Muslim Fortresses in the Levant: Between Crusaders and Mongols (8 page)

The fall of the Ayyubid dynasty and the rise of the Mamluks to power stretched over almost a decade (1250–60). The establishment of
(r. 1259–60) as sultan coincided with the Mongol invasion of Syria led by Hülegü (1260). The first Mamluk–Mongol full-scale battle occurred in the Jizrael Valley, near the spring of
, on 3 September 1260. The Mongols suffered a humiliating defeat. Their forces in Syria and those who survived the battle fled back east and across the Euphrates.

During the next 32 years (1260–91) the Mamluks slowly eradicated the Frankish settlement and fought to prevent the Mongol-Īkhānids from crossing the Euphrates and invading Syria. The ranks, who had been the main political and military entity in the region during the Ayyubid period, played a lesser part in the politics of the region between 1260 and the fall of Acre in 1291. Although the Mongol invasion had been repelled, once the Īkhānid state was established it became the Mamluks’ chief concern and remained the main threat to the Sultanate’s existence until 1323, the year the Mamluk-Īlkhānid peace treaty was signed.

The geographical and chronological framework

Throughout this research emphasis is laid on rural and frontier fortresses; large urban citadels such as those of Cairo, Damascus and Aleppo are rarely mentioned or discussed at any length.

The research is based on several field surveys that focused on an architectural analysis of four Ayyubid and eight Mamluk fortresses situated in what are today the modern states of Jordan, Israel, southern Turkey (the region of the central upper Euphrates and the Amanus Mountains) and Egypt (the Sinai Peninsula). This partly correlates to what was historically known as Palestine, Bilād al-Shām, al-Jazīra, the Kingdom of Lesser Armenia in Cilicia and
.

The fotresses dealt with in this study were built or reconstructed from the early 1170s until 1291, covering the entire Ayyubid period but focusing on only the first three decades of Mamluk rule. Part of the historical discussion covers a slightly longer period that stretches into the fourteenth century, after the fall of the Crusader kingdom in 1291, the death of the last Īlkhān in 1335 and the last central nomadic invasion led by Temür (Tamerlane) in 1401.

The aims of this research are threefold. The first is to study the achitecture and development of Ayyubid fortifications at a time when the Franks were still a dominant power in the region, and the early Mamluk military architecture that developed after the establishment of the Mongol -Īlkhānid state in 1260.

The second is to examine the elation between strongholds and siege technology, often defined by military historians as the dialogue between military architecture and the development of siege warfare. Does the development of military architecture depend on the arrival of new, stronger and more advanced methods of siege warfare? Is military success in this period solely related to military technology? Developments and changes in Ayyubid and Frankish siege warfare have been systematically studied by several scholars. Therefore the research here focuses on methods of siege warfare brought from northeast China, and used by the Mongols in the Middle East. Because new siege technology would have affected the development of Mamluk fortifications, one of the questions carefully re-examined is the employment of gunpowder by the Mongols in the mid thirteenth century. A critical approach and a rather strict division are made between the Mongol armies until 1260 and those of the Īlkhānid state 1260–1335. A decade after the Mongols established themselves they had already adopted local siege warfare. The new technology they encountered, the counterweight trebuchet, was sent east to the court of Qubilai Khan (r. 1260–94) in China, where it was greatly admired. It seems that the Īlkhānid armies gradually changed and were different from those that arrived with Hülegü. They may have recruited local Muslim siege engineers as well as the Northern Chinese siege teams that had been the core of Mongol siege forces for several decades. This difference, however, is not reflected in the Arabic sources, where both the army that arrived with Hülegü and the later Īlkhānid army are referred to as Mongol (Mughul, Tatār).

The third aim is to examine the influence of the structure of the army and methods of rule on the concept of defense and the development of fortifications. How if at all does the existence of a strong centralized military rule affect the development of military architecture as opposed to a loose federation or a weak monarchy?

The following chapters examine Ayyubid and Mamluk rural and frontier fortresses within a wider historical, political and military context. They provide a detailed description of their architecture, their spatial distribution, and an overall view of their role, links, and ties with the many Crusader fortifications in this region. This research is part of a long-term study that will no doubt develop and change as new data from excavations, surveys and historical sources is revealed.

1
Ayyubid fortresses in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries

The notion that the arrival of the Crusades at the end of the eleventh century revolutionized military architecture”
¹
presents a picture that is only partially accurate. True, there were relatively few Muslim fortifications in the Levant prior to the advent of the Crusaders, but they were far from inferior to what the newcomers were about to build.

Urban Muslim fortifications in the Middle East were without doubt more sophisticated and had advanced far beyond the rural and frontier castle. Among the finest examples are the great city gates built in Cairo under the supervision of the Amir al-Juyūsh Badr al-Jamālī, during the years 480/1092–485/1097, on the eve of the first Crusade. The curtain walls that partly surrounded the city of Cairo and the three massive gates,
,
and Bāb Zuwayla, admittedly designed by three Armenians, were by no means inferior to the first fortresses constructed in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and appear to have set very high standards.
²
William of Tyre describes with great awe the mighty walls and numerous towers surrounding the Muslim cities of Tyre (1124) and Ascalon (1153).
³
By the time the Ayyubid sultanate was established around 1171 the Muslims were well acquainted with the art of military architecture and were employing their own architects and craftsmen. Towards the end of the twelfth century Ayyubid fortresses matched those of the Franks in both scale and design. However, they evidently developed along different lines of thought, to some degree as a result of the way the Ayyubid armies and fortress garrisons were composed, and partly in reaction to the methods of sapping and assault used by the Franks.

The following chapter will examine the characteristics of Ayyubid rural and frontier fortresses, emphasizing the main architectural elements and comparing them with Frankish fortresses constructed in the region at the same time. After presenting the architectural aspects, it may become possible to attempt an explanation of what led to some of the disparities between Ayyubid and Frankish fortifications. In addition this chapter, will, I hope, provide an adequate background to early Mamluk fortifications and will help in understanding some aspects of their evolution.

A short explanation as to why the following fortresses were chosen and the current state of research

The boundaries of the region under discussion are the Sinai Peninsula and what are today the modern states of Jordan and Israel.
⁴
The following chapter is based on field work conducted in four fortresses: Mount Tabor, also known in contemporary Muslim sources as Jabal
;
⁵
the first two building phases of
(
Namrūd) at the foot of Mount Hermon; the fortress of
in the northern part of the modern state of Jordan; and
, referred to in the Arabic sources as
;
⁶
built in the north western region of the Sinai Peninsula (
Map 1.1
). The choice fell upon these fotresses because of the clearly documented construction dates given in inscriptions found on the site and in the historical sources. Almost all fortresses are in a reasonably good state of preservation. All four have been either excavated or surveyed and the finds have been published.