Muslim Fortresses in the Levant: Between Crusaders and Mongols (69 page)

Map 3.5
Fortresses mentioned in the treaties between the Mamluk sultanate and the Armenian kingdom

Bar Hebraeus gives this raid a long and detailed account. To begin with, he says, the Armenians managed to drive back the Mamluks with an army that numbered 500 cavalry and foot soldiers. The Mamluk army reorganized and returned to attack Ayās. Many of the inhabitants found refuge in the small island close to the town. From Ayās, the Mamluk army turned to Mopsuestia (Mesis). The population was massacred and the town burnt down. The Mamluks then marched to
, Cyricus and Sīs. The population of Sīs found refuge in its citadel though it was eventually set on fire. The Mamluk army was joined by a Türkmen force numbering 10,000 men, and laid waste to large parts of the country.
¹⁷⁴

A treaty between Qalāwūn and Leon III (r. 1269–89) was signed in 684/1285, for a period of ten years. Many of the fortresses handed over to Baybars are listed again. This evidently means that before Qalāwūn’s rise to power in 1280 the Mamluks had lost many of the Armenian fortresses they had gained through military and diplomatic maneuvers. The Armenian’ contribution to the destruction of Aleppo and their participation in the battle of Homs (October 1281), which ended in Īlkhānid defeat, forced Leon III to reach an agreement with the Mamluks.

The treaty contains a list of fortresses surrendered to the Mamluks shortly after or while negotiations were being held. The following strongholds are noted: Baghrās, Darbassāk, Tall Bāshir, Gargar and al-Kakhtā. One of the clauses repeats an earlier
treaty forbidding the Armenians to restore and build fortresses on their lands.
¹⁷⁵
Within four years (1289) a new agreement was signed. It was initiated by the Armenian king immediately after the Mamluk conquest of Tripoli. The sultan agreed, and
was handed to the Mamluks. This fortress, apparently, was soon back under Armenian rule, since it is mentioned a few years later in an agreement signed in 1293.

While al-Ashraf Khalīl was preparing the conquest of
plans were also being made for the capture of Sīs. By then the Armenians had suffered several devastating raids and the king hastily sent a large and honorable delegation carrying precious gifts to the court in Cairo (692/1293). It was decided that the Mamluks would be given three sites:
,
and Bahasnā. Once again the Armenians tried to bargain with the sultan over Bahasnā. Al-Ashraf Khalīl refused to compromise. A
nā’ib
was appointed and a garrison sent to man the fortress. It is difficult to explain this recurring procedure of the Armenians, who were determined to try and hold Bahasnā. Although the sources do not provide a detailed description of the fortress and its surroundings, the nature of the negotiations between the sultan and the Armenian delegation implies that both sides attributed great importance to this site. Al-Ashraf Khalīl was considerably more determined than his father, who had decided to yield to the Armenians’ request after receiving their marvelous gifts (treaty of 1289). The gifts did not appease Al-Ashra. The sultan followed the departing delegation and warned the Armenian herald that if the fortress was not handed back he would not hesitate to raid the kingdom.

gives an interesting historical account that may partially explain why the Mamluks wished to command this site. The land round Bahasnā, he writes, had numerous rich estates that were tilled and sown. In the past the estates had belonged to the Ayyubid ruler of Aleppo, al-Malik
. After the Mongol invasion (1260), the Armenian king asked Hülegü to grant him Bahasnā. From
point of view, Bahasnā and the surrounding area belonged to the Mamluks due to the fact that thirty years earlier this had been a district of Aleppo.
¹⁷⁶
In the late 1290s the Mamluks took advantage of the internal chaos that struck the Armenian kingdom and Lachin invaded Armenia with a large army made up of Mamluks from Egypt and troops from Safad, Tripoli, Damascus, Hama and Homs.
¹⁷⁷
Their aim was to take Sīs. In April 1298 Tall
was besieged and on 23 June the herald announced its fall to the people of Damascus.
, Nujayma,
¹⁷⁸
and Hāmīs (Çardak Hamus),
¹⁷⁹
probably fell shortly afterwards. According to al-Yūnīnī, the sultan’s governor issued an order to recruit soldiers from every level of society for the garrisons of Tall
,
and Nujayma. He adds that the garrisons were well equipped. In August 697/1298 an Armenian delegation representing King
II went to Cairo to ask for fair terms in negotiations for a truce.
¹⁸⁰
If there were any results al-Yūnīnī does not mention them. Abū’l-Fidā’ describes the change of rulers and the accession of Constantine to the Armenian throne. The new king was quick to make a political declaration. He promised to be a loyal subject of the Mamluk sultan, and to act as governor on behalf of the sultan in Cilicia. The
River was to be the border between the two entities; lands and fortresses south of the river were turned over to the Mamluks. The following fortresses were given to the sultan, according to Abū’l-Fidā: Hāmīs, Tall
, Kuwayrā, Hajar Shaghlan, Sarfandkar,
and al-Naqīr. Abū’l-Fidā’ says that Lachin garrisoned them all; he criticizes the sultan and says this was a mistaken move. Abū’l-Fidā’ lived long enough to witness the return of all eight fortresses to the Armenians after Ghazan’s invasion.
¹⁸¹
His account shows that the main problem was not conquering the Cilician strongholds, but manning and maintaining the garrisons.