The Crusades- Islamic Perspectives

by Carole Hillenbrand

  Thus we see at least three stages of fighting: cavalry arrows, closer encounters with spears and then bitter hand-to-hand fighting.

  These model instructions appear to correspond to the actual formations of the battles themselves. When the Franks came to the Levant they brought with them a military tradition which relied heavily on frontal cavalry charges. These had a massive impact, but they went in one direction only and could be reversed only with great difficulty once they had begun. The Frankish cavalry was often very effective against the Fatimid armies but had problems dealing with the light Muslim cavalry of the Turks.

  Plate 8.2 Mamluk banner, openwork steel, fifteenth century, Egypt

  Figure 8.8 Page explaining battle tactics in diagrammatic form, al-Aqsara’i, Nihayat al-Su’l (‘An End to Questioning’), 773/1371, Egypt

  In battle the Franks were famous for their cavalry charges with lances. These were not conducted en masse but were aimed by chosen units at chosen targets.45 A number of instances of Frankish cavalry charges are cited in the Muslim sources. Such charges were very effective if used at the right moment and on suitable terrain. The Frankish cavalry were very heavy and were capable of decimating their enemy if the latter was unhorsed and in disarray.

  Clearly, the Muslims were obliged to develop strategies to deal with the initially awesome Frankish cavalry. If the Muslims managed to get out of the way of the cavalry charge, hamper the pace of their horses and engage them in fighting in disorganised and static formations, then the Franks were no longer necessarily at an advantage. The way to success for the Muslims lay in trying to prevent the Frankish lancer – an indubitably strong but inflexible opponent – from using his advantage in the cavalry charge. The mounted archers of the Muslims, arranged in small groups, would try to envelop the flank or rear of their enemies. There was danger if the Franks were allowed to deliver a cavalry charge.46 In open country the main task for the mounted archers was to break the enemy charge by shooting from a distance. The battle order in almost every important battle of the Mamluk period was the familiar tripartite arrangement of the centre (qalb), and the right (maymana) and left (maysara) wings. The crack troops were placed in the centre; they fought under the personal command of the sultan and under his royal banner. It was very common that the wings of the army would be defeated first and that the centre would hold out longer. Not infrequently, the wings of both armies could become detached from the centre and remain cut off from the course of the ensuing battle. It was also not unknown for the wing of the ultimately losing side in a battle to enjoy success in earlier stages of the conflict in routing the wing of the opposing side.47

  Figure 8.9 Mamluk brass drum inlaid with silver and gold and inscribed with the name of al-Malik al-Ashraf, late fifteenth century, Egypt

  As with the crucial moment just before capturing a citadel under siege, it was customary at the beginning of a battle to make a great din to terrify the enemy, using trumpets, drums (figures 8.7 and 8.9) and cymbals.48 A herald would give the order to attack and could also intervene in the heat of the battle to call for a regrouping of troops.49

  Siege Warfare

  Introduction

  The importance of siege warfare in the Crusader–Muslim conflict cannot be over-emphasised. Pitched battles were, after all, as already noted, rare. Recent scholarly studies have indeed underlined the fact that well-planned siege warfare held the key to Muslim victory. This interpretation is upheld by the evidence of the Islamic chronicles, which are full of accounts of individual sieges, and it is confirmed by the importance attached to siege warfare by the Islamic military manuals. There is, of course, no overall analysis or reflection in the chronicles about why Muslim siege warfare was so successful, but the medieval historians do proudly record, with a vivid sense of occasion, the individual sieges in the careers of Nur al-Din and Saladin and the wave of victorious sieges undertaken by the Mamluks between 1260 and 1291. The Muslim sources are well aware of the difficulty of capturing Crusader strongholds, whose size and impregnability are emphasised.50

  Plate 8.3 Qal‘at al-Najm, exterior fortifications in dressed stone, mainly twelfth-thirteenth centuries, Syria

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 6101)

  The Franks were anxious to avoid pitched battles and to conserve their resources. Given the nature of Frankish settlement in the Levant and the concentration of their manpower within fortified places, an obvious way for the Muslims to get rid of them was to besiege their strongholds and to gain possession of them, one by one. Quite often the Muslims thereupon razed them. Even if there were not sufficient resources to effect a total siege of a fortress, other strategies could be adopted, for example to block access, thereby preventing supplies of food and water from reaching the garrison, and thus to force it to surrender. The Muslim sources speak with greater precision about sieges than they do about battles. This is scarcely surprising, perhaps, since the details of the successive stages of a siege could be grasped and understood more easily than battles, which by their very nature were more fluid and amorphous and which were impossible to follow in every corner of the field. Even an eyewitness was liable to grasp only part of the entire action.

