Muslim Fortresses in the Levant: Between Crusaders and Mongols (79 page)

… and he built [only] what had been ruined in the fortress of
.
³⁷

Because this policy of building on already well-established strongholds was maintained throughout the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, the scale of building even in the largest of the Mamluk fortresses can hardly be compared to the construction building of a new stronghold from the foundations. Thus the scale of building was considerably smaller than that of the Franks and the Ayyubids, and it is therefore surprising that Mamluk construction work often stretched over a relatively long period.

The importance of looking at the time schedules

Dates provided in both chronicles and inscriptions offer a unique opportunity to draw up fairly accurate work schedules. Mamluk fortresses were seldom built in a hurry. Practically speaking, they were already fully built. Once secured and garrisoned, construction work seems, in some cases, to have stretched over a considerable number of years. Ibn
list mentions Damascus,
,
,
,
, Shayzar, Shumaymis, Bosra, Baalbek and Homs; he states quite clearly that those fortresses were rebuilt and their moats cleaned. He does not give a complete account of the destruction caused by the Mongols or a systematic description of the repairs called for in each of those sites. The degree of damage can often be assessed according the scale of reconstruction carried out by the Mamluks.

At
the work undertaken by Baybars was minimal; the fortress was remarkably well preserved and whatever destruction the Mongols may have inflicted, the repairs did not necessitate a large investment. The last building phase dates to the Ayyubid period, and there is little evidence of Mamluk construction.
³⁸
At
the Mamluks invested a great deal of thought and work. The final size of the fortress was, however, established during the Ayyubid period, almost three decades before the taking of the fortress by Baybars. Yet the renovations at
went on for years. True, the scale of Mamluk construction here was altogether more substantial than at other sites; several large towers were added, a gate enlarged and sections of the walls repaired, as will be described later in greater detail. Still, the time it took can hardly be justified. The fotress passed into the hands of the Mamluks in 1260; according to an inscription found on one of the new Mamluk towers the reconstruction was only completed in 1275.
³⁹
In contrast, fortresses along the Euphrates, bordering the Īlkhānid territory, were rebuilt within a short space of time.

It would be wrong to assume that the Mamluks built at leisure, but in comparison with the work schedules known from Frankish and Ayyubid sites they most definitely did not build in great haste. The entire construction at Mount Tabor, the largest Ayyubid fortress in the region, lasted approximately four years, from 609/1212–13 to 612/1215–16. The building of the curtain wall of the Frankish fortress at Vadum Iacob, measuring approximately 410m in circumference and 4.3m in width took eleven months (October 1178–August 1179). It may have not been altogether finished by the time the castle was destroyed, but it functioned and was no doubt very close to completion, as can be seen from the surviving archaeological remains.

According to Oliver of Paderborn, who describes the building of the massive towers and double curtain wall of
, work began in February 1218 and was finished in mid April of the same year.
⁴⁰
The rebuilding of the first phase of the fortress at Safad by the Templars began in December 1240 and was completed within two and a half years, in the middle of 1243.
⁴¹
Both Safad and
rank amongst the largest fortresses in the Crusader kingdom. Such time schedules clearly suggest that the Mamluk reconstruction at
was by no means done in a hurry, for it could not possibly have taken fifteen years to restore the curtain wall, enlarge three towers and add four new ones. Building fortifications at a relatively slow pace may also suggest that the Mamluks were not at all alarmed or worried by
the state of the fortifications they acquired, and that the condition of the fortresses taken by Baybars was on the whole far better than contemporary chroniclers would perhaps like us to believe. Thus, the description y Ibn Shaddād,
⁴²
as well as that by Ibn
, of the chain of destruction left by the Mongols should be carefully examined and taken with a grain of salt. To destroy a stone fortress one needs a considerable amount of time, manpower and heavy siege machines.
and his son
spent an entire year demolishing their own fortress at Mount Tabor.
⁴³
Qalāwūn sent siege machines to assist in the destruction of Maraqiya (Maraclea).
⁴⁴
The fortress structures no doubt suffered damage under the wrath of the Mongol army in 1260, but it seems it was easier to kill the Muslim garrisons, destroy food and weapon supplies and burn the crops in the surrounding countryside. This endered the defenses ineffective for a considerable length of time. Perhaps the emphasis in Ibn
narrative on the Mongol destruction and the restoration of strongholds by Baybars should be laid on the latter part of the sentence: “and he carried to them (i.e. to the fortresses) supplies (military supplies,
) and sent to them Mamluks and soldiers;” rather than on the first part that refers to the fortifications: “the fortresses were rebuilt during his reign and he cleaned their moats and widened (strengthened) their walls.”
⁴⁵