes of Mount Hermon (north-east of Banyas). It is the largest and best-preserved medieval fortress in Palestine.169 It was built by one of the sons of al-‘Adil, al-‘Aziz ‘Uthman (d. 630/1232).170 The castle was built in great haste on the eve of Frederick II’s Crusade.171 Placed on the main trade route between the Huleh Valley and Damascus, it was intended as an obstacle to anyone approaching the city from Frankish territory.172

  It was built economically and quickly – it has simple vaults, almost no ornamentation, and not all the stones were perfectly dressed.173 After Frederick II had left the Holy Land, al-‘Aziz ‘Uthman invested much effort in completing his castle. When Baybars took it he decided to fortify it (rather than destroy it). He built six new towers and made other sophisticated improvements.174 Several inscriptions document these works.175

  Figure 7.64 Castle, 580/1184–5, ‘Ajlun, Jordan

  Figure 7.65 Castle, proposed original state, 580/1184–5, ‘Ajlun, Jordan

  Plate 7.20 Qal‘at al-Najm, exterior, mainly twelfth-thirteenth centuries, Syria

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 6096

  Muslim Additions to Crusader Castles

  The fortunes of war sometimes allowed the Muslims to capture Frankish castles and to make significant additions to them. Mention has already been made of the mosque, minaret, palace and bath erected at Sahyun by the Muslims between 1188 and 1290. The Frankish castle at Bira was largely rebuilt by al-Zahir Ghazi;176 the south-west tower at Beaufort exhibits the distinctive type of boss associated with al-Malik al-‘Adil;177 at Karak al-‘Adil added the great south keep;178 even Krak des Chevaliers reveals much Arab workmanship on its south enceinte,179 while the square tower at its centre bears both the panther of Baybars and an inscription of Qalawun dated 1285.180 The Isma‘ilis too took over existing castles, whether they were of Byzantine, Fatimid or local Arab foundation.

  Conversely, the Crusaders themselves sometimes built on and extended earlier Muslim fortifications, as at Marqab.181 And the Muslims themselves on occasion adapted pre-Islamic structures for their own fortifications. Thus al-Malik al-‘Adil made the Roman theatre of Busra the nucleus for the city’s citadel, adding concentric walls to it between 1202 and 1218.182

  Plate 7.21 Qal‘at Ja‘bar, exterior, mainly from 564/1168–9 on wards (rebuilding of Nur al-Din) and 736/1335–6 (rebuilding of the Mamluk governor of Damascus, Tengiz), Syria

  Plate 7.22 Qal‘at Ja‘bar, exterior, general view, mainly from 564/1168–9 onwards (rebuilding of Nur al-Din) and 736/1335–6 (rebuilding of the Mamluk governor of Damascus, Tengiz), Syria

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 6658)

  The Castles of the Assassins

  A notable exception to the Muslims’ general preference for seeking to protect and defend themselves in walled towns rather than isolated fortresses and castles was the castles of the Assassins, whose sites were especially chosen for their remote location and impregnable position. This much-feared Isma‘ili group had acquired a reputation for building inaccessible and impregnable strongholds in Iran in the early 1100s.183 They also acquired and built a string of fortresses in Syria in the Crusading period,184 where they adopted the same approach of choosing inaccessible mountainous areas. These Syrian castles are listed by various Muslim chroniclers, including Ibn Muyassar.185 He relates that by the death of the first leader of the Assassins, Hasan-i Sabbah, in 518/1124, this group – who, he says, are called the Hashishiyya (the ‘eaters of hashish’) in Syria – had taken, usually by ruse or bribery, a number of mountain citadels in Syria, eight of which they retained until Baybars took them in 1270–3.186 They were careful to select areas in which they could call on a local civilian population susceptible to the Isma‘ili form of Islam.

  Perhaps the most famous Syrian Assassin castle is Masyaf, with its double concentric fortified walls (figures 7.66 and 7.67). It was positioned carefully to the west of Hama in the Jabal Ansariyya where the road turns north towards the Orontes Valley.

  Al-Dimishqi describes Masyaf as the ‘mother of the frontier fortresses built by the Assassins to propagate their missionary message (da‘wa) and to house missionaries “to kill kings and notables”‘.187 Boase dismisses it (and other Assassin strongholds in Syria) as being ‘roughly built, generally on earlier foundation’ and having ‘little architectural interest’.188 What is most striking about the Assassin
castles is their dramatic locations.189 Like the Crusaders, the Isma‘ilis were an embattled minority in the Levant, and like the Crusaders they sought to offset their disadvantage in sheer numbers by building castles at strategic points, castles that were often interdependent and intervisible. Unlike the castles of the Crusaders, the Isma‘ili castles housed a whole community of ‘heretical’ believers within the shelter of their walls. Yet this was no substitute for a trained and disciplined army ready for instant action. A further significant distinction is that while many Crusader castles had a marked offensive role – for example Karak – the Isma‘ili castles were conceived essentially in a defensive spirit.190

  Figure 7.66 Castle, Masyaf, mainly twelfth century, Syria

  Figure 7.67 Castle, Masyaf, proposed original state, mainly twelfth century, Syria

  Similarities between Muslim and Crusader Military Architecture

  Perhaps not surprisingly, given their proximity to each other and the fact that they sometimes shared workmen, there are a number of similarities which can on occasion make it hard on stylistic grounds to tell Crusader from Muslim work – bigger towers, box machicolations of almost identical design at Krak des Chevaliers, Aleppo and Damascus, and other architectural features such as pointed arches and vaults. It is also very difficult to establish who influenced whom.191 But the likelihood is that the Franks were the dominant element here, not only because they arrived in the Levant possessed of a markedly superior technology in military architecture, but also because their perilous situation in hostile territory made them much more inventive. There is moreover the possibility that the Franks may have adopted techniques from what they saw of Byzantine and Islamic defensive structures;192 but the extent to which this occurred is a matter of ongoing scholarly debate.