  Plate 8.4 Qal‘at al-Najm, interior, mainly twelfth-thirteenth centuries, Syria

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 6111)

  Siege Weapons

  Both sides in the conflict used much the same basic equipment and machines for defence and attack in sieges.51 Some siege machines were transported ready-made, whilst others were assembled on site. The siege weapons for attacking Safad in 1266 were made in the area of Acre and Damascus and then borne by camel to Safad. They were so heavy that men had to help to carry them.52 These devices for throwing missiles varied in the method of propulsion used.

  The Mangonel (Manjaniq)

  The siege engine known in Arabic as the manjaniq was a swing-beam machine, which unleashed stones or other projectiles by rocking a giant arm. The mangonel had long been in use in the Islamic world. Until the twelfth century manpower had been used to pull down the short end of the beam, but certainly by Saladin’s time a new swing-beam machine which used a heavy counterweight had been introduced. Such machines are illustrated by al-Tarsusi, who identifies three kinds of mangonels – Arab, Turkish and Frankish.53 According to the same source, the maximum range of such machines was around 120 metres, but it was probably longer.54 The ammunition comprised either specially rounded stones (these have been found on the sites of many Crusader castles in the Levant) or Greek fire.

  Usama mentions the Byzantines using mangonels in 532/1138; they were capable of throwing ‘a stone to a distance farther than the distance covered by the arrow, their stone being twenty to twenty-five ratls55 in weight’ (that is, c. 64–80 kilos).56 There were machines in the thirteenth century capable of hurling much heavier missiles than this (cf. figures 8.15 and 8.18).

  A counterweight mangonel was used in the siege of Hims in 646/1248–9. It could throw a stone weighing 140 Syrian ratls (c. 448 kilos).57 Mangonels were also used by Baybars at Arsuf, Safad, Beaufort, Krak des Chevaliers and Gibelacar. He was able to supervise their use, and he had the resources to erect them quickly in situ and to operate them effectively.58 These devices were not used with uniform frequency throughout the period of Frankish occupation. The mangonel remained the main machine for throwing heavy missiles in the sieges of both the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; but as a weapon of war it faded out after the removal of the Franks from the Near East.59 This presumably has much to do with the distinctly lower quality of the Muslim fortifications (plates 8.5 and 8.6). Muslim castles could therefore be reduced by simpler and quicker means.

  Figure 8.10 Mangonel, furusiyya (military horsemanship) manuscript, thirteenth century, perhaps Egypt

  Ayalon and others have already emphasised the paramount importance of the siege warfare of the Mamluks; indeed, siege warfare was the decisive, almost the only, factor which br
ought about the final removal of the Franks from Muslim soil. There were many more sieges under the Mamluks than their predecessors, the Ayyubids, and the seriousness of their endeavours can be gauged by their increased investment in mangonels. Ayalon has made a revealing comparison between the number of mangonels used by the Ayyubid sultans, including Saladin (who used a maximum of ten mangonels and often many fewer), and those deployed in Mamluk sieges.60 Even allowing for exaggerations, all records were broken at the siege of Acre where some sources say the mangonels numbered 92 and others 72. It is thus a telling symbol of Muslim desire to rid the Near East of the Franks that at this siege – usually taken as the last major decisive action against the Franks in the Levant – al-Ashraf Khalil used so many mangonels. This was the testimony of the chronicler Abu’l-Fida, who was present at the siege.61 A massive mangonel called al-Mansuri (possibly named after Baybars himself) was used: it had to be dismantled to be transported, an operation that required a number of wagons.62 The types of mangonels at Acre, like others in earlier sieges, had nicknames: Frankish (ifranji), devilish (shaytani), black bull-like (qarabugha) and playful (la‘ib).63

