The Crusades- Islamic Perspectives

by Carole Hillenbrand

  Strategies for Capturing Citadels

  There were various strategies by which to gain possession of a castle, tower or walled city. Sometimes it was possible to batter the fortifications in such a devastating fashion that the besiegers could enter. Alternatively, negotiations would take place, after a protracted siege, and the fortified place would surrender on agreed terms. Some of the most impregnable fortresses in the Levant changed hands through ruse, duplicity and bribes. This approach was, of course, preferable, since it prevented the subsequent expense of rebuilding the fortress after it had been captured – if, indeed, that was to be done.

  There were, however, other factors which played a part in the successful prosecution of a siege; above all, much depended on the morale of the troops in the garrison inside. As Smail so aptly puts it, ‘men, not walls, made the city’.80 For example, in the period immediately following Saladin’s great victory at Hattin, his prestige was so high that the fortresses he went on to besiege surrendered within three days and Acre after only one. Two years later, however, the garrison at Acre resisted capture by siege for almost two years against the Franks, in part at least because they knew that Saladin’s army was in the field helping them.

  Procedures in Conducting Sieges

  Certain general procedures were usually followed in a siege and have been well described by Cahen and Ayalon.81 Part of the moat was filled in, so that the attackers could move across it. At night there would be attempts to scale the walls using ladders and ropes and open one of the gates (cf. plate 4.24) to the besiegers.

  Another important aspect of most sieges was the breaching of the ramparts and walls. If successful, this procedure effected openings in the walls or, better still, made them collapse. Breaching was performed by making tunnels or by using siege machines. The sappers would dig a tunnel and support it with wooden props; they would then extend it gradually until they ended up underneath the walls or ramparts. At that point they would set fire to wood in the tunnel and this would cause the ground and the edifice above it to subside. When digging a tunnel (naqb), it was essential to remain out of sight of the besieged, since if they became aware of the tunnel they would attempt to destroy it by making their own tunnel to intercept it. Such a counter-tunnel aimed at digging into the enemy’s tunnel, killing the sappers – or smoking them out – and then destroying the tunnel.

  Figure 8.13 Siege of fortress by mailed cavalrymen, silver dish, perhaps tenth century, Central Asia

  The art of sapping in the Muslim world reached its peak in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, no doubt as a result of the necessity of applying and refining it against a new foe, the Franks, whose renowned expertise in building castles and towers now required on the Muslim side a technique capable of undermining them. It was certainly preferable to use sapping wherever possible since the sappers would work underground out of the firing range of the missiles.

  The length of time taken by Muslim attackers to capture Frankish castles became shorter in the Mamluk period as the Muslims became more and more competent in the use of artillery. As Kennedy says, ‘castles fell within a few weeks or not at all’.82 A spate of Crusader citadels which were besieged by the Mamluks in the second half of the thirteenth century – including Arsuf (1266), Krak des Chevaliers (1271), Margat (1285) and Acre (1291) – each took only six weeks to capitulate.83

  Whilst, as already mentioned, the mangonel remained a very significant siege weapon, the other pieces of equipment – the tower, penthouse and Greek fire – were less significant in the Mamluk period than they had been in the earlier confrontations with the Franks. But as mentioned already, the technique of sapping fortifications was regularly used.

  Sapping

  Sapping was a technique used more by the Muslims than the Franks.84 Instances of its effectiveness are recorded from the earliest period of the Crusader presence. It was dangerous and time-consuming, however, and required great skill.85

  In 509/1115–16 Bursuq was commissioned by sultan Muhammad to lead an expedition against the Franks. Usama and his father joined him. They encamped before Kafartab, which was in the possession of the Franks. The Muslims built an underground tunnel which Usama inspected. He describes it in some detail:

  I was struck with the great wisdom with which the tunnel was executed. The tunnel was dug from the trench to the barbican (bashura). On the sides of the tunnel were set up two pillars, across which stretched a plank to prevent the earth above it from falling down. The whole tunnel had such a framework of wood that extended as far as the foundation of the barbican. Then the assailants dug under the walls of the barbican, supported it in its place, and went as far as the foundation of the tower. …

  Having stuffed the tunnel with dry wood, the sappers set fire to it. The layers of mortar between the stones of the wall began to fall out, a crack appeared and the tower collapsed.86

  Usama points out in this account that the miners came from distant Khurasan (in north-eastern Iran). Possibly, as Kennedy has suggested,87 this might indicate that the technology described here was novel and had been introduced in the wake of the Seljuq conquests.

