Muslim Fortresses in the Levant: Between Crusaders and Mongols (114 page)

Towers

Mamluk military architecture stands in sharp contrast to the neat uniformity of the Franks. Frankish towers and curtain walls advanced and improved simultaneously. Although there was no strict canon, the proportions between towers and curtain walls were evenly balanced throughout the Crusader period.

This rule of repair and renew was by and large broken when it came to the construction of towers. Towers are the one Mamluk architectural structure that was added in an almost methodical manner to many of the fortresses they had conquered (
Table 4.2
). Safad presents an interesting case. Both Ibn Shaddād and
describe the use of huge stones –
hirqilī
stones. The architect at Safad was obviously eager
to test new ideas. The scale of his wok shows that he was neither an amateur nor a beginner. This in turn leads us to an interesting aspect of this survey – the short phase of Mamluk experimental work. Although one can pinpoint its beginning, it seems to have fizzled out within a short space of time. Again my best examples are from the round tower at Safad, and
, where Bīlīk’s tower was constructed of huge stones. The other example is the large secret passage that coils round Bīlīk’s tower. Though the use of very large building stones is rare it had been tried out earlier in the thirteenth century by al-Malik
Ghāzī, when he built the
bāshūra
at Aleppo. The round tower, whether successful or not, was never reproduced elsewhere.

One should constantly bear in mind that much of the work was dictated by the damage caused by Mongols or Mamluk sieges. On the whole, genuinely new ideas were few and there was little desire to change and enlarge existing constructions if they functioned.

Preference was given to round towers, but they were hardly a novelty by the mid thirteenth century. Both the scale and the standard of construction of twelfth and early thirteenth century Frankish towers and keeps such as those at Chastel Pelerin, Chastel Blanc (Safita), Gibelet (Jubayl), and Margat appear similar to Mamluk work. In comparison to the Ayyubid towers at Mount Tabor,
and even at
, the Mamluks present higher standards of construction and more sophisticated plans. The fee-standing round tower at Safad, the southern keep at Karak and the octagonal tower along the southern curtain wall at
display some of the finest Mamluk military architecture. They ere built with great care and precision, on a grand scale that is not found in rural and frontier fortresses of the Ayyubid period. They ere designed to provide ample storage place and accommodate a greater number of bowmen. Above all, towers were placed at very close intervals. Where the distances appeared too great and the curtain wall was of poor quality the Mamluks inserted new towers and “stitched” them to the existing curtain walls. This can be seen quite clearly at
,
and Baghrās.

The scale of building

The Mamluk scale of building and investment differs significantly from one region to the other. The scale of construction at Karak and
and probably at Safad too was considerable and the quality of work higher than that of the Cilician fortresses. Although the fortresses along the Euphrates were maintained at the highest level, it seems that Baybars’ initial investment in the construction of al-Bīra and
was limited. The inland fortresses of Karak, Safad and
, with their large garrisons and forbidding fortifications, were never put to the test by either the Franks or the Mongols. And yet the scale of building was significantly larger than along the frontiers.