Muslim Fortresses in the Levant: Between Crusaders and Mongols Read Free

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.

Negotiating and compromising: topography and geology and their influence on the choice of building materials
    The topography and geology to a large extent dictated the location, much of the plan and the type of building material used in the construction of the fortress. The architect, 137 or the engineer, present at the site negotiated and compromised between the natural contours of the summit, in Mount Tabor, or the spur, in the case ofand, and the positive and negative properties of the local stone. The limestone at Mount Tabor is porous and provides poor quality building material; on the other hand, it requires relatively less work