  The use of sapping increased greatly in the Mamluk period as the Muslims intensified their efforts to get rid of the last Crusader strongholds.88 As Ayalon rightly points out, one factor in the Mamluks’ success in their sapping operations was that in their besieging of the Frankish coastal fortresses they could act with fewer inhibitions than usual, since they were aiming at razing them to the ground and abandoning the area. These sapping techniques were often enough to force the capitulation of a fortress, but on occasion they were supplemented by frontal attacks on city walls,89 as for example at Caesarea in 1265.

  The Defenders in a Siege

  The defenders of a citadel or walled city could adopt various strategies against their attackers.90 The Franks would sally out against the Muslims, would hurl missiles at them or dig counter-mines. The Franks were particularly successful at Arsuf in 663/1265, where they dug tunnels below the Muslim trenches. Ibn al-Furat writes:

  The Franks cunningly drove a tunnel from within the citadel until they got to a point beneath the blockage. They then cut through the earth until they reached the wood. They had made barrels full of grease and fat and they lit fires, having constructed bellows in the tunnels. The Muslim army knew nothing of this stratagem until the flames had taken hold. This happened at night and the Sultan himself came in the dark; people threw themselves at the fire to extinguish it, and water was poured from water skins, but it was of no use. All the wood in the moat blazed up and scattered into ash and the Franks’ stratagem was complete.91

  Figure 8.14 (above, opposite and overleaf) Blazons on Mamluk coins, thirteenth–fifteen th cen turies, Egypt and Syria

  The Muslim defenders of a citadel or town showered arrows on the men operating the siege machines, who were protected by huge shields. The defenders also attempted to set fire to the machines by throwing naft at them; it was not too difficult to hit such a huge target but as a precautionary measure the siege machines and towers were often covered with hides doused with vinegar to make them fire-proof.

  Other Aspects of Siegecraft

  It was usual in the conduct of a siege to make a very loud noise to frighten the enemy. During the final attack on a town, the Mamluks would beat many drums (kusat) carried on the backs of ‘three hundred’ camels; this produced a noise like a terrible thunder which turned the world ‘upside down’.92 The depictions of sieges in illustrated manuscripts of the Jami’ al-Tawarikh (‘Compendium of Histories’) of Rashid al-Din dating to the early fourteenth century include scenes of such huge drums being beaten (figure 8.7).93 Ropes are fastened to them, each grasped by a man in such a way as to hold the drum aloft and to ensure maximum tension, while the drummer himself strikes the drum with a stick. The drum was not the only instrument of psychological warfare. Baybars forged letters to weaken enemy morale.

  The Aftermath of Sieges

  After the completion of
a siege and the conquest of a citadel or walled city, there remained for the victorious conqueror the important decision of whether to destroy it or refortify it.

  After conquering the citadel of al-Atharib in 524/1130, Zengi, with his legendary ferocity, destroyed it and razed it to the ground. The chronicler Ibn al-Furat remarks that it has remained in ruins until his own time.94

  Baybars could show similar severity. Jaffa fell to him on 20 Jumada II 666/7 March 1268. The fortifications of this citadel had been improved by Louis IX but Baybars destroyed the edifice and its timber and marble were put on ships and used to build the sultan’s mosque in Cairo. This use of spolia no doubt had psychological and propaganda undertones and made this a victory mosque.