  Plate 8.5 Qal‘at Ja‘bar, exterior, mainly from 564/1168–9 onwards (rebuilding of Nur al-Din) and 736/1335–6 (rebuilding of the Mamluk governor of Damascus, Tengiz), Syria

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 6660)

  The Ballista (‘arrada)

  For a less heavy projectile a ballista (‘arrada) was used. This device achieved the same effect as the mangonel by twisting a cord. It is not always possible to distinguish in the sources between a mangonel and a ballista. It seems that the ballista was lighter and could be moved around relatively easily, whilst the mangonel once assembled was too bulky to transport.

  Plate 8.6 Qal‘at Ja‘bar, exterior, mainly from 564/1168–9 onwards (rebuilding of Nur al-Din) and 736/1335–6 (rebuilding of the Mamluk governor of Damascus, Tengiz), Syria

  (Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 6661)

  The Wheel Crossbow

  A third machine was the wheel crossbow (qaws al-ziyar); it was operated like an ordinary crossbow but required several men to operate it. A contemporary drawing of it exists but the sources do not appear to discuss such key elements as the type of missile used, its range and its penetrative power.

  Siege Towers and Penthouses

  On flat terrain, both Frankish and Muslim attackers would use the tower (burj) or the penthouse or covered shelter (dabbaba) which was mounted on wheels and pushed to the bottom of the fortifications. When close to the walls, those ramming them or sapping beneath them would be protected by these machines.

  The term dabbaba (penthouse) is an especially evocative one: the Arabic root dabba has a range of meanings including to crawl (like an insect or reptile) and to move slowly. The Roman testudo readily comes to mind. Nowadays, the word dabbaba means an armoured tank. In Crusader times it signified a kind of tower housing soldiers whose task it was to attack the walls of a citadel or town. Sometimes the penthouse had four storeys, one of wood, one of lead, one of iron and one of copper.64 From a contraption such as this the besiegers could fight the defenders on the walls and then jump across to continue the struggle.

  Ibn Shaddad describes a special Frankish tower (burj) which had been made at sea aboard a ‘frightening ship’ (butsa):

  In it [the ship] they had constructed a tower (burj) with a trunk. If they wanted to turn it against the wall it would turn with amazing movements and would make a path to the place against which it was directed: on it [the path] the warriors would walk.65

  So the machine seems to have been a kind of elaborate gangplank or portable drawbridge.

  Battering Rams

  Once the Frankish attackers were close to the walls of a fortified place the battering ram, known in Arabic as kabsh or sinnawr (cat), would be used against the ramparts.

  The ‘King of the Germans’ (Frederick of Swabia) produced some remarkable machines in 586/1190–1. Ibn Shaddad writes:

  He made use of amazing machines and strange contrivances that terrified the viewer. The people of the town were frightened of those machines and fearful of them. Amongst the items they had created was a vast war machine beneath which a great number of warriors could enter; it was covered with plates of iron. Underneath it, it had carts to drag it along. It had a large head with which to butt the wall. It is called a ram (kabsh) with which to butt the wall with great force because many people drag it along and it causes it [the wall] to collapse through repeated butts.66

  Ibn Shaddad also mentions a machine known as the ‘cat’ (sinnawr): ‘[There is] another machine which is a vault (qabu) under which are a number of men. But its head is sharpened [to a point] in the shape of a ploughshare.’

  Comparing the ram and the cat, Ibn Shaddad concludes that the former destroys by its sheer weight alone whereas the latter does so both by its sharpness and its weight.67

  After Baybars’ use of siege machines, the Muslim chroniclers fall silent about the use of such devices and although the encyclopaedists al-‘Umari (d. 749/1349) and al-Qalqashandi (d. 821/1418) write chapters on siege machines, they do not refer to either the burj or the dabbaba.68

  Greek Fire (Naft)

  The term naft is used in the medieval Islamic sources to denote an incendiary device, capable of spontaneous combustion.69 The use of such a weapon dates back to ancient times but the Byzantines exploited it to great advantage against the Arabs in the early Islamic period with a newly improved version of Greek fire allegedly devised by a man from Syria called Kallinikos in 673.

