Muslim Fortresses in the Levant: Between Crusaders and Mongols (37 page)

The choice of location and surroundings is one of the few elements shared by all four fortresses. More often than not, the ground on which the fortress was built was chosen mainly because of the topography that made the most of the natural defenses provided by the contour lines of the site. The width of the curtain walls was dictated to a large degree by the terrain, thus saving time and expense in construction.
is an exception: its moat was intended to compensate for the lack of steep ravines and jagged cliffs. This approach was not unique to Ayyubid fortifications and many Crusader fortresses as well were built on mountainous sites chosen because the topography provided an excellent defense in addition to the man-made fortifications. However, the Ayyubids exploited the topography to a much greater extent than the Franks. Towers might be completely omitted along stretches of wall that were protected by the natural terrain. Curtain walls that ran along the edges of cliffs and ravines were reduced to a crudely constructed wall that one could almost describe as the bare necessity.

The plans of the fortresses differ from one another to a great extent. Thee was no general idea or pattern that prevailed or was preferred above others. The only closely matching plans can be discerned in the first stages at
and
. However, when those fortresses were enlarged, they each adopted very different courses.

One of the strongest and most dominant features of Ayyubid fortresses was the tower. And yet the design and development of towers was similar in twelfth century Muslim and Frankish military architecture. Until the second half of the twelfth
century, both Crusaders and Ayyubids built relatively small round or square towers, some of which were solid with one or two fighting floors. Their number on the whole was modest and they often barely projected from the curtain walls. The best Frankish examples can be seen at Bethgibelin (1136)
¹⁸²
and Karak (1142), and the inner walls at Belvoir (1168); the clearest Ayyubid examples are from
(1186) and Mount Tabor (1211–17). This pattern took a sharp turn in the early decades of the thirteenth century. Almost overnight the Franks doubled the scale and size of their towers. Towers of the concentric Frankish fortresses at Chastel Pelerin, Crac de Chevaliers and Arsuf have no match in Ayyubid rural and frontier military architecture. Those towers suited the new dimensions of the Frankish concentric fortress.

In most cases Ayyubid towers were built with greater care and a higher quality of masonry than that displayed in the fortress walls. Keeps, almost a trademark of the Crusader fortifications, were a European feature brought to the east by the Franks. They ere not common in Ayyubid fortresses, and seem to have been built almost as a second thought as the result of a later decision to enlarge the fortress. This can be seen quite clearly in the second phase at
and the final stage at
.

One of the most striking differences between Crusader and Ayyubid fortresses is in the quality and size of their curtain walls. While the Franks sharply upgraded their curtain walls during the second half of the twelfth century, the Ayyubids kept on using the same methods and building on the same scale to which they were accustomed. Crusader curtain walls, as shown in
Table 1.2
, constantly grew in width, and quality of the masonry was improved and maintained. The Ayyubids, on the other hand, built walls that were of a relatively lower quality of construction. The strength of their fortresses depended to a great extent on the towers and the fighting capabilities of the garrison archers. This fits ell with the general Muslim military concept in which archers played a dominant role. If the skill and strength of the garrison archers was as great as that displayed by Ayyubid mounted archers, we may conclude that their efficacy was not impaired by the modest size of the towers and the relatively long distances between them.

The arrival of the concentric fortress marked the climax in the development of Crusader fortresses. Belvoir represents the first of this type. This architectural plan was meant to provide the ultimate defense. This idea was taken and further developed in the early thirteenth century; the most impressive examples are the massive fortress of Crac de Chevaliers and the double curtain walls at Chastel Pelerin. The Ayyubids did not adopt or imitate the Franks’ latest innovations and achievements. The fortress at Mount Tabor, built in the midst, both geographically and chronologically, of these architectural changes, bears little resemblance to those being built in the Crusader kingdom. This was, however, most definitely not for lack of technical knowledge, funds or skilled craftsmen. The walls at both Mount Tabor and
display the Ayyubid feeling of superiority in the field of siege warfare and their strong awareness of the decline in this specific field among the Frankish armies.

If we look at the larger picture discernible in this study of Ayyubid rural and frontier fortresses, it appears that those built in remote areas that did not border Frankish territory were much smaller, as in the case of
and
. Mount Tabor and the final Ayyubid stage at
are significantly larger. The initial reason
for the construction of those two fortresses was directly connected to the military and political conflict with the bordering Crusader kingdom. The need for a large garrison in order to reduce Crusader raids into Ayyubid territories, and the short distance from Acre, were probably the main reason for
decision to build on such a grand scale. The same argument applies to
, which was probably built in anticipation of a large force comprising both Crusader and Egyptian-Ayyubid armies. It was no doubt obvious to the Ayyubid coalition in Damascus that a large garrison was needed in order to defend the main road to their capital and if not to defeat it at least delay any force that aimed to attack the city.