  In 668/1270 Baybars destroyed the fortifications at Ascalon and made the harbour unusable by submerging tree-trunks and rocks in it.95

  However, when Baybars acquired the mighty fortress of Safad in Shawwal 664/July 1266, he did not follow his usual practice with captured castles and destroy it, but instead made it into a Mamluk fortress.96

  Muslim Accounts of Individual Sieges

  The military historian Marshall is wary of attaching too much importance to individual accounts of particular sieges, since the format of such accounts may be stereotyped rather than specific.97 In part this view is surely correct. But it remains true that the Islamic perspective is sometimes highlighted in an unexpected way in the medieval Muslim accounts of individual sieges, especially those of eyewitnesses. Even though such eyewitnesses are inevitably biased, particular snippets of information and the evocation of an atmosphere combine to reveal fresh aspects of the siege phenomenon in the Crusading period.

  Many chronicles give descriptions of sieges which took place during the Frankish occupation of the Near East. Those that concern Saladin are particularly detailed; his two major biographers, Ibn Shaddad and ‘Imad al-Din, are obviously interested in describing in some detail the sieges in which their hero was involved. A few examples will give the flavour of these accounts.

  The Siege of Alexandria by the Sicilian Fleet in 570/1174–1175

  ‘Imad al-Din quotes a letter from Saladin which describes the arrival of the Sicilian fleet in Alexandria in 570/1174–5. Six ships carried ‘machines of war and siege made of large pieces of wood and other things’.98 Other ships transported those who constructed ships, ‘crawling’ towers,99 penthouses (dabbaba) and mangonels. The attack began the morning after the fleet’s arrival:

  In the morning they advanced, harassed and laid siege. They set up three penthouses (dabbaba) with their rams and three mangonels, great in size which hurled black stones which they had brought along from Sicily. Our companions were amazed by the violence of their impact and the size of their stones. As for the dabbabas, they were like towers in the heaviness of their pieces of wood, their elevation, the number of their warriors and their range [of fire]. They advanced with them until they [the machines] came close to the wall. They [the Sicilians] persevered in fighting for the whole of the above-mentioned day.100

  Despite the awesome sight of these monstrous enemy machines of war, the letter declares that God gave the Muslims the eventual victory. They fought valiantly and overturned the dabbabas which were set up against the walls.

  The Siege of Karak in 580/1184–1185

  The Muslim sources are explicit about the difficulties of taking the citadel of Karak in 580/1184–5. ‘Imad al-Din al-Isfahani gives the following account of the siege:

  He [Saladin] encamped in the valley of Karak and set up nine mangonels against it [the citadel] in a row in front of the gate. They destroyed the wall opposite them. The only obstacle remaining was the wide, deep moat. It is a frightening ravine, an obstructing chasm and a low-lying place of danger. There was only one course of action: choke it up, block it with everything possible and fill it with earth; that was considered a most difficult exercise. Digging tunnels was impracticable because of the ruggedness and rocky nature of the ground. So the sultan gave orders for bricks to be made, for pieces of wood to be collected and for walls to be built, leading from the suburb to the ditch and that they [the walls] should be roofed and that their [wooden] palisades should be pieced together and smoothly joined.

  Once this extensive shield against hostile fire from the walls of the citadel had been constructed, the way was clear to begin filling the moat. Saladin’s followers now flocked to carry whatever they could find with which to fill it. The enterprise was also facilitated by dabbabas and tunnels. Because of all these careful preparations, the people were in no danger, according to the chronicler:

  The people found a broad road to the moat and they flocked [there], safe from being wounded, working joyfully. The people below the citadel on the edge of the moat did not feel the need to act cautiously nor did they fear arrow or stone. The moat had been filled [so well] that a prisoner in fetters could have thrown himself into it and escaped after a succession of stones had been thrown at him by the Franks.101

  Behind the obvious bias and emotional intensity of this account, the author nevertheless provides valuable details of the practicalities of embarking on the early stages of a siege. An account like this shows the problematic nature of sapping in certain kinds of terrain. When performed successfully, however, sapping could bring the attackers right up to the ramparts with the besieged still remaining unaware of the exact location of the tunnel.

  The Siege of Sahyun in 584/1188

  The siege of the citadel of Sahyun by Saladin in 584/1188 proved notoriously difficult. All the medieval geographical descriptions of this citadel stress its impregnability.102 It is worth while quoting the account of Saladin’s siege of it, as given by Ibn al-Athir, since his narrative reveals some of the general problems facing the besiegers of Frankish castles in the Levant:

  Then Saladin left Ladhiqiyya on 27 Jumada II (584 AH/24 July 1188) and he made for the citadel of Sahyun which is a well-fortified citadel towering in the air, difficult to climb, on a salient of a mountain, surrounded by a deep valley, where some places were narrow enough to allow the stones of a mangonel to reach the citadel from them. However, the mountain was joined to it [the citadel] from the northern side. They [the Franks] had constructed for it [the citadel] a deep moat, the bottom of which could not be seen, and five well-fortified walls. Saladin made camp on that mountain next to it. Mangonels were set up and he launched [projectiles] with them. He gave orders to his son, al-Zahir, lord of Aleppo, and he went down into the narrow part of the valley and also set up mangonels there. He threw projectiles at the citadel from there. He had with him many Aleppan infantrymen whose level of courage was legendary.

  Eventually, the Muslims found a vulnerable point by which to gain access to the citadel wall: They attached ladders103 to a salient of the mountain which the Franks had neglected to fortify and they scaled up from there between the rocks until they reached the first wall.’104

  It is interesting to note that this account does not mention the principal feature of Sahyun, and one unique in its scale and ambition in the whole Middle East (though more recent versions of this concept are known at ‘Ajlun and Shayzar) – the gorge cut by the Franks through the rock to separate the castle’s promontory from the rest of the mountain, leaving only a towering needle of rock in the middle on to which a drawbridge could be set. One is tempted to conclude that Ibn al-Athir (or his source) had not actually been at Sahyun.

  The Siege of Acre in 586/1190–1191

  There are two powerful Muslim accounts of this siege written by Ibn Shaddad and ‘Imad al-Din. The latter describes Frankish preparations for the siege of Acre in 586/1190–1 as follows:

  They [the Franks] began to build great high towers (abraj). They had transported by sea their machines and heavy timbers and pieces of iron. They built three high towers in three places in the environs of the town. They laboured seven months in [building] them and they did not finish them until Rabi‘ I [April-May]. They were made as if they were three towering mountains; their stor
eys were filled with instruments and troops.

  Each tower without fail had in its corners four high, thick, heavy columns. The length of each one was 50 cubits in order to tower over the height of the town walls. They spread them out on wheeled carts. Then they covered them, after a coating of iron and strong bonds, with the hides of cows and [animal] skins. Each day, they would bring them closer, even if [only] by a cubit, as much as was possible, and they would pour vinegar and wine over them.105

  Figure 8.15 Mangonel, Rashid al-Din, Jami‘ al-Tawarikh (‘World History’), 714/1314, Tabriz, Iran

  The town was on the verge of collapse when the tide was turned in an amazing way and the siege towers were burned and collapsed as a ‘sign of the power of God’. A young man from Damascus called ‘Ali, the son of an expert coppersmith, came forward with an offer to make a mangonel which would burn the towers. According to Ibn Shaddad:

  He said that he had a skill in burning them [the towers] and that, if he could enter Acre and obtain remedies which he knew, he could set fire to them. Everything he sought was provided for him and he entered Acre, cooked the remedies with the naft and put it into copper pots until the whole [concoction] became like a live coal.106

  Figure 8.16 Mounted huntsman with spear, inlaid brass basin known as the ‘Baptistere de St Louis’, c. 1300 or earlier, Syria

  The mixture proved efficacious against the Frankish attacks: ‘He struck one tower with a pot and it immediately ignited and became like a vast mountain of fire.’107 The same process occurred with the second and third towers.

  Useful information about the aftermath of the burning of the machines is also provided by ‘Imad al-Din’s narrative. He reports that seventy knights with arms and baggage perished in the first tower. Pieces of iron and metal coats of mail (zardiyyat) were unearthed from the ashes.108