  Ships were equipped with catapults, which as well as holding stones and arrows were also loaded with clay jars filled with naft. On impact the jars broke into pieces and their contents ignited. Ships also carried incendiary rockets together with a mechanism for launching them.70 By the middle of the seventh century the Muslims were also throwing Greek fire.

  Sea battles were rather rare, however; few examples stand out between the battles of Actium in 31 BC and Lepanto in 1571 and cer-tainly no major military encounter at sea occurred in the Crusading period. But Greek fire was used to great effect by the Muslims on land, in attacking and defending citadels and walled towns.71 Naft was thrown in bottles by means of catapults and slings at towers and penthouses which were working above ground.

  Al-Tarsusi describes various ‘recipes’ for making Greek fire.72 One of the ‘recipes’ given by al-Tarsusi is as follows:

  How to make an excellent naphtha to be thrown with the mangonel

  Take 10 pounds of tar, 3 pounds of resin, I½ pounds each of san-darac and lac, 3 pounds of pure, good quality sulphur, free from all soil, 5 pounds of melted dolphin fat, the same quantity of liquefied, clarified fat from goats’ kidneys. Melt the tar, add the fats, then throw in the resin after having melted it separately. Then grind the other ingredients, each one separately, add them to the mixture, put fire under it, and let it cook until all is thoroughly mixed. If you wish to use it in time of war, take one part, add about a tenth part of the mineral sulphur called naphtha, which is greenish and looks like old oil, place the whole in a skillet and boil until it is about to burn. Take the pot, which should be earthenware, and a piece of felt. Then throw it with a mangonel against whatever you wish to burn. It will never be extinguished.73

  Figure 8.11 Specialists in Greek fire (naffatin); rockets known as ‘Chinese arrows’ and using saltpetre (‘Chinese snow’) are mentioned by al-Hasan al-Rammah in the late thirteenth century. Furusiyya (military horsemanship) manuscript, fourteenth century, Egypt

  At Kafartab one of the Muslim soldiers, a Turk, approached the tower and threw a bottle of naphtha at the Franks on the top of it: ‘The naphtha flashed like a meteor falling upon those hard stones, while the men who were there threw themselves on the ground for fear of being burnt.’74

  Figure 8.12 Glass projectiles containing white naphtha, Kitab al-makhzun (‘Book of Treasure’), 875/1470, probab
ly Egypt

  The development of naft as a vital aspect of siege warfare seems to have been the favoured Muslim response to the problem of dealing with the Frankish siege machines, namely the burj and the dabbaba. Naft proved effective against the wooden siege machines of the Franks but was of little use against their castles and fortifications which were generally made of stone. It is worth citing the example of the Muslim use of naft in 587/1191–2 against a Frankish dabbaba, as related by Ibn Shaddad:

  The enemy had constructed a large terrifying dabbaba of four storeys. The first storey was of wood, the second one of lead, the third of iron, and the fourth of copper. It was higher than the wall and warriors rode inside it. The inhabitants of the town were very afraid of it and resolved to ask the enemy for safe-conduct. They [the Franks] had brought it [the dabbaba] near the wall so that there was at a glance a distance of only five cubits between it and the wall. The people began to throw naft at it continuously by night and by day until Almighty God decreed that it should be burnt.75

  The Conduct of Sieges

  Preparations for Sieges

  Both sides undertook careful and lengthy preparations before beginning a siege. Both sides used the same basic weapons for defence and attack,76 although, as Marshall points out, the Muslims seem to have been the only ones to use naphtha and hand-held slings for hurling stones.77

  Baybars is reported on several occasions, such as at Arsuf in 663/1265, to have inspected the mangonels himself.78 Careful preparations were also made before the siege of Acre in 1291. The Muslims spent several days preparing trenches and palisades and placing their machines around the